Yes, Dems Really Did Have A Super-Majority

[bedowin62]

iT WASN'T FOR A LONG PERIOD; BUT IT DID EXIST::

What this shows is is that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:

• From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
• From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
• For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux

• 
  BUT IT DOESNT MATTER ANYWAY!!

• 
  Because what makes your PATHETIC liberal excuse-making laughable when you complain your majority of both chambers of Congress for all of obama's first two years "wasnt big enough" is that you are the same idiots who INSIST the Republican MINORITY OF BOTH CHAMBERS was able to "obstruct Obama from Day One". AND from "DAY ONE" in JANUARY OF 2007 when Dems took both chambers of Congress their majority was BIGGER than anything Bush had with his own Party for his whole previous time in office.

• 
  THAT MEANS ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN LOGIC:

• 
  1. you're guilty of collusion or not doing anything about the "destructive Bush policies" because, again, you claim even a MINORITY IN BOTH chambers can "obstruct" a President AND

• 
  2. you're guilty of not doing any of the things you whine about on a daily basis on these message board; such as CORPORATE SUBSIDIES. AND...

• 
  3. you look silly whining your majority, no matter if it was a super-majority or not, was helpless, while at the same time crying that the Republican minority was so powerful it left you helpless