Will Obama make Mitch McConnell a "One term Senate Majority Leader"?

[georgephillip]

McConnell saw no need to do anything that would encourage anyone to vote for an Obama second term. Now McConnell has finally gotten his wish to be Senate majority leader

Will Obama return the favor?

Why would you think the 1% care about which corporate whore serves them?
"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that he and President Barack Obama are already discussing plans to cut corporate tax rates and pass free trade agreements, following the GOP's major gains in Tuesday's elections..."
TPP???
"'Trade pacts,' McConnell said at a press conference Wednesday. 'The president and I were just talking about that, right before I came over here. Most of his party is unenthusiastic about international trade. We think it's good for America, and so I've got a lot of members who believe that international trade agreements are a winner for America.'"
Big winners for 1% of America...
McConnell And Obama Are Already Planning To Undercut Liberal Democrats In Congress

Hang on to your hats, kids. If corporate tax rates are cut, be assured you will pay higher taxes somewhere to make up for it.

Tax rates are convoluted to such an extent the US effective corporate tax rate varies between ~13% - 27%, depending on your source:
"The most recent estimate comes from the World Bank and International Finance Commision, which put the United States’ effective rate for 2014 at 27.9 percent. That’s second-highest behind New Zealand among OECD countries and 15th-highest among the 189 countries measured.

"In 2011, the Tax Foundation published a survey of 13 prior estimates of the United States’ effective tax rate from 2005 to 2011.

"All 13 studies pegged the U.S.’s rate as above average, but none had the U.S. rate first overall.

Another 2011 study by the Congressional Research Service put the U.S. effective rate at 27.1 percent, slightly lower than the OECD average of 27.7 percent."

Mitch and Barry are probably looking for ways to sell a 0% corporate tax rate as a "job creator", and many cons and bots will goose-step accordingly.

Does the U.S. have the highest corporate tax rate in the free world PunditFact

 

[hadit]

McConnell saw no need to do anything that would encourage anyone to vote for an Obama second term. Now McConnell has finally gotten his wish to be Senate majority leader

Will Obama return the favor?

Why would you think the 1% care about which corporate whore serves them?
"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that he and President Barack Obama are already discussing plans to cut corporate tax rates and pass free trade agreements, following the GOP's major gains in Tuesday's elections..."
TPP???
"'Trade pacts,' McConnell said at a press conference Wednesday. 'The president and I were just talking about that, right before I came over here. Most of his party is unenthusiastic about international trade. We think it's good for America, and so I've got a lot of members who believe that international trade agreements are a winner for America.'"
Big winners for 1% of America...
McConnell And Obama Are Already Planning To Undercut Liberal Democrats In Congress

Hang on to your hats, kids. If corporate tax rates are cut, be assured you will pay higher taxes somewhere to make up for it.

Tax rates are convoluted to such an extent the US effective corporate tax rate varies between ~13% - 27%, depending on your source:
"The most recent estimate comes from the World Bank and International Finance Commision, which put the United States’ effective rate for 2014 at 27.9 percent. That’s second-highest behind New Zealand among OECD countries and 15th-highest among the 189 countries measured.

"In 2011, the Tax Foundation published a survey of 13 prior estimates of the United States’ effective tax rate from 2005 to 2011.

"All 13 studies pegged the U.S.’s rate as above average, but none had the U.S. rate first overall.

Another 2011 study by the Congressional Research Service put the U.S. effective rate at 27.1 percent, slightly lower than the OECD average of 27.7 percent."

Mitch and Barry are probably looking for ways to sell a 0% corporate tax rate as a "job creator", and many cons and bots will goose-step accordingly.

Does the U.S. have the highest corporate tax rate in the free world PunditFact

The consumer pays all corporate taxes. That's not even controversial.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama still has that pen that McConnell needs

2016 is going to be tough for Republicans in the Senate. They have to defend 24 seats they won in 2010, Democrats only need to defend 10. Many of those 24 seats Republicans must recapture are in blue states.

What will those Senators run on in 2016? Gridlock?

For McConnell to save his job, he will have to have something those Senators can run on

If there is one thing these elections have proved, it's that the Republicans are NOT the ones getting the blame for gridlock in Washington.

