online.wsj.com— Democrats are touting grand plans as the new Congress sweeps into town. But they face serious obstacles, starting with the party itself, which is hardly unified.
Jan 6, 2009View in Crawl 4
The thing I don't understand about the associated interactive chart is the "blue dogs". It says that the blue dogs are pushing for increased spending and bailouts. I thought Blue Dog democrats were fiscal conservatives? It seems like they're fiscally progressive according to their agendas.
Stockholm syndrome. We've sort of forgotten what our power was for in the first place and now we're bumping and jostling so we can all end up at the exact same f**king place anyway. We spent a decade convincing ourselves that winning by 50,000 votes meant the country didn't like us back in 2000. We are a skittish and superstitious bunch.
I know. The Democrats might actually fix s**t and control government for another 30 years. After all that time of Republicans breaking s**t and convincing everyone it was the Democrats' fault for giving the Negroes the vote.Frightening.
This is irony. At the top of the thread we have people blaming the Democrats for not accomplishing anything. At the bottom of the thread we have people praising Blue Dogs for stopping the Democrats from accomplishing anything.Hm.
Yeah, it was all Bush... What about the submissive congress, both Republicans and Democrats?I wasn't talking about the Republicans keeping Bush in line, reread what I said. It was Republicans who did nothing to stop Bush, just like it will be Democrats who will do nothing to stop Obama.He can talk in a complete sentences, wow. That's a really good reason to vote for someone. Did you read what I said? I support Bush ONLY because he's so unpopular.
Oh, I knew it then. I just don't see what else to do about it. Nader and Paul are jokes, and I don't think it's exaggerating to say after Bush the US is closer to destruction than it has ever been. Including the 1860's (the confederacy would have collapsed economically, but the industrial north would have survived). Obama was by far the best choice. We need better congressmen.
diggduggdoomJan 7, 2009
"override of a veto - The process by which each chamber of Congress votes on a bill vetoed by the President. To pass a bill over the President's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber. Historically, Congress has overridden fewer than ten percent of all presidential vetoes."<a class="user" href="http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/override_of_a_veto.htm">http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/over ...</a>
aletoledoJan 7, 2009
The thing I don't understand about the associated interactive chart is the "blue dogs". It says that the blue dogs are pushing for increased spending and bailouts. I thought Blue Dog democrats were fiscal conservatives? It seems like they're fiscally progressive according to their agendas.
zenmojoJan 7, 2009
Stockholm syndrome. We've sort of forgotten what our power was for in the first place and now we're bumping and jostling so we can all end up at the exact same f**king place anyway. We spent a decade convincing ourselves that winning by 50,000 votes meant the country didn't like us back in 2000. We are a skittish and superstitious bunch.
zenmojoJan 7, 2009
I know. The Democrats might actually fix s**t and control government for another 30 years. After all that time of Republicans breaking s**t and convincing everyone it was the Democrats' fault for giving the Negroes the vote.Frightening.
zenmojoJan 7, 2009
This is irony. At the top of the thread we have people blaming the Democrats for not accomplishing anything. At the bottom of the thread we have people praising Blue Dogs for stopping the Democrats from accomplishing anything.Hm.
silverstandardJan 7, 2009
Yeah, it was all Bush... What about the submissive congress, both Republicans and Democrats?I wasn't talking about the Republicans keeping Bush in line, reread what I said. It was Republicans who did nothing to stop Bush, just like it will be Democrats who will do nothing to stop Obama.He can talk in a complete sentences, wow. That's a really good reason to vote for someone. Did you read what I said? I support Bush ONLY because he's so unpopular.
roguegeniusJan 7, 2009
Oh, I knew it then. I just don't see what else to do about it. Nader and Paul are jokes, and I don't think it's exaggerating to say after Bush the US is closer to destruction than it has ever been. Including the 1860's (the confederacy would have collapsed economically, but the industrial north would have survived). Obama was by far the best choice. We need better congressmen.