Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Dems will not get 60 in the Senate: GA race being called for Chamblis (R)

SkinsHokieFan

By SkinsHokieFan
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

SkinsHokieFan

SkinsHokieFan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Fine. I HATE how Chambliss called Cleland unpatriotic :redpunch: but I don't want the Dems getting 60.

Yup. The only firewall is how well McConell can use parliamentary procedures to prevent the further expansion of government

McConell has to obstruct obstruct obstruct and obstruct some more until bills make fiscal sense

He can start with the proposed 500-700 billion dollar stimulus

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ACW

ACW

Posted
Posted
Yup. The only firewall is how well McConell can use parliamentary procedures to prevent the further expansion of government

McConell has to obstruct obstruct obstruct and obstruct some more until bills make fiscal sense

He can start with the proposed 500-700 billion dollar stimulus

McConnell? You mean the guy who was one of the most powerful Repubs during one of the largest expansions of gov't in history?

:rotflmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkinsHokieFan

SkinsHokieFan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
McConnell? You mean the guy who was one of the most powerful Repubs during one of the largest expansions of gov't in history?

:rotflmao:

The good news is, Republicans may actually act like Republicans again

The good thing with McConell is, he knows every single Senate rule

If he rolls over like a fat whore, well he'll be tossed from the leadership in 2010 when Republicans really are a superminority with only 35 Senators

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ACW

ACW

Posted
Posted
Doesn't mean he'll approve of pork spending that his Party doesn't get credit for.
**** the dems/libs.

then when you're done, **** all these whiny ass conserves/repubes too.

this is my plan for reaching across the aisle. with a mallet.

peace out.

:peaceout:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

Probably a good thing. We need a check. However, the Repubs said it themselves, they must not become the party of obstruction. They need to be a party of ideas. If all they do is endlessly block and fillibuster then they will be slaughtered again in two years. They should oppose when the legislation is bad, work to make it better, and join in when things are right. We are at a time where action is needed. Opposing for oppositions sake is dumb. Obstruct, obstruct, obstruct is a bad philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

Posted
Posted

He can start with the proposed 500-700 billion dollar stimulus

I wouldn't hold your breath on that, if you want I can send you the two page letter that I got from McConnell about why he was supporting the bail-out, and I can't see him opposing the stimulus either.

*edit

1) I'm glad there isn't a 60 seat majority.

2) I heard someone use the 60 seat majority thing this morning as possibly against the checks and balances. Now, I've heard this several times already and I can't believe how many folks actually believe that they are somehow trying to say that the founding fathers wouldn't have liked this Super Majority as if it opposed the system of checks and balances, as if the system of checks and balances had anything to do with the representative parties in Congress or the Senate. After all if they wanted a balance of power with the parties in the Senate then they would have given each state one of each party representative, but they didn't instead they left that up to the people. I don't mean to derail the thread, but I got thinking about this in the car this morning and this seemed like the place to vent it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkinsHokieFan

SkinsHokieFan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

*edit

1) I'm glad there isn't a 60 seat majority.

2) I heard someone use the 60 seat majority thing this morning as possibly against the checks and balances. Now, I've heard this several times already and I can't believe how many folks actually believe that they are somehow trying to say that the founding fathers wouldn't have liked this Super Majority as if it opposed the system of checks and balances, as if the system of checks and balances had anything to do with the representative parties in Congress or the Senate. After all if they wanted a balance of power with the parties in the Senate then they would have given each state one of each party representative, but they didn't instead they left that up to the people. I don't mean to derail the thread, but I got thinking about this in the car this morning and this seemed like the place to vent it.

An interesting thought you have there

The thing is, the founding fathers didn't really envision political parties emerging as they have into what they have become

Checks were to be between the branches of government. In theory, regardless of who was in Congress, they would be checking and balancing what the executive was doing. Ditto the SCOTUS with regards to both branches.

In today's America, when you have 1 party rule, it has for the most part been a disaster, because of political reasons. The politicians on Capitol Hill are supporting the agenda the President has. There isn't the neccessary friction that exists

You can see the periods between 1964-1968 (Vietnam escalation and expansion of welfare state) 1977-1981 (Carter's awful economy), 1993-1995 (Bill Clinton's first 2 years in office, a failure) and 2000-2006 (just read the tailgate) as examples

I don't think the founding fathers ever imagined that due to political reasons one branch would be complicit to the other, as happens nowadays with one party rule

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Midnight Judges

Midnight Judges

Posted
Posted

This was entirely expected. Shouldn't be too hard for Dems to pick off a few reasonable Republicans here and there such as Collins, Snowe, McCain, Coleman, Spector, etc. If some of these folks end up looking like they obstructed legislation that is popular in their states it could amount to career suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmacop

karmacop

Posted
Posted
This was entirely expected. Shouldn't be too hard for Dems to pick off a few reasonable Republicans here and there such as Collins, Snowe, McCain, Coleman, Spector, etc. If some of these folks end up looking like they obstructed legislation that is popular in their states it could amount to career suicide.

I agree. This 60 number was held up as a magic number, but 58 or 59 will be enough to get most things done that Dems want. Do you really think that all 41 Republicans will always join together to filibuster, particularly with moderate Repubs in Democratic states like Maine and Pennsylvania?

On the other hand, even if the Dems got 60, there would likely be some defections from the moderate and conservative Dems like Losermann, Nelson, etc.

So it will all depend on what's being voted on. But it probably won't be too hard to get 1-2 Republicans for most things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G.A.C.O.L.B.

G.A.C.O.L.B.

Posted
Posted

Yeah I don't think anyone thought Martin was going to win. I don't even think Obama even went down there to campaign for him. It was a lost cause from the start.

Anyway, kinda OT but did anyone see the creepy Chambliss Thanksgiving ad with him and his family? They had it on the Daily Show last night. I think it's friggin hilarious.

Watch his right hand at the end of the ad. I know he was just being a loving grandfather but still, LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...