Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MSNBC's Thomas Roberts Laughably Insists Democrats Didn't Control Congress for Two Years...
NewsBusters.org ^ | September 21, 2012 | Matt Vespa

Posted on 09/21/2012 3:17:00 PM PDT by Kaslin

In the wake of Romney’s “47 percent” comments and less than positive polling from key swing states, every squishy Republican in the liberal media's stable of acceptable Republicans went into full panic mode.  But just yesterday, President Obama made a huge admission when he admitted that his biggest miscalculation was that he thought he could change Washington from the inside.

Republican strategist Alice Stewart raised that point during a chat with MSNBC's Thomas Roberts this morning, blasting Obama for it and saying that he had two years in his term in which his party ran both houses of Congress. That's an indisputable fact, but Roberts insisted that Stewart was wrong on the length of time that Democrats in Obama's term controlled both the House and Senate:   [See video below break.  MP3 audio here.]

MSNBC's Thomas Roberts Laughably Insists Democrats Didn't Control Congress for Two Years of Obama Term

THOMAS ROBERTS: All right so let’s say good morning and bring in today’s Power Panel we have Perry Bacon MSNBC contributor and political editor for The Grio, Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis, and Republican strategist Alice Stewart. It’s great to have all three of you here.

Alice – I want to start with you because the race is becoming this kind of tape gotcha game – the president’s campaign responding to Romney’s remarks by digging up something that Mitt Romney said back in 2008 that basically parallels what the president said.

[Buzzfeed tape]

ROBERTS: So – Alice Romney was slammed for jumping on the situation in Libya – jumped on the redistribution remarks kind of pulling them out of context now he’s giving another knee jerk reaction by seizing on the change remarks – when basically he campaigned that way in ’08 – why does that seem so different from Mitt Romney in his own words in ’08 from what the president said on Univision the other day.

ALICE STEWART: Well – there’s a big difference in Romney saying it and President Obama saying it – when Obama saying that the biggest thing he’s learned is that you can’t change Washington from the inside – newsflash he’s been on the inside for the past four years and we have a terrible economy.  We have a terrible crisis overseas and he’s had ­not only that – he had control over the House and Senate for the first two years while he was in office and he failed to make things better for the American people.

ROBERTS: Alice technically it wasn’t the first two years it was for only several months because of the ongoing political races that were still taking place – you know that right. It wasn’t for a full two years.

STEWART: He had control of the House and Senate for the first half of his presidency and he had the opportunity to put polices in place that would help create a strong economy and create jobs for the American people – and at the end of the day the American people cannot say that their lives are better off than when he took office and he said himself if he can’t turn the economy around and he can’t create jobs it’ll be a one-term proposition and it’s looking more like that everyday.

ROBERTS:  Alice – according to the calendar that’s factually not true that he had control for two years, but I’ll move on.

The ObamaCare debate, in which the Democrats had majorities in the House and Senate, lasted longer than several months.  In fact, it took up almost a whole year. During Obama's first two years, his Democratic allies in Congress passed not only Obamacare, but Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Caulkers, Dollars for Dishwashers, Dodd-Frank, and the massive debt-ballooning stimulus.

Democrats won big in 2006 -- when they took the House from Republicans -- and 2008.  They had a 60-seat supermajority in the Senate during much of the first two years of President Obama’s first term and a sizable majority in the House.  Roberts's use of Congress's many recesses to dismiss the two-year number is patently ludicrous.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: pmsnbc
The entire title is: MSNBC's Thomas Roberts Laughably Insists Democrats Didn't Control Congress for Two Years of Obama Term
1 posted on 09/21/2012 3:17:09 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

hahahhahahha


2 posted on 09/21/2012 3:18:24 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalebert

I don’t even own a dog


3 posted on 09/21/2012 3:27:35 PM PDT by shadeaud ( “Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8”. Just doing my duty a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Why do Democrats sound so stupid? Can’t some of them say something useful or with some understanding?


4 posted on 09/21/2012 3:28:19 PM PDT by FreedBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedBird

No.


5 posted on 09/21/2012 3:32:08 PM PDT by richardtavor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

They are ignorant shills for their Lord & Master aren’t they?


6 posted on 09/21/2012 3:32:20 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedBird

Because most of them ARE STUPID!!! The rest are Marxists, Communists or Socialists. That’s the complete make up of the democRAT party - and that’s the truth.


