Where did the lie that Obama had congressional super majorities come from?

[Ryan]

I've noticed lately Romney and the Republicans keep claiming that Obama had control of Congress for two years....that somehow the claim that Republicans blocked everything the president wanted is not true, because he could have done anything he wanted with his majorities for the first two years.

Do Republicans forget that Obama never had true super majority for a full two years? . From what I read, they only had a super majority in the Senate for SEVEN WEEKS between the illnesses/deaths of Kennedy and Robert Byrd, and the late seating of Al Franken .....

So why must Romney and the Republicans lie about this? There's no shortage of news articles of everything the Republicans blocked during those two years here

 

[hal2kilo]

I've noticed lately Romney and the Republicans keep claiming that Obama had control of Congress for two years....that somehow the claim that Republicans blocked everything the president wanted is not true, because he could have done anything he wanted with his majorities for the first two years.

Do Republicans forget that Obama never had simultaneous supermajorities in both houses. From what I read, they only had a super majority in the Senate for SEVEN WEEKS between the illnesses/deaths of Kennedy and Robert Byrd, and they never had super majority in the House. Unless he had super majority control of both at one time, the Republicans still had the ability to filibuster and block nearly all the efforts of Democrats.

So why must Romney and the Republicans lie about this? There's no shortage of news articles of everything the Republicans blocked if you do a simple search.:
https://www.google.com/search? hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=republicans+blocked& oq=republicans+blocked&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i400.26213.32260.0.32546.27. 9.1.17.4.0.173.1236.2j7.9.0... 0.0...1ac.VK8u3FGQ8Do#q=republicans+blocked&hl=en&safe=off&gl=us&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/20/2009,cd_max:1/20/2011&tbm=n ws&ei=hQdJUP6AOsbf0QHUjYCIDw& start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp =de5b76ff6ec4ec0&biw=1920&bih=1010

When they pretend that Ted Kennedy could vote while in a coma, and Al Franken could vote when he wasn't seated until like the following June, and above all the flaming asshole Israel apologist Leiberman is a democrat.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Obama could not lead; he has to point fingers at why.

Look at his proxies in 2008 for the House and Senate. They felt that they could poison the well. And they succeeded.

 

[Ryan]

Obama could not lead; he has to point fingers at why.

Look at his proxies in 2008 for the House and Senate. They felt that they could poison the well. And they succeeded.

Could not lead? The Republicans wouldn't have approved virtually any legislation with the president's name on it regardless if he catered to their every whim...

How does the saying go? You can lead an elephant to water, but he'll still probably shit in the trough? Ehhh... Close enough - the analogy works for this instance...

 

[michal1980]

umm lie not found.

obama had control of congress for 2 years. and democrats have been in control of goverment for the past 6 years.

The only liars are democrat deniers

 

[a777pilot]

What are you talking about? There is no such thing as a super majority with regard to the House. A simple majority is sufficient in the House. Only in the Senate does the majority party need a "super" majority. That has to do with the difference in the two chamber's rules.

 

[Ryan]

umm lie not found.

obama had control of congress for 2 years. and democrats have been in control of goverment for the past 6 years.

The only liars are democrat deniers

Again... It was not two years.

 

[DCal430]

I've noticed lately Romney and the Republicans keep claiming that Obama had control of Congress for two years....that somehow the claim that Republicans blocked everything the president wanted is not true, because he could have done anything he wanted with his majorities for the first two years.

Do Republicans forget that Obama never had simultaneous supermajorities in both houses. From what I read, they only had a super majority in the Senate for SEVEN WEEKS between the illnesses/deaths of Kennedy and Robert Byrd, and they never had super majority in the House. Unless he had super majority control of both at one time, the Republicans still had the ability to filibuster and block nearly all the efforts of Democrats.

So why must Romney and the Republicans lie about this? There's no shortage of news articles of everything the Republicans blocked during those two years here

I dislike republicans too, but you should know that the House does NOT have anything like a fillibuster and the house only requires a 50%+1 vote for laws. You cannot block legislation in the house with a minority vote. So it is true during that 7 week peroids the democrats could have passed basically anything.

 

[a777pilot]

Also, money bills need a simple majority. That is why there has not been an official budget for over three years.



Think it through.

 

[Ryan]

What are you talking about? There is no such thing as a super majority with regard to the House. A simple majority is sufficient in the House. Only in the Senate does the majority party need a "super" majority. That has to do with the difference in the two chamber's rules.

Sorry - I was confusing the two - I will edit my original post to reflect this. That said... Between the absence of Kennedy and Byrd, the super majority lasted only weeks. Why must your side claim that he had two full years?

 

[nehalem256]

I've noticed lately Romney and the Republicans keep claiming that Obama had control of Congress for two years....that somehow the claim that Republicans blocked everything the president wanted is not true, because he could have done anything he wanted with his majorities for the first two years.

Do Republicans forget that Obama never had simultaneous supermajorities in both houses. From what I read, they only had a super majority in the Senate for SEVEN WEEKS between the illnesses/deaths of Kennedy and Robert Byrd, and they never had super majority in the House. Unless he had super majority control of both at one time, the Republicans still had the ability to filibuster and block nearly all the efforts of Democrats.

So why must Romney and the Republicans lie about this? There's no shortage of news articles of everything the Republicans blocked during those two years here

(1) You concede in your own post that Obama did indeed have a congressional super majority, as simple house majority is a super majority in terms of being able to do whatever you want.

(2) If the Democrats had not been so incompetent they would have been able to keep the Senate seat in Massachusetts.

