Jon Stewart: Say, didn’t Bush get bills passed with fewer Senate votes?
posted at 3:55 pm on January 19, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Stewart does a masterful job in wringing laughs out of liberal disaster through this entire clip, so watch the whole thing and enjoy. The most incisive point comes at about the seven-minute mark, when Stewart questions why the Obama agenda dies when Democrats go from 60 to 59 votes in the Senate. Stewart notes that the man castigated by the Left as a chimp and an idiot, Barack Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush somehow managed to get his agenda through Congress with fewer votes:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Mass Backwards | ||||
|
||||
And the reason it will die … [pauses for effect] … Let’s continue … The reason it will die is because if Coakley loses, Democrats will only then have an eighteen-vote majority in the Senate. Which is more than George W. Bush ever had in the Senate, when he did whatever the f*** he wanted to do! [Applause] In fact, the Democrats have a greater majority than the Republicans have had since 1923! But for Democrats, apparently a majority of 100 is … sixty.
So why do Democrats need 60 votes? Democrats will claim it’s because the Republicans are more obstructionist than Democrats were under Bush, but that’s not the case. Democrats were happy to be obstructionist on their core issues, especially on judicial appointments. They didn’t need to be obstructionist on most other issues, because Bush was a lot more centrist than they liked to paint him. Bush went out of his way to court Democrats like Ted Kennedy on education and others on spending and government expansion, because Democrats like those policies.
Democrats had the same option, which was to work with Republicans and craft more centrist approaches to issues like health-care reform and carbon emissions. Instead, they chose a radical agenda, which has not only pushed Republicans into obstructionism but has alienated voters to such an extent that Massachusetts looks ready to elect its first Republican Senator in almost 40 years. That’s not the fault of Republicans — it’s the fault of overreaching Democrats.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Yea, baby.
Punditpawn on January 19, 2010 at 3:57 PM
This vid is a laugh riot. It really spells out the dems belated angst over their own folly. Maybe there is such a thing as poetic justice after all.
Geochelone on January 19, 2010 at 3:58 PM
Trafalgar, Waterloo and Stalingrad all mixed into one schadenfreudelicious package.
Holger on January 19, 2010 at 3:59 PM
And yet he is one of them. Go figure. Clearly means power is what it is all about for Dems, not actual legislating.
txmomof6 on January 19, 2010 at 3:59 PM
Hopenchange RIP
miles on January 19, 2010 at 3:59 PM
Jon Stewart is the smartest stupid guy I know.
Dominion on January 19, 2010 at 3:59 PM
I said this before. He’s the only President in history that needs a super majority to get anything passed. That should send up red flags to any normal person – not this President.
Normal administrations don’t need to talk about getting rid of the filibuster because normal administrations work with the other side and craft legislation that Americans usually want.
gophergirl on January 19, 2010 at 3:59 PM
because Bush went RINO. Compassionate conservatism my fanny.
John the Libertarian on January 19, 2010 at 4:00 PM
Good point…makes you think as to why these Liberal Dems went along with a lot of the Bush programs. Makes me wonder how progressive GW really was?
The jury is still out on the Patriot Act (sans sunshine provisions). It is something that can be easily misused by any president or an array of faceless bureaucrats.
Dr. ZhivBlago on January 19, 2010 at 4:00 PM
It is the Transparity this Administration talks about –it’s true — We can see right thru them…
wheels on January 19, 2010 at 4:00 PM
Yes, Jon, but they were bills designed to STRENGTHEN the country and foster PROSPERITY. Those kind of bills tend to be popular with voters, while bills that ensure continued economic disaster, double-digit unemployment, higher taxes, and a promise to destroy the WORLD’S GREATEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM tend to be unpopular. See how that works? It’s the policy, stupid.
Rational Thought on January 19, 2010 at 4:01 PM
Here’s something that I have not seen much discussion about. Remember when we were talking about the “nuclear option” regarding judicial nominees (i.e., getting rid of the filibuster)? What is to stop the dems from simply betting rid of the filibuster altogether and pass their radical agenda?