7 posted on 09/21/2012 3:33:09 PM PDT by demkicker (My passion for freedom is stronger than that of Democrats whose obsession is to enslave me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: richardtavor

In other words, the Democrats are not capable of using common sense. They may have not been born with common sense!


8 posted on 09/21/2012 3:33:43 PM PDT by FreedBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Talking point: Obama got Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote. If he passed Obamacare without one, he could have passed whatever he wanted if he had chosen to send it through and been able to get his own party to endorse it. That's a fact.
9 posted on 09/21/2012 3:33:53 PM PDT by OrangeHoof (Our economy won't heal until one particular black man is unemployed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The Democrats controlled the House of Representatives during the 2009-2011 session with a (257/256/255) Democrat Majority to 178 Republican Minority.

The Democrats had a filibuster proof Majority of 60 Senators (58 Democrats plus two "Independents" who voted with them) for the following time periods:

1.) July 7th, 2009 to August 25th, 2009

2.) September 25th, 2009 to February 4th, 2010 


dvwjr

10 posted on 09/21/2012 3:34:37 PM PDT by dvwjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Who was the idiot Dem (but I repeat myself) I saw yesterday or the day before arguing that the Senate had passed a budget (he was counting the continuing resolution and trying to maintain it was a better way to control spending)?


11 posted on 09/21/2012 3:37:44 PM PDT by mykroar (October race/religious riots bring November martial law. Voting postponed for your safety.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Still not as reality challenged as space cadet Pelosi’s daily blathering.
12 posted on 09/21/2012 3:56:34 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalebert
MSNBC's Thomas Roberts Laughably Insists Democrats Didn't Control Congress for Two Years of Obama Term

And this not Obama's depression.

13 posted on 09/21/2012 4:00:40 PM PDT by Rapscallion (If Obama wins he will be an evil tyrant over America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dvwjr
Nothing in your post changes the fact that they had control for two full years.

Having a filibuster-proof majority for any period of that time near the end of session would have allowed them to pass the entirety of their agenda provided only that they were careful procedurally.

Furthermore, not all of the business of the Senate requires a cloture vote. The ACA, arguably the most important (read: damaging) piece of legislation was passed with less than a filibuster-proof majority.

14 posted on 09/21/2012 4:09:54 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Who ya gonna believe? Your metrosexual smartphone or your lyin' eyes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FreedBird
A man was walking down the street when he got hit on the head by a grand piano. At the hospital the doctor told his wife that the only possible hope of saving her husband's life was a brain transplant. She agreed. Then the doctor told her that since this was new experimental procedure no insurance company would cover the surgery, so she'd have to pay for it herself.

She asked the doctor how much it would cost, and the doctor said, "Well, Ma'am, we have two prices because we have two different brains we could use. We have a conservative's brain, and that one will cost you $500. We also have a liberal's brain and that one is $100,000."

"Why such a big difference in the price?", she asked.

The doctor looked her in the eye and said, "Because the conservative's brain has been used, Ma'am."
15 posted on 09/21/2012 4:16:01 PM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("On the ascent of Olympus, what's a botched bar or two?" -Artur Schnabel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Odd. Plenty of bots act in the same manner about the GOP, big spending and Congressional control from 02-06.


16 posted on 09/21/2012 4:18:01 PM PDT by KantianBurke (Where was the Tea Party when Dubya was spending like a drunken sailor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine

Maybe the liberals all read teleprompters. They must have the talking points or they are lost. If you question the talking points they throw a fit, emotional confusion emerges. Their minds cannot function. They must blame someone else for their loss of mind.


17 posted on 09/21/2012 4:30:48 PM PDT by FreedBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

OK, all but 17 days of the first two yeasrs. (The congressional term starts on January 3, the President’s term on January 20.) Technical point, an dutterly irrelevant. Typical MSLSD.


18 posted on 09/21/2012 4:36:25 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dvwjr

Yep, and Obama was blaming Republicans for not getting immigration reform done in his first two years.


19 posted on 09/21/2012 5:13:17 PM PDT by corlorde (forWARD of the state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TBP

It wasn’t the full 2 years....demholes didn’t get 60 seats until after the theft of Norm Coleman’s seat was complete and Specter flipped...don’t recall which was first


20 posted on 09/21/2012 5:23:05 PM PDT by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wny

I think it was only 19 or 20 months of total demhole control.........


