Republican “Control” Of The Senate

I do not understand why Republicans don’t push back on this media/Democrat (but I repeat myself) talking point:

BLITZER: We’re apparently in the same position we were a week ago. The president had, as you know, two years of Republican-controlled House and Republican-controlled Senate to get this done. To build that border wall. Why did he fail?

MILLER: Well, the House is voting as we speak o border security. The fight is only beginning. As you know, first of all, we’re talking about successful (ph) boarder security, this president has made unprecedented achievements in that area. But right now as we speak, we are rallying Republican lawmakers to try to get a bill out of the House. And the fundamental issue here is whether or not democrat will supply votes to pass border security or whether they’re going to push for open borders which…

The proper response to this nonsense should always be something like, “Wolf, Republicans did not control the Senate for the past two years. A party does not control the Senate for legislative purposes unless it has sixty votes. No party has controlled the Senate in the past decade except the Democrats, from 2009 through 2011, when they crammed the ObamaCare crap sandwich down the nation’s throat.”

15 thoughts on “Republican “Control” Of The Senate”

  1. True, but it is still annoying that Republicans can’t get their priorities through either the House or Senate. Paul Rino did a back of a job as a sellout.

  2. Two points: The Democrats’ 60 seat Senate supermajority was very brief in 2009-10 (from the seating of Sen. Franken to the election of Sen. Scott Brown), and the Affordable Care Act was passed via reconciliation in any case after Sen. Brown was seated, without a supermajority.

  3. I thought Miller did well when Blitzer claimed Democrats are for Border Security, just not spending this money. Miller pointed out that Democrats voted against Katie’s law, supported sanctuary cities, opposed deporting violent criminals here illegally, and claimed to want to abolish ICE. It’s not about money, its about denying Trump this victory for his base. Moreover, its about the establishment denying the will of the people. We were told a wall would be built in 1986. They lied to us.

      1. Well I think it’s more like an abdication. Let Presidents send troops and the Congress never has to declare their vote on it.

        Most of Congress are cowards.

      2. Trump could have asked congress to take the issue up or proposed something specific. Obama always blamed congress for the wars saying they should have wrote a bill, but he never proposed one or commented publicly on what one should include.

        I don’t care much about Syria. The populace holds many of the same views as the radical Islamists. What I don’t like is our only dependable ally, the Kurds being left hanging. And the people who say Trump hates NATO don’t note that letting Turkey do what they want protects NATO or that our undependable NATO ally, Turkey, is the source of the threat to the Kurds.

        1. A) Kurds are NOT a dependable ally. Some tribes may be – others use the USA as a shield while provoking the Turks.
          B) Trump seems to have convinced the Saudis to cover the Kurds. So nobody’s been left hanging.

  4. The ruling that money=speech has demolished representative government for voting constituents. Campaign donations override all.

    1. Everyone should have the ability to comment on government policies, especially those who are the target of those policies. What is destroying our system is the government and its budget growing so large and powerful. The more money and power the government has, the more jockeying for influence. A government with less money and power would mean less corruption and jockeying for influence.

    2. Do you think it’s not OK that unions could use money as political speech but that companies couldn’t before Citizens United, or are you a political hack?

  5. So, the requirement for 60 votes is to get cloture, so you can get to an actual vote.

    But, all that cloture does is end debate. It’s not a veto.

    So, why not make them speak? Use procedures to force them to do a proper filibuster–for DAYS–and if they ever stop talking, well, call the vote. If nothing else, that ruins their vacations and causes them a small fraction of the discomfort which they inflict upon the American people.

    That’s how things used to work, isn’t it? Why did the Senate (other than laziness and cowardice) stop requiring filibustering members to physically speak?

    1. “So, why not make them speak? Use procedures to force them to do a proper filibuster–for DAYS–and if they ever stop talking, well, call the vote. If nothing else, that ruins their vacations and causes them a small fraction of the discomfort which they inflict upon the American people.”

      Yes…make the Dems earn it. Make those lazy sods speak non-stop for days see if they can keep it up. Sick and tired of merely using the threat of a filibuster as being as good as the real thing; let’s see who has the intestinal fortitude. And Merry Christmas to all!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *