like cutting Social Security/Medicare. If he wants to talk "bait-and-switch" or just general "WTF moments" when it comes to newly re-elected Presidents, why don't we spend a few minutes talking about how George W. Bush campaigned in 2004 on his *credentials* on fighting terrorism ( ) and how we were all going to be vaporized if we voted for Kerry and then his first policy proposal out of the gate was privatizing Social Security whereas President Obama is, well, promoting policies that he actually campaigned on but I guess, as usual, Republicans are choosing to be oblivious to those things called.............facts.

Republicans: If you want to cut Social Security and Medicare, YOU propose the policies and we'll have a vigorous debate about them. Don't expect Democrats (real ones, anyway) to do your dirty work for you!

is going to get old without any new fresh evidence of wrongdoing. How many people does anybody here know whom are talking about this? I know of nobody outside these boards. Most people whom ARE aware of it don't believe that there was any coverup. Susan Rice didn't even have anything to do with what happened in Benghazi other than disseminating talking points on Sunday morning talk shows shortly afterwards that she was approved BY THE CIA to deliver in a manner that avoided tipping off the suspects that we were on to them. In fact, a confirmation battle just might be the best way to finally expose the Republicans' hypocrisy and idiocy over it- though I about imagine that McCain, Graham, Ayotte, et. al are probably helping every time they hold another one of their bizarre couch-fainting "press conferences" talking about how "troubled" they are by Susan Rice and repeatedly asking questions that have already been answered. I think that it's fair to say that most people- if they were forced to really pay attention to the aforementioned Senators' ramblings about Rice- would come away from the confirmation hearings scratching their heads about THEIR fitness to continue to hold their seats.

execs get bonuses, workers/unions asked for multiple concessions to keep business afloat, workers/unions finally put their foot down and refuse any additional concessions and get blamed for bankruptcy of company, execs ask BANKRUPTCY COURT to keep bonuses

I just got done watching a clip of one of the latest press conferences given by McCain, Graham, and Ayotte about Susan Rice and, well, why is she there and what is she there for? I haven't actually heard her speak but she looks so....vacuous and....distracted whenever she's hanging around Graham and McCain doing one of these press conferences to show how "troubled" they are about Susan Rice (re: Benghazi). Come to think of it, Graham looked somewhat uncomfortable too. Are they putting her up there as a cover to "prove" to us that all this feigned concern about Benghazi and Rice's initial CIA-approved statements isn't just two old white men picking on an intelligent and eminently qualified African-American woman? This is a sideshow quickly becoming a farce. Does Ayotte know what she is getting herself into? Does she realize that she is (probably) just being used by McCain and Graham in order to go after Rice? I would almost feel sorry for her..........if I thought that she wasn't doing this willingly.

Democrats...............??????

I'm mostly depressed because it doesn't look like the Republicans have learned anything from losing. They seem to be going back to the politics of personal destruction with Rice and clinging to Norquist (some of them might seem like they are straying but I'm not sure they ultimately will) on taxes. My hope that things will be better over the next 2-4 years is already waning. If I hear the words "fiscal cliff" one more time, I think that I will scream. They should negotiate some kind of stopgap that will prevent any legitimate problems and wait until the new Congress is seated before negotiating any broad and far-reaching "grand bargain" IMHO.

Barbara Boxer on our side went after her pretty aggressively but the Republicans closed ranks around C. Rice and none of them AFAIK were "troubled" by her performance and very REAL incompetence (re: 9/11, Iraq WMD). Her confirmation seemed pretty much like a done deal from the start despite Democratic objections.

but it shouldn't take 60 votes just to DEBATE a freakin' bill! If a committed minority wants to slow things down and make an impassioned case against something, fine. But they should have to actually DO it in the light of day on the floor of the Senate. Actually, I kind of thought that, this being a democracy and all, this sort of thing should be how things are supposed to be. The idea that 41 Senators can prevent a bill and/or a nomination from even being DEBATED seems PROFOUNDLY anti-democratic- but maybe that's just me.

Also, how's the draft Ashley Judd movement going? She's coming her to Indy this week for a Planned Parenthood event. I would love to see her take out McConnell! Got anybody possibly teed up in Texas. We have to be able to win a Senate seat there someday, right?

The first words out of the mouths of several pundits on ELECTION NIGHT were that President Obama would need to have go back and try working with the Republicans again. Not much was said then- or the days that have followed since- about Republicans having taken a thumping and should now have to work harder with President Obama and the Democrats in Congress.