For months, we have heard many Republicans tell us one reason they judge President Obama's first term in office as a failure is that he did virtually nothing his first two years despite having a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress to work with: he could have gotten any bill he wanted passed into law, they claim. I finally took the time to look into this claim, and, surprise, this claim, like so many others, is shot full of holes, to the point of being an outright lie.
I'm not going to repeat the explanation, because I found an excellent one that I couldn't improve on: The Myth of the Filibuster I highly recommend this article, with one caveat: it might make you sick to see how twisted the Republicans have had to go perpetuate this lie.
Next question, has there been any significant increase in the use of the filibuster by the minority party since President Obama took office? The answer is below, in an excellent chart, which can be seen in this link: History of the Filibuster
For me, as always, one doesn't have to run from the facts if truth if true progress is the goal. In fact, true progress and success cannot be had without using the truth. Of course there is almost always room for interpretation. That must be based, however, on real facts, and not those manipulated to one degree or another to support one's pre-set notions.
By the way, I have to correct something I've repeated several times, that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stated the Republican's number one goal was to make sure President Obama was a one-term president. He did say this, but not at the beginning of Obama's first time, as I believed, but on the eve of the midterm elections, half way through Obama's first term Some people, too, claim Senator McConnell was quoted out of context. I've read the interview answers around the main one, and I don't see that it changes the intent of his comments, but you might, so here is a good place to read for yourself: Senator Mitch McConnell's famous quote
I finally came down this morning from 'walking on air' over the return of the real President Barack Obama. What a powerful debate performance, despite what William Bennett says (more on that later).
Very interestingly, George W. Bush also returned, in the shape of Mitt Rmoney! He was specifically asked how he was different from Bush, and he gave several examples of how he was different. The trouble was, as usual, all of his examples were incorrect: Bush had proposed and supported the same issues as Rmoney noted! In one of the many, many Obama highlights of the debate, Obama pointed out how Rmoney was exactly like, or even worse than, Bush, especially on social issues.
Rachel Maddow noted tonight that the next debate will be focused on foreign policy, an area that both Rmoney and Ryan have zero experience. Worse, she pointed out that 17 of the 24 foreign policy advisors to the Rmoney-Ryan campaign are from the Bush camp! Then, she showed a video clip from an appearance Paul Ryan made today, with Condoleezza Rice! What?! Are you beginning to see a trend here?!
Obama provided highlight after highlight after highlight last night, just had a fantastic event. It was a little long, but otherwise, it was AWESOME! Kudos to moderator Candy Crowley, too.
William Bennett, on the other had, had a different view of how well Obama did.
"President Obama entered the second presidential debate needing to make up serious ground after his first debate performance. He turned around the narrative from the first debate -- that he was listless and lethargic and on the defensive -- but showing up is one thing, winning is another. Obama needed a convincing win Tuesday night, and he did not get it." Really? Did you see the same debate the rest of the country saw, Bill? (emphasis mine)
He continued his fantasy review: "Tuesday night Romney delivered again and proved his performance was consistent and legitimate. He has established himself as a legitimate alternative to the president." Consistent, yes, continuing to lie, but far from legitimate.
Remember Paul Ryan's campaign event today: "In what may be one of the more important political moments of the debate, Romney was asked how he would be different from George W. Bush. Romney effectively distanced himself from Bush on policy specifics, noting he would control deficit spending and champion small business, not just big business. It was an important moment to convince many undecided voters that he is not Bush 2.0." What?!
Un-freaking-believable. Obama knocked it out of the park, all night long, period.
