New Yorker: "A Clear Violation of Obama's Promise"

[merrily]

173. You are more than welcome.

Last edited Sat Apr 26, 2014, 06:42 AM - Edit history (1)

I wasn't even going to look when I saw another reply on this thread, but I am so glad I did. Your post is a nice surprise.


Yeppers, no courts, no Republicans, no conservadems obstructing poor Obama's liberal desires, no voters (assuming that matters), no judicial branch for Obama to chastise for tying speech to money (which we know Obama hates because he said so about both Citizens United and net neutrality).

Just the Executive Branch. Well, the Executive Branch and the lobbyists who want to (further) tie internet speech to money.

Four years of solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, during the last two of which Democrats also held the White House. And, if almost nothing can be accomplished unless we also always have a filibuster proof majority of liberal Democrats, we are in for a long, long, long dry spell. (Rip Van Winkle giggles, "Compared to that, I did not even blink.&quot

Center right Democrats have as little use for liberals as they have for Republicans. Probably less, actually. So, fasten your seat belt.

Thanks again. Much appreciated.