Women senators agree: If women were in charge, there’d be a fiscal cliff deal by now

posted at 8:41 pm on December 12, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, this is worth watching if only to see McCaskill mouth a bit of ancient biological determinism that would have set the left off on a two-day screech bender had she been a Republican man. I think the clip’s worst sin is how cloying it is: Diane Sawyer decided to bring the women of the Senate together to talk about capital-w Women, so naturally some self-serving CW about capital-w Women must get said. Thank you, Susan Collins, for handling the easy lay-up. I’d like to hear more from her and McC about why compromise is a virtue in itself (especially since the fiscal cliff is a product of bipartisan compromise) and how standing firm because you’re committed to your economic beliefs is really just a form of male pigheadedness. Don’t you hate how men refuse to ask for directions when they’re lost? And how they whine when you ask them to concede on billions of new taxes on small businesses?

Speaking of compromise, Keith Hennessey’s got a bipartisan plan in mind in case all else fails. It’s not one he likes and it’s not one he wants to see the House pass, but it might get the GOP a bit more leverage at the table with O:

I think option C is S. 3412, a bill passed by the Senate in July. The short description is that this bill “extends the middle class tax relief for one year and allows tax cuts for the rich to expire.” More precisely, here is what the bill does (Joint Tax table is here):

It extends for one year all current income tax rates for incomes < $200K (single) and <$250K (married);
For one year it keeps the capital gains rate at 15% for the same incomes as above;
For one year it (explicitly) raises the capital gains and dividends rates to 20% for incomes >$200K/$250K;
It extends for one year other provisions of current law, important and not-so-important: marriage penalty relief and the child credit, education tax relief, and a handful of smaller provisions; and
It patches the AMT for 2012…

I detest S. 3412 and do not want it to become law. But I fear that Congressional Republicans are so afraid of being blamed for a no-bill scenario that they will agree to support a hypothetical Obama-Boehner deal that is even worse. They should not do that. They must not do that.

In other words, the GOP would give in on tax hikes on the rich — a prospect that Republicans generally and even some prominent tea partiers seem increasingly resigned to — but it’d be for just one year, thus limiting the economic damage done and buying time for deliberations over tax reform. And because 3412 passed the Senate entirely with Democratic votes, theoretically Obama would have no choice but to sign it if it passed the House now. It’s already “the Democratic plan.” But then, the point here isn’t to get Obama to sign it; it’s to pressure him to make further concessions by threatening him with a short-term bill pre-approved by Democrats that would deny him a debt-ceiling hike, permanent tax hikes on the rich, new stimulus spending, and lots of other goodies he’s looking for in a “grand bargain.” It’s a play for a bit more leverage in negotiations. Just one question for Hennessey: Why does he think O would fear vetoing a Democratic bill now when it was passed months before the election? If Boehner passed it, Obama dismiss it by insisting that voters changed the game in November and granted him a mandate on liberal budgetary priorities, such that the Democratic Senate would also surely reject 3412 if it came before them again now. (Reid would give him plenty of cover on that.) Maybe it’s worth the House passing the bill anyway just because it’d put Obama on the defensive in explaining why he prefers going over the cliff to signing a Democratic bill, but I put nothing past the media when it comes to shaping public opinion against Republicans. Obama’s done an expert job of framing the entire deficit reduction debate as an argument over tax hikes on the rich and little else. If he rejected 3412 because it doesn’t make those tax hikes permanent, what’s Boehner’s move then?

I’ll leave you with Philip Klein on why the “no surrender” option isn’t much of an option either. Exit quotation: “What happens [after we go over the cliff] when Harry Reid holds a vote on a bill that lowers rates on the middle class? Will Republican senators vote against it? If so, their challengers can run ads attacking them for voting against a massive middle-class tax cut. What does that do to the brand? And when, in all likelihood, such a bill passes with near-unanimous support in the Senate, what does it do to the House GOP’s low-tax brand if their members resist, bottle up or vote against the same tax cut?”


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 bragging on national television about how “collaborative” and “non-confrontational” women are, aren’t they actually proving the opposite? “Hey, let’s insult and degrade the vast majority of our colleagues and shame them publicly by pointing out how awesomely superior our people skills are.”

