• pjwestin
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    He had a huge margin in the House, a super-majority in the Senate, and he chose to pass the Heritage Foundation’s Healthcare proposal. Clinton didn’t even have that majorities like that his first term. If Obama couldn’t get that congress to cooperate he wasn’t fit to lead.

    • areyouevenreal
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Someone being the same party doesn’t mean they will co-operate.

      • pjwestin
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago
        edit-2
        8 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        Yeah, again, he had 60 in the senate, a big majority in the house, and a huge mandate from the voters. If he couldn’t pass his legislation under those circumstances he wasn’t fit to lead.

    • BrokenGlepnir
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      He lost the super majority very quickly, and it was rarely an effective supermajority. Having 60 geriatric men in a room at one time is hard. Byrd was in the hospital, and frankin had been denied his seat for months. By the time the aca passed they’d lost the “super” part of the majority anyway.

      • pjwestin
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        8 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        I’m pretty sure that the ACA passed before Scott Brown took office, which as I remeber it was the end of his Super Majority. But even if I’m wrong, then why don’t they end the filibuster? If the Republicans are determined to be the obstructionist party, why aren’t the willing to limit their ability to obstruct? They’ve been willing to do it to get nominations through, so why won’t they do it to pass legislation?