Obama pusses out again

[Samuel]

Because Obama was branded as a liberal and if he lost the Democrats would have decided that it didn't work. Just assume the Democratic party is stupid and risk averse.

[Simon_Jester]

In hindsight that's definitely possible.

Why?

Why would the Democrats decide to be more conservative in 2012, given their win in 2008, because they think they're losing due to excessive liberalism?

Because they have the tactical sense of a retarded chimpanzee, negligible political courage and willingness to take calculated risks*, and seemingly no desire to actually accomplish anything except physically occupying seats in major government buildings.

Even so, I'm inclined to vote for a mannequin in a suit over a Republican, because a mannequin will not actively set my country on fire and piss on the ashes. It'll just sit there and let someone else do it, which is a marginal, pathetic improvement.

*As opposed to uncalculated risks that they run by default by failing to plan and carry out plans...
________

Or: why would the Democrats decide to be more conservative in 2008 because they think they're losing due to excessive liberalism? Easy. All the same reasons.

The only saving grace is that four more years of, for all practical purposes, Bush might actually inspire enough real centrists (as in, people to the left of the American average but centrist by world standards) and even the scattering of real leftists America has left to get off their asses and hijack the Democratic party. I kind of doubt it, but it's possible.

[General Brock]

Hmmm. Wonder if all these concessions to the neocons are to keep medicare alive. If so, surely Obama must realize he's being strung along by now. Else, the original Uncle Tom is spinning in his proverbial grave.

[Dominus Atheos]

Wow, Obama within a relatively short space of time has turned out to be such a major disappointment and a "empty suit" that cannot fix the fundamental problems in the US Government that seem almost terminal.

He hasn't "turned out" anything. It was obvious as early as the summer of 2008 that this was going to happen. Many people, myself included, predicted everything that's happened. That's why I voted for McCain. At least if McCain had been elected then the republicans would be forced to actually govern instead of saying no to everything.

The problem with Republican "governance" is that it is invariably a formula for wholesale theft of the commonwealth while breaking the structure of government as far as is possible to get away with to make it less, not more, effective. This, to you, would have been better than Obama?

How would you describe the structure of government right now under Obama? Pretty good? As someone further up said, very little has changed since Bush left office. Almost no significant reforms have taken place, so everything is just as broken now as it was before Obama took office.

Now I'm not saying things would be better under McCain, but at least then everybody would be blaming the republicans at least equally instead of nearly all the blame going to the democrats like it is now. Currently it's about even money that the democrats lose control of the House in the midterms, and they will only likely retain control of the senate because there simply aren't enough democrats up for reelection. So that means the Democrats will lose control of the Senate in 2012.

So if Obama loses then the republicans will have control of every branch of government, and you can bet that the first thing they'll do is get rid of the filibuster and so be able to ram through any agenda they want. Compare that to only having control of the Executive while the democrats have control of both chambers of the Legislature. Like I said to Ray, in hindsight it's possible that the democrats would have rolled over for McCain and so they'd have effective control of the entire government.

But if that's true then we're all well and truly fucked no matter who wins.

[ray245]

Because Obama was branded as a liberal and if he lost the Democrats would have decided that it didn't work. Just assume the Democratic party is stupid and risk averse.

Seems that misinterpret DA's words. I assumed that he was saying that the Democrats will suddenly grow a spine if they lost the 08 election.

[Dominus Atheos]

Hmmm. Wonder if all these concessions to the neocons are to keep medicare alive. If so, surely Obama must realize he's being strung along by now. Else, the original Uncle Tom is spinning in his proverbial grave.

No. Obama is not playing 7th dimensional chess, he's just incompetent. I've heard that "7th dimensional chess" argument trotted out before as an explanation for why Obama seems to be making all the wrong moves, that he's just playing some game that we're to simple to comprehend and that if we just give him time everything will fall into place and his brilliance will be revealed, just you wait.

Sorry, that's not what's happening. If you want to be generous you might just say that he's being badly advised and that it isn't any reflection on him, but regardless the decisions he's making are bad ones, there's no way around it.

[Vympel]

I find it unlikely that the Democrats will lose the House or Senate in 2012. It'll definitely be a bad year for them - the fact that Obama is a weak, ineffectual compromising pansy of a leader who has thoroughly disappointed his base (to the point where they just won't show up in November) has seen to that, but there are vulnerable Republicans up for re-election too, and it might be enough of an anti-incumbent year to see a reduced Democratic majority in the Senate.