Nice job, ladies. (sigh)

butterflies and puppies on December 12, 2012 at 9:46 PM

I’m sure if Pelosi were in charge this would be a shining era of compromise, between her and Visa.

Slade73 on December 12, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Too sexist for words. As an old male, I feel incredibly violated.

Drained Brain on December 12, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Like 4″ Louboutins.

Also, sometimes — boots.

Axe on December 12, 2012 at 9:32 PM

I HATE high heels.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 12, 2012 at 9:49 PM

If they were in command, the credit card company would of already denied our charges.

V-rod on December 12, 2012 at 9:55 PM

There’s only one woman who I’d put in charge of this country.

And she punted, dammit.

eyesky on December 12, 2012 at 9:55 PM

My statements is that a world full of women would look identical to a world full of men. There may be general differences between the sexes but when you’re talking about 3 billion females the laws of probability dictate that some of them will be warmongers, some of them will be shopping addicts and so on and so forth.

hisfrogness on December 12, 2012 at 9:00 PM

You are 100% correct.

bmmg39 on December 12, 2012 at 9:57 PM

If women ran the world there would be no wars, but every month, there would be very angry negotiations.

Archivarix on December 12, 2012 at 10:02 PM

If women ran the world there would be no wars, but every month, there would be very angry negotiations.

Archivarix on December 12, 2012 at 10:02 PM

LOL Unfortunately, not all on the same day every month…

cynccook on December 12, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Oh, please. I work in the business world – and much prefer working with men over women (and I’m a woman). Women can be so emotional and grudge-holding. Of course this is a generalization – some women are really great (but not most of them) It makes me laugh to hear women say the world would be so much better off if only they were in charge of everything. Ha.

LilyBart on December 12, 2012 at 10:09 PM

FUG

SouthernGent on December 12, 2012 at 10:19 PM

In bragging on national television about how “collaborative” and “non-confrontational” women are, aren’t they actually proving the opposite? “Hey, let’s insult and degrade the vast majority of our colleagues and shame them publicly by pointing out how awesomely superior our people skills are.”

Nice job, ladies. (sigh)

butterflies and puppies on December 12, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Thanks, I couldn’t have said it better.

itsspideyman on December 12, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Boxer, Waters, Pelosi, et al…….riiiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhttttt!

KOOLAID2 on December 12, 2012 at 10:30 PM

BELTWAY BEYONCEs

Chattering arrogant political ******** regardless of their party.

No better and no more skilled…..just because they wear a dress

PappyD61 on December 12, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Sure they would. Anyone ever notice the riots for the “free” wedding dresses where they trample each other without compunction?

Now imagine that scenario happening given charge cards with no credit limit.

viking01 on December 12, 2012 at 11:00 PM

I can’t decide if they are sexist pigs or idiots – or both.

Over50 on December 12, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Naah, its only been six weeks, if women were in charge they would even be done complaining yet, about men.

Speakup on December 12, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Dumb – Dumb – Dumb

Why would anyone argue/suggest that there would be a deal if women were in charge?
Isn’t that admitting that if they were in charge there would be a need for a deal.
If they so smart and in charge, there would be no fiscal cliff to be concerned about.

News2Use on December 12, 2012 at 11:16 PM

What could possibly be the compromise with people like Barbara Boxer?

Resist We Much on December 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM

There is none. This person is one of my Rep’s, and she’s a complete F’ing idiot.

You should read some of her responses to the SF Chronicle, when they actually ask her something, she makes absoultely NO SENSE.

The woman, I believe, is a complete and utter Moron.

No offense to Morons intended…

ccrosby on December 12, 2012 at 11:38 PM

I loathe double-standards. Men can’t talk about how men are superior in some ways because it is sexist. However, women can talk about how they are, in some ways, superior all that they want. Sigh.

Theophile on December 12, 2012 at 11:38 PM

I agree, those stupid hoes would have a deal – more or less along Obama lines, which guarantees downgrade, recession, and bankruptcy.

Adjoran on December 12, 2012 at 11:42 PM

McCaskill is a political harlot.

She s/b in prison.

