Tell me what you think

[Buzz]

If the "D's" are so happy/proud of what has been accomplished, why are so many of them running on anti-Obama/Pelosi, etc campaigns?

Because they are dumb arses.

Democrats like Herseth-Sandlin are going down because people like me will vote against them. If we are going to have our representative in Washington voting like Republicans, we may as have a crazy as he!! tea party rep in there like Kristi Noem.

[JDogger]

I thought this thread had lost it's legs. I'll answer my own questions.

The overwelming responces seem to be negative, however.

In a few weeks, elections will happen. Will we sweep out the old and replace it with the new?
Yes, but the new boss will look a lot like the old boss...

What changes do you see, and how fast will they happen?
None, and slow to happen, if they happen at all.

Do we spiral upwards?, or downwards?...and why?
A slow spiral downwards. Driving in the ruts is easier. Be prepared to scrape bottom though.

Does a different team taking the field make a true difference?
One could only 'hope' for 'change' ...eh?

Do party's really matter?
NO, it's not really a 'game'.

Who is really in control?
Now, where's the real control coming from?

JD

Any guess's on the last question?

[depittydawg]

Last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't grant veto power to Congress. That "playbook" doesn't apply to the Executive Branch.
Also, for the last 2 years, the "D's" have outnumbered the "R's" in both houses. The "R's" had no power to block anything, especially due to use of reconciliation. If the progressive "D's" couldn't get the moderate "D's" to go along with their radical agenda, is that the "R's" fault? Or is it the fault(s) of the agenda itself? The only reason the "D's" wanted "R's" to sign on is so they could claim some kind of "bipartisanship" and wouldn't have to take the upcoming ass-whuppin all by themselves.

If the "D's" are so happy/proud of what has been accomplished, why are so many of them running on anti-Obama/Pelosi, etc campaigns?

The Republicans needed nothing more than the threat of Filibuster. The Democratic Leadership was all to happy to let them play that card as many times as they wanted, without a challenge. The reality is neither of these political machines have the interests of the American people in their sights. There hasn't been a "progressive" agenda since the 1960s.

[subroc]

The Republicans needed nothing more than the threat of Filibuster...

Wasn't just the threat of filibuster by democrats, the reason for the birth of the "gang of 14" during former President George W. Bush's administration?

This isn't a new tactic.

This isn't an original tactic.

This isn't a republican tactic.

This isn't a democrat tactic.

It is a senate tactic.

It is the way the place is run in case you have been sleeping for the past century or two.

[depittydawg]

Wasn't just the threat of filibuster by democrats, the reason for the birth of the "gang of 14" during former President George W. Bush's administration?

This isn't a new tactic.

This isn't an original tactic.

This isn't a republican tactic.

This isn't a democrat tactic.

It is a senate tactic.

It is the way the place is run in case you have been sleeping for the past century or two.

I suggest you look up the history and use of the filibuster over the history of the nation. No, I'm not gonna do it for you. I've already seen the data. You can either look it up yourself are stay misinformed. Your choice.