Achin' Akin just won't go away.

[wbcoleman]

...except that Dems did NOT embrace the Dubya tax cuts.  The Dems that voted for it the first time around, the Blue Dogs, have been replaced, and the red dogs in the Senate insisted on a 60% majority by a joke of what they call a filibuster. Where the Dems dropped the ball is in their failure to invoke their version of the Republican "nuclear option" on filibusters.

I still wouldn't call that an embrace.

In 2009-2010 they had a free hand to enact whatever tax rates they liked.  What they decided to do was extend the existing rates for two years.

[clistensprechen]

...except that Dems did NOT embrace the Dubya tax cuts.  The Dems that voted for it the first time around, the Blue Dogs, have been replaced, and the red dogs in the Senate insisted on a 60% majority by a joke of what they call a filibuster. Where the Dems dropped the ball is in their failure to invoke their version of the Republican "nuclear option" on filibusters.

I still wouldn't call that an embrace.

In 2009-2010 they had a free hand to enact whatever tax rates they liked.  What they decided to do was extend the existing rates for two years.

Not true. They didn't have a sufficient majority in the Senate, like I said. FAIL

[Woody]

...except that Dems did NOT embrace the Dubya tax cuts.  The Dems that voted for it the first time around, the Blue Dogs, have been replaced, and the red dogs in the Senate insisted on a 60% majority by a joke of what they call a filibuster. Where the Dems dropped the ball is in their failure to invoke their version of the Republican "nuclear option" on filibusters.

I still wouldn't call that an embrace.

I think Clara is forgetting the makeup of the senate in 2010 and the fact that Obama lobbied for those tax rates.  Do you recall Obama attempting to quote John Maynard Keynes by saying you don't increase taxes in a down economy?

[RWE]

...except that Dems did NOT embrace the Dubya tax cuts.  The Dems that voted for it the first time around, the Blue Dogs, have been replaced, and the red dogs in the Senate insisted on a 60% majority by a joke of what they call a filibuster. Where the Dems dropped the ball is in their failure to invoke their version of the Republican "nuclear option" on filibusters.

I still wouldn't call that an embrace.

In 2009-2010 they had a free hand to enact whatever tax rates they liked.  What they decided to do was extend the existing rates for two years.

Not true. They didn't have a sufficient majority in the Senate, like I said. FAIL

They somehow managed to take over the healthcare system without any Republican help.

[clistensprechen]

...except that Dems did NOT embrace the Dubya tax cuts.  The Dems that voted for it the first time around, the Blue Dogs, have been replaced, and the red dogs in the Senate insisted on a 60% majority by a joke of what they call a filibuster. Where the Dems dropped the ball is in their failure to invoke their version of the Republican "nuclear option" on filibusters.

I still wouldn't call that an embrace.

I think Clara is forgetting the makeup of the senate in 2010 and the fact that Obama lobbied for those tax rates.  Do you recall Obama attempting to quote John Maynard Keynes by saying you don't increase taxes in a down economy?

Wrong, Woody. Obama lobbied for lower tax rates for people grossing half a million or less.  Try again, Mr. Revisionist.

[Woody]

...except that Dems did NOT embrace the Dubya tax cuts.  The Dems that voted for it the first time around, the Blue Dogs, have been replaced, and the red dogs in the Senate insisted on a 60% majority by a joke of what they call a filibuster. Where the Dems dropped the ball is in their failure to invoke their version of the Republican "nuclear option" on filibusters.

I still wouldn't call that an embrace.

In 2009-2010 they had a free hand to enact whatever tax rates they liked.  What they decided to do was extend the existing rates for two years.

Not true. They didn't have a sufficient majority in the Senate, like I said. FAIL

Actually they did but that is not relevant.  They could have used reconciliation for what it was meant for.  Budgetary items.  51 vote majority.  Or are you saying they couldn't get 51 dems?

[Woody]

...except that Dems did NOT embrace the Dubya tax cuts.  The Dems that voted for it the first time around, the Blue Dogs, have been replaced, and the red dogs in the Senate insisted on a 60% majority by a joke of what they call a filibuster. Where the Dems dropped the ball is in their failure to invoke their version of the Republican "nuclear option" on filibusters.

I still wouldn't call that an embrace.

