From Andrew Sullivan's blog:
"we remember the president’s own party had a super majority in both houses for his first two years"I'm not sure how Romney defines a super majority, but my recollection was that the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years.
And there was never a supermajority in the House as Romney claims. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 - 178, which is a Democratic share of only 59 percent, not 67. So again, Romney simply lied. Obama never had a super majority in both Houses, let alone for two years. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks.
Please stay vigilant. Your eyes are as good as ours. Scan Romney's statements for factual untruths - not embellishments or exaggerations, but empirically false statements. Update from a reader:
Not to let Mitt Romney off the hook, because his "two years supermajority" claim is still blatantly false, but there was an interim Senator from Massachusetts who was, in fact, the 60th vote for healthcare reform after Ted Kennedy died. Paul Kirk served as interim Senator from Massachusetts from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010. Therefore, the Democrats had a Senate supermajority for seven weeks with Kennedy and nineteen weeks with Paul Kirk, for a total of 26 weeks, or half a year.
Update from another reader:
By the time Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, 2009, Ted Kennedy had not cast a Senate vote for about four months because he was terminally ill with brain cancer. (He died on August 25, 2009.) Robert Byrd was also hospitalizedfrom May 18 through June 30, 2009 and may not have been well enough to attend Congress and vote for some time afterward. Thus the Democrats did not really have the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster until Kirk took office. Byrd (who died in June 2010) was also periodically too ill to attend and vote during the September 2009-February 2010 period, though I have not been able to confirm this with a quick Google.
14 comments:
I simply cannot understand Romney. At least present the facts and shade them as negative as possible if in fact the record shows it to be so
All pols are liars to one degree or another. Romney just makes it so obvious, and thus easy to debunk.
RN... he is making Al "No Controlling Legal Authority" Gore look like a bastion of truth.
Like you, I know politicians lie, obfuscate, and shade the truth.
My issue has always been with liberal haters who act as if only the Dems do this.
Since Obama became president, we have heard about how Democratic lies made them unfit for office.
When the reality of a two party lying system was pointed out, you'd be called a turd, scumbag or worse.
Now, because of some miracle, any talk on the more conservative blogs of Romney's struggle with the truth is met with either silence, or the rejoinder that he doesn't lie as much as the Dems.
It is all so frustrating and discouraging...
I understand your frustration, having experienced it from both sides being the classical liberal that I am.
Ya can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear no matter how much you try.
A case can be made that we are dealing with two sows ears.
Jerry I do believe you have made a valid observation.
Shaw, I see your troll is back. Actually I enjoy the comedic relief he/she provides.
LMFAO!
Along with Blue Dogs, Obama did not have a SUPER majority, but he did have majority.Part of leadership, is keeping your party together. Seems Republicans understand that. A lesson Dems need to learn. Obama IS a weak leader.
By keeping a party together do you mean not allowing dissent? Because that describes the GOP and especially their Tea Party base. They were forcing pols to take a no tax pledge, remember? And the GOP leadership would NOT allow compromise on any Obama issue. That's not governing. That's how dictatoriships thrive--no dissent whatever on anything, or else.
Allowing dissent is a strength, not a weakness. The GOP and its followers admire authoritarianism, therefore, they walk in lock-step with whatever their leaders tell them to do or say. The talking points are always the same on any issue, no matter what their individual qualms may be.
Kinda like how the Vatican operates.
Take a look at what happened to the moderate Republicans--they're gone.
Democrats, OTOH, are not afraid of offering their opinions, even if it is not in tune with the POTUS. The Democratic Party is a bigger tent.
You want stifling of ideas and rigidity of thinking? The GOP is your party.
Let's see how far gay marriage as part of the GOP platform gets this summer before the national convention.
I mean getting things done, getting legislation passed.
If Dems can't compromise with Dems, you think Republicans will?
The point is/was Obama was never going to get one Republican vote for anything, and he was told that by Republicans two weeks after he took office.
But for years he compromised on everything (health care, Bush tax cuts, etc).
Chances are that the Republicans will have majority in both Houses, and nothing gets done even after Obama wins.
Another four years wasted. On top of the years wasted by Republican presidents, no serious legislation has been passed for decades.
Democrats are responsible for cleaning up this mess (parental duty) not because Dems made the mess, but because they have to reform government programs (Dem programs) to make them work efficiently for Americans.
Republicans have been trying to kill these programs since FDR got them passed. We need to fight harder (we are losing) to keep these programs that have saved tens of millions of Americans from an unacceptable low living standard, the reason those programs were popular and passed to begin with.
Worse, Republicans will have a veto proof majority (with the help of Dems-always a couple who vote with them) to make law, their bigoted policies.
The dems had a majority for the last two years of the Bush administration and an even bigger majority for Obama first two years. Even with a majority in both houses for four years it is the republicans who can't get anything done.
Last I heard there were 33 job bills in the Senate that are stalled but it is the republicans who are holding up Obama's in the house and it is their fault.
Obama submitted a budget that received not one vote in either house, not even one democrat vote and it is the republicans who are blocking progress.
Now leaks about issues that were only discussed in the White House did not come from MY White House, whose White House did it come from.
Politicians are only interested in serving their own interests and some time the public interest get caught up and benefit. This administration has no direction or leadership so everyone is caught up to no ones benefit.
Talk about failed leadership in every area.
I'm not one who cries obstruction. I blame the Dems for being wimps.
Kudos to yoi for enunciated truth skudrunner!
Another point regarding the myth of the Senate supermajority . . .
At no point were there 60 Democrats serving in the Senate in the years 2009-2010, even IF Al Franken had been able to assume office on schedule, and even IF Senators Kennedy and Byrd had not been ill. Senators Sanders and Lieberman are, and weer then, Independents. And while Senator Sanders has reliably caucused with Democrats, Lieberman, particularly in 2009, was frequently supporting the innumerable filibusters mounted by Republicans.
Lieberman was behaving like a petulant, vengeful adolescent because in the 2008 elections, the Democratic Party in Connecticut selected Lieberman's primary challenger as its candidate instead of Lieberman, forcing Lieberman to run as an Independent. He ultimately won, but carried a grudge against the Democratic Party from that point on.
So, even if Senators Byrd and Kennedy had been able to vote and Al Franken had been seated on schedule, Democrats never had more than 58 seats, with one reliable Independent ally in Senator Sanders.
Post a Comment