21 posted on 09/21/2012 5:26:14 PM PDT by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Just another case of terminal stupidity.


22 posted on 09/21/2012 5:30:26 PM PDT by antidemoncrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
Originally posted by: FredZarguna
"Nothing in your post changes the fact that they had control for two full years."


Full control of the US Senate requires a filibuster-proof majority to pass legislation with the use of a cloture vote to prevent unlimited debate. The dates indicated in the above post denote the periods the Democrats had such full control. A simple majority control of the US Senate, committees and sub-committees and the legislative calendar was correct for the Democrats in the US Senate during the 111th Congress.

Since the institution of the cloture rule in the US Senate during the 65th Congress, only eight sessions of Congress have had a party with a filibuster-proof majority in the US Senate. These filibuster-proof Congresses were: 74th, 75th, 76th, 77th, 89th, 94th, 95th, 111th - all controlled by Democrats. The Republicans have never had a filibuster-proof majority in the US Senate.

Congress Years_Term Senate
Majority
Party
Allotted
Number of
Senators
Democrat Republican Others Vacant Votes
required for
Cloture
 
 
 
 
65th 1917-1919 Democrat 96 54 42     <= 64 Two-thirds of Senators voting and present
66th 1919-1921 Republican 96 47 49     <= 64 Cloture only on Legislation, not Nominations
67th 1921-1923 Republican 96 37 59     <= 64  
68th 1923-1925 Republican 96 42 53 1   <= 64  
69th 1925-1927 Republican 96 41 54 1   <= 64  
70th 1927-1929 Republican 96 46 48 1 1 <= 64  
71st 1929-1931 Republican 96 39 56 1   <= 64  
72nd 1931-1933 Republican 96 47 48 1   <= 64  
73rd 1933-1935 Democrat 96 59 36 1   <= 64  
74th 1935-1937 Democrat 96 69 25 2   <= 64  
75th 1937-1939 Democrat 96 76 16 3   <= 64  
76th 1939-1941 Democrat 96 69 23 3   <= 64  
77th 1941-1943 Democrat 96 66 28 2   <= 64  
78th 1943-1945 Democrat 96 57 38 1   <= 64  
79th 1945-1947 Democrat 96 57 38 1   <= 64  
80th 1947-1949 Democrat 96 51 45     <= 64  
81st 1949-1951 Democrat 96 54 42     64 Two-thirds of all elected Senators
82nd 1951-1953 Democrat 96 49 47     64 Cloture on Legislation and Nominations
83rd 1953-1955 Republican 96 47 48 1   64  
84th 1955-1957 Democrat 96 47/47/48/49 47/47/47/47 2/1/0/0 0/1/0/0 64  
85th 1957-1959 Democrat 96 49 47     64  
86th 1959-1961 Democrat 100 65 35     <= 67 Two-thirds of Senators voting and present
87th 1961-1963 Democrat 100 64 36     <= 67 Cloture on Legislation and Nominations
88th 1963-1965 Democrat 100 66 34     <= 67  
89th 1965-1967 Democrat 100 68 32     <= 67  
90th 1967-1969 Democrat 100 64 36     <= 67  
91st 1969-1971 Democrat 100 57 43     <= 67  
92nd 1971-1973 Democrat 100 54 44 2   <= 67  
93rd 1973-1975 Democrat 100 56 42 2   <= 67  
94th 1975-1977 Democrat 100 60 38 2   60 Three-fifths of all elected Senators
95th 1977-1979 Democrat 100 61 38 1   60 Cloture on Legislation and Nominations
96th 1979-1981 Democrat 100 58 41 1   60  
97th 1981-1983 Republican 100 46 53 1   60  
98th 1983-1985 Republican 100 46 54     60  
99th 1985-1987 Republican 100 47 53     60  
100th 1987-1989 Democrat 100 55 45     60  
101st 1989-1991 Democrat 100 55 45     60  
102nd 1991-1993 Democrat 100 56 44     60  
103rd 1993-1995 Democrat 100 57/56 43/44     60  
104th 1995-1997 Republican 100 48/47/46/46/47 52/53/54/53/53   0/0/0/1/0 60  
105th 1997-1999 Republican 100 45 55     60  
106th 1999-2001 Republican 100 45/45/45/46 55/54/55/54   0/1/0/0 60  
107th 2001-2003 Rep/Dem 100 50/50/49/48/48 50/49/49/50/50 0/1/1/1/2 0/0/1/1/0 60  
108th 2003-2005 Republican 100 48 51 1   60  
109th 2005-2007 Republican 100 44 55 1   60  
110th 2007-2009 Democrat 100 49 49 2   60  
111th 2009-2011 Democrat 100 41/41/41/41/41/40/40/40/39/40/40/41/41/41/42 55/56/55/56/57/58/57/58/57/56/57/56 2   60 July 7, 2009 - August 25, 2009 | September 25, 2009 - February 4, 2010
112th 2011-2013 Democrat 100 47 51 2   60  




