Senate Dems should refuse to seat Scott Brown unless he wins 60% of the vote

[Lief 🗽]

If super-majorities are so awesome and crucial to the democratic process, then let us apply them to all votes in this great land!

[You kip if you want to...]

If super-majorities are so awesome and crucial to the democratic process, then let us apply them to all votes in this great land!

Well, fair is fair...

[Psychic Octopus]

lol. I think I'm going to change my username to "The 41st Senator" if he wins.

[Lief 🗽]

No, but, let's be honest here guys. If Coakley loses, the Democrats in the Senate will only have 59 Seats, a paltry, minuscule majority that's a result of a deeply divided country. After all, the Republicans had a 59 or greater-seat majority as recently as 1923!

[Psychic Octopus]

It's pretty pathetic that you won't be able to govern with the largest majority since the late 70's.

[Beet]

What I don't understand is why the Senate can't be called for another vote on health care before Jan. 29.

[Bo]

It's pretty pathetic that you won't be able to govern with the largest majority since the late 70's.

It's a shame Democrats are such wimps often. When the GOP controlled between 45 and 55 seats in the Senate between 1981 and 2007 (almost all the time), they managed to ram through their pro-wealthy agenda despite the fact that Democrats could ahve filibustered it. In addition, a lot of times many Democrats voted for their ideas--like the Reagan tax cuts, the Iraq War, and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. But it's much harder for Democrats to convince or scare Republicans into voting for their agenda.

BTW, in response to your question, No.

[Free Palestine]

Should they refuse to seat Martha Coakley unless she wins sixty percent of the vote?  UGH!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's pretty pathetic that you won't be able to govern with the largest majority since the late 70's.

Blame s**t called Republican leadership and filibuster

[Psychic Octopus]

It's pretty pathetic that you won't be able to govern with the largest majority since the late 70's.

It's a shame Democrats are such wimps often. When the GOP controlled between 45 and 55 seats in the Senate between 1981 and 2007 (almost all the time), they managed to ram through their pro-wealthy agenda despite the fact that Democrats could ahve filibustered it. In addition, a lot of times many Democrats voted for their ideas--like the Reagan tax cuts, the Iraq War, and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. But it's much harder for Democrats to convince or scare Republicans into voting for their agenda.

BTW, in response to your question, No.

I didn't get your last part. You don't find it dumb that you won't be able to govern with a clear majority? I find it pretty lame. Obstructed by one Senator, they can't get health care through. Congressional democrats need a damn spine, but hey, I'm not complaining. I'm a Republican.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's pretty pathetic that you won't be able to govern with the largest majority since the late 70's.

It's a shame Democrats are such wimps often. When the GOP controlled between 45 and 55 seats in the Senate between 1981 and 2007 (almost all the time), they managed to ram through their pro-wealthy agenda despite the fact that Democrats could ahve filibustered it. In addition, a lot of times many Democrats voted for their ideas--like the Reagan tax cuts, the Iraq War, and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. But it's much harder for Democrats to convince or scare Republicans into voting for their agenda.

BTW, in response to your question, No.

I didn't get your last part. You don't find it dumb that you won't be able to govern with a clear majority? I find it pretty lame. Obstructed by one Senator, they can't get health care through. Congressional democrats need a damn spine, but hey, I'm not complaining. I'm a Republican.

I always knew you're good wit insurance company running the country, buddy

[Magic 8-Ball]

It's funny that people think this thread calls for a serious response.

[Bo]

It's pretty pathetic that you won't be able to govern with the largest majority since the late 70's.

It's a shame Democrats are such wimps often. When the GOP controlled between 45 and 55 seats in the Senate between 1981 and 2007 (almost all the time), they managed to ram through their pro-wealthy agenda despite the fact that Democrats could ahve filibustered it. In addition, a lot of times many Democrats voted for their ideas--like the Reagan tax cuts, the Iraq War, and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. But it's much harder for Democrats to convince or scare Republicans into voting for their agenda.

BTW, in response to your question, No.

I didn't get your last part. You don't find it dumb that you won't be able to govern with a clear majority? I find it pretty lame. Obstructed by one Senator, they can't get health care through. Congressional democrats need a damn spine, but hey, I'm not complaining. I'm a Republican.

That wasn't my point. My point is that Republicans are much better at tricking, scaring, and intimidating the opposition to vote for their agenda than the Democrats are.

[Sbane]

It's pretty pathetic that you won't be able to govern with the largest majority since the late 70's.

That's because republicans are obstructionists who will not compromise. They put their party before country. Maybe I am being harsh and I hope they will start working with democrats now that they don't have a filibuster proof majority. Still I have to say the obstructionism this last year was extremely petty.

[Holmes]

It's pretty pathetic that you won't be able to govern with the largest majority since the late 70's.

That's because republicans are obstructionists who will not compromise. They put their party before country. Maybe I am being harsh and I hope they will start working with democrats now that they don't have a filibuster proof majority. Still I have to say the obstructionism this last year was extremely petty.

Why do you hate liberty and justice and freedom and unicorns and gumdrops?

[Хahar 🤔]

It's pretty pathetic that you won't be able to govern with the largest majority since the late 70's.

That's because republicans are obstructionists who will not compromise. They put their party before country. Maybe I am being harsh and I hope they will start working with democrats now that they don't have a filibuster proof majority. Still I have to say the obstructionism this last year was extremely petty.

The obsctructionism shouldn't be a big deal.

[Free Palestine]

It's pretty pathetic that you won't be able to govern with the largest majority since the late 70's.

That's because republicans are obstructionists who will not compromise. They put their party before country. Maybe I am being harsh and I hope they will start working with democrats now that they don't have a filibuster proof majority. Still I have to say the obstructionism this last year was extremely petty.

You're implying that Democrats don't put their party before country.

[Sbane]

It's pretty pathetic that you won't be able to govern with the largest majority since the late 70's.

That's because republicans are obstructionists who will not compromise. They put their party before country. Maybe I am being harsh and I hope they will start working with democrats now that they don't have a filibuster proof majority. Still I have to say the obstructionism this last year was extremely petty.

You're implying that Democrats don't put their party before country.

They are certainly not innocent but they are much better than Republicans. I mean they could have just not tried to pay for the healthcare bill, just borrow it all from China and not have to raise taxes. Basically follow the Republican model of fiscal responsibility.

[Sam Spade]

Your logic is poor, Lief, particularly worse than usual.

[Lief 🗽]

Your logic is poor, Lief, particularly worse than usual.

[Meeker]

Makes sense to me.

[Vepres]

First of all, this whole thread is pretty pathetic.

Secondly, you Dems really need another LBJ or you'll never get anything done.

[opebo]

It's pretty pathetic that you won't be able to govern with the largest majority since the late 70's.

Not exactly, when you realize that the purpose of the Democratic Party is to blunt and subvert any moderate left-leaning tendencies in the electorate, leading them down the primrose path do disappointment, while maintaining the illusion of democracy. 

Properly understood, the 60 vote threshold, the structure of the Senate and all government, and the nature and actions of the Democratic party all serve very well the same purpose, the same interests, and most importantly the same people.  And we should congratulate them on a job well done, and a part just as important and necessary as the more exciting role reserved for the Republicans.