No, they just put holds on considering matters like
by Ziks511 - 7/15/11 8:06 PM
In Reply to: Sorry Rob, but by Roger NC
legislation or appointments as they are allowed to do, and never let most of those come to a vote unless Obama adopted the Republican position. They put more holds on more bills and appointments than ever in history, far outstripping most full 4 year terms in Obama's first 2 years. They deliberately hamstrung him, for the 2010 mid terms so they could come back knowing that Democrats don't vote heavily in the mid terms.
50%+ 1 vote is a mandate. George Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 but had no trouble, and talked about his mandate (personally I would have stuck to, "No, we're just good friends"). In his second term he said he'd earned political capital and it was time to spend it.
And Obama's party did not control all three branches, in theory, nobody can. It controlled the Legislature (both Congress and Senate) which is one, and the Executive, which is two. You think he controls the Court? Sorry, not a chance as they prove every chance they get to exercise judicial activism and expand the ability of business to influence Congress and the Senate.
Legislative Body, Executive, Judiciary, those are the three Branches of Government, or was my Grade 4 teacher lying.
Please excuse this combattive reply which you, Roger, who have been very polite and respectful in your disagreement, and you do not deserve and which is not directed at you. It's the result of the double Standard being applied to this Administration. You win the election and the House and the Senate, you've got a mandate.
Oh and why did the Republicans insist on a 60 vote Supermajority on virtually all bills, because they knew Obama only had 59 or 58 Senators. That too was a roadblock.
Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)