Monkeytoe on January 19, 2010 at 4:02 PM
Obama will ask for a race-normed super-majority.
How about we go back to the days where they needed 66 votes to break a filibuster.
pedestrian on January 19, 2010 at 4:02 PM
Jon, the Democrats have 60 votes because enough of them had to sell themselves as conservatives in Democrat clothing. The real humor in this situation is that you think it’s possible to maintain that illusion and pass this throwback to Soviet-style socialism.
spmat on January 19, 2010 at 4:02 PM
Own it, ya dirty bastards!
ladyingray on January 19, 2010 at 4:02 PM
Maybe Bush is not such a dummie after all.
Terrye on January 19, 2010 at 4:02 PM
um, the filibuster?
patriette on January 19, 2010 at 4:03 PM
Stewart may say this.. but we the people are tired of the BS.
upinak on January 19, 2010 at 4:03 PM
Hey, ya think it might have to do with what’s in the bill, not who controls the Houses of Congress?
Dusty on January 19, 2010 at 4:04 PM
Totally enjoyed this!!!! And trust me…I’m no Stewart Fan!
IrishGirl17 on January 19, 2010 at 4:04 PM
As I recall they need 60 votes to do that, and for the judicial appointments there were some Democrats who were about ready to help Republicans in doing that.
pedestrian on January 19, 2010 at 4:04 PM
“You called down the thunder. You tell them I’m coming, and hell is coming with me!”
Probably not exact. (Tombstone)
GnuBreed on January 19, 2010 at 4:04 PM
stewart, you magnificent bastard. Bush did pass things, because they appeared far more sound.
saiga on January 19, 2010 at 4:05 PM
Even moreso… The democrats voted for Iraq, the Patriot Act, the tax cuts (for the rich), and everything else they claimed they were against.
When the Dems say they are against something, it just means they are playing politics.
jeffn21 on January 19, 2010 at 4:05 PM
Didn’t the Bush administration pass bills less than 2,500 pages?
Daggett on January 19, 2010 at 4:06 PM
The Dems knuckle dragged everything while we were fighting in Iraq. They gleamed with pride over how they creating problems like getting logistical support to troops on the ground. The chickens have come home to roost.
Hening on January 19, 2010 at 4:08 PM
that was freakin’ hilarious!
Biffstir on January 19, 2010 at 4:08 PM
Stewart is still trying to make up for getting owned by John Yoo last week, for which he had to apologize to the left for……seriously
jp on January 19, 2010 at 4:09 PM
how many Bush bills were to take over a large portion of the National Economy?
jp on January 19, 2010 at 4:09 PM
Bawney Frank, a Representative, has the never to opine about changing Senate rules and trashes decisions made by members of Congress from “smaller states.” Has he never heard of the role that representation plays in preventing the tyranny of the majority?
Listen to him erupt over a “stupid way to legislate”?
http://www.breitbart.tv/barney-frank-god-didnt-create-the-filibuster/
Frank needs to go. He is corrupt and too powerful to be determining so much of our economy.
onlineanalyst on January 19, 2010 at 4:09 PM
Boston Globe calls it for Coakley 50-49.
http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2010/01/19/boston-globe-calls-election-for-martha-coakley.aspx
ok conspiracy theorists…have at it.
DrW on January 19, 2010 at 4:11 PM
“I need my inhaler.”
ROFL
rollthedice on January 19, 2010 at 4:11 PM
+1 Well said, gopher.
KeepOhioRed on January 19, 2010 at 4:12 PM
OK, I suffered through this self-absorbed know-it-all for the entire clip, for the first time ever .
It is very clear that the object of this “show” is solely to offer mutual self-congratulations among all the know it alls tuning in that they are indeed, the Smartest People On Earth.
Barf …..
Filecchio on January 19, 2010 at 4:12 PM
money quote:
“It’s not that the Republicans are playing chess and the Democrats are playing checkers. The Republicans are playing chess and the Democrats are in the nurse’s office with their balls glued to their leg.”
