Dem Run Congress Matches Historic Low: 18% Approval

TheDanold said:
Someone instead should take a reality course, what has Bush vetoed? 2 bills, Reagan vetoed 23 in his first 3 years alone.
Bush has worked with Liberals, be it on adopting Ted Kennedy's largest ever spending increase to education or adopting the Liberal Democrat "idea" of government drug coverage.

As for filibusters, I think the Republicans theatened one this year and did zero. The Dems on the other hand, filibustered so much that Repubs threatened to eliminate allowing filibusters on judicial nominees (I'm glad they didn't).

Take a seat junior.
Click to expand...


You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Come up with two pieces of major legislation that didn't require a cloture vote to move through the Senate and I'll give you a shiny nickel. In fact, compared to the Democrats over a comparable period the Republican use of the filibuster is downright shameless, particularly considering the way they acted while in the minority.

And claiming that Bush has worked with liberals by citing to the NCLB, passed in 2001 and the Pill Bill, which was pushed through the House in the dead of night by keeping the vote open to harangue hold-out Republicans to vote in favor in the face of stiff opposition from the Democrats and moderate Republicans is laughable at best.

Try again Danpwn3d!
 
TheDanold said:
Someone instead should take a reality course, what has Bush vetoed? 2 bills, Reagan vetoed 23 in his first 3 years alone.
Bush has worked with Liberals, be it on adopting Ted Kennedy's largest ever spending increase to education or adopting the Liberal Democrat "idea" of government drug coverage.

As for filibusters, I think the Republicans theatened one this year and did zero. The Dems on the other hand, filibustered so much that Repubs threatened to eliminate allowing filibusters on judicial nominees (I'm glad they didn't).

Take a seat junior.
Click to expand...

I wish the repubs had done the nuclear option, now they would be on the recieving end. A few sane ones realized that and it is the only reason tehy did not do it.

and as you said bush vetoed 2 bills, so he must have liked all the bills the republican congress put forth for his signature.
 
"Americans elected the Democrats as the majority party in Congress in November 2006's midterm election in large part due to frustration with the Iraq war and an ineffective and scandal-plagued Republican-led Congress. But any hopes that the elections would lead to change have not been realized as Democrats' repeated attempts to force a change in Iraq war policy have been largely unsuccessful due to presidential vetoes, disagreements within their own party, and the inability to attract Republican support for their policy proposals. Also, many of the Democratic leadership's domestic agenda items have not become law even though some have passed one or both houses of Congress."

the low numbers for congress are because Americans want change, NOW, and the congress isn't acting fast enough. Repubs are obstructionists and the only way to keep them from practicing their art is to make them a clear minority in congress. Hopefully this will happen in the next couple of elections.
 
uscitizen said:
I wish the repubs had done the nuclear option, now they would be on the recieving end. A few sane ones realized that and it is the only reason tehy did not do it.

and as you said bush vetoed 2 bills, so he must have liked all the bills the republican congress put forth for his signature.
Click to expand...

If they had ended the filibuster, US, it likely would never be put in place again. Are you saying you disagree with the filibuster?
 
Not saying that at all just like to see the repullicans shoot themselves in the foot. Or any arrogant fools for that matter.
The republicans tend to shoot others in the foot for their own mistakes unfortunately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top