Consistency: Obama budget fails to get a single Democratic vote … again

posted at 9:15 am on March 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

In early 2011, Barack Obama received a report from the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission he himself launched that outlined a series of significant cuts and new taxes that would have at least lowered the rate at which the country added to its debt.  Obama ignored the report completely and instead proposed a budget with nearly $1.5 trillion in deficit spending, with no serious attempts to cut spending.  It was so embarrassing that Republicans had to force the Democrat-controlled Senate in May 2011 to bring it up for a vote, where it failed unanimously, 0-97.

The more things change

Before taking up their own budget plan for next year, House Republicans pushed a version of President Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget to the floor for a vote, and it was it was unanimously defeated, 414-0.

Republicans have opposed Obama’s budget all year, criticizing its tax increases on the wealthy and saying it lacks sufficient spending cuts. …

GOP lawmakers forced the vote on Obama’s plan as a tactical move aiming at embarrassing Democrats. The Democrats have defended Obama’s budget priorities, but they largely voted “no” Wednesday night.

Republicans said Democrats were afraid to vote for Obama’s proposed tax increases and extra spending for energy and welfare. Democrats said Republicans had forced a vote on a version of Obama’s budget that contained only its numbers, not the policies he would use to achieve them.

That’s an interesting excuse.  Budgets are all about the numbers.  If the President wants to keep proposing massive deficits, increased spending, and higher taxes, those policies are the numbers. Democrats are just embarrassed that the numbers add up to old-school tax-and-spend policies, and that they didn’t have a chance to obfuscate by declaring that Republicans are engaging in a war on left-handed Basque women who use marshmallow Schnapps for medicinal purposes.

This is the second year in a row that Obama’s budget couldn’t win a single Democratic vote in Congress.  In parliamentary systems, that would be a vote of no confidence and the party would be looking for new leadership.  Perhaps it’s time for the country to do what Democrats won’t do for themselves and look for leadership who can produce rational numbers in budgets, or at least budgets that can win a vote from its own party.

 


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

In Washington D.C., “zero support = zero credibility.”

ironman on March 29, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Haha. This guy is 0 for life …

ShainS on March 29, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Loser.

steebo77 on March 29, 2012 at 9:18 AM

it wasn’t his budget, per se….

equanimous on March 29, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Only the GOP establishment nitwits can screw up and easy election win by nominating a leftist like romneycare!

We win the 2010 midterms in a landslide because of obamacare, so what does that beltway cesspool do, they nominate the father of that socialism, Romneycare.

For 4 years I’ll remind the mittbots of their destruction of america by supporting that lightweight that is a sure loser.

By the way, Romneycare in his vacation home is having his lobbyist push local officals to ok an elevator FOR HIS FREAKIN CARS IN AN ELECTION YEAR. CAN THIS AZZ BE ANYMORE TONE DEAF!

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM

The man who came to unite D.C….he succeeded, all 414.

hillsoftx on March 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Who knew the demorat party contained so many racists? I mean other than you and I and Robert Byrd?

Bishop on March 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Racist democrats.

The Rogue Tomato on March 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Well, he’s only the fourth bestest President of all time, so you have to expect him to whiff ever once in a while.

eyedoc on March 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM

I give Obama a solid B+!

search4truth on March 29, 2012 at 9:22 AM

This is the second year in a row that Obama’s budget couldn’t win a single Democratic vote in Congress. In parliamentary systems, that would be a vote of no confidence and the party would be looking for new leadership.

In which I am thankful I don’t live in such parliamentary systems.

BigGator5 on March 29, 2012 at 9:22 AM

…Cover-up Media runs amok!

KOOLAID2 on March 29, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Normally we wait until about 60 or so comments have been added before heading off the rails, but you are obviously a man of action. I applaud you, sir!

Bishop on March 29, 2012 at 9:23 AM

I give Obama a solid B+!

search4truth on March 29, 2012 at 9:22 AM

…Chew Choo graded him pretty tough…A-

KOOLAID2 on March 29, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Obama has zero credibility as a leader.

DrStock on March 29, 2012 at 9:24 AM

97-0 and 414-0. Romney is going to have so much fun with this putz.

Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 9:24 AM

GOP lawmakers forced the vote on Obama’s plan as a tactical move aiming at embarrassing Democrats.

They’re doing a great job on their own.