All the Republicans have to do is to make Obama the choke point at which popular legislation dies.

That's what happened to the Senate.

Democrats think that American's are idiots, that if they can get the liberal media to blame Republicans for gridlock, they can make the dumbasses citizens believe that.

But Americans saw through that crap. They saw the truth...that Reid and the Democrat controlled Senate was the choke point....and they moved to eliminate it.

Now it's Obama's turn. He will be forced to do his own obstructing.

How do they make Obama the choke point if they can't even get bills out of the Senate? Reid couldn't beat filibuster with 55 votes, how can McConnell do it with 54? McConnell needs to get Obama to agree to his legislation to even make it through the Senate.......How can he do that when his own party considers ANY compromise with Obama to be unacceptable?

Unless, of course, McConnell completely does away with the filibuster entirely.

I would love to see him do it

But I think he knows better because Obama will veto anyway and he has a limited chance of holding his position past 2016

Of course, the Prez has his legacy to consider and has absolutely no chance of holding his position past 2016. Does he want to be forever known as the Veto Prez?

Why not? If the stuff the GOP Congress sends him is crap not supported by the Democratic Party, the center/left of America,

how does it hurt his so-called 'legacy' to veto it?

 

[Derideo_Te]

McConnell saw no need to do anything that would encourage anyone to vote for an Obama second term. Now McConnell has finally gotten his wish to be Senate majority leader

Will Obama return the favor?

Why would you think the 1% care about which corporate whore serves them?
"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that he and President Barack Obama are already discussing plans to cut corporate tax rates and pass free trade agreements, following the GOP's major gains in Tuesday's elections..."
TPP???
"'Trade pacts,' McConnell said at a press conference Wednesday. 'The president and I were just talking about that, right before I came over here. Most of his party is unenthusiastic about international trade. We think it's good for America, and so I've got a lot of members who believe that international trade agreements are a winner for America.'"
Big winners for 1% of America...
McConnell And Obama Are Already Planning To Undercut Liberal Democrats In Congress

Hang on to your hats, kids. If corporate tax rates are cut, be assured you will pay higher taxes somewhere to make up for it.

Tax rates are convoluted to such an extent the US effective corporate tax rate varies between ~13% - 27%, depending on your source:
"The most recent estimate comes from the World Bank and International Finance Commision, which put the United States’ effective rate for 2014 at 27.9 percent. That’s second-highest behind New Zealand among OECD countries and 15th-highest among the 189 countries measured.

"In 2011, the Tax Foundation published a survey of 13 prior estimates of the United States’ effective tax rate from 2005 to 2011.

"All 13 studies pegged the U.S.’s rate as above average, but none had the U.S. rate first overall.

Another 2011 study by the Congressional Research Service put the U.S. effective rate at 27.1 percent, slightly lower than the OECD average of 27.7 percent."

Mitch and Barry are probably looking for ways to sell a 0% corporate tax rate as a "job creator", and many cons and bots will goose-step accordingly.

Does the U.S. have the highest corporate tax rate in the free world PunditFact

If you eliminate corporate taxes entirely the deficit and national debt will balloon and the Republicans will only have themselves to blame (again).

That means raising taxes on individual incomes and the only place that can happen is at the top end of the scale. That is never going to get past the extremist TP'ers so this is never going to happen under a GOP controlled Congress in my opinion.

 

[SAYIT]

If there is one thing these elections have proved, it's that the Republicans are NOT the ones getting the blame for gridlock in Washington.

All the Republicans have to do is to make Obama the choke point at which popular legislation dies.

That's what happened to the Senate.

Democrats think that American's are idiots, that if they can get the liberal media to blame Republicans for gridlock, they can make the dumbasses citizens believe that.

But Americans saw through that crap. They saw the truth...that Reid and the Democrat controlled Senate was the choke point....and they moved to eliminate it.

Now it's Obama's turn. He will be forced to do his own obstructing.

How do they make Obama the choke point if they can't even get bills out of the Senate? Reid couldn't beat filibuster with 55 votes, how can McConnell do it with 54? McConnell needs to get Obama to agree to his legislation to even make it through the Senate.......How can he do that when his own party considers ANY compromise with Obama to be unacceptable?

