How did bush govern like a king with at most a 1-2 Senator majority?

I hope we win the Senate race today, but i'm perplexed that bush the idiot could govern like a king with a one to two senator majority (at most), while we're running scared with a majority of 18 Senators. Are we truly that disorganized and ineffective?

... and bush did this while there was tremendous evidence that both election 'victories' were manufactured (stolen)

... and bush turned his utter incompetance in allowing 911 to happen under his watch (recall the repugs ignored all warnings of the impending attack that Richard Clark kept trying to tell them about) into a repug strength in protecting America.

wtf?

Fear, and surprise.

:rofl:

Google "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition"

edited a dupe!

:rofl:

:popcorn:

This will be amusing.

sizable majority.

gutless when bullied by the scumsucking sociopaths that are the R's.

:thumbsup:

bill? not 1 rethug vote, if i recall correctly

pathetic

They controlled every aspect of our government and they still ontrol the Media, corporate America, CIA, Blackwater and that ability to steal any election they want to ~

and aren't bothered by despicable tactics, including use of fear, lies, deadly wars, if it advances their greedy agenda.

almost all the time! Remember, tax cuts are budgetary items!!!

...and can be passed through reconciliation, but programs that regulate an industry aren't and can't. :-(

Another reason why it's easier to destroy than to build -- and the Republicans are masters at destruction.

...something reconciliation IS good for as it's budget related.

that a small group of terrorists can hold a large country hostage.

The terrorists can ignore the law.

There isn't anywhere near the same number of republicans there who will bend to advance and enact progressive legislation.

(along with most of the media).

Such as -

* Why was Family Matters ever popular?

* How is a doorknob like Sarah Palin even remotely qualified to be President when it's obvious she couldn't even run a Burger King successfully, let alone her own family?

* Why is at least 1/3 of this country still fighting the Cold War?

* Why does anyone making under $50,000 per year vote for a candidate who supports layoffs and job offshoring?

* Who thought Clear Pepsi would be a good idea?

* If we taxed no one or nothing, where would the money come from to run this country, short of turning America fascist?

And the #1 puzzler I need to have answered -

* Why are 150 million people so AFRAID of the 5,000 that run this country?

make $268,000 and Judge Judy make million$?

So foreign trade and foreign military adventures and homeland security always have supermajorities.

"democrats" helped him. He was loved and respected by all.:sarcasm: (just the last sentence)

Far too many so called democrats are not really democrats but instead are bought and paid for whores for the conglomerates that really run our country.

And didn't abuse the filibuster system to block every piece of legislation.

Dems were not deliberate obstructionists against the good of the nation just for the sake of it.

And 911 helped make it harder to go against anything.

But seem to recall things * wanted but did not get.

He did not rule like a king. He wanted to.

of the Democratic Party. Therein lies the difference.

And true Democrats have a far smaller majority than what the current numbers suggest. Which is why the 60 vote canard is such bullshit.

All those dems who we have to cater to now voted with the GOP. the GOP also held together.

a meeting was convened with Cheney, who basically told the repuke congresscritters that there would be no compromises with the democrats. It was all going to be their way; after all, they had an agenda to complete. I believe that there are corporate democrats who voted with the repukes--but, when something was so greedy or against the people, I believe they used coercion and threats. It was a repuke senator who publicly stated on *'s screw the people pharma bill that he was threatened (I believe his son was going into politics and they would shut him out.)

Delay, Kenny Boy Lay, Abramoff--sweet deal partisan government contracts, money unaccounted for in Iraq, corrupt contractors-all *'s baby. Most of the repukes were complicit, but so were some of the democrats.

through the years sent the message that they will not tolerate any moderate, yet alone liberal republicans

if they are not in control.

The Republican sacred dream of shrinking government did not happen during the Bush era.
If they even dreamed of trying, the democratic minority was large enough to filibuster anything too draconian.

Insurance companies do not put the money in coffee cans in the office; they play the casino that is The Street. Mandated insurance purchase = forcing workers/middle class to invest in stocks whether they can afford to play that casino or not. Just used the Insurance Companies as the money launderers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7486317

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x134800

Btw, I'm not for the current bill-- but something is weird. It seems the insurers and their investors prefer the status quo.

Making note of the fact that insurance companies take some of the premiums we pay and invest in other stocks on the market. The mandate means they will have more money to tote over to Wall Street for more investments. It's Wall Street that gains.

We dodged the privatization of SS, and Wall Street really tumbled. They need an influx of cash. The private investor of moderate has pretty well lost any money for or stomach for investing after the ENRON mess then the economy tanking, putting so many out of work or on seriously restrained budgets. Wall Street needs new cash, always. They didn't get forced payments out of our checks when the scam to privatize SS failed. So, a mandate to buy a product that buys stocks is an end run around payroll deductions going directly to the Street.