 

[Schmide]

DDRRD

Deputy Dog Republican Reporting for Duty

 

[a777pilot]

Sorry - I was confusing the two. That said... Between the absence of Kennedy and Byrd, the super majority lasted only weeks. Why must your side claim that he had two full years?

Well, did the Democrats have control of both Chambers and the White House from JAN 2009 till JAN 2011?

 

[Ryan]

(1) You concede in your own post that Obama did indeed have a congressional super majority, as simple house majority is a super majority in terms of being able to do whatever you want.

(2) If the Democrats had not been so incompetent they would have been able to keep the Senate seat in Massachusetts.

The error in my original post has been fixed. Now, why do Republicans think that 7 weeks = two years?

 

[Ryan]

Al Franken was not sworn in until July 2009.. Kennedy passed away in August 2009, and Byrd was out for most of the period from the time he was hospitalized in May 2009 until his death in 2010.

Without a filibuster proof super majority, the Republicans were free to block nearly everything. I would not call that full control.

 

[soulcougher73]

The error in my original post has been fixed. Now, why do Republicans think that 7 weeks = two years?

Because They can change that

 

[sportage]

Obama's problem after he was first elected were the so called blue dogs democrats.
Again, that old problem of lobbyist and special interest ability to own anyone.
Obama never had a majority. Not when "majority" means 60+ or more.
If Romney gets in, you will see that rule dumped over night. Naturally....

 

[werepossum]

Hmm. Obama "only" had the ability to pass absolutely anything the Democrats wanted for seven weeks, but he also enjoyed two years of such control as no Republican President or Senate Majority Leader ever enjoyed. That he accomplished so little speaks to a lack of leadership. Democrats hated (and indeed still hate) Ronald Reagan at least as much as Republicans hate Obama and Reagan accomplished a great deal by going directly to the public and by promoting bills that both sides could stomach. Obama flipped off the Pubbies with a shrug and "Elections have consequences - I won" thinking he'd have complete control and didn't need them. He neglected to realize how long it would take Franken to steal the election, or that Kennedy would sicken, or how much the Dems' arrogance would sicken even Massachusetts.

Also, your thread title is still a lie.

 

[Lemon law]

I agree that in the first 2 years of the Obma administration, the GOP Senate of only 40 members alway used the GOP lockstep filibuster to block any and all democratic legislation.

But its simply still not quite so simple, because during those same first 2 years of Obama, Obama was not really able to even get a majority through the US house despite having a huge democrati advantage in the house and no filibuster.

As I maintain the house's difference was in the plethora of blue dog democrats dinos who bet their political future on pandering to the GOP. And found instead in the election of 11/2010, that bluedog democrats and their GOP pandering lost them their seats anyway. As bluedog democrats became a rare and endangered species after 11/2010.

As the same thing is happening in the GOP, as RINO's are getting more than decimated. Totally gone are respected and bipartisan GOP legislators like Dick Lugar, Bob Dole, John Warner, Chafee, Susan Smith, and so many others that knew how to put country over partisan principle.

As honest Abe, maybe said it best, a house divided against itself cannot stand. As rather than be able to soar like Eagles, the entire leadership of this country becomes a pack of Turkey Vultures all circling over the almost dead corspe of the USA, barely able to restrain them selves from landing and feeding on the corspe. Or as Abe put it, we must become all one or all the other. Or will it be like John Brown profised, some conflicts can only be settled in blood?

 

[her209]

Facts have a liberal bias.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Democrats had majority in the House and Senate for 2 years under Obama...they held all leadship positions and completely controlled the legislative process. Nobody said they had supermajority. It appears that you are conflating "control" with "supermajority".

 

[EagleKeeper]

Democrats had majority in the House and Senate for 2 years under Obama...they held all leadship positions and completely controlled the legislative process. Nobody said they had supermajority. It appears that you are conflating "control" with "supermajority".

This ^^^

In charge

And Pelosi/Reid did not need the Republicans to get the Democratic agenda in play.

If the leadership of all three area can not convince/lead the people that chose them to be a leader; what good are they.
Sitting around wasting taxpayer $$$.

Finger pointing is not good leadership. Being a leader means getting the job done!
What did Truman state?

 

[her209]

Democrats had majority in the House and Senate for 2 years under Obama...they held all leadship positions and completely controlled the legislative process. Nobody said they had supermajority. It appears that you are conflating "control" with "supermajority".

Mitt Romney did.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/05/romney-demands-an-obama-jobs-plan/

"After three and half years people have figured out this is Obama's economy, not George Bush's economy," Romney said. "And, he blames Congress, he goes after Congress, but we remember the president's own party had a super majority in both houses for his first two years, so you can hardly blame Congress for the faults that he's put in place himself, and so he's casting about looking for someone to blame and just hasn't been able to find anybody - whether it's the ATM machines or the tsunami or Europe."

 

[her209]

So did Fox News

http://www.examiner.com/article/fox-news-lies-obama-only-had-a-majority-for-133-days-not-two-years

Host of Fox News, Chris Wallace, made the incorrect assertion during an interview Sunday that President Barack Obama had a filibuster proof majority (60 out of 100 votes) in the Senate for two years. The actual fact is Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority for 133 days, a far cry from the over 700 days that Wallace gleefully interjected.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So did Fox News

http://www.examiner.com/article/fox-news-lies-obama-only-had-a-majority-for-133-days-not-two-years

So I guess it's not completely a lie...Democrats did actually enjoy a supermajority in the Senate for 133 days as well as a near supermajority for the remainder of the 2 years.

Face it, Dems could have accomplished a lot during this 2 year period if they focused on jobs and our economy instead of cramming Obamacare down our throats.