Unless, of course, McConnell completely does away with the filibuster entirely.

I would love to see him do it

But I think he knows better because Obama will veto anyway and he has a limited chance of holding his position past 2016

Of course, the Prez has his legacy to consider and has absolutely no chance of holding his position past 2016. Does he want to be forever known as the Veto Prez?

He has only issued 2 in the last six years. He has a long way to go to get that title

Wishful thinking. The Repubs are guaranteed to flood his desk with bills, some intended to undo what he has done since 2008. They can (and will) force him to choose between signing those bills or destroying Dem's 2016 - including presidential - hopes. They have no incentive to make nice-nice. Hang onto your hat.

 

[hadit]

If there is one thing these elections have proved, it's that the Republicans are NOT the ones getting the blame for gridlock in Washington.

All the Republicans have to do is to make Obama the choke point at which popular legislation dies.

That's what happened to the Senate.

Democrats think that American's are idiots, that if they can get the liberal media to blame Republicans for gridlock, they can make the dumbasses citizens believe that.

But Americans saw through that crap. They saw the truth...that Reid and the Democrat controlled Senate was the choke point....and they moved to eliminate it.

Now it's Obama's turn. He will be forced to do his own obstructing.

How do they make Obama the choke point if they can't even get bills out of the Senate? Reid couldn't beat filibuster with 55 votes, how can McConnell do it with 54? McConnell needs to get Obama to agree to his legislation to even make it through the Senate.......How can he do that when his own party considers ANY compromise with Obama to be unacceptable?

Unless, of course, McConnell completely does away with the filibuster entirely.

I would love to see him do it

But I think he knows better because Obama will veto anyway and he has a limited chance of holding his position past 2016

Of course, the Prez has his legacy to consider and has absolutely no chance of holding his position past 2016. Does he want to be forever known as the Veto Prez?

Why not? If the stuff the GOP Congress sends him is crap not supported by the Democratic Party, the center/left of America,

how does it hurt his so-called 'legacy' to veto it?

A lot of the bills Reid was sitting on had bipartisan support. Most of the country wants illegal immigration REDUCED, not increased. Most of the country doesn't like obamadon'tcare and the way it was implemented. These are things the Republicans can make Obama either bend on and support or force him to justify his going against the will of the people.

 

[Derideo_Te]

How do they make Obama the choke point if they can't even get bills out of the Senate? Reid couldn't beat filibuster with 55 votes, how can McConnell do it with 54? McConnell needs to get Obama to agree to his legislation to even make it through the Senate.......How can he do that when his own party considers ANY compromise with Obama to be unacceptable?

Unless, of course, McConnell completely does away with the filibuster entirely.

I would love to see him do it

But I think he knows better because Obama will veto anyway and he has a limited chance of holding his position past 2016

Of course, the Prez has his legacy to consider and has absolutely no chance of holding his position past 2016. Does he want to be forever known as the Veto Prez?

He has only issued 2 in the last six years. He has a long way to go to get that title

Wishful thinking. The Repubs are guaranteed to flood his desk with bills, some intended to undo what he has done since 2008. They can (and will) force him to choose between signing those bills or destroying Dem's 2016 - including presidential - hopes. They have no incentive to make nice-nice. Hang onto your hat.

So what you are saying is that McConnell will nuke the filibuster (and destroy the GOP after 2016) in order to dump meaningless bills on Obama's desk?

That is a very short sighted approach and will end up doing the GOP more harm than good.

Doesn't mean that won't happen but of all the options out there it has to be one of the worst possible choices.

 

[SAYIT]

If there is one thing these elections have proved, it's that the Republicans are NOT the ones getting the blame for gridlock in Washington.

All the Republicans have to do is to make Obama the choke point at which popular legislation dies.

That's what happened to the Senate.

Democrats think that American's are idiots, that if they can get the liberal media to blame Republicans for gridlock, they can make the dumbasses citizens believe that.

But Americans saw through that crap. They saw the truth...that Reid and the Democrat controlled Senate was the choke point....and they moved to eliminate it.