MechEng5by5 on January 19, 2010 at 4:13 PM
It sure is… When Coakley’s advisors spend half a memo on a topic “Brown Capitalized on Concerns About National Democrats”, I think the vision is quite clear.
unclesmrgol on January 19, 2010 at 4:13 PM
Bush didn’t have to contend with Pelosi, and Reid up til his last 2 years of office, and he, unlike Obama, didn’t just hand the reins over to these 2 nitwits, to do as they pleased, and would sign off anything, and everything they threw in his direction.
capejasmine on January 19, 2010 at 4:13 PM
Most of Bush’s major legislative victories passed with significant Democratic support. For better or worse, Bush really was bipartisan — unlike the hyperpartisan Obama, who counts it a major victory if his latest leftwing lunacy is not quite so ultraradical that it will attract just ONE Republican vote. Bush’s agenda was far, far less radical than Obama’s, and the whole nation is beginning to recognize the fact.
jwolf on January 19, 2010 at 4:13 PM
the cookie is gettin’ his crumble on
blatantblue on January 19, 2010 at 4:13 PM
More truck-mocking. And making fun of the guy who’s overcoming the Kennedy legacy for a youthful indiscration is pretty ironic.
His point about Massachusetts being in a unique situation, with their own progressive health care plan already in place. And he points out the Massachusetts rule change on special elections.
Overall, he covered this better, and more succinctly, than any network has.
hawksruleva on January 19, 2010 at 4:13 PM
This must be killing Stewart… great clip though.
davek70 on January 19, 2010 at 4:14 PM
OT: I saw a clip of a funny Colbert skip. He suggested that Massachusetts voters don’t favor Democrats–they favor Handsomecrats–flashing pictures of the Kennedy men, Romney, and now Brown.
BuckeyeSam on January 19, 2010 at 4:15 PM
It’s because the GOP is a progressive party.
Prepare to be disappointed by today’s results.
True_King on January 19, 2010 at 4:17 PM
The dems didnt have to oppose W because they were dictating the agenda anyway.
Duh.
Labamigo on January 19, 2010 at 4:18 PM
Bush’s legislation was, mostly, Constitutional. The un-Constitutional bills that Bush supported and pushed had widespread Dem support and some Republican opposition. But, Dems focus on tax cuts (totally Constitutional and smart, too) and defense (totally Constitutional and necessary – though not done optimally, for lefty PC reasons), but they were within the actual tasks of the federal government while the dems are annoyed that there is opposition to their historically wasteful and historically un-Constitutional and un-American bills. It would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.
neurosculptor on January 19, 2010 at 4:19 PM
Not a Stewart fan most of the time, but that was pretty funny at times.
Bishop on January 19, 2010 at 4:19 PM
I can’t click on it, no matter how delicious. I went through 4 years of college with Jon Stewart as the preordained spokesperson for my generation and I dry-heaved at the assumption every single time. Even when he makes a good point, I just can’t bring myself to voluntarily watch him.
I think I don’t like him just because he’s so mystifyingly popular with so many of my generation. I just don’t get it.
simon on January 19, 2010 at 4:20 PM
Most of them realize that should they do that, their hard fought healthcare CF will be repealed as soon as 51 Rep/Ind Senators are elected.
Nathan_OH on January 19, 2010 at 4:20 PM
Is it true that Mike Meyers used Teddy as the basis of his character “Fat Bastard”?
mojo on January 19, 2010 at 4:21 PM
great he had David Walker on, profiteer on economic fear based on Single Entry book-keeping.
though Obama has made his doomsday message more likely scenariou now, possibly under accredited Double Entry Book-keeping standards now.
jp on January 19, 2010 at 4:21 PM
John Leibowitz is a blubbering idiot.. Surely his village misses him..
Zippy_Slug on January 19, 2010 at 4:21 PM
Stewart’s funny. This was particularly good.