SouthernGent on March 29, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Perhaps it’s time for the country to do what Democrats won’t do for themselves and look for leadership who can produce rational numbers in budgets, or at least budgets that can win a vote from its own party.

Perhaps? That’s good snark there, using a weasel-word to aptly describe weaselly President Zero Votes …

ShainS on March 29, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Let’s focus on dear leaders favorability instead, he’s so awesome
-lsm

Epic fail

cmsinaz on March 29, 2012 at 9:26 AM

The Democrats have defended Obama’s budget priorities, but they largely voted “no” Wednesday night.

They largely voted “no”? Largely? It didn’t get a single “yes” vote!

Trafalgar on March 29, 2012 at 9:28 AM

+1 equan
:)

cmsinaz on March 29, 2012 at 9:29 AM

If we had a media, they’d be excoriating the president for his fundamental unseriousness. It’s insulting to have a president who is clowning when the country is circling the bowl.

forest on March 29, 2012 at 9:30 AM

It still amazes me that not a single Democrat House member voted for this? No one in the CBC? No one in a safe far-left district?

Doughboy on March 29, 2012 at 9:30 AM

For 4 years I’ll remind the mittbots of their destruction of america by supporting that lightweight that is a sure loser.

Danielvito on March 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Thanks for getting an early start of on doomcrying.

Do you have a sandwich board?

cozmo on March 29, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Democrats said Republicans had forced a vote on a version of Obama’s budget that contained only its numbers, not the policies he would use to achieve them.

O_o

Spin any faster and you’re going to drill yourself into the center of the Earth.

Bishop on March 29, 2012 at 9:31 AM

The reason those racists in the CBC didn’t jump on board, they had a plan what was worse:

The House also defeated an alternative offered by the Congressional Black Caucus that would have included $4 trillion in additional tax increases on top of those Mr. Obama proposed, and used that money to boost spending on domestic programs. That plan was killed 314-107.

$4 trillion extra? Jeebus.

Bishop on March 29, 2012 at 9:33 AM

If his own Party dosn’t take him seriously, why should we ?
Not a single vote in two attemps. That is remarkable.
He certainly has earned the right to say that whatever budget is approved, it is not his !

Jabberwock on March 29, 2012 at 9:34 AM

If I were Romney, I’d milk this to death in campaign ads.

“Obama proposed a budget, and not a SINGLE DEMOCRAT voted for it.”

It is to laugh. :D

TMOverbeck on March 29, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Smartest man in the room.

DuctTapeMyBrain on March 29, 2012 at 9:37 AM

What???? Is it that Democrats know in their little hearts that Obama’s “budget priorities” are about as popular with the voters as an infestation of cockroaches, or is it even possible that even they are beginning to have doubts about Obama’s competence and intentions?

Scriptor on March 29, 2012 at 9:37 AM

The reason those racists in the CBC didn’t jump on board, they had a plan what was worse:

The House also defeated an alternative offered by the Congressional Black Caucus that would have included $4 trillion in additional tax increases on top of those Mr. Obama proposed, and used that money to boost spending on domestic programs. That plan was killed 314-107.

$4 trillion extra? Jeebus.

Bishop on March 29, 2012 at 9:33 AM

That plan actually got 107 votes while Obama’s got 0?! The CBC doesn’t have anywhere near 107 members, so a lot of other Dems voted for that as well. Unbelievable.

Doughboy on March 29, 2012 at 9:37 AM

O_o

Spin any faster and you’re going to drill yourself into the center of the Earth.

Bishop on March 29, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Wouldn’t they need a permit from O to do that first?

PuritanD71 on March 29, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Yeah, but did you see the misleading WaPo headline about it:

Republican-run House easily rejects Obama budget as chamber moves toward approving GOP plan

Reading that, why it’s those Republicans frustrating our dear president again – darn them. They just want their own plan.

BS.

beatcanvas on March 29, 2012 at 9:38 AM

The reason those racists in the CBC didn’t jump on board, they had a plan what was worse:

The House also defeated an alternative offered by the Congressional Black Caucus that would have included $4 trillion in additional tax increases on top of those Mr. Obama proposed, and used that money to boost spending on domestic programs. That plan was killed 314-107.
$4 trillion extra? Jeebus.

Bishop on March 29, 2012 at 9:33 AM

What ever happened to the CWC???

PatriotRider on March 29, 2012 at 9:39 AM

The MSM is pushing the “GOP led congress” spin on this and they hope no one reads to the 414-0 bit.

