Thomas Roberts is as dumb as Chris Matthews

View Comments (33)

• All of these Lame Stream Media types are spewing nothing more then Propaganda for the DNC. They are all liberals, were hired because they are liberals, and will bleat the same bullshit until their ratings drop to the point that their sponsors drop their asses.

• The problem with any story proclaiming anyone at MSNBC as being the dumbest person there is that they all try to top each other. MSNBC is basically intellectually bankrupt, & their deeper in the red then our gov't. But they should be proud, they have done it as a collective, & in that, they can be proud.

  • You might've seen public option in a healthcare bill, Amnesty or some kind of immigration reform, Cap-and-Trade, and the Bush taxcuts EOL'd.. Gods only know what else. Definitely a significant potential difference arising out of 2-years-in-power argument

• I dunno, I think he's right. I wouldn't enjoy a 2-year Democrat majority either. They're the most insufferable buncha boobs that ever stuffed a ballot box.

• Scott Brown isn't exactly the most conservative Republican and Lieberman is still pretty liberal, so I'm not sure the Dems' argument is very strong. Obama had up to at least a year and I would say closer to two to do basically anything he wanted. But he didn't want to do those things because he knows they would be politically unpopular and he also wants to demagogue the things he says the Republicans prevent him from doing.

• The logic rests on filibuster. Without having sufficient numbers to defeat filibuster, a party cannot control the Senate. With Scott Brown winning Ted Kennedy's seat, and Lieberman's unpredictable caucusing, it is commonly thought that Dems did not have a full 2 years of Senate control.. I think Al Franken's delayed entry factors in

  That being said, i can't even see the clip at work.. but i've heard this position stated many times before.

  • The Senate was filibuster proof for 9 months, if I recall correctly. Given how Obamacare was deemed passed and reconciliation was used to ram it through, the loss of a filibuster proof Senate did not stop that legislation.

    • How do you get 9 months? Franken took a while to cheat his way into office, but meanwhile VP Biden was there to break ties, and the Democrats cheated their way to a pliable replacement for Kennedy, and milquetoasts like Snow, Collins, Murkowksi, and Lugar were constantly voting with the Democrats anyway, so WTF?

      Anyway, control of Congress means having a majority in each house, not having a super majority. The Dems don't get to redefine words whenever their real meaning is inconvenient. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were running Congress with all the integrity and ethical ambiguity one would expect from such people, and they essentially got everything they wanted for four years - two before Obama became president and two after.

      • I can't argue about the 9 month value w/o research.. but I find its valid to debate the meaning of control when you are talking about the super majorities necessary to move legislation. Republicans didn't threaten record numbers of filibusters because its ineffective strategy. In fact, you should applaud them (as others do here) for stopping the full Dem agenda. It does not pass muster to state that Dems got everything they wanted those four years (you'd be looking at $2.5T Stimulus, for example)

        The game has rules and players who exploit them, and always will. There is control as defined and there is de facto control

        • "I find its valid to debate the meaning of control when you are talking about the super majorities necessary to move legislation."

          Super majorities are not necessary to move legislation. That's a myth. Filibustering is a procedural maneuver with limited tactical use. Doesn't work at all for budgetary items. Any bill can be passed with a bare majority that's all it takes. Look at Obamacare - Scott Brown was in office by the time it passed. The filibuster was used more by Harry Reid to make excuses for lack of accomplishment than by Republicans to stop anything. Can you name one piece of legislation that was stopped by the lack of 60 votes between Obama's coronation and Al Franken taking his stolen seat? As I already mentioned, there were two or three RINO senators giving Reid their votes just about anytime he wanted them, so what the hell are we talking about?

        • I understand that budgets must go through reconciliation and only require simple majority.. otherwise the only one that i recall off the top of my head, in that timeframe (early 2009), was Paycheck Fairness Act (right after the Lily Ledbetter).. I'm reminded of it because they tried again a couple months back and it got filibuster'd again. I can't recall any others without research, and i gotta drive home now

        • According to Wikipedia: "The United States Senate failed to move the bill forward in November 2010."

          So that's well past the time frame. And a lame example besides. Nobody believes in that glass ceiling crap anymore, not even Democrats.

          And it's not just budgets that need a simple majority - ALL bills need a simple majority. The only time 60 votes are needed is when somebody attempts the filibuster maneuver, which happens far less often than whiny Harry Reid and whiny Obama make out. C'mon, Obama is a loser when it comes to legislation. His own party looks at his budget proposals and laughs.

        • Apologies for lame example, but there's no way i'll find a dem bill that you like.. I won't try. We're discussing the utility of filibuster, not the merit of bills. The House got to the bill early 2009, and Senate meandered, which is usually how it goes.

          In fact, there's no explicit filibuster maneuver available to the Senate. What we have are incredibly lax rules about Senate debate and ammendment, with only the cloture maneuver available to end debate. Successful cloture caps remaining debate at 30 hours. So filibuster is just a short-hand for the bag of delaying tricks available to Senators, stoppable only by the 3/5ths supermajority of a cloture vote (with exception of budget reconciliation overrides, as discussed, etc..)

          When you say ALL bills need a simple majority, I can only surmise you are talking about the final vote. But if a bill is seriously opposed by the minority party, it will first have to surmount TWO potential cloture votes: 1) to be brought into consideration for debate on the floor, and 2) to receive an actual up-or-down vote (the simple majority). Bills will simply languish, never brought into consideration, if the leadership cannot see a viable count.

          Proper analysis of such a system would take into consideration all potential bottlenecks. Legislation proceeds through the Senate at a particular speed, with eventual output being dominated by a known set of limiting factors. Minority parties know they can slow these things down. My old Senator (Kyl) talked precisely about the ways Republican Senators would gum up the progress of Obamacare. I haven't even talked about quorums and questions and roll calls, each of which runs down the clock on Senatorial matters.

          In terms of cloture votes requested, Harry Reid has presided over the top two record-breaking sessions of the Senate. This is what you want. This is what McConnell promised. Up-or-down votes are losers for the minority, so obviously forcing cloture votes after delays is the way to go.

          Expect Dems to do the same, when the tides are reversed

        • "Apologies for lame example, but there’s no way i’ll find a dem bill that you like.. I won’t try."

          Well, clearly a bill that never received a vote until late 2010 doesn't qualify as being stopped by a lack of 60 votes in early 2009. 'Nuf said.
          I think you are still accepting Harry Reid's excuse for why nothing is being accomplished in the senate. It's easy for him to say it's the 60-vote requirement because people like you will blindly accept it. In fact, the rules have been the same for a long long time and other majority leaders have managed to pass budgets (which don't even need 60 votes) and get other stuff done. Harry hasn't passed a LEGALLY REQUIRED budget in how many years now? All Harry has managed to do is pass gigantuan spending bills that threaten to bankrupt the nation and pass Obamacare which threatens to ruin the health care system. In other words, he and Obama got done what they really wanted to get done, and as for the rest they make excuses hoping the gullible accept them.

        • Grayson was a bag of histrionics fully subscribed to the myth of endemic Republican heartlessness. He and his fans don't contribute usefully to policy debate

        • I still think we should bring back duelling to settle congressional disputes.

          Perlcat, we need to do this fast, Alan Grayson, the nutjob from Orlando is running for congress again!

          Remember "Die Quickly"?

        • "Dems used to complain about Republicans locking them out of rooms and turning off their lights, before 2007."

          True, but out of context, tell the whole story and it doesn't fit.

        • lol my mantra is my own

          1) not bragging, just counting http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/111.htm

          2) I never said filibuster was a bad thing.

          2a) In fact, I said you should applaud Republicans for slowing down the agenda. I even went all Tyrion Lannister on you and said wear it like armor. Again, compare what the House produced in the same period of time via easy up-down votes. Imagine the shitstorm if the Senate passed them all and shoveled to Obama's desk for signature

          3) The article you gave is about 112th, not 111th, and Harry Reid has less real power now. Of course its damning, this is the least popular congress in recent memory.

          When you're piloting an aircraft, but some other dude has his hands on the throttle, are you really in full control? OK, Senates don't crash, but they can grind to a halt. Whether by full design or some accident, this is how the beast works (extra-Constitutionally, even). You will see fortunes and complaints reverse when Republicans flip the Senate (at least it still seems mostly likely to occur, though it might be getting tight).. Dems used to complain about Republicans locking them out of rooms and turning off their lights, before 2007.

        • Alien, when you brag about Harry Reid presiding over record braking sessions, you're blindly accepting the liberal mantra. That's what I meant by blindly accepting. He's been the most dismal failure as a majority leader of anybody in my lifetime. Take a look at what the Secretary of the Senate says: http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/493996
          Filibuster threats are not a bad thing, IMHO. They prevent crap from becoming law. The House relies on the fact that the Senate will not allow the crap they pass to become law. The reason Harry is stymied is because he's easily the most partisan leader I've ever seen, adamently refusing to let Republicans have any input into healthcare legislation, for instance. That kiond of attitude is not going to fly in the Senate.

        • Well, fisticuffs is nice, but I prefer the headcount reduction. Eventually, the position of senator will have enough risks against it that they will only take it on if they can benefit future generations.

        • The dueling idea is intriguing. Not sure what it's called, but would love to see an American version of the almost fisticuff rows the Brits have in the House of Commons.

        • lol awesome..

          could you imagine the juiced up monsters we'd have up on the Hill if it were that easy?

        • I still think we should bring back duelling to settle congressional disputes. We'd achieve a 50% reduction in stupidity in Congress by definition.

          I don't think there are any innocents in Congress. A filibuster is a veto by a minority -- and in a more perfect world, an admission that the bill is unsatisfactory to the point where somebody has to stop it by whatever means necessary. The problem is that it's all now a show for the public in general.

        • I don't know about blindly accepting anything. I began the thread with a re-statement of the position, and I'm just trying to analyze the debate points. I don't buy into the idea that everyone who doesn't agree is simply stupid, or gullable. Does it actually work for you? Can you bring someone around to a position by first observing their perceived stupidity? I would bet people like me have turned more progressive girls onto guns in the 90s then you have turned political opponents by that strategy. I confess one process is far far easier then the other (and...hotter)

          As for 'Nuff said, I see what you did there. My concession about the lameness of my example was scoped around the poor merits of the bill itself--in your view, as you charged--which is irrelevant to this discussion. You then took it as my concession on the overall point of filibustering. Whether you did that intentionally or unknowingly, it is misapprehension.

          To filibuster is to throttle. The output of Senatorial mechanisms can be measured. The Senate, composed of politicians and staff, can only bear a finite quantity of business. Priorities dominate the sequence of bills brought into consideration. Throttling this business is now the expected strategy of the minority. If Senator McConnell permitted every bill to quickly receive an Up-or-Down vote, you'd have a nightmare on your hands. You should be applauding him. You only need to look at what the House passed in that timeframe, under Pelosi. Wear the charge of obstructionism like armor.

          As for my example: Hillary Clinton introduced the bill (S.182) to the Senate 2 days after the House version(H.R.12), on January 8, 2009. That it languished in legislative hell for so long only lends credence to the observation that the Republican minority was throttling the works. Her 40 or so co-sponsors certainly wanted to vote on it. In the meantime, Reid had to call for something like 120 cloture votes from Jan09-Nov10. Each successful cloture vote caps remaining debate on a matter to 30 hours. Even if they were all successful, that's 3600 hours of clock to be run down, potentially. And that doesn't count the time taken up before cloture votes. S.182 died in committee, because of omnipresent filibuster threat, and there simply isn't time for every bill.

          Debating over Reid and Dems' priorities, in the selection of bills to queue up for consideration, is a whole other thing. But Senate games are never simple, notwithstanding wikipedia's suggestion otherwise. I found this to be pretty illuminating: http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E%2C*PLW%3D%22P%20%20

    • Procedural trickery employed by both parties, and we shall not see the end of it soon.. Nowadays i'm wondering what trick was used to block the latest Veterans jobs/re-training bill in the Senate. I haven't seen it mentioned here but perhaps someone can explain the rationale for opposition

• They're probably high on all that medicinal marijuana.

• I find it hard to believe ANYONE is a dumb as Chrissy Matthews, except for perhaps:
  Pelosi
  Reed
  BOTH Obummas
  Holder
  MOST of Hollywood
  the MSM
  and this guy.
  I am giving our resident troll the benefit of the doubt though.

• How do you get a horse's ass to talk?
  Give him a job at MSNBC.

  • And the only "talk" that comes out of a horse's hiney is flatulence.

• These guys aren't Einsteins but they're not dumb, they know exactly what they're saying---MSNBC part of the state run media. Matthews and company have whored themselves out for Obama and the Democrats, they're lying for a "higher good"---the relection of The One.

  • In many cases I'm sure you're right, but this time I think Roberts is just stupid. Listen to him. He's practically lecturing about how the claim that Obama had two years of Democrat-controlled Congress is factually incorrect. It makes me squirm in my seat it's so embarrassing.

    • That kind of stupidity is natural, no pills could accomplish that.

    • Don't cha just love it when they get all technical and stuff. "According to the calendar"...yeah yeah, so Bush was still in office for the first 2 weeks and 3 days of the 111th congress. Close enough for horseshoes.