Abby Adams on January 19, 2010 at 4:21 PM
Why, yes, he did. Bush was a leader. He knew how to work with people.
BetseyRoss on January 19, 2010 at 4:21 PM
B+ needs 60 just to get him over the short bar on the playground. He musta rode the short bus to school back in the day also.
ted c on January 19, 2010 at 4:22 PM
Beginning to have a bit of respect for Stewart(just a bit) the more he’s actually lampooning these guys, with some actual vigor.
MadisonConservative on January 19, 2010 at 4:22 PM
Where are all the comments from those HA posters that lean left?
Cue the sound of crickets chirping
mctowler on January 19, 2010 at 4:23 PM
Durbin talking reconciliation now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/19/senate-democrat-outlines-nuclear-option-strategy-health-care/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528Text+-+Politics%2529
I have to laugh at this quote from Snowe. Man the Democrats must have really pissed her off. She ain’t budging.
“She told The New York Times that she had “no intention of ever working anything out,” calling it “a waste of time dealing with her.”
gophergirl on January 19, 2010 at 4:24 PM
But the 60-vote bar had been set in most Americans’ minds.
Even if the Dems managed to pass health care reform bill with less than 60-votes, it will be like ‘sneaky, stealing’ in voters’ mind.
Sir Napsalot on January 19, 2010 at 4:25 PM
I.I.R.C., the Republican’s position was that only a simple majority is needed for Judicial nominees, and the 60 vote hurdle was a new invention. Legislation is different from approving nominees.
Buy Danish on January 19, 2010 at 4:26 PM
You would think at this point in the game Jonny Boy would start going after celebrities or something like that. Making fun of the party he is a proud member of doesn’t make him noble it only makes him look stupid.
milwife88 on January 19, 2010 at 4:26 PM
It seems to me that Bush tried to do somethings like social secrurity reform and did not get exactly get a lot of support from the paleos when he needed it.
The GOP is not progressive, it is just not totally taken over by Paulbots and Buchananites.
Terrye on January 19, 2010 at 4:26 PM
You see, dems, when you run moderates in red districts just so you can get the gavels, the actual reps report to the voters, not to you. That might have slipped your mind.
Vashta.Nerada on January 19, 2010 at 4:28 PM
I love the applause he gets when he makes the point that Bush did not need a supermajority to get his work done. Implicit is that the Crat’s agenda is way off the charts.
paul1149 on January 19, 2010 at 4:28 PM
When Bush got things through Congress, he was leaning toward the left (except for the War) – e.g., Bush-Kennedy education bill instead of school vouchers. (And if we the people hadn’t stood against him, he would have signed Amnesty!) When Obama tries to get things through Congress, he is leaning away from the right toward outright socialism. Hello?
But what makes Stewart’s point more astounding is that Bush had a hostile press the entire time and Obama has “tinglers.”
Christian Conservative on January 19, 2010 at 4:30 PM
How many Bush bills were initiated by Dems in order to promote bipartisanship? W bent over backwards to stroke Ted Kennedy’s ego, much to the chagrin of conservatives.
The obviously partisan Stewart relies too heavily on smut and cussing to be even slightly humorous. His schtick fits well with the governing style of the Adolescent-in-Chief.
onlineanalyst on January 19, 2010 at 4:30 PM
This could usher in a new age of enlightenment when Democrats and Republicans will work together in a bipartisan manner in a spirit of comedy to advance the situation of all of the American people … Naay
J_Crater on January 19, 2010 at 4:33 PM
“When people are taken out of their depths they lose their heads, no matter how charming a bluff they may put up,” -F. Scott Fitzgerald.
Akzed on January 19, 2010 at 4:35 PM
To stop a filibuster you used to need 67 votes, because basically that is two-thirds which is what is required to override a veto. I believe Sen. Byrd is responsible for getting that changed to 60, as well as reconciliation for budget matters. Prior to lowering the threshold there was more bipartisan cooperation on legislation because otherwise nothing would get done. The attempted trampling of the minority by Reid et al once they got 60 votes, proves that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
txmomof6 on January 19, 2010 at 4:35 PM
+1
last 2 minutes are the best
cmsinaz on January 19, 2010 at 4:37 PM
Graduated 2006. I sympathize. Most of my classmates were (and to a great extent are) content to let Stewart to their thinking for them. If he said it, it’s gospel. Gag me.