Shame on the people of Missouri.

Schadenfreude on December 12, 2012 at 11:42 PM

I’m female and I can’t stand this ongoing, Leftwing thing about promoting “women” as saviors of reason and just about anything else that fits into the LEft’s political ideas.

“Women” may relent sooner and be more huggy-snuggly emotionally and publicly (or not, but anyway…) but “reaching an agreement” doesn’t mean that some right decision or best outcome was realized, it just means people caved or felt harassed or irritated or impatient with disagreement. So relented.

Most women ARE like that, agreed. But caving on issues does not mean that the right result was realized, it just means people relented on their demands or expectations.

Females have no special skills that males don’t have as to being human. In fact, women can usually be relied on to be far more emotionally unstable or at least “upset” and “upsetable” so to speak, than most males on average.

And the female hormonal differences DOES make them less analytical on average than males. Testosterone lends for increased mental acuity, among other things, while estrogen tends to confuse that.

Both genders have exceptional aspects but to generalize that “women” are better or preferable to resolving issues is just Leftwing jibberjabber.

Lourdes on December 12, 2012 at 11:59 PM

But, OK, let’s try to apply this McCaskill nonsense about “women” to various venues:

– “If women were in charge, there would be sparkling bathrooms in bus stations with special towels available. Monogrammed towels. Folded properly before and after use.”

– “If women were in charge, they’d all have a three bedroom house available to store their shoes.”

– “If women were in charge, all husbands would be collared and leashed.”

…it’s a stupid idea. McCaskill is unfit for public office. She reminds me of the bizzy-boddie who walks into other people’s homes without knocking so she can ‘inspect’ the kitchen and bathroom.

Lourdes on December 13, 2012 at 12:04 AM

sure Clair, no way you agree with Harry Reid not debating a budget…liar

And could you imagine having to sit at table with anyone that speaks like Diane Sawyer? She sounds like she’s talking to foriegn kindergartners.

DanMan on December 12, 2012 at 8:51 PM

After laboring through a “Babba Wawa” temper-laden pout fest on O’Reilly’s show tonight, I think she proved that McCaskill’s statement is baloney.

Gahh, what IS it about Leftwing females? So.much.crazy.

Lourdes on December 13, 2012 at 12:09 AM

Speaking as a woman…

I call bullshite. Men v Women on spending – no difference – all down to the individual, not the gender. Now, conservative v liberal – BIG difference. (I do mean conservative, not “conservative” as many of our pols are.)

Funny how stupid women always tout this meme about how kind/gentle/intelligent/civilized we are. Women, in general, can be far more petty, conniving and vengeful than men, and if all women were in charge, there would be more cliques and more petty back-stabbing and one-upmanship.

It’s a common observable phenomenon, that not more than 2 women can be in any social/group situation without eventually “taking sides” and going into conflict with each other.

We might synchronize “cycles”, but that doesn’t mean harmony over all. :)

Sorry to my “sisters” out there, I love you all – but it’s true, and if you’re honest with yourself, you’ll admit it too.

(Think back to high school, college, workplaces, etc.)

tickleddragon on December 13, 2012 at 12:10 AM

Oh, I forgot to mention the long-term grudge-holding… We are champs at that.

tickleddragon on December 13, 2012 at 12:11 AM

If Republicans and conservatives new how to fight (and they don’t), they would hold go on TV and denounce this as divisive, sexist nonsense.

Is there a single leader on our side that isn’t a little bitch?

Malachi45 on December 13, 2012 at 12:25 AM

I work in the business world – and much prefer working with men over women (and I’m a woman). Women can be so emotional and grudge-holding. Of course this is a generalization – some women are really great (but not most of them)…

LilyBart on December 12, 2012 at 10:09 PM

DITTO. Women IN GENERAL (more often than not, let me put it that way), in my experience, are not emotionally trustworthy.

Their refusal to be candid, or, when candid, inability not to be cruel, renders them untrustworthy on average as to work environs (if not also otherwise).

Lots and lots and lots of experience in these issues has led me to the above conclusion, similiar to “LilyBart”‘s.

Lourdes on December 13, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Oh, I forgot to mention the long-term grudge-holding… We are champs at that.

tickleddragon on December 13, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Yes, that, too.