That’s gotta be burning Zero’s butt. How can he go out and talk about a budget when his own party has DESERTED HIM?

dogsoldier on March 29, 2012 at 9:41 AM

If I had a son, he would………

a capella on March 29, 2012 at 9:41 AM

They largely voted “no”? Largely? It didn’t get a single “yes” vote!

Trafalgar on March 29, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Some abstained. (There are more than 414 members of Congress).

AZCoyote on March 29, 2012 at 9:42 AM

This may be a Presidential first that a budget was rejected unanimously in both the House and Senate. Obama has been making a lot of history in his 3 years.

Wigglesworth on March 29, 2012 at 9:42 AM

That plan actually got 107 votes while Obama’s got 0?! The CBC doesn’t have anywhere near 107 members, so a lot of other Dems voted for that as well. Unbelievable.

Doughboy on March 29, 2012 at 9:37 AM

A bunch of demorat whiteys knew it wouldn’t pass so they voted for it to prove that they’re down with the brothers. Word.

Bishop on March 29, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Beatcanvas, apparently, the house has no dems…..414 gop, who knew

cmsinaz on March 29, 2012 at 9:43 AM

beatcanvas on March 29, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Strange … wapo never uses the words “Democrat-run” and “Senate” in the same sentence … ever.

Lost in Jersey on March 29, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Two of the most bipartisan votes in the Obama era have been against his budgets.

tomwinfl on March 29, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Beatcanvas, dogsoldier
It’s just like scotus, are there any libs on the court?

cmsinaz on March 29, 2012 at 9:45 AM

It was the messenging.

He needed to have Bobbie Rush file it drapped in a hoodie.

BuckeyeSam on March 29, 2012 at 9:48 AM

The Democrats have defended Obama’s budget priorities, but they largely voted “no” Wednesday night.

Seriously? 414-0 seems more like unanimously, than ‘largely’

Onus on March 29, 2012 at 9:49 AM

I’m surprised Nutty Nancy didn’t at least give a “thumbs up” on the O-Budget.

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 9:49 AM

The Democrats have defended Obama’s budget priorities, but they largely voted “no” Wednesday night.

Seriously? 414-0 seems more like unanimously, than ‘largely’

Onus on March 29, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Yeah, I saw that too. Curious reporting by Fox.

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 9:50 AM

“It’s Congress’ fault… those… those… obstructionists. I tried to get a budget passed”.
- pbHo

VietVet_Dave on March 29, 2012 at 9:51 AM

So much for the “Do-Nothing” Congress meme.

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 9:51 AM

They could’ve got more D votes for Obama’s budget if they’d put a hoodie on it.

TXUS on March 29, 2012 at 9:52 AM

That plan actually got 107 votes while Obama’s got 0?! The CBC doesn’t have anywhere near 107 members, so a lot of other Dems voted for that as well. Unbelievable.

Doughboy on March 29, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Bobby Rush rapped it in a hoodie and put a big pink cowboy hat on it when he filed it.

Who was that woman I saw on TV claiming Travon was hunted down like a dog? This is an awful case, but that kind of lying has me hoping that Zimmerman has an airtight case for self-defense.

BuckeyeSam on March 29, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Wait….. What……… zero votes for zero, who would have thunk it.
Fail is zero’s middle name!

angrymike on March 29, 2012 at 9:53 AM

obfuscate by declaring that Republicans are engaging in a war on left-handed Basque women who use marshmallow Schnapps for medicinal purposes.

Ed, I flipped over to Morning Joe this morning, and their graphic for their topic du jure this morning was “The republicans war on youth” so that war on women thing is passe’. They had on Howard Dean, and some guy who crunched the numbers. They were bashing the elderly, and baby boomers- those selfish basteds, who vote consistently, and the poor youth who have no voice, and vote when there is a personality contest.

Dr Evil on March 29, 2012 at 9:54 AM

A bunch of demorat whiteys knew it wouldn’t pass so they voted for it to prove that they’re down with the brothers. Word.

Bishop on March 29, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Heh. Did the whiteys wear hoodies in their gesture of symbolic solidarity?

ShainS on March 29, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Strange … wapo never uses the words “Democrat-run” and “Senate” in the same sentence … ever.