I think Clara is forgetting the makeup of the senate in 2010 and the fact that Obama lobbied for those tax rates.  Do you recall Obama attempting to quote John Maynard Keynes by saying you don't increase taxes in a down economy?

Wrong, Woody. Obama lobbied for lower tax rates for people grossing half a million or less.  Try again, Mr. Revisionist.

Not in December 2010 babe.

[clistensprechen]

...except that Dems did NOT embrace the Dubya tax cuts.  The Dems that voted for it the first time around, the Blue Dogs, have been replaced, and the red dogs in the Senate insisted on a 60% majority by a joke of what they call a filibuster. Where the Dems dropped the ball is in their failure to invoke their version of the Republican "nuclear option" on filibusters.

I still wouldn't call that an embrace.

In 2009-2010 they had a free hand to enact whatever tax rates they liked.  What they decided to do was extend the existing rates for two years.

Not true. They didn't have a sufficient majority in the Senate, like I said. FAIL

They somehow managed to take over the healthcare system without any Republican help.

Because Obamacare was Romneycare, there was no threat of filibuster.  Using the position of you guys' side, Republicans embraced it.

[clistensprechen]

...except that Dems did NOT embrace the Dubya tax cuts.  The Dems that voted for it the first time around, the Blue Dogs, have been replaced, and the red dogs in the Senate insisted on a 60% majority by a joke of what they call a filibuster. Where the Dems dropped the ball is in their failure to invoke their version of the Republican "nuclear option" on filibusters.

I still wouldn't call that an embrace.

I think Clara is forgetting the makeup of the senate in 2010 and the fact that Obama lobbied for those tax rates.  Do you recall Obama attempting to quote John Maynard Keynes by saying you don't increase taxes in a down economy?

Wrong, Woody. Obama lobbied for lower tax rates for people grossing half a million or less.  Try again, Mr. Revisionist.

Not in December 2010 babe.

Sez you, and I'm not buying it because that was a situation of Going Over The Cliff.  That's still not an embrace, hon.

[Woody]

President Barack Obama [/size]confronted pushback from fellow Democrats today as he begins the job of selling his agreement with congressional Republicans to temporarily sustain all the Bush-era tax cuts



[/size]Biden Meeting
[/size]Vice President Joe Biden is being dispatched to the Senate Democratic Caucus lunch this afternoon to lobby lawmakers.In addition to preserving the status quo on Bush policies, the proposal creates more than $300 billion in new tax cuts for wage-earners, wealthy families and corporations.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-06/payroll-tax-holiday-on-the-table-as-negotiators-debate-bush-rate-extension.html[/font]
[/font]

[wbcoleman]

...except that Dems did NOT embrace the Dubya tax cuts.  The Dems that voted for it the first time around, the Blue Dogs, have been replaced, and the red dogs in the Senate insisted on a 60% majority by a joke of what they call a filibuster. Where the Dems dropped the ball is in their failure to invoke their version of the Republican "nuclear option" on filibusters.

I still wouldn't call that an embrace.

In 2009-2010 they had a free hand to enact whatever tax rates they liked.  What they decided to do was extend the existing rates for two years.

Not true. They didn't have a sufficient majority in the Senate, like I said. FAIL

Really?  How many votes did he need in the Senate TO ALTER INCOME TAX RATES, eh?

[wbcoleman]

...except that Dems did NOT embrace the Dubya tax cuts.  The Dems that voted for it the first time around, the Blue Dogs, have been replaced, and the red dogs in the Senate insisted on a 60% majority by a joke of what they call a filibuster. Where the Dems dropped the ball is in their failure to invoke their version of the Republican "nuclear option" on filibusters.

I still wouldn't call that an embrace.

In 2009-2010 they had a free hand to enact whatever tax rates they liked.  What they decided to do was extend the existing rates for two years.

Not true. They didn't have a sufficient majority in the Senate, like I said. FAIL

They somehow managed to take over the healthcare system without any Republican help.

Because Obamacare was Romneycare, there was no threat of filibuster.  Using the position of you guys' side, Republicans embraced it.

Wow, you really seem to have a high regard for your ability to rewrite history by assertion.  There WAS a filibuster.  Dingy Harry required all sixty of his votes to overcome it.  That vote is the reason that Ben Nelson is retiring from the Senate.