Women don’t forget an argument — I’ve said this before in comments — and when it’s with another women, especially, they refuse to. Something primal about it that men avoid, on an interpersonal level — men go off and fight, even to the death, with each other, but eventually, accept a resolution and move on. Women, on the other hand, never, ever move on (“forget an argument”), they never forget an argument and most never recover from one (thus, the grudge-thing), but particularly so when another women is involved.

Lourdes on December 13, 2012 at 12:32 AM

Congratulations. You just set your gender back 20 years to make a news segment, what will you do next?

Dear women. SHUT UP ABOUT HOW SPECIAL YOU THINK YOU ARE. You are not that special. But if you think you are, I can assure you, you are obnoxious and seriously wrong. If you think your gender gives you magic powers beyond the ability to bleed every month and have babies, you are sorely mistaken. So shut up and start acting like adults instead of children. If you can’t I have no interest in anything you have to say.

chapman on December 13, 2012 at 1:06 AM

chapman on December 13, 2012 at 1:06 AM

Ha! At least give some of us credit for being self-aware and honest about our gender. :)

(I was having a reactionary moment for a second there, in response to your comment. You know that, “I can bash my family, but don’t your dare do it” sort of knee-jerk? I’m over it now…carry on. :) )

tickleddragon on December 13, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Women, as a group, brought us Der Fuhrer Obama. In Germany it was the men; here it is the women.

VorDaj on December 13, 2012 at 2:10 AM

Am I the only one that thinks these women are simpletons?

pat on December 13, 2012 at 2:15 AM

Am I the only one that thinks these women are simpletons?

pat on December 13, 2012 at 2:15 AM

Based on most of the comments, well, no. :)

tickleddragon on December 13, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Don’t you hate how men refuse to ask for directions when they’re lost?

That’s why women invented GPS….

How about, “Real men never read product manuals…”

Don L on December 13, 2012 at 2:54 AM

Female leaders would go to war over fasion insults.

Bevan on December 13, 2012 at 5:35 AM

If placing/electing WOMEN into politics is only going to achieve COMPROMISING to other political bullies, then the women need to stay out of the public office they are looking to enter.

TX-96 on December 13, 2012 at 6:24 AM

Right.

Remember when they said that if women ran the world, there’d be no more war? And remember who it was that convinced 0 to get involved in Libya?

Hillary.

Bobbertsan on December 13, 2012 at 6:45 AM

I thought they were already in charge?

Heck, you could argue we don’t even have men anymore. All the men are acting like women and all the women want are ruling over the men.
Take Boehner for instance… the night the House wins.. instead of immediately being a man and laying out how things were going to be from here on out.. he stands there and starts to cry.

JellyToast on December 13, 2012 at 6:48 AM

Help me understand. Just what in Nancy Pelosi’s time and actions as Speaker of the House of Representatives supports the notion that “if women were in charge, there’d be a fiscal cliff deal by now”?

Mike OMalley on December 13, 2012 at 7:05 AM

Verginas don’t supply additional brain cells do they?..

…..if not, then Diane Sawyer fail.

PappyD61 on December 13, 2012 at 7:12 AM

Ask their husbands how much they compromise.

WordsMatter on December 13, 2012 at 7:13 AM

This is what sexism looks like.

Either we believe the color of one’s skin, gender or sexual orientation effects critical thinking or we don’t. Personally, I’ve had enough of this crap where today it’s ok to say something about this group but mo another group.

We either believe in equality or we don’t.

Not-a-Marxist on December 13, 2012 at 7:36 AM

Then put them in charge and send Obama and Boehner back to their playpens. Anything would be better than this current gaggle of knot heads.

rplat on December 13, 2012 at 7:50 AM

So what’s our ditzy Senatorette’s plan to eliminate the deficit. Remember, when Klobuchar was running, she promised her moronic voters that she would reduce the national debt (not deficits) by $4 trillion. Not a single JournoTard in Minnesota was curious enough to ask the dingbat the details of that plan.

http://www.winonadailynews.com/news/local/article_c4d832e4-135e-11e2-b0c3-0019bb2963f4.html

The $16 trillion national debt could be reduced by about $4 trillion in the first few months of 2013 with just a few steps, Klobuchar said.

