W Only Had 55

[kpete]

The GOP had at most 55 Senators during Bush's presidency
by John Aravosis (DC) on 12/15/2009 11:17:00 AM

I've heard people say that it's not fair to criticize the Democrats for botching health care reform because the Democrats never truly had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Sure, they have 60 votes in principle, the argument goes, but with Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu, and Bayh counted as four of those votes, it's not really a solid 60.

Perhaps. But then how was George Bush so effective in passing legislation during his presidency when he never had more than 55 Republicans in the Senate? In fact, during Bush's most effective years, from 2001 to 2005, the GOP had a grand total of 50, and then 51, Senators. The slimmest margin possible.

And look at what George Bush was able to accomplish in the Congress with fewer Senators than the Democrats have today:

- John Ashcroft nomination
- Iraq war resolution
- Repeated Iraq funding resolutions
- 2001 & 2003 tax cuts
- Patriot Act
- Alito
- John Roberts
- Medicare Part D

...................

What the GOP lacked in numbers, they made up for in backbone, cunning and leadership. Say what you will about George Bush, he wasn't afraid of a fight. If anything, the Bush administration, and the Republicans in Congress, seemed to relish taking on Democrats, and seeing just how far they could get Democratic members of Congress to cave on their promises and their principles. Hell, even Senator Barack Obama, who once famously promised to lead a filibuster against the FISA domestic eavesdropping bill, suddenly changed his mind and actually voted for the legislation. Such is the power of a president and a congressional leadership with balls and smarts.

.......................

more:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/12/gop-had-at-most-55-senators-during.html

[Union Yes]

1. THINK..NATIONAL..STRIKE. knr nt

[Johonny]

well not all those things were subjects of closure

because of reconciliation, but I get your spirit.

[FourScore]

2. Excellent point. n/t

[el_bryanto]

3. Well you have to look at the context - but even factoring in 9/11, it's not a great record.

Bryant

[Unvanguard]

4. The health care bill probably exceeds all of that in importance.

With the exception of the Iraq War Resolution, which had real bipartisan support in a way no president's domestic agenda will have.

Don't forget that Bush failed utterly on Social Security and didn't manage to cut taxes as much as he wanted in 2003. And his second term was far less legislatively successful than his first.

(Also, Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate, with several Republican votes, so the Roberts/Alito comparison hardly proves anything.)

[KittyWampus]

5. Aravosis is full of crap. He conveniently forgets a complicit Media which Democrats have NEVER had.

NEVER

[tekisui]

9. BooHoo. That sounds like the rw blaming the librul media.

More excuses.

[treestar]

19. And the Republicans march in lockstep

I'm waiting to catch one of these posters who cites this one bragging about how we don't march in lockstep and slamming the President because we don't march in lockstep. And insulting POTUS' supporters for cheerleading, drinking cool-aid and marching in lockstep like mindless zombies.

If we are so proud we don't march in lockstep, then isn't it great that with 59 we still can't get complete agreement on all the issues? that's because we aren't mindless zombie cheerleaders. so why the sudden praise for the Republicans for being "tough" for being able to do that?

[chimpymustgo]

6. K & R. Enough with the EXCUSES. Get it done.

[doc03]

7. W didn't have Joe F----g Lieberman. He also didn't have Harry

Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

[UTUSN]

8. But Rethugs had DEMS being "bi-partisan"!1 n/t

[jgraz]

10. dup

[jgraz]

11. Hey, c'mon. Obama and the Democrats are getting plenty done

Check out this impressive list of accomplishments:

- Kill real healthcare reform for at least another decade
- Restart the Wall Street gravy train while further weakening the middle class
- Slow-walk climate change legislation in the hopes that the people forget about it for a couple more years
- Continue and escalate our illegal wars
- Offshore torture to Bagram while continuing illegal detention at Guantanamo
- Overturn the Nuremburg protocols and let war criminals go free
- Keep Bush's corrupt set of US Attorneys in place with a new bipartisan stamp of approval
- Renew and extend the PATRIOT act (woohoo!)
- Appoint a creationist to head the National Institutes of Health
- Push civil rights for gays to the back-burner while giving a faux-Christian bigot an international forum to spew his hate
- Freeze out any progressive voices while cutting deals with every corporate CEO on the planet.

Did I miss anything?

[inna]

20. FISA/domestic surveillance. Demoralizing/neutralizing the progressives.

I'm sure there are other things that were missed.

[joeybee12]

12. And they haven't had cojones since I've been alive...

...and that's been a pretty long time, people!

[Orsino]

13. "Backbone, cunning and leadership"?

No. Weakness, corruption and lockstep.

The GOP doesn't deserve any credit for their utter lack of scruples. And Dubya was the fraidiest of all fraidy cats, who couldn't handle a hint of criticism without pooping his britches.

[kentuck]

14. But he always had those "moderates" that we call Democrats..

to vote with him.

[TwilightGardener]

15. Democrats love to work with Republican Preznits.

[VMI Dem]

16. That idiot had balls.

[TwilightGardener]

17. He didn't have balls. He had a lock-step party and overeager Democrats to work with.

[TexasObserver]

18. Yes, the GOP ruled the senate with 55 better than Reid runs it with 60.

Harry Reid is the worst Democratic Majority leader in history.

60 Democrats to choose from, and they choose Reid as the non leader. Where has this guy ever shown any leadership on any key issue? You could pick a Dem leader out of a hat and get a better Senate Majority leader.

[smokey nj]

22. You could pick a bowl of lime jello and get a better Senate Majority Leader.

[tblue37]

34. Al Franken has balls. nt

[varelse]

21. Looks like the GOP is tougher and more politically savvy than the Democratic party

OR... something else is afoot here?

[quiet.american]

23. The difference is obvious: 9/11 and a right-wing echo chamber paid to heel.

"Balls and smarts?" Don't make me puke and laugh at the same time.

All Bush needed to say to get anything done was: 9/11.

Then throw in thieving, repression of facts, wiping out of anyone who dared speak even a sliver of truth, co-ercion, pathological lying, making shit up -- "relished taking on Democrats" -- another puke/laugh. Yeah -- "relished" by trying to have Dems arrested for trying to attend policy meetings, turning off lights and mics in the room at hearings, slipping amendments into bills in the dark of night -- amongst other cowardly tactics.
.
Then mix in FAUX NEWS, LIMBAUGH, et al. in the GOP echo chamber + a cowed and scared shitless MSM -- and where's the challenge?

(Our so-called side in the media does the opposite. We take every opportunity to say F*ck Us! and the ship we came in on! Yes, f*ck us all!)

What a load of twaddle this OP is.

.

[verdalaven]

29. I LOVE your reply.

Thanks!

[quiet.american]

33. Well... thank you! nt

[OnionPatch]

24. This is my main question these days.

It doesn't make sense that the Republicans crammed all sorts of heinous legislation down our throats without ever having 60 votes. And also, does everyone forget how up-in-arms the Republicans and media were when the Dems even suggested a filibuster? Now they are acting like the filibuster is a normal step in the legislation process and 60 is the new 51. I may be slow, but I'm beginning to feel some wool scratching on my eyelids.

[ncteechur]

25. Democrats aren't obstructionists. It takes no legislative prowess to say NO.

[cascadiance]

26. The Corporatist "Uber Party" still had over 60 votes as it now has over 40 votes...

[mmonk]

27. Yes, I know. We basically lost our democracy on less than 60.

[democracy1st]

28. K & R

[SmileyRose]

30. Dick owned a gun and had proof he'd shoot people.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

31. yeah.... 80 proof!

We all should jam up our local cities.

[thereismore]

32. True, but he had 9/11. nt