Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by ucfgrad93, Dec 2, 2008.
Probably not a bad thing. While filibusters are way overused, I think them being an option is better than total control.
Now if we could just get the results of the Coleman-Franken race...
I wanted Chambliss to lose, just for this.
Counterfit, for background, I have little respect for either party in the congress, okay? Sure, some good folks, but too many venal, corrupt (bleeps).
So: Regardless of stuff from Chambliss' past, his election prevents excessive power on the part of the Democrats--which to me is what filibuster-proof would be. FWIW, I wouldn't want it the other direction, either.
I dunno. Call it a "good of the nation" thing, I guess.
It IS Georgia. I'm surprised it wasn't more clear-cut sooner.
No real surprise here.
I'm also not in favor of the Democrats having 60 seats, probably for different reasons than you, but I would have preferred that to having this *************** in a public office.
Another draft dodger and false Patriot brought to you by the wave the flag while others serve Republican party.
Hopefully the reps dont just spend the next 4 years blocking every attempt to get some things done.
They'll filibuster on some major issues to win concessions, but they aren't going to block everything.
They know they're in hot water right now, and in 2010 more Republicans are up for reelection than Democrats in the Senate, so the Democrats could get 60+ in 2 years. Knowing that, the Republicans are going to do their best to come off as more organized rather than simply bringing government to a halt.