Now is that time, now that she’s telling yet another group of stupid she has such a plan.

MNHawk on December 13, 2012 at 7:52 AM

Is that because women are pussies?

rhombus on December 13, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Um, sorry – but given the proclivities indicated by how women are tending to overwhelmingly vote?

No thanks.

Midas on December 13, 2012 at 8:10 AM

If women were in charge there would be a deal by now? Based on WHAT? The quality of leadership in Government by prominent women in Congress….like Nancy ‘You have to wait until we pass the bill to find out what is in in’ Pelosi? Or perhaps their opinion that they are ready to answer that 1am economic/financial phone call is based on how ‘well’ Hillary was prepared to answer that 1am benghazi phone call?! It is easy for politicians, of either sex, to mouth off when they aren’t in the proverbial hot seat – politicians are GREAT at TALKING.

easyt65 on December 13, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Women senators agree: If women were in charge, there’d be a fiscal cliff deal by now

I’m reminded of the humility of women when they’re constantly telling us how much more awesome they are than men. Until the _______ hits the fan & they do what women do, seek security from men (that’s not a slam, that’s what we provide). In this case, the security comes via placing blame on someone else. Lord knows Pelosi had nothing to do with the budget problems since the senate has passed so many budgets via all these female senators.

Wait….

Cam Winston on December 13, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Guess the sex…..The majority don’t know how much they have in the bank account, but they all know how much they weigh…..

Little Boomer on December 13, 2012 at 8:52 AM

cause both Houses of Congress would be ruled by the Socialist Party?

michaelthomas on December 13, 2012 at 8:54 AM

I’m a woman and I call BUNK!
Idiots, fools ,and sheep exist in BOTH genders.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 12, 2012 at 8:53 PM

^^^This.

bazil9 on December 13, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Guess the sex…..The majority don’t know how much they have in the bank account, but they all know how much they weigh…..

Little Boomer on December 13, 2012 at 8:52 AM

I am in the minority-
watch my $ like a hawk
avoid the scale like the plague. :D

bazil9 on December 13, 2012 at 9:10 AM

If women were in charge? Hmmmm….Laura Richardson, Mary Rose Oakar, Cynthis McKinney, Maxine Waters, Stephanie Tubb Jones, Sheila Jackson Lee…hmmm…interesting there are no Black women Senators since we lost the ever-popular Carol Moseley-Braun. Then there are the ones like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Cindy Sheehan, and my personal favorite, Code Pink.

Sigh…at times it can be embarrasing to be a woman. Well there isn’t one wearing a ferret on their head like James Traficant, so there’s some consolation.

Deanna on December 13, 2012 at 9:12 AM

This may not be popular, but…:

1. Karl Jung referred to female thinking as “pseudo-logic.”

2. Women are going to break their arms from ceaselessly patting themselves on the back.

3. Men are not off the hook for this. When women step up and act like men are irrelevant, it’s not without the help of men.

DrMagnolias on December 13, 2012 at 9:13 AM

What a bunch of bull crap. I had to go throw up before I typed this comment.

devolvingtowardsidiocracy on December 13, 2012 at 9:17 AM

After laboring through a “Babba Wawa” temper-laden pout fest on O’Reilly’s show tonight, I think she proved that McCaskill’s statement is baloney.

Gahh, what IS it about Leftwing females? So.much.crazy.

Lourdes on December 13, 2012 at 12:09 AM

If O’Reilly were a liberal, she’d be trying to figure out how to get him to sleep with her.

Ward Cleaver on December 13, 2012 at 9:20 AM

This may not be popular, but…:

1. Karl Jung referred to female thinking as “pseudo-logic.”

2. Women are going to break their arms from ceaselessly patting themselves on the back.

3. Men are not off the hook for this. When women step up and act like men are irrelevant, it’s not without the help of men.

DrMagnolias on December 13, 2012 at 9:13 AM

My late mom told me more than once that she hated working for women, because they were micro managers, and hard to get along with.