[Dominus Atheos]

I find it unlikely that the Democrats will lose the House or Senate in 2012.

Then you haven't checked the poll numbers recently.

"And, if the 2010 election for U.S. CONGRESS were being held today, for whom would you vote: the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate for Congress from this district?" If unsure: "Which way do you lean as of today, towards . . . ?"

Democratic: 42

Republican: 43

Unsure: 13

Refused: 2

Nate Silver says:

It's not that I'm at all optimistic about the Democrats' electoral fortunes in 2010. The general consensus that they'll lose between 25 and 35 House seats strikes me as generous, for instance. I'd put the modal number at somewhere in the low 40s instead, although with a very wide range from as few as 20 Republican pickups to as many as 60.

But if Intrade is giving Republicans a 30 percent chance of an outright takeover of the Senate, I'd take the Democrats' side of the bet.

Certainly, it's no longer that hard to chart a path under which the Republicans would gain the 10 Senate seats they'd need for a takeover. They are overwhelming favorites in North Dakota, strong favorites in Delaware, Arkansas and Nevada, modest favorites in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Colorado, and perhaps at least even-money in Illinois. Those are the eight obvious opportunities. Number nine would be California, where I'm a little bit skeptical of Carly Fiorina or Chuck DeVore's ability to defeat Barbara Boxer, but where Tom Campbell might have the goods. The tenth seat is tougher: Republicans would need a recruiting coup in Wisconsin (unlikely; Tommy Thompson just went to consult for a hedge fund), New York (less unlikely, but George Pataki would need to raise a lot of money very fast), or Washington (less unlikely, but Dino Rossi has kept a very low profile) -- or some kind of wild card, like Robert Byrd falling ill in West Virginia.

I'm not sure if those house numbers are net or not. Democrats have an 80 seat majority (257 vs 178) so they'd only need to lose 40 seats (and then the republicans gain those 40 seats) to lose their majority.

[Patrick Degan]

The problem with Republican "governance" is that it is invariably a formula for wholesale theft of the commonwealth while breaking the structure of government as far as is possible to get away with to make it less, not more, effective. This, to you, would have been better than Obama?

How would you describe the structure of government right now under Obama? Pretty good? As someone further up said, very little has changed since Bush left office. Almost no significant reforms have taken place, so everything is just as broken now as it was before Obama took office.

Really? And the response of a McCain/Palin maladministration to the financial crisis would have been: bailouts plus more deregulation plus more tax cuts plus tons more of debt as a result. The only formula left in the Republican playbook is tax cuts and deregulation ad-infinitum. Again, this to you would have been better?

Now I'm not saying things would be better under McCain, but at least then everybody would be blaming the republicans at least equally instead of nearly all the blame going to the democrats like it is now.

That's sort of like saying it would be nice to have the right people to blame for running the Titanic onto the iceberg while ignoring how disturbingly low the ship is getting in the water. Not a practical solution to anything.

Currently it's about even money that the democrats lose control of the House in the midterms, and they will only likely retain control of the senate because there simply aren't enough democrats up for reelection. So that means the Democrats will lose control of the Senate in 2012.

Barring how the Tea Party movement just might fuck up everything for the GOP, of course...

So if Obama loses then the republicans will have control of every branch of government, and you can bet that the first thing they'll do is get rid of the filibuster and so be able to ram through any agenda they want. Compare that to only having control of the Executive while the democrats have control of both chambers of the Legislature. Like I said to Ray, in hindsight it's possible that the democrats would have rolled over for McCain and so they'd have effective control of the entire government.

Wrong, Skippy —because the filibuster is too potent a tool to simply throw away, which is the reason the Democrats won't ever get rid of it either. And if for no other reason, the fact that Yukon Barbie will never get anywhere near to getting her hands on the keys to the U.S. nuclear arsenal is sufficient to validate Obama's election, even if the man does fuck-all on anything else.

[Dominus Atheos]

The problem with Republican "governance" is that it is invariably a formula for wholesale theft of the commonwealth while breaking the structure of government as far as is possible to get away with to make it less, not more, effective. This, to you, would have been better than Obama?

How would you describe the structure of government right now under Obama? Pretty good? As someone further up said, very little has changed since Bush left office. Almost no significant reforms have taken place, so everything is just as broken now as it was before Obama took office.

Really? And the response of a McCain/Palin maladministration to the financial crisis would have been: bailouts plus more deregulation plus more tax cuts plus tons more of debt as a result. The only formula left in the Republican playbook is tax cuts and deregulation ad-infinitum.