"Having a filibuster-proof majority for any period of that time near the end of session would have allowed them to pass the entirety of their agenda provided only that they were careful procedurally."

Which is exactly how the PPACA was passed by the Democrats in the US Senate during late December 2009, at the end of the first session of the 111th Congress.

"Furthermore, not all of the business of the Senate requires a cloture vote. The ACA, arguably the most important (read: damaging) piece of legislation was passed with less than a filibuster-proof majority."


The PPACA was passed in the US Senate via the following two votes:

1.) December 23rd, 2009 - 60 to 39 in favor of invoking cloture.
2.) December 24th, 2009 - 60 to 39 in favor of passing the PPACA.

Notice, in both of the recorded votes in the US Senate on the PPACA, each was performed with a filibuster-proof majority of 60 votes. Are there any other facts of which you are unsure?

dvwjr

23 posted on 09/21/2012 5:37:22 PM PDT by dvwjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
THOMAS ROBERTS FIRST NATIONAL CABLE NEWS ANCHOR MARRIED TO SAME-SEX PARTNER


24 posted on 09/21/2012 5:46:38 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

Which one is the anchor and which the anchorette?


25 posted on 09/21/2012 5:52:31 PM PDT by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TBP; FreedBird; FredZarguna; dvwjr; Kaslin

Actually, I think if you look closely at what he’s saying it’s even worse.

What he’s effectively saying is that the democrats could not do the horrible things they wanted to do because they had to worry about re-election. If they did what they wanted and what 0bama wanted they risked losing in the next election.


26 posted on 09/21/2012 6:01:46 PM PDT by generally (Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Fightin Whitey

Left is the anchor.


27 posted on 09/21/2012 6:11:30 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

Well ain’t that special?

(before New Years we’ll hear of a huge b!tch fight and how the anchorette stole his checkblanks and peed on the divan and was cranked up every day before noon and besides regularly took on all comers [gulp] at the I-90 rest stop, where these two probably met in the first place...sickening bleeps...)


28 posted on 09/21/2012 6:41:32 PM PDT by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dvwjr
It is you who are confused.

Not all Senate business requires invocation of cloture. The majority leadership could proceed with business that did not require debate to be suspended, introducing their controversial business on a schedule that allowed them to vote when they had 60 votes. That is indeed what they did, as you yourself admit (with one point upon which you are mistaken, but hold on.)

Most business in the Senate, as in the House, is done in committee. During the entire period from 2007 to 2013, the Democrats had (have) such control.

The fact that they lacked a filibuster proof majority in the months before the mid-term elections allows liberal dissemblers to skate on a technicality; the truth is Congress does not generally address controversial legislation in later than the spring of the midterm year anyway.

ACA was not passed while The Senate had a filibuster proof majority. Parts of ACA were passed on the votes you indicated, but the House had not passed the bill at that point. The bill was not passed by the House until March, 2010. This is not a technicality: the House was not willing to pass the Senate's version of the Bill, and Amendments had to be made, and passed, as part of a dubious use of budget reconciliation that sidestepped the rules of the Senate. Those Amendments, plus the bill originally passed by the Senate in the closing hours of 2009 are the actual ACA.

But nice try.

Your chart is wrong in the last several Congresses. Are there any other facts upon which you are unsure?

29 posted on 09/21/2012 7:55:05 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Who ya gonna believe? Your metrosexual smartphone or your lyin' eyes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

He’s right! They didn’t control Congress for two years. They controlled it for FOUR (2006-2010).


30 posted on 09/21/2012 8:03:08 PM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson