Harry Reid Pledges to Stonewall Any Romney Agenda

Nice...the Democrats, positioning themselves to become the party of No. Libs will tout it like a badge of honor now that it's the Dems.

 

If the Dems are going to support the Repubs what's the point of electing them in the first place? The Repubs refused to support the Dems. The world didn't end.

 

The Dems refused to compromise. they refused to give the Republicans anything that they wanted. That is why the Republicans filibuster. You can't expect them to hand over all their principles.

 

Expect gridlock until one party is in charge.

 

Reid didn't say he wouldn't compromise. That's just the Repubicans lying about him. They do that. All the time. It's kind of what defines them.

Reid said he'd block a severe conservative agenda. He'd be quite happy to compromise with a moderate conservative agenda. The Democrats have always been like that. They worked well with Bush.

In comparison, look at the current Republican congress, which has made it a point of pride to never compromise, ever, and to cast out any member who even thinks of compromising (Lugar, for example). Oddly, all the Republicans screaming hatred at Reid consider those never-compromising Republicans to be heroes. Given that all the Republicans on this thread are such screaming partisan hypocrites, why should anyone take their whining seriously?

 

See how similar Republicans and Democrats are? They both resort to the same petty BS because in the end their party matters more than their people.

 

Okay, before I get around to the actual meat of this, I really need to ask: why the (*)(*)(*)(*) are you still propagating this myth? The democrats had a filibuster-proof majority for 2 weeks. That is the time between Al Franken's inauguration (due to a long voter fraud trial which turned out to be bull(*)(*)(*)(*) anyways) and Ted Kennedy's retirement. And things weren't run "like a dictatorship"; there were a record number of filibusters. The tiny minority party, which ignored a public mandate for them to stop being dickbags, did literally everything they could, including sue the 60th vote in the senate for voter fraud, to prevent the democrats getting anything done. So take that (*)(*)(*)(*) and (*)(*)(*)(*) off. It's a retarded myth that needs to die. I have explained this upwards of 10 times on this forum alone.

All right, so meat of the thread. Part of this makes me want to say, "Well, that's how the cookie crumbles. Be completely obstructionist dickbags for 4 years, squabbling over every little piece of legislature and blocking everything you could, and this is what you get: an opposition which is just as willing to work with you". Like, really, really wants to say this.

But that's stupid. That's the common man's viewpoint. That's the petty viewpoint. Reid is, once again, really wrong. We can't have another 4 years of getting almost nothing done. It's just not an option for our country. And it's not like the Republicans would get the message - well, other than "wow, obstruction really works, let's do more of it!" Seriously, Reid, (*)(*)(*)(*) you. Given a congressional and presidential mandate by the country, a party should be able to, within reason, do work to improve the country. Doing this makes you no better than Mitch McConnell, who made exactly the same thing clear on the day of Obama's inauguration.

(Anyone in this thread remember that? )

 

Great post.

Can any conservative explain this record filibustering? And then explain why Harry Reid should not do the same?

Come on explain it to us.

Dont worry no one here expects that you guys can answer these simple questions...

 

So basically the same old same old ffrom demorats.

I guess Reid knows Romney is our next president.

 

...Okay, I'm a little flabbergasted, I gotta admit. I just explained why Reid shouldn't do the same in the post you labeled as "great".

 

...Okay, I'm a little flabbergasted, I gotta admit. I just explained why Reid shouldn't do the same in the post you labeled as "great".

 

Reid did have a filibuster proof Senate, by definition a 60-40 majority, for two years, however many appointments/confirmations and/or bills were opposed by one or more blue dog democrats. Even to pass Stimulus, Healthcare and others programs his own caucus demanded special favors (amendments) and some Republicans did the same. The fear by those heading into elections (2010) was why they didn't go blindly into defeat, though many did go down.