Anything he tries to do would have to be passed by the Democrat house and Democrat senate.

Again, this to you would have been better?

It's the very next fucking sentence!

Now I'm not saying things would be better under McCain

If you insist on taking my words out of context, at least delete the sentence that says the exact opposite of what you're trying to say I said.

Now I'm not saying things would be better under McCain, but at least then everybody would be blaming the republicans at least equally instead of nearly all the blame going to the democrats like it is now.

That's sort of like saying it would be nice to have the right people to blame for running the Titanic onto the iceberg while ignoring how disturbingly low the ship is getting in the water. Not a practical solution to anything.

What's your practical solution to our problems? Shut your eyes and trust in the Almighty Obama?

So if Obama loses then the republicans will have control of every branch of government, and you can bet that the first thing they'll do is get rid of the filibuster and so be able to ram through any agenda they want. Compare that to only having control of the Executive while the democrats have control of both chambers of the Legislature. Like I said to Ray, in hindsight it's possible that the democrats would have rolled over for McCain and so they'd have effective control of the entire government.

Wrong, Skippy —because the filibuster is too potent a tool to simply throw away, which is the reason the Democrats won't ever get rid of it either. And if for no other reason, the fact that Yukon Barbie will never get anywhere near to getting her hands on the keys to the U.S. nuclear arsenal is sufficient to validate Obama's election, even if the man does fuck-all on anything else.

You think the Republicans are just going to let the Democrats filibuster the bills they try to pass? You're either very mad or very stupid.

[Bluewolf]

The problem I see with the "Well at least a Republican/McCain did not get in" way of thinking is that it misses the point. Yes, Obama can probably be said to be far better in terms of maintaining the country (though this is a debatable thing for quite a few) yet it does not blunt the disappointment people have over Obama. If warp back to about November 2008 then you heard from a lot of excited people. They were probably honestly hoping that America could advance from beyond the mess of the Bush era. Now, about year or so on, a lot of being have been disappointed about his progress or lack of it and his spinelessness. It's very understandable why some people are displeased with him to the point of giving him insult names like "0bama or Nobama". They were hoping for great change but got very little. Maybe he can improve in the next few years but I doubt a lot of people are confident in that.

With this in mind, the whole "Well at least he is not a Repub" line seems to be a cop out. People are disappointed with him regardless of that and cannot expect people to put aside their negative feelings towards Obama just because he is not from the GOP. He was, in many peoples minds, meant to be more than a suit to keep a Republican out. He was seen more as a honest hope to make a better America to many who voted for him.

[Simon_Jester]

Wrong, Skippy —because the filibuster is too potent a tool to simply throw away, which is the reason the Democrats won't ever get rid of it either. And if for no other reason, the fact that Yukon Barbie will never get anywhere near to getting her hands on the keys to the U.S. nuclear arsenal is sufficient to validate Obama's election, even if the man does fuck-all on anything else.

This. I would vote for a head of lettuce before I voted for Sarah Palin. I am not joking.

So if Obama loses then the republicans will have control of every branch of government, and you can bet that the first thing they'll do is get rid of the filibuster and so be able to ram through any agenda they want.

Questionable. The filibuster is serving them incredibly well right now.

There's a reason neither party wants to get rid of it; as long as elections continue, neither party can be confident of staying in a permanent position where the filibuster is a disadvantage for them. The Republicans want to pass their agenda, yes, but they have every reason to fear that trying to push it as hard as they can will eventually get them bowled out of (theoretical) power again. At which point they have to go back to being the Obstructionist Opposition, which requires that they have the tools to obstruct with.

I mean, if it weren't for the filibuster we'd probably already have a decent health care bill passed, because the Senate Democrats wouldn't be able to hide behind the premise that they need 60 votes to get anything done. The 9 or 10 most conservative Democrats would be completely expendable and cut out of the loop, and the remaining 50 would honestly be better off passing a bill and taking credit for it.

You think the Republicans are just going to let the Democrats filibuster the bills they try to pass? You're either very mad or very stupid.

Patrick might think so; I doubt it. More likely, the Republicans will bet on the Democrats not having the balls to filibuster anything to any real effect, and they may well be right; look at what happened in 1994-2006.

[hunter5]

To be fair there was a lot of hype put on Obama that there was no way for him to live up to.

[Akhlut]

To be fair there was a lot of hype put on Obama that there was no way for him to live up to.