Animator Girl on January 19, 2010 at 4:39 PM
I think it’s funny that the assumption is that the Republicans are running some superior game here.
This isn’t the culmination of superior strategy coming together. This is simply a perfect storm made up of a decent candidate on the GOP side, a horrible candidate on the Dem side and a populace that’s tired of a Dem agenda that’s so radical even the liberals don’t want it.
It is luck that we are this close to taking that seat. Well, luck and smart campaigning on Scott Brown’s front.
JadeNYU on January 19, 2010 at 4:39 PM
It’s time to restore the filibuster to the 2/3 or 67 votes level.
J_Crater on January 19, 2010 at 4:40 PM
GHW and GW Bush were both big government Republicans who had no problem chugging down the track to statism station. They look good compared to Obama because they kept the throttle back and didn’t rush at breakneck speed toward total fascist control. That and they were more hawkish on the defense of the US. What they taught me, after voting for the Bush’s four times total, is that big government Republicans will ultimately take us where Obama is taking us, only slower (McCain would have done the same). That is no longer an option for what is left of this republic.
SKYFOX on January 19, 2010 at 4:40 PM
Favorite cream pie – banana! LOL!
that was hilarious!
sarainitaly on January 19, 2010 at 4:42 PM
That clip was Schadenfreudelicious.
Chaz706 on January 19, 2010 at 4:43 PM
Excellent reminders.
When Congress decides to make decisions that affect a huge swath of the GDP, there had better be a huge majority in favor of the legislation. A two-thirds majority sounds reasonable.
onlineanalyst on January 19, 2010 at 4:46 PM
The stuff of legends.
uknowmorethanme on January 19, 2010 at 4:46 PM
Exactly. The GOP has BEEN in the nurse’s office. Dems just got there.
uknowmorethanme on January 19, 2010 at 4:48 PM
I was laughing so hard I had tears. Stewart nailed it. I always thought the Democrats are so ridiculous that they are comedy gold. Stewart has a gold mine.
RAH on January 19, 2010 at 4:48 PM
Bush did manage one tough sell: Combination idiot and evil genius. I always enjoyed (and still do!) listening to any Left pol or commentator say practically in the same breath that he is a borderline retard (“‘New-cu-lar’? ‘Nevahda’? What a moron!”) and that he’s diabolically clever (“He lied to us about WMD/the economy/et al (ad nauseum). He fooled us!”).
Hucklebuck on January 19, 2010 at 4:48 PM
Easily predictable a year ago. Or 18 months ago. Or 200 years ago. Leftists are children. The American versions especially so. This is what comes of a government of children.
rrpjr on January 19, 2010 at 4:51 PM
Natural and logical consequences of their behavior – unfortuantely they lack the brain cells to realize it…
huskerdiva on January 19, 2010 at 4:53 PM
K-Lo at NRO’s “The Corner” posts the following (emphasis mine):
onlineanalyst on January 19, 2010 at 4:55 PM
Sounds like she’s seen the light…..and heard the footsteps of the patriots voting for some REAL CHANGE!!!!!
huskerdiva on January 19, 2010 at 4:56 PM
Now, THAT was funny.
Alden Pyle on January 19, 2010 at 4:58 PM
Actually pretty funny.
rogersnowden on January 19, 2010 at 4:58 PM
Money quote (or there abouts): “Republicans are playing chess while the Democrats are in the nurses office because once again, they glued their balls to their thigh.”
This was awesome.