Thread; What's been going on for two years, is Reid tabling or not letting "Committees" to forward legislation to the "Floor" for debate, no filibustering permitted. In the meantime "Obama" has been ordering or allowing the various departments to literally determine existing laws (writing rules/regulations ) or writing "Executive Orders" to bypass Congress.

If somehow, Romney wins his election and the Senate remains Democratic, somehow Reid remains the Leader, he WILL NOT have the support to continue his policy. Said another way, Reid is simply blowing smoke....IMO.

 

No, he didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Franken#Tenure

This is Al Franken. He was vote number 60 in the democratic house.

Now, that in and of itself is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing shameful. That one could drag out the electoral process on a key senate seat for 6 months by suing over voter fraud (and then suffer no penalty for losing said case, while winning an ungodly amount of time in which the democrats really couldn't get anything done that the republicans didn't want to see get done) is a complete disgrace, and a mockery of our electoral system to begin with. But it gets worse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Senators_from_Massachusetts

Ted Kennedy died on August 25th, and as of July, he hadn't cast a vote in 3 months. He missed 261 out of 270 possible votes during the first year of Obama's presidency up until his death! The man was a stroke victim, really old, and struggling with his health. But what the hell, let's count the time before his death, plus the time between his interim replacement's tenure and Scott Brown's election. That's 4 months and 1 week, during which the Senate was in session for 72 days.

Let me repeat this.

The democrats had a filibuster-proof majority for 72 days.

And even then, there were further problems - debates over the bills, blue dogs gumming up the works, et cetera. I mean, hell, you try passing (*)(*)(*)(*) through congress in 72 days even with a super majority these days - good luck. So no, Reid did not have a 60-40 majority for two years. He had it for 72 days.

 

Things changed in 2008. I couldn't tell you why, but the political climate became more divided and nasty. The fact was that the democrats really needed a caucus of 60, which they could not get because Franken was AWOL.

 

When you start slapping faces like that, expect to get slapped back HARD!

 

Is this any different than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's call to block Obama's agenda in 2010? The sole goal of the Republicans since 2010 was to block any of Obama's agenda that would be good for America because their focus was on discrediting him for this year's presidential election. That has been the primary goal of Republicans in the Senate which is a primary reason for the gridlock we, the American People, have had to endure.

 

This is an exact reverse of Congress under the Obama presidency: Boehner blocked everything. It's what politicians do.

At least... politicians these days.

 

Yeah, except that, according to insider sources, McConnell had already stated his opinion on that as early as January 2009. But even then, you know what? If Republicans were interested in, you know, not being (*)(*)(*)(*)ing whining children about it, they could have admitted that, yes, the Iraq war was their fault, and the debt was mostly their fault, and that they really did play a role in (*)(*)(*)(*)ing up the country. Boy, did that not happen.

We had bipartisanship up until 4 years ago, where the republicans essentially went nuts.

 

Check your facts before you post, it makes you look uneducated.

 

If the Democrats had negotiated with good faith with the Republicans and actually compromised a little there would've been no filibusters. The Democrats wanted to have it all their way and their way only so the Republicans did the only thing the could do, filibuster.

 

Mitch McConnell made the first move by stating he and the Rep. party would block everything even before Obama was sworn in. If they hear that, why wouldn't the Dems say "ok...let's dance"

 

Harry Reid Pledges to Stonewall Any Romney Agenda

Not to worry. Romney's losing.

But, I predicted that if Romney does/did win, the dems would steal a play from the GOP playbook and turn the tables on them and do to them what the GOP has been doing to Obama.

Ain't payback a beotch?

 

Harry Reid is an extremist, and his radical views are inconsistent with the views of most Americans.

 

If the Democrats would've negotiated in good faith with the Republicans and compromised giving the Republicans something in return there would've been no filibuster. The only reason there was a filibuster is because Democrats wanted everything their way and only their way. I bet when the Republicans are in charge they will come to the table with trade offs to get the Democrat vote on their bill.