There's a difference between not living up to the hype and doing jack-all squat. He can't even motivate his own party to pass legislation on his own hobby horses.

[Patrick Degan]

And the response of a McCain/Palin maladministration to the financial crisis would have been: bailouts plus more deregulation plus more tax cuts plus tons more of debt as a result. The only formula left in the Republican playbook is tax cuts and deregulation ad-infinitum.

Anything he tries to do would have to be passed by the Democrat house and Democrat senate.

Your point being...? If Democrats are so willing to cave in to Republicans even though they've got the majority in both houses and the White House, what makes you think they'dve blocked anything McCain would have proposed? And if the electoral winds were blowing in McCain's direction back in 2008, what makes you so certain that the present majorities in both houses would have been the same?

Again, this to you would have been better?

It's the very next fucking sentence!

Now I'm not saying things would be better under McCain

If you insist on taking my words out of context, at least delete the sentence that says the exact opposite of what you're trying to say I said.

Context? Your whole argument has been predicated upon the ludicrous premise that it would have been better for McCain to have been elected.

Now I'm not saying things would be better under McCain, but at least then everybody would be blaming the republicans at least equally instead of nearly all the blame going to the democrats like it is now.

That's sort of like saying it would be nice to have the right people to blame for running the Titanic onto the iceberg while ignoring how disturbingly low the ship is getting in the water. Not a practical solution to anything.

What's your practical solution to our problems? Shut your eyes and trust in the Almighty Obama?

Don't try to strawmander me, Skippy. The practical solution, if you can't be certain of getting what you want, is to at least prevent something worse from happening —which is what definitely would have occurred with a McCain victory and not count on Naderite pipe-dreams about things getting so bad under Republicans that they'll become unelectable and "real leftists" will find the way open to the corridors of power and usher in the New Golden Age™. Unless my memory is faulty, you were more or less taking that idiotic position during the campaign.

So if Obama loses then the republicans will have control of every branch of government, and you can bet that the first thing they'll do is get rid of the filibuster and so be able to ram through any agenda they want. Compare that to only having control of the Executive while the democrats have control of both chambers of the Legislature. Like I said to Ray, in hindsight it's possible that the democrats would have rolled over for McCain and so they'd have effective control of the entire government.

Wrong, Skippy —because the filibuster is too potent a tool to simply throw away, which is the reason the Democrats won't ever get rid of it either. And if for no other reason, the fact that Yukon Barbie will never get anywhere near to getting her hands on the keys to the U.S. nuclear arsenal is sufficient to validate Obama's election, even if the man does fuck-all on anything else.

You think the Republicans are just going to let the Democrats filibuster the bills they try to pass? You're either very mad or very stupid.

If the Republicans wouldn't have the votes to force cloture, the matter would be out of their hands.

[The Romulan Republic]

How would you describe the structure of government right now under Obama? Pretty good? As someone further up said, very little has changed since Bush left office. Almost no significant reforms have taken place, so everything is just as broken now as it was before Obama took office.

First off, there have been some changes, and to reduce dissatisfaction with Obama to such a simple-minded, black and white cliche as "Obama is just like Bush" is both false and idiotic.

Second of all, while I will admit to considerable dissatisfaction with Obama, I'm not going to blame him for everything when in truth he has been dealing with a very obstructionist Congress. Yes, the Democrats have a big majority. A significant chunk of that is made up of conservative Democrats.

Now I'm not saying things would be better under McCain,

No doubt they would be a good bit worse. Worst case scenario he might have died, leaving Palin in charge. Somebody else already raised this point as well I believe.

Currently it's about even money that the democrats lose control of the House in the midterms, and they will only likely retain control of the senate because there simply aren't enough democrats up for reelection. So that means the Democrats will lose control of the Senate in 2012.

You're too pessimistic. The Congressional elections are three quarters of a year away, and the Presidential election is almost three fucking years away. Its way, way, way to fucking soon to call it. Come to think of it, wasn't there a thread titled "Has Obama already lost?" about a year and a half back?

[Darth Wong]

There is no longer any reason to give Obama any benefit of the doubt. He's a spineless sellout on this and many other issues. US conservatives derisively call him President Zero, and it very much seems like the nickname is well deserved, though not for the reasons it was given.

I don't see this as being a whole lot different from the impression he gave off during the campaign. He seemed to be someone who honestly believed all that crap about compromise, "changing the tone in Washington", bipartisanship, etc. Unfortunately, this appears to be his Prime Directive, so other priorities tend to fall by the wayside.

