In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
In response to UserName99's comment:
In response to tacobreath's comment:
Obama had all 3 branches for his first TWO years and got nothing done.
President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.
He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.
The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.
That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.
But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.
So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.
Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.
In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.
Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.
Do you see a two-year supermajority?
What a pathetic exuse for lack of leadership and bipartisanship by Obama. A 60 vote Senate supermajority is a rare benefit to a President, only happened once in the past 30 years. Obama is not a leader, tha is clear. The Dems had solid control of House and Senate for two years, so blaming the GOP for his failures is beyond pathetic!
Things got done in Washington by Presidents George Bush and Clinton and Bush Sr and Reagan and even Carter... but not Obama!
Just from a logical argument point of view.
Your saying Obama is responsible for the state of the economy despite not being able to work with Congress to pass legislation.
If nothing is 'getting done' then either;
A) As a conservative, you have to admit that gov't has a larger role to play in the economy than you are willing to admit so the 'small gov't' mantra is invalid.
B) By virtue of Obama 'getting nothing done', that would infer that gov't is on the sidelines, out of the way, and the economy is still faltering, again proving the 'small gov't' idea is invalid.
You can't blame someone for the state of affairs while at the same time blaming them for 'doing nothing'.