"According to Bachus, that means Republicans aren't really in charge in Washington. "You can wipe that thought from your mind," he said. "Democrats are in control of the presidency and the Senate. It would take 67 votes to override any veto.""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/201...l-of-the-senate

Really, I don't care. Time for this partisan bickering to end. Many folks are like me, they vote for the best person, and seldom vote the party line on anything. I voted about 60/40, as I usually do. Sometimes D's are the majority, other times R's.

Time to move forward and fix the country instead of bitching and pointing fingers.

Yup DF you hit it. Second is one D ( West Virgina ) and the Blue Dogs have said nope no more. The D's have give or take 6 votes less than the number on paper and blindly following Harry the Pied Piper is all done. On the R side same way. Rand Paul and others aren't going no place and the stupid idea, we won you loose, factor will not rule. Two Senators are independents and the D's have a whole bunch of seats up in the next election and the R's a few which has a lot to do with what happens also.

It is interesting though that hard core Libs & Conservatives don't seem to get it. Last time we did not vote a blank check to the Lib D's but rather threw the bum R's out. Well the D's did not get the picture and went nuts sooooooooooo, we threw the D bums out but that does not mean we endorse the hard right R BS.

Question is will both sides get the message that the 50% of the country that does buy either sides bs will throw them out again if the make a mess out of things.

R's have already said they will not budge. Not even sworn in yet.

Again, more finger pointing. I don't care who is pointing fingers, politicians, fishermen, bankers, or anybody. Stop it. Blamestorming will get us nowhere. If you are pointing fingers, saying "Look what they did or won't do!" you are part of the problem as much as the politicians are.

So much divisiveness. It isn't good.

novel idea Andy, I'm liken you more and more and more. Just wish someone other than the common joe could figure that [censored] out.

Power corrupts and money doesn't have a conscience. Combined they make for decisions that only be understood by following the money.

Until campaign reform rules are in place to remove money from the process, we are going to get what we have now.
Candidates saying what ever is nessessary to convince voters, then when elected they serve the interrsts that paid them.

Amen!

"Until campaign reform rules are in place to remove money from the process, we are going to get what we have now."

That will require a constitutional amendment that eqauls a complete rewrite of the 1st amendment. It simply will not happen.

Freespool, you and Dave are delusional if you think that will make ANY difference. Even if all campaigns were self funded by those running, the winner will still pander to those who shower them with borderline legal vacations, sweetheart deals, and the promise of well paying lobbying jobs after they are out of office.

So we've never amended our Constitution?
Who's really against campaign reform?
Is it bipartisan, or does follow a particular parties believes?

Are you really that stupid?
I suggest doing some research into what campagin reform legislation is being considered.

"So we've never amended our Constitution?
"

That is not at issue what is at issue is are we willing to limit free speech and what case law precedent do we have to make the argument for that limit? Zero zip nada or less.

If buying an election, or a politician is considered free speech, then by all means amend the Consitution.

Freespool, only you are stupid enough to believe that gutting our constitution because YOU don't like it, will help. Quit pretending your intelligent, my dogs chit is smarter than you.

I have often wondered that myself AM. Find one jacka$$ to argue it and five other jacka$$es to buy it and you have law straight from the bench. Way to go SCOTUS......your number one!

There are already laws on the books limiting what we consider free speech: hate speech, yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, etc. There are also currently laws on the books limiting how much one may give to an individual candidate. The precendence is already there, it's the ethics that are missing.

AM, so if I want to donate 1k to Susan G Koman ( aside from the CEO making 500k+ a year in salary, and the foundation giving money to planned parenthood when it's well documented that having an abortion increases chances of breast cancer) I don't have the right as either freedom of speech or freedom of expression yo do so? I don't see that as an extreme stance. Don't we exercise our point of view with our pocket books all the time? I don't buy Levis because they are anti 2nd amendment, maybe you don't shop at Walmart because you feel it hurts small business. Why should we be prohibited from exercising our free speech or expression with money?