Lost in Jersey on March 29, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Good point. But that would require a sense of balance, I suppose. Not gonna happen in this lifetime.

beatcanvas on March 29, 2012 at 9:56 AM

look for leadership who can produce rational numbers

Then get ready for the STHF. Ryans budget is a start (a journey of a 1000 miles can start with the first step) but it isn’t terribly rational and we have no guarantees that future congress’s will follow it.

chemman on March 29, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Perhaps it’s time for the country to do what Democrats won’t do for themselves and look for leadership who can produce rational numbers in budgets, or at least budgets that can win a vote from its own party.

conversely, how about producing a budget period.

ted c on March 29, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Obama just plain sucks.

Forgive my French.

Sherman1864 on March 29, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Campaign speech to the representatives of the NAACP & New Black Panthers,

“Brothers, Sisters: I done tried to pass us BooCoo budgets but that DO NOTHIN RACIST CONGRESS AND THE MAN be keeping us down (despite the fact that I am the most powerful man on earth…uh…fix TOTUS…) My budgets! Would have lowered the oceans! Created infinite energy! Saved or created 100 trillion jobs! And created a lotta cheese!”

“So I ask the American people to stop behaving like slave owners, join with me for more hopenchange over the next 4 years@!

Or else I am going to become a JetBlue pilot!

YESSIR! In the Name of Trayvon. Amen!”

CorporatePiggy on March 29, 2012 at 9:58 AM

A normal person would have taken the hint by now. But actually, obama does not want a budget passed, and he is playing to the wacko base…it’s all he has left.

rjh on March 29, 2012 at 9:59 AM

JournoTard fail of the day, courtesy of Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press.

Democrats have defended Obama’s budget priorities but they largely voted “no” Wednesday night.

Yes, sport, they largely voted unanimous.

MNHawk on March 29, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Now that I double check what’s linked here I have to say way to go, Fox. Leave in that part about largely voting no.

Fox really isn’t much better than anything else, these days.

MNHawk on March 29, 2012 at 10:03 AM

O_o

Spin any faster and you’re going to drill yourself into the center of the Earth.

Bishop on March 29, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Its not “spin”… it’s a HARD PIVOT!

bigt on March 29, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Dr Evil on March 29, 2012 at 9:54 AM

I saw the tail-end of that. The Esquire guy was a doofus. Although the piece seemed to highlight a generational conflict, he couldn’t pass up the chance to swipe at the GOP because it’s supposedly against contraception (nice distortion, but thanks, Santorum) and homophobic. As far as the homophobic thing goes, I say to young people, have it. Vote for the socialists. That way, you’ll take it up the rear economically along with your gay friends.

Because I didn’t see the whole piece, I’d like to know whether it highlighted that Obamacare is all about shoving young people into a cadillac federal plan so that welfare-freeloaders and older people can benefit from premiums for insurance benefits that they don’t want.

BuckeyeSam on March 29, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Pelosi didn’t vote FOR it? WTF? The Bay Area will probably go crazy and recall this conservative.

NoPain on March 29, 2012 at 10:09 AM

(JugEars)…I WON!

KOOLAID2 on March 29, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Democrats said Republicans had forced a vote on a version of Obama’s budget that contained only its numbers, not the policies he would use to achieve them.

Lame. How do you do a budget without first agreeing on what the numbers should be?

RadClown on March 29, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Obama just plain sucks.

Forgive my French.

Sherman1864 on March 29, 2012 at 9:58 AM

…thank goodness you spoke french…my Russian has the last word beginning with an f!

KOOLAID2 on March 29, 2012 at 10:15 AM

97-0 and 414-0. Basilsbest on March 29, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Could the RNC and PACS start blasting this message now, please?
The statist media is obviously going to be silent or misleading on this topic.

The Democrats have not passed a budget in 3 years. Obama can’t even get a Democrat to vote for his budget because it is so bad. The Republicans have passed 3 budgets but Obama and the Democrats have passed none in three years. Over and over and over.
Frame it as a war on the elderly-if we can’t pass a budget, Social Security and Medicare will become insolvent.

talkingpoints on March 29, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Pelosi didn’t vote FOR it? WTF? The Bay Area will probably go crazy and recall this conservative.

NoPain on March 29, 2012 at 10:09 AM

She was probably one of the ones who (silently) voted “present” — to show her righteous solidarity with Dear Leader and to show she’s down with the struggle (just not down enough to actually show up for the vote on Barry’s crappy, budget-busting budget).

