General Discussion

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,412 posts)

66. +1

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 09:36 PM

Jan 2015

Yup. President Obama, despite his overwhelming victory in 2008, got dealt a bad deck of cards (he had to deal with some bad Dems and a nasty and very unified opposition)- but he managed to achieve some impressive accomplishments nonetheless. And best of all, he didn't sit around and complain about it even though I'm sure he wishes he could've done more.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

76 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Please don't repeat RW talking points. The MYTH of the Democratic 'Super-Majority' [View all] blm Jan 2015 OP

The right pushes the myth, then the left excoriates because of the myth. MohRokTah Jan 2015 #1

That's pretty much it, MohRokTah. But I'd be hard-pressed to call these people "left" since I have BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #7

+1 Proud Liberal Dem Jan 2015 #66

I believe these facts will be ignored and this request will fall on deaf ears. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #2

Sad that some here ignore actual facts and put forth RW spin as their 'facts'. blm Jan 2015 #4

one of many that float around here OKNancy Jan 2015 #3

The reason that "the myth" gets attention here is because over the truedelphi Jan 2015 #43

Meme #1: why didn't Obama do this when he had power!?! joshcryer Jan 2015 #5

This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Jan 2015 #6

Not for even 2 months, let alone 2 years. Try applying a TIMELINE. blm Jan 2015 #9

Was there a post or perhaps an OP that claimed that a majority was held for "2 years" ? Autumn Jan 2015 #13

The article responded to GOPs 2yr talking point blm Jan 2015 #15

I just wanted to know who on DU, as some have said stated in your thread Autumn Jan 2015 #17

Um....all over the fucking place. jeff47 Jan 2015 #22

I have seen a claim of 27 days posted but have never seen the claim of 2 years posted on DU jeff. Autumn Jan 2015 #24

That's the implication of "back when we had Congress". jeff47 Jan 2015 #27

Implication of "back when we had Congress"? That's a bit different from a claim of 2 years. Autumn Jan 2015 #30

Except we "had" Congress for two years. You "have" Congress with a simple majority. jeff47 Jan 2015 #32

jeff you are the one who says DUers do it in every thread so find me just a couple where they do. Autumn Jan 2015 #39

No, it's not the truth. jeff47 Jan 2015 #45

I'm done with this. You keep pretending people say what they haven't said. Autumn Jan 2015 #46

People casually make the claim about Dem super majority as if it was true - it blm Jan 2015 #48

Let the backpedaling word games begin! Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #23

If you know who said it, link to it. It should be easy for you to do. Autumn Jan 2015 #25

Not stepping and fetching for you Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #31

The OP warns DUers not to spread the myth of super majority for two years Autumn Jan 2015 #37

More word games Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #51

+1 zappaman Jan 2015 #61

"you know what you can do with your link demand.. " +!, 00000000000000! Cha Jan 2015 #71

I've heard it too many times, here. No links though. LawDeeDah Jan 2015 #35

I did a search on DU, went back 3 pages and didn't find a post claiming we had a majority for 2 Autumn Jan 2015 #42

I suppose you searched for titles, or can you search for contents in LawDeeDah Jan 2015 #44

Lieberman would not have been an issue Mnpaul Jan 2015 #57

^^ THIS ^^^ bvar22 Jan 2015 #10

Try 11 days then 13 days chowder66 Jan 2015 #41

The people who repeat this myth on DU know it is a myth. nt tridim Jan 2015 #8

If the Democrats held a Super Majority for 27 days, bvar22 Jan 2015 #11

I have never seen it said that the Democrats had a Super Majority for two years. Autumn Jan 2015 #12

they latch onto anything that fits into their HE CAN DO NO WRONG obsession Skittles Jan 2015 #58

Isn't this like saying, "It's a myth the Democrats could ever have done anything?" unrepentant progress Jan 2015 #14

27 day super majority IF you assumed Lieberman as a solid Dem, I suppose. blm Jan 2015 #16

Of course Lieberman was a solid Democrat, he was the Dem VP candidate in 2000 Fumesucker Jan 2015 #18

In 2000 - later to run as an Independent, quite apart from the Dem party. blm Jan 2015 #19

Eight years later, he campaigned against the Democratic nominee and for McCain YoungDemCA Jan 2015 #59

The Democratic party thought he was Democratic enough to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency Fumesucker Jan 2015 #68

In 2006, Connecticut Democrats fielded a different Senate candidate in the primary . . . markpkessinger Jan 2015 #64

I remember all that Fumesucker Jan 2015 #67

Yes, but the VP nomination was before Lieberman became a cheerleader for Bush's wars... markpkessinger Jan 2015 #76

This is the Point Rilgin Jan 2015 #75

Kennedy could not vote during portions of the "Super Majority" He was gravely ill then. Lochloosa Jan 2015 #20

Thank you blm mcar Jan 2015 #21

"I cannot believe we are seeing this falsehood once again here on DU." Scuba Jan 2015 #28

I've seen that thrown around here, Fox News does not have the market cornered on lies, falsehoods, mikekohr Jan 2015 #26

I haven't seen this two year claim here, ever, but agree it's not accurate and should be corrected. Scuba Jan 2015 #29

One doesn't have to literally use the phrase "two years" to make the claim. jeff47 Jan 2015 #36

Only 30 votes for eliminating the filibuster. Interesting. Scuba Jan 2015 #50

That's what Brown claimed around that time. jeff47 Jan 2015 #74

People often believe what they read on the Internets. If it says it, then it must be true. Rex Jan 2015 #38

Exactly. That zombie lie is right wing concern trolling since right wingers wouldn't like a (D) alp227 Jan 2015 #33

Thanks for this but it will fall on purposeful deaf ears. LawDeeDah Jan 2015 #34

Don't forget the Blue Dog coalition panader0 Jan 2015 #40

The GOP got their way more often with minorities in both houses FiveGoodMen Jan 2015 #47

It's called a 'shiny object'. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jan 2015 #53

I did vote his ticket once..... Omaha Steve Jan 2015 #49

Of course, they easily could have had all they needed Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jan 2015 #52

That still rankles me - worst decision he ever made. blm Jan 2015 #62

Kick for facts. nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #54

"Please don't repeat RW talking points" THEN what will the GD "darlings" have to talk about??! Number23 Jan 2015 #55

And how about raising taxes on the wealthy, which requires just 50 senators + the VP? eomer Jan 2015 #56

+100 ND-Dem Jan 2015 #69

Bottom line -- at some point, there did exist a super-majority. It should have been utilized. Tatiana Jan 2015 #60

I agree to some extent - but - Lieberman was NOT a Dem at that point and blm Jan 2015 #73

The FACT is Democrats ALLOWED Republicans to obstruct. Filibuster rules aren't written in stone smokey nj Jan 2015 #63

Yeah we get it.. sendero Jan 2015 #65

+100. Sick of this song Obama had a committed majority and kids that would have laid down ND-Dem Jan 2015 #70

Good point blm BootinUp Jan 2015 #72