[Darth Yan]

My teacher said that he was inexperienced, and that he did steal some ideas from Hillary. However, I still have to pity him, because he was dealt an exceptionally crappy hand coming in to office. He isn't that experienced and he had a lot of difficult situations. Who knows, maybe if things had been easier he would have done a good job.

[irishmick79]

There is no longer any reason to give Obama any benefit of the doubt. He's a spineless sellout on this and many other issues. US conservatives derisively call him President Zero, and it very much seems like the nickname is well deserved, though not for the reasons it was given.

I don't see this as being a whole lot different from the impression he gave off during the campaign. He seemed to be someone who honestly believed all that crap about compromise, "changing the tone in Washington", bipartisanship, etc. Unfortunately, this appears to be his Prime Directive, so other priorities tend to fall by the wayside.

I'm not sure he had much of a choice other than to seek compromise on Health Care, since the democrat caucus itself is fairly divided on the public option. If he didn't at least appear to seek compromise with the GOP it would be easier for the Blue dog democrats to declare the whole process broken before walking away from the table if that's what they wanted to do. By seeking compromise, Obama made it more difficult for those dems to walk away without being seen as bailing on their party in the middle of a good-faith negotiation. Some of them might still vote no anyways, but they will do so at an increased political cost I think.

[Connor MacLeod]

I don't see this as being a whole lot different from the impression he gave off during the campaign. He seemed to be someone who honestly believed all that crap about compromise, "changing the tone in Washington", bipartisanship, etc. Unfortunately, this appears to be his Prime Directive, so other priorities tend to fall by the wayside.

Nor do I. I frankly was annoyed by all the euphoria bullshit that was built up around Obama after he was elected as if the fact he was "the first black president" (as if that's something to be PROUD of, mind) was somehow going to result in this messianic change in government. I mean, had people forgotten just how much BS Obama had to put up with from the public, from the Republicans and even from his own Party (including Hilary, who did all she could to ruin him.) I also have to wonder if people have forgotten that that has not changed - not only are the REpublicans against him, but apparently his own side is because he didn't turn out to be the "great liberal GWB" - I'm frankly tired of people pretending as if having a fucking president hwo behaves like a Monarch (republican OR Democrat) is somehow a good thing.

Obama's biggest problem is, as you say, that he's big on compromise. I think he went into the job thinking he would be able to get a lot more done if he was fair and impartial, and didn't realize how horribly fucked up the US political system REALLY would be, and his approach has consistently ended up biting him in the ass. And it will continue to bite him in the ass until he wises up. Ultimately, its the way the entire political system is fucked up that is at fault, and not Obama, although its nice and convenient to blame him, I suppose. Edit : ESPECIALLY when you get people who suddenly get all nostalgic for the republicans. I can't believe there are people here thinking McCain would have been a better choice, since that's the sort of logic in this fucked up system that makes things WORSE.

[Kaiser Caesar]

There is no longer any reason to give Obama any benefit of the doubt. He's a spineless sellout on this and many other issues. US conservatives derisively call him President Zero, and it very much seems like the nickname is well deserved, though not for the reasons it was given.

I don't see this as being a whole lot different from the impression he gave off during the campaign. He seemed to be someone who honestly believed all that crap about compromise, "changing the tone in Washington", bipartisanship, etc. Unfortunately, this appears to be his Prime Directive, so other priorities tend to fall by the wayside.

Well, to be fair, it's not like the Democrats in Congress are as much support as they should be. Obama gave them a lot of freedom to craft their own health bill, and now, months later and with several interventions of support by the President, only now is the light (if you can call it that) at the end of the tunnel is within reach. They are on many issues not supportive at all, and it is necessary in some cases to, yes, compromise with the Republicans.

This still does not excuse him on issues where he had more than enough support to achieve his goals, such as civilian trials for the 9/11 terrorists, though. He’s quite clearly showed on issues such as these that he has very little spine or willpower to carry out his policies, and my patience is wearing very thin.

[Darth Wong]

Well, to be fair, it's not like the Democrats in Congress are as much support as they should be. Obama gave them a lot of freedom to craft their own health bill, and now, months later and with several interventions of support by the President, only now is the light (if you can call it that) at the end of the tunnel is within reach. They are on many issues not supportive at all, and it is necessary in some cases to, yes, compromise with the Republicans.

True, congressional Democrats are subject to a lot of the same forces as the Republicans, and many of them kowtow to their corporate sponsors as much as Republicans do.