AZCoyote on March 29, 2012 at 10:23 AM

it was unanimously defeated, 414-0

they largely voted “no”

I don’t think so. “Largely” implies some voted yes. Nobody voted yes. They totally voted “no”.

taznar on March 29, 2012 at 10:23 AM

“GOP lawmakers forced the vote on Obama’s plan as a tactical move aiming at embarrassing Democrats. The Democrats have defended Obama’s budget priorities, but they largely voted “no” Wednesday night.”

If you don’t get one vote how come largely isn’t “overwhelmingly”?

bflat879 on March 29, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Democrats said Republicans had forced a vote on a version of Obama’s budget that contained only its numbers, not the policies he would use to achieve them.

Lame. How do you do a budget without first agreeing on what the numbers should be?

RadClown on March 29, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Dems don’t do numbers. Tend to be too restrictive.

Jabberwock on March 29, 2012 at 10:24 AM

In a parliamentary democracy the Democrats would be looking for new leadership? The Democrats should be doing that anyway, based on the performance of the present leadership.

bflat879 on March 29, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Beatcanvas, dogsoldier
It’s just like scotus, are there any libs on the court?

cmsinaz on March 29, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Yes, there are. Forgive me, I am too dense to see your point. Its probable that two most socialist justices will vote to uphold ObamunistCare regardless of its real constitutionality and find some blather to explain it.

How does that relate to this? My question is not an attack or anything, I really want to understand.

dogsoldier on March 29, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Did they read the budget to find out what was in it?

In a show of solidarity with Zippy, 21 members voted “present.” Hence AP’s defense of the term “largely.”

Somewhere, Jimmy Carter is smiling. Even if he doesn’t know exactly why.

MrKleenexMuscles on March 29, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Has any Obama budget EVER gotten a single vote? I know the last one didn’t and now this one didn’t. There was his first, with Democrats in both houses of congress and even then they didn’t pass the Obama budget or even one of their own. And still, the administration believes that it has the right ‘budget’ for America? That takes a pair of big eggs to make such a statement.

At what point will even Democrats start to point out the fact that this Emperor has no clothes?

PorchDawg on March 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM

It should be obvious that neither the POTUS or the Democrat Party wants a budget as Congress has not presented or passed one for 3 years (Exception of the possibility that the new Ryan budget passed out of committee may pass the House but is guaranteed to not even get brought up for a vote by the Senate Democrat majority leader Reid). Obumbo just makes a budget proposal he knows the Republicans will not vote for along with the no budget Democrats thus accomplishing two things: pretty much guaranteed no budget will get passed keeping the sky is the no-limit on spending, and fulfilling his obligation as POTUS to present a budget to Congress. Then they, both R and D, have the balls to talk as if they are following or adhering to a budget…Hollywood’s best science fiction creators couldn’t come up with a better fiction no matter how hard they might try!

aposematic on March 29, 2012 at 10:32 AM

In a parliamentary democracy the Democrats would be looking for new leadership? The Democrats should be doing that anyway, based on the performance of the present leadership.

bflat879 on March 29, 2012 at 10:25 AM

I am willing to go out on a limb here and suggest that the top levels of the dem party are either completely full of socialist radicals or they are trying to figure out how to deal with the situation.

Internally, they see November as an encore of November 2010. Otherwise they would all have voted to support Zero’s budget as a show of support.

Instead, house and senate dems have abandoned him.

dogsoldier on March 29, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Yes, there are. Forgive me, I am too dense to see your point. Its probable that two most socialist justices will vote to uphold ObamunistCare regardless of its real constitutionality and find some blather to explain it.

How does that relate to this? My question is not an attack or anything, I really want to understand.

dogsoldier on March 29, 2012 at 10:27 AM

The question has to do with “tags” the press hangs on people. Conservatives get tagged, libs do not. See Alinsky. Isolate,freeze etc.

Jabberwock on March 29, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Just how bad was this Obama budget that even his biggest ball washer, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, voted against it?

Syd B. on March 29, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Jabberwock on March 29, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Thank you. I get it, now.

dogsoldier on March 29, 2012 at 10:39 AM

I once heard Obama mumble something along the lines of how it might be better if we had a parliamentary system. That was when the Dems were in the driver’s seat. But even then I laughed; one of the features of a parliamentary system is that the Prime Minister has to interact with parliament by appearing personally to answer questions, etc. There is no way Obama could ever do that. Yes, this vote would constitute a vote of no-confidence. But so too would the elections of 2010 have done. He has outkicked his coverage; he left the American people behind from the beginning and has been at war with his own party for the last two years. Liberal racism probably prevents the Dems from opposing him outright, but his actual support in the party has become very thin.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on March 29, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Just how bad was this Obama budget that even his biggest ball washer, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, voted against it?