Now it's Obama's turn. He will be forced to do his own obstructing.

How do they make Obama the choke point if they can't even get bills out of the Senate? Reid couldn't beat filibuster with 55 votes, how can McConnell do it with 54? McConnell needs to get Obama to agree to his legislation to even make it through the Senate.......How can he do that when his own party considers ANY compromise with Obama to be unacceptable?

Unless, of course, McConnell completely does away with the filibuster entirely.

I would love to see him do it

But I think he knows better because Obama will veto anyway and he has a limited chance of holding his position past 2016

Of course, the Prez has his legacy to consider and has absolutely no chance of holding his position past 2016. Does he want to be forever known as the Veto Prez?

Why not? If the stuff the GOP Congress sends him is crap not supported by the Democratic Party, the center/left of America,

how does it hurt his so-called 'legacy' to veto it?

Some congressional Dems will split from the party line in an effort to save their own skins in '16. The Repubs can force Obama to choose between signing those bills or destroying any Dem hope in '16. For McConnell and the Repubs it's a win-win situation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How do they make Obama the choke point if they can't even get bills out of the Senate? Reid couldn't beat filibuster with 55 votes, how can McConnell do it with 54? McConnell needs to get Obama to agree to his legislation to even make it through the Senate.......How can he do that when his own party considers ANY compromise with Obama to be unacceptable?

Unless, of course, McConnell completely does away with the filibuster entirely.

I would love to see him do it

But I think he knows better because Obama will veto anyway and he has a limited chance of holding his position past 2016

Of course, the Prez has his legacy to consider and has absolutely no chance of holding his position past 2016. Does he want to be forever known as the Veto Prez?

Why not? If the stuff the GOP Congress sends him is crap not supported by the Democratic Party, the center/left of America,

how does it hurt his so-called 'legacy' to veto it?

Some congressional Dems will split from the party line in an effort to save their own skins in '16. The Repubs can force Obama to choose between signing those bills or destroying any Dem hope in '16. For McConnell and the Repubs it's a win-win situation.

1. How many Democrats saved themselves by running away from Obama this year?

2. What popular initiatives are McConnell and the GOP pushing?

 

[SAYIT]

Unless, of course, McConnell completely does away with the filibuster entirely.

I would love to see him do it

But I think he knows better because Obama will veto anyway and he has a limited chance of holding his position past 2016

Of course, the Prez has his legacy to consider and has absolutely no chance of holding his position past 2016. Does he want to be forever known as the Veto Prez?

He has only issued 2 in the last six years. He has a long way to go to get that title

Wishful thinking. The Repubs are guaranteed to flood his desk with bills, some intended to undo what he has done since 2008. They can (and will) force him to choose between signing those bills or destroying Dem's 2016 - including presidential - hopes. They have no incentive to make nice-nice. Hang onto your hat.

So what you are saying is that McConnell will nuke the filibuster (and destroy the GOP after 2016) in order to dump meaningless bills on Obama's desk?

That is a very short sighted approach and will end up doing the GOP more harm than good.

Doesn't mean that won't happen but of all the options out there it has to be one of the worst possible choices.

He'd be a fool to allow a few retiring Dems to jam up the Repub strategy which is to force Obama's hand. They can (and will) force him to choose between signing those bills or destroying Dem's 2016 - including presidential - hopes. They have no incentive to make nice-nice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The only person who can make Mitch McConnell a one term majority leader is Mitch McConnell.

...and the TPM.

 

[Avorysuds]

That won't hurt Obama. He can sign the bills that might have public support, and get the credit, or he can veto the bills that don't have public support, and get the credit.

That's correct. He is still the Top Dog, in a big way.

Obama said he will be working as hard as he possibly can for the next 2 years, for the American people. Lets see how much of that work is done at the golf course or on vacation. I mean, I get that Obama can run the country by txt messages n all, but it didn't seem to work very well the last 6 years.

This country can't be governed. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Stop listening to what is said and start reading between the lines. Obama is retired already, there's nothing he can do but keep the crap flowing through the pipes, pretty much all he's been able to do his whole time in office.