Torch on January 19, 2010 at 4:59 PM
The reduction from 2/3rd to 3/5ths majority required to end a filibuster occurred during Carter’s term, by the way. So the Dems’ wailing about doing away with the filibuster completely is not surprising given the similarities between the failures of Carter I and Carter II.
ya2daup on January 19, 2010 at 5:06 PM
People seem to have forgotten that the Democrats did this to themselves.
Back in the 70′s, Byrd and Co. changed the rules to allow dual-tracking of business so that the filibuster did not bring ALL Senate business to a halt as it did in the days of ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.’
Before this it was very costly int time and political capital to filibuster and it was also rather difficult. With the rule change, the cost and ease dropped and the number skyrocketed.
Surprise! People(including Senators) respond to incentives.
OBQuiet on January 19, 2010 at 5:06 PM
The reason why Obama needs 60 votes is because the American people are against everything he’s trying to do and passing this stuff hurts Dem candidates in Red districts. Bush had the majority of voters on his side when he was trying to get things done. But then he attempted to grant Amnesty to illegals and everything fell apart.
Zetterson on January 19, 2010 at 5:07 PM
Thanks for that analysis Ed.
notagool on January 19, 2010 at 5:09 PM
Ed.
There is no “centrist” approach to “carbon emissions”. You either believe (with a religious faith) that “carbon emissions” are a pollutant, or you don’t.
No concrete data exists to demonstrate causality, remember??? Whatever raw data did exist got flushed down the memory hole with ClimateGate.
Now if we want to address air pollution from known carcinogens that demonstrably harm the public health (carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, unburned hydrocarbons, fly ash, fluoride, sulfur, heavy metals, etc.), then we should continue to legislatively encourage improvements to scrubbing equipment on coal-fired power stations and investment in cleaner burning combustion technologies (e.g., natural gas fired power stations) and nuclear power. Oh, and toss the “green” folks just enough seed money to continue improving niche power generation methods such as wind, solar, waste gas reclamation, and biomass.
On automobile emissions control, the Left got its chance to test the theory that “removing the worst polluters via cash bounty from the Government” would work, and it failed miserably. Far better to incentivize automakers to make step improvements as has been done since 1973.
We absolutely need to not buy into the “carbon emissions” fallacy, or else we are inviting Government regulation for no discernable purpose other than to enlarge an already massively bloated beast.
/my two cents
Wanderlust on January 19, 2010 at 5:16 PM
Funny how nobody in the MSM commented on Obama’s fumbling of Abdulmutallab’s last name.
hawksruleva on January 19, 2010 at 5:18 PM
At least Ed Morrissey admits that Bush worked with the Left too much. That’s a start.
The Dean on January 19, 2010 at 5:22 PM
Clown nose off? Come on, guys. No one but 25 year old liberal douchebags and elementary school teachers take Stewart seriously.
Jaibones on January 19, 2010 at 5:26 PM
If you can laugh at yourself, Stewart is funny most of the time. At least he pokes the stick in both directions, granted our way most often.
Hog Wild on January 19, 2010 at 5:36 PM
CHOKE ON IT JON, CHOKE ON IT!!!!
GarandFan on January 19, 2010 at 5:42 PM
+100
YehuditTX on January 19, 2010 at 5:54 PM
W promised a “new tone” in DC and went above and beyond delivering on that commitment. Never held malice toward the lefty political opponent who savagely and personally vilified and devilized him relentlessly–one would have thought W were Al Qaida. Never really fought back, supposing, I guess, that he should stay above the mudslinging fray–of course his weenie GOP “allies” in Congress were averse to helping out. Never, most importantly, shied away from working across the aisle to craft legislation (even if it hurt him politically), which is why he was as effective as he was with an initially hostile senate. Obama has no idea how to work with fellow Democrats, let alone set an amicable tone with Republicans. Obama doesn’t even know what time it is!
ConScribe on January 19, 2010 at 6:00 PM
I’ve been saying this for years. The Left kept calling President Bush a complete moron, but he always seemed to outsmart the Democrats and get his agenda passed (except where he lost his base on issues like immigration).
29Victor on January 19, 2010 at 6:20 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »