Why don't you just move to Alabama, then you will have an entire congressional delegation that votes like Garrett?
Oh, and as a bonus you will be allowed to marry your sister.

he likes the fact that garrett takes our tax money and gives it to his red state buddies in the midwest....look at what Kentucky, Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska get from the feds, we pay for that... he also likes the fact that garrett scams the tax system and gets tax breaks from being a farmer even though he (or his brother) sell about $500 a year in Chjristmas trees... and he just admires him even more for votng against aid for 9/11 responders.... yeah, there's many things to admire about farmer Scott...

That quite a charge from the reliable source of ????, ah right - Diggler.

Can you show me any evidence you have that Mr. Gussen is involved in any corruption? Please be specific. As for the primary - he won, get over it.

David V.: The moment I most look forward to is when you realize what kind of devastation the Ayn Randoid paradise that your right-wing heroes plan to implement is going to mean for your family.

Hahaha...I have an advanced degree and a stable job at which I excel and make a very good salary. I do, however, have a heart and I believe that "I Got Mine And Eff You" is no way to spend the short time we have here on earth. Obviously you disagree. So would Jesus. After all, he was not exactly a hedge fund manager.

I can neither deny nor verify that family net worth is down 40%. I certainly wouldn't deny it out of hand. But there are two main reasons why most of us are not better off now than we were 6 years ago, and if better than 3-1/2 years ago, only slightly so.

1. George W. Bush, who drove the country off a cliff, causing what is almost universally called the worst recession since the Great Depression, and which a few others are willing to call a flat-out depression itself.

2. Hate-filled, hyper-partisan, party-over-country Republicans, who made sabotaging the Obama presidency their #1 and only priority, and who cynically calculated that the way to bring Obama down was to keep America from getting up. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell put it, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

For 3-1/2 years they've focused on that goal at the expense of the American people. I don't know what else to call it besides treason.

Jeff, I don't quarrel with your statement - but I'd like to ADD to it by saying that although Candidate Obama promised he wouldn't let the perfect become the enemy of the good - President Obama has done so many times over.

Case in point - they had plenty of opportunities to pass legislation by simple majorities and instead chose to go the "supermajority" route (which they knew would fail). The reason was because they couldn't stomach the amendments that the "get nothing done republicans you mention" wanted to tack onto those bills.

And I understand the sentiment. But in the 9/11 responders case for example, they could have:
a) passed the bill with a simple majority and an amendment (courtesy of republicans) that no money would go to illegal aliens
b) go the supermajority (cloture) vote in which they didn't have the votes.

They go "B" and then claim it's the Republicans that are holding up aid to 9/11 responders.

They are right, but it's half the story. The Dems could have gotten a lot more done had they been willing to try for the "Rest" later.

I think the Dems and Obama did try to compromise, Keith, but every time they did the party-over-country crowd moved the goal posts.

Again - you're not wrong. But with a majority in both houses (for the first two years) and the White House, they could have just done whatever they wanted.......

To not get anything done BECAUSE you want to compromise is equally frustrating to the people they represent.

Their Senate majority was NEVER (or hardly ever) truly filibuster-proof. Byrd and Kennedy were out sick most of the time, Minnesota was tied up in a recount, and Scott Brown replaced Kennedy after a year.

Of course, the filibuster was never intended to be standard operating procedure, but unfortunately that's what it's become.

Again, correct- but not the whole story.

They didn't HAVE to be veto-proof, they had the White House. They could have passed votes 51-49 (they certainly always had 51). The lie that they needed 60 in order to pass anything is patently untrue.

While you're correct that they were using the filibuster - the dems had the opportunity to call out the Republicans on that as well.

The filibuster (as WE learned it in school) was a parliamentarian standing up and talking until the session closed in order to delay a vote. In practice today, they just say the word "filibuster" and the other side gives up on the vote.

The Democrats COULD have demanded that if the Republicans truly wanted to filibuster, they had to actually put a human being up there to read something for 20 hours until the session was over. THAT would have made for a compelling spot on the news and labelled them as obstructionist (with a terrific visual).

So because the Dems were complicit in this filibuster non-sense, I say that you are again, only giving PART of the story.