This still does not excuse him on issues where he had more than enough support to achieve his goals, such as civilian trials for the 9/11 terrorists, though. He’s quite clearly showed on issues such as these that he has very little spine or willpower to carry out his policies, and my patience is wearing very thin.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that this is not necessarily a matter of "spine or willpower". It seems to me more like he was sincere about that "trying to work with both sides" crap, which means that he has a strong tendency to accomodate and compromise. That's a preference, not a lack of "spine or willpower".

[Kaiser Caesar]

Yes, but what I'm saying is that this is not necessarily a matter of "spine or willpower". It seems to me more like he was sincere about that "trying to work with both sides" crap, which means that he has a strong tendency to accomodate and compromise. That's a preference, not a lack of "spine or willpower".

Bipartisanship and an attempt to restore a culture of civility and actual debate to Congress were a major part of his campaign, this I will not deny. But it's been over a year since he was inaugurated and longer since he was elected. In this time, no effort has been made by the Republicans to meet the President half-way, quarter-way, or any-way, really, on most of the policies he has supported. Any man who attempted to compromise out of his belief that such would work, rather than out of a personality flaw of not being able to take insults or criticism, would have and should have given up by now and called the Republicans out on their overly obstructionist actions and policies. But Obama has really not done either in any meaningful, substantial way.

[Patrick Degan]

There is no longer any reason to give Obama any benefit of the doubt. He's a spineless sellout on this and many other issues. US conservatives derisively call him President Zero, and it very much seems like the nickname is well deserved, though not for the reasons it was given.

I don't see this as being a whole lot different from the impression he gave off during the campaign. He seemed to be someone who honestly believed all that crap about compromise, "changing the tone in Washington", bipartisanship, etc. Unfortunately, this appears to be his Prime Directive, so other priorities tend to fall by the wayside.

His blind spot.

[Dominus Atheos]

And the response of a McCain/Palin maladministration to the financial crisis would have been: bailouts plus more deregulation plus more tax cuts plus tons more of debt as a result. The only formula left in the Republican playbook is tax cuts and deregulation ad-infinitum.

Anything he tries to do would have to be passed by the Democrat house and Democrat senate.

Your point being...? If Democrats are so willing to cave in to Republicans even though they've got the majority in both houses and the White House, what makes you think they'dve blocked anything McCain would have proposed? And if the electoral winds were blowing in McCain's direction back in 2008, what makes you so certain that the present majorities in both houses would have been the same?

If only conservative bills would be passed under, then there's nothing we can do and we're all fucked regardless.

That's sort of like saying it would be nice to have the right people to blame for running the Titanic onto the iceberg while ignoring how disturbingly low the ship is getting in the water. Not a practical solution to anything.

What's your practical solution to our problems? Shut your eyes and trust in the Almighty Obama?

Don't try to strawmander me, Skippy. The practical solution, if you can't be certain of getting what you want, is to at least prevent something worse from happening —which is what definitely would have occurred with a McCain victory and not count on Naderite pipe-dreams about things getting so bad under Republicans that they'll become unelectable and "real leftists" will find the way open to the corridors of power and usher in the New Golden Age™. Unless my memory is faulty, you were more or less taking that idiotic position during the campaign.

Yes, my idea was for Obama to lose because it was obvious that things were going to get really bad when the housing bubble burst and I wanted the republicans to get their fair share of the blame for it rather then the democrats getting all of it so that when the 2012 elections rolled around everybody would be even more sick of them and the democrat would win in a landslide. I came up with that idea in the summer and unfortunately the economy crashed in the fall and Obama was elected in a landslide. I was expecting it to happen sometime in 2009 after Obama took office, and then Obama would get all the blame.

And I still haven't heard your idea on how to fix things.

Wrong, Skippy —because the filibuster is too potent a tool to simply throw away, which is the reason the Democrats won't ever get rid of it either. And if for no other reason, the fact that Yukon Barbie will never get anywhere near to getting her hands on the keys to the U.S. nuclear arsenal is sufficient to validate Obama's election, even if the man does fuck-all on anything else.

You think the Republicans are just going to let the Democrats filibuster the bills they try to pass? You're either very mad or very stupid.

If the Republicans wouldn't have the votes to force cloture, the matter would be out of their hands.

Did you miss all the drama over the "Nuclear Option" a few years back? If the republicans get their majority back in 2012, how long do you think they're going to let the democrats filibuster bills for before they push the button? Even the greatest spineless pussy in the world is promising filibuster reform, there's no way the republicans are going to do any less.