It can be Governed just fine. What the country needs is not a voter base that elects someone based 100% off the color of their skin like what happened with Obama. The country needs to not make someone President because they have a vagina like Dems hope to do with Hillary.

The country needs someone that will actually end wars, not blame passed presidents for the wars, then blame them for ending the wars, then re-start the war as Obama did to Bush with Iraq...

The country needs someone that will cut spending, not increase the money supply by giving bankers money to lend to the middle class and poor, pushing up taxed dollars that brings down the deficit artificially. Stagnation has occurred because the money was not created by productivity and innovation but because of a printing press. We will have another horrible recession/depression to deal with all this malinvestment.

We need a released that does not tell every mother fucker to go to college and rack up tens of thousands in debt before holding a real mother fucking job.

We need a leader that actually uphold the constitution rather than claim the constitution really meant Obamacare and perpetual war, spying on all Americans and assassinating Americans was really what the FF meant.

I honestly think being President would be easy. I honestly think it's one of the most simply jobs on earth. That's why Bush was President despite being a fucking idiot, that's why Obama was able to become President despite being a pathological liar with no clue as to what he was actually going to do.

 

[hadit]

Unless, of course, McConnell completely does away with the filibuster entirely.

I would love to see him do it

But I think he knows better because Obama will veto anyway and he has a limited chance of holding his position past 2016

Of course, the Prez has his legacy to consider and has absolutely no chance of holding his position past 2016. Does he want to be forever known as the Veto Prez?

He has only issued 2 in the last six years. He has a long way to go to get that title

Wishful thinking. The Repubs are guaranteed to flood his desk with bills, some intended to undo what he has done since 2008. They can (and will) force him to choose between signing those bills or destroying Dem's 2016 - including presidential - hopes. They have no incentive to make nice-nice. Hang onto your hat.

So what you are saying is that McConnell will nuke the filibuster (and destroy the GOP after 2016) in order to dump meaningless bills on Obama's desk?

That is a very short sighted approach and will end up doing the GOP more harm than good.

Doesn't mean that won't happen but of all the options out there it has to be one of the worst possible choices.

He doesn't have to do anything to the filibuster, just force the democrats to obstruct things if that's what they want to do and then make it publicly obvious who is the party of "no".

 

[Avorysuds]

The only person who can make Mitch McConnell a one term majority leader is Mitch McConnell.

...and the TPM.

sigh.... You realize your post makes you out to be retarded correct? That was the whole point of the quote you did.

 

[SAYIT]

Unless, of course, McConnell completely does away with the filibuster entirely.

I would love to see him do it

But I think he knows better because Obama will veto anyway and he has a limited chance of holding his position past 2016

Of course, the Prez has his legacy to consider and has absolutely no chance of holding his position past 2016. Does he want to be forever known as the Veto Prez?

Why not? If the stuff the GOP Congress sends him is crap not supported by the Democratic Party, the center/left of America,

how does it hurt his so-called 'legacy' to veto it?

Some congressional Dems will split from the party line in an effort to save their own skins in '16. The Repubs can force Obama to choose between signing those bills or destroying any Dem hope in '16. For McConnell and the Repubs it's a win-win situation.

1. How many Democrats saved themselves by running away from Obama this year?

2. What popular initiatives are McConnell and the GOP pushing?

Most didn't realize - until it was too late - how far down the rabbit hole they had gone with the Prez. Those who want to be reelected in '16 will have to make nice with the Repubs. Look for lots of angry discord within the Dem caucus. Would you wanna be the minority whip right now? I'd rather gouge my eye out with an oyster fork. Just sayin'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How do they make Obama the choke point if they can't even get bills out of the Senate? Reid couldn't beat filibuster with 55 votes, how can McConnell do it with 54? McConnell needs to get Obama to agree to his legislation to even make it through the Senate.......How can he do that when his own party considers ANY compromise with Obama to be unacceptable?

Unless, of course, McConnell completely does away with the filibuster entirely.

I would love to see him do it

But I think he knows better because Obama will veto anyway and he has a limited chance of holding his position past 2016

Of course, the Prez has his legacy to consider and has absolutely no chance of holding his position past 2016. Does he want to be forever known as the Veto Prez?