Money junkies using the force of the US government to shake down the peasants is just not acceptable, but it is hidden via the Mandate. Result is same though.

go up today, even the bank and investment stocks, eg Goldman Sachs was up 1.65 to 166.96. Bank of America was up 0.06. Citibank was up 0.12 to 3.54. The banks and investment houses would suffer the most if your idea is correct.

Wouldn't the potential loss of funding weigh heavily on investors' minds, and them and the market sharply down?

Now there are just 40 of them and they still rule, in many ways.

More than they support the Democratic platform.

Tesha

That is why his tax cuts are set to expire. They used reconciliation to pass them.

Because our country is now a full blown corporate fascist state and our elected reps no longer feel compelled to represent voters. They only represent campaign contributers.

another term to describe our current state:

TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

Enjoy it, folks. I don't see anything changing any time soon.

There's also lots of other good posts on the issue preceding this mediocre one.

Good insights, my fellow travelers.

-90% Jimmy

Hope that answers your question.

They are willing to make sacrifices to get something done. A lot of Democrats act as though anything that varies from their fondest wishes by a hair's breadth is a sellout and is worse than doing nothing.

Also, from a political standpoint, the Republicans have controlled statehouses long enough to have drawn the congressional districting map to their advantage. They have a lot of safe seats, whereas the Democrats are barely hanging on in a lot of areas, and have to be moderate to conservative to win in districts drawn for Republicans.

Also, the Republicans rarely try to achieve anything that requires change. People are afraid of change, and have to be sold on it. Bush didn't try to change anything, he just went along with what people are used to--wars, tax cuts, deficit spending without questioning, flags, apple pies, and whatever else inspired the masses.

Also, Bush actually fought for what he wanted. He made a case for war, for instance, directly to the American people, and then worked the Congress to shore up support. Clinton did that a lot, too, working swing votes on controversial legislation. That's how he was able to pass his works programs and his tax bill. He beat Gingrich when Gingrich kept passing his "roll back America to pre-FDR days" budgets. Clinton shut the government down rather than give in, and he got enough of his minority of Congress to support him to maintain his veto.

Obama has no executive experience. He's a legislator, and legislators get things done by compromising and finding common ground. He went from a local legislator to president in four years, and spent most of that time campaigning. He's essentially a local politician who became president, so he's still learning his job. Give him time, he might do some powerful things, but right now he's learning the job. People were willing to wait when they voted for him (it was said over and over that he wouldn't be ready from "day one"), but now they aren't having patience with him.

The DLC.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And I'm starting to feel like the idiot in the audience who gets splashed by the squirting waterbottle stunt.

This joke isn't funny anymore.

the same thing when I posted earlier. Anyway I could not have said it better.

Intimidation, criminal acts, agitprop ... Aka "the "culture of corruption". It was a nightmare and outrage everyday watching from the wings, I can't imagine what it was like on the stage. Dana ; )

picked and chose which parts of laws he'd obey/enforce or not.
2) Republican Unity. They vote as a block and stay in lockstep when required.
3) Fear (Dick Cheney has everybody's FBI files).

Actually, maybe there should BE an "RLC". I'd start one, but I couldn't stand to call myself a "Republican" even in name only. :puke:

not just hate radio & Fox "News" - every last member of Big media was under his thumb.

We have at the very least a half dozen to a dozen Democrats in the Senate that are not real Democrats. They are DINO's and don't belong in the party. They are giving the impression that the Democrats are in control when they aren't. We would be better off as a party without them.

I can accept many definitions of "shit."

Instill enough political fear into opponents, and bipartisanship looks after itself.

Don't mind if I steal that for use around the office, do you?

Use it in good health!

- B

A lot more than some here want to hear.

When we win, even big, they still win.

That we can call Bush the biggest idiot in the world, yet talk about all the things he did and got away with in the same breath.

They knew exactly what they were doing all along. They were great accomplices.

precisely what when on during MONTHS of a $40-million EPA "cleanup" in the Senate Office Building during fall and winter 2001-2, and whether any Democrats' secret documents somehow made their way to the Bush White House during that period.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks .

They had it all and they blew it. They really fucking blew it. I couldn't be more ashamed if I tried.

- the Presidency won by a huge margin
- 58 Senators + 2 independents
- huge majority in the house

high approval numbers
8 years of bush failures

and we still can't pass meaningful Healthcare.


makes you wonder what the true agendas really are.

DLC

they could not have done it without help.