Syd B. on March 29, 2012 at 10:38 AM

and Pelosi. Any possibility of their votes being cast this way to give Zero more “do nothing congress” talking points? If that is their plan, it will really backfire.

They dumped their messiah.

dogsoldier on March 29, 2012 at 10:40 AM

It’ll be entertaining to watch Askelrod tapdance around this next Sunday.

slickwillie2001 on March 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM

This is the second year in a row that Obama’s budget couldn’t win a single Democratic vote in Congress.

Don’t expect the MSM to make much of this. After all, “It’s not Barry’s fault!”

GarandFan on March 29, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Democrats said Republicans had forced a vote on a version of Obama’s budget that contained only its numbers

And what, pray tell, is in the “other” version?
I don’t care what you guys say. This is an alternate universe.

JusDreamin on March 29, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Sorry Dogsoldier, the lsm talks about gop controlled (fill in the space), scotus is one of them as well on their bashing

That’s all

cmsinaz on March 29, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Smartest man in the room.

DuctTapeMyBrain on March 29, 2012 at 9:37 AM

The Emperor has no clothes.

magicbeans on March 29, 2012 at 10:57 AM

I’m surprised there weren’t a lot more abstentions.

This isn’t just a lack of confidence; it’s a nearly unanimous slap in the face.

logis on March 29, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Ed, I flipped over to Morning Joe this morning, and their graphic for their topic du jure this morning was “The republicans war on youth” so that war on women thing is passe’. They had on Howard Dean, and some guy who crunched the numbers. They were bashing the elderly, and baby boomers- those selfish basteds, who vote consistently, and the poor youth who have no voice, and vote when there is a personality contest.

Dr Evil on March 29, 2012 at 9:54 AM

The Republicans are warring against youth now? Well at least they let them live long enough to take up arms, whereas the Democrats are all about snuffing them before they even get to take a first breath.

Doesn’t seem very sporting to me.

Lily on March 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Obama’s SO popular!!!

not

Roy Rogers on March 29, 2012 at 11:00 AM

So the Democraps voted against the budget because it just contained numbers. Well, that explains why they haven’t produced a budget in, how long now? Sheesh, everybody knows you can’t have a budget with numbers in it! Numbers are for things like ‘investing in green energy’, ‘stimulus, bailouts and your political friends. Numbers – Bah!

ghostwalker1 on March 29, 2012 at 11:02 AM

That plan actually got 107 votes while Obama’s got 0?! The CBC doesn’t have anywhere near 107 members, so a lot of other Dems voted for that as well. Unbelievable.

Doughboy on March 29, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I can actually offer an explanation for that, and why Zero’s budget got zero votes.

The Dems thought Zero’s budget was too moderate.

Ok. Now that you are finished wiping off the coffee you just spewed onto the screen, I’ll continue.

The reasonable people here (at least most of us) think that’s just insane talk. But how often have we heard the hard lefties say they don’t like Obama because he is too moderate, and plays nice with Republicans… *waits for laughter to die down*… and just plain isn’t fighting hard enough for those great commun… err… sociali… errr… marxi… errr… government contro…. errr… “progressive” policies? Yeah, “progressive”, that’s the word they’re looking for.

gravityman on March 29, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Geez people, don’t you know it’s not about the numbers it’s about his intent?!
If it’s one thing we’ve learned from Dems, it’s that emotions and intent mean much more than reality. Come on folks, get with the program!

/sarc

RadioAngel on March 29, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Another swing-and-a-miss brought to you by “Smart Power”.

Tim_CA on March 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Seriously guys…im lol’ing right now. How the hell do you get smashed in the face 97 times in one year, and not learn from it, to go get smashed in the face 4x more the next year? I am simply confounded by what this guy is trying to do. Has he just given up trying? Is he not understanding economics? Is he dislexic? I like bahsing his face as much as the next guy, but honestly, I have to pause here…what in God’s Creation is the guy trying to accomplish? I seriously dont understand…

MooCowBang on March 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Comment pages: 1 2