Why not? If the stuff the GOP Congress sends him is crap not supported by the Democratic Party, the center/left of America,

how does it hurt his so-called 'legacy' to veto it?

A lot of the bills Reid was sitting on had bipartisan support. Most of the country wants illegal immigration REDUCED, not increased. Most of the country doesn't like obamadon'tcare and the way it was implemented. These are things the Republicans can make Obama either bend on and support or force him to justify his going against the will of the people.

Boehner didn't allow a vote on the immigration bill.

 

[SAYIT]

Unless, of course, McConnell completely does away with the filibuster entirely.

I would love to see him do it

But I think he knows better because Obama will veto anyway and he has a limited chance of holding his position past 2016

Of course, the Prez has his legacy to consider and has absolutely no chance of holding his position past 2016. Does he want to be forever known as the Veto Prez?

He has only issued 2 in the last six years. He has a long way to go to get that title

Wishful thinking. The Repubs are guaranteed to flood his desk with bills, some intended to undo what he has done since 2008. They can (and will) force him to choose between signing those bills or destroying Dem's 2016 - including presidential - hopes. They have no incentive to make nice-nice. Hang onto your hat.

So what you are saying is that McConnell will nuke the filibuster (and destroy the GOP after 2016) in order to dump meaningless bills on Obama's desk?

That is a very short sighted approach and will end up doing the GOP more harm than good.

Doesn't mean that won't happen but of all the options out there it has to be one of the worst possible choices.

I'm sayin' he won't have to. Dems who must stand for reelection will make it tough to keep the party in line. They won't want to share the fate that so many Dem incumbents did this week.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Retard Law invoked: Avory loses.

Listen to the TPM and follow their, Dem victory in 2016.

 

[Avorysuds]

Obama still has that pen that McConnell needs

2016 is going to be tough for Republicans in the Senate. They have to defend 24 seats they won in 2010, Democrats only need to defend 10. Many of those 24 seats Republicans must recapture are in blue states.

What will those Senators run on in 2016? Gridlock?

For McConnell to save his job, he will have to have something those Senators can run on

If there is one thing these elections have proved, it's that the Republicans are NOT the ones getting the blame for gridlock in Washington.

All the Republicans have to do is to make Obama the choke point at which popular legislation dies.

That's what happened to the Senate.

Democrats think that American's are idiots, that if they can get the liberal media to blame Republicans for gridlock, they can make the dumbasses citizens believe that.

But Americans saw through that crap. They saw the truth...that Reid and the Democrat controlled Senate was the choke point....and they moved to eliminate it.

Now it's Obama's turn. He will be forced to do his own obstructing.

How do they make Obama the choke point if they can't even get bills out of the Senate? Reid couldn't beat filibuster with 55 votes, how can McConnell do it with 54? McConnell needs to get Obama to agree to his legislation to even make it through the Senate.......How can he do that when his own party considers ANY compromise with Obama to be unacceptable?

Because Democrats can read the tea leaves even if Obama won't.

They all understand #HillaryLosers. Zero coattails to ride in 2016...and 2018 may look a lot like 2014 if Democrats continue to obstruct the will of the people.

They saw Massachusetts, Illinois and Maryland elect Republican Governors...and that means (GASP) it could happen to them as well. No matter how safe they felt yesterday, they feel vulnerable today.

That's why at least a few will choose self interest over Obama.

They stuck with Obama, and look what it got them?

Only ten Democratic Senators are seeking reelection in 2016. They are all in blue states.
24 Republicans will have to defend their seats....they are the ones who have to be scared

8 years ago, some dude named Ann Coulter wrote this:

In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" -- especially in the sixth year.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

Every republican/conservative would have agreed with her. Now when it happens, there is some sort of metamorphisis going on; voters are suddenly smarter than they were 2 years ago, there is zero voter impropriety, zero fraud, etc...

Hey, your the one that was anti Bush but then voted for Obama despite him being 110% the Bush, Bush ever was. How you like the new Iraq war?

 

[Derideo_Te]

A lot of the bills Reid was sitting on had bipartisan support.