Ward Cleaver on December 13, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Wow! That photo could be used as an ad advocating birth control! It’s fine that the gals have a place in the Senate but why are the Dem Senators so damned ugly (both inside and out)?

Happy Nomad on December 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Decades of feminist theory should have taught us all by now that women are equal to men, except in those areas where women are superior to men.

JimLennon on December 13, 2012 at 9:33 AM

My late mom told me more than once that she hated working for women, because they were micro managers, and hard to get along with.

Ward Cleaver on December 13, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Your mom had it exactly right. If women were in charge, there wouldn’t be a deal right now. First they’d want everybody to “feel” good about the solution. Then they’d micromanage the details to the point where nobody would be happy.

Bottom line is that the fiscal cliff negotiations are derailed because the left and the right have completely opposite philosophies in how to fix it. This has nothing to do gender.

Happy Nomad on December 13, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Ever seen The View?

Bevan on December 13, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Looks like Claire has been in the Looney Tunes alum powder again…

shinty on December 13, 2012 at 9:47 AM

God are those democratic woman ugly!!! Vote conservatives, our woman are prettier!!!

Danielvito on December 13, 2012 at 9:47 AM

As a woman myself, I find this annoying moral superiority that women think they have over men extremely…annoying. And offesive to men, God love ‘em all.

Bob's Kid on December 13, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Man or woman if a liberal…doesn’t matter.

A liberal mind is a wonderful thing to waist!

b1jetmech on December 13, 2012 at 10:07 AM

As a woman myself, I find this annoying moral superiority that women think they have over men extremely…annoying. And offesive to men, God love ‘em all.

Bob’s Kid on December 13, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Well said. One need look no further than Nancy Pelosi to see the fallacy of moral and ethical superiority of one gender over the other (or others for the PC crowd). Pelosi has raked in millions through corrupt tactics and when she was Speaker of the House there was no appreciable difference from the males that came before other than a larger bill for flowers for her office and “free” trips to California.

Happy Nomad on December 13, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Never trust anything that bleeds for 5 days and doesn’t die.

ZK on December 13, 2012 at 10:25 AM

A liberal mind is a wonderful thing to waist!

b1jetmech on December 13, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Did you look at that picture? These gals don’t care just how large their waists are.

Happy Nomad on December 13, 2012 at 10:26 AM

My collie says:

They’re not fooling me. Judging by how much Obama loves to gaze at his own image and how much Boehner likes to cry, I’d say that the women have BEEN “in charge” for a couple of years now.

And we’re not EVEN going to mention those 4 years that Nancy Pelosi was running the country.

CyberCipher on December 13, 2012 at 10:27 AM

This was heard off camera:

“Those boobs have got to be fake”

“That hair has got to be fake”

“What are you wearing girl?”

“More like who is she wearing, she’s got quite the reputation in the Senate. Slut”

“When do her legs end and feet begin?”

“Lets continue this in the bathroom”

Daemonocracy on December 13, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Why of course, women are superior to men, just ask this bunch.

arand on December 13, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Claire McCaskill, really? Gee, I wonder how many hundreds of millions more of taxpayer money from illegal deals in the senate dining room would she and her slimy husband have extorted from da’ gubmint if she was in charge. The problem–every problem–we have right now has nothing to do with gender. The problem is despicable stupid dumbmass ignorant corrupt bleep bleepin’ blankin’ Dembecilic LIBTURDISM.

stukinIL4now on December 13, 2012 at 11:19 AM

It all went downhill from the 19th Amendment. The war on marriage and the family is almost complete. The young women are now getting all the degrees, getting the jobs, while the young…men…play videogames in Mommy’s basement.

quiz1 on December 13, 2012 at 12:39 PM

compromising got us 16T in debt and 86T in unfunded liabilities. The whole thing needs to come down. We need real cuts in spending and the size of government needs to shrink. Anything less then let it burn…

RedInMD on December 13, 2012 at 1:05 PM

They couldn’t decide on what to order in a diner in under 5 minutes. I’m in serious doubt about the fiscal cliff.

Heralder on December 13, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Wow! That photo could be used as an ad advocating birth control! It’s fine that the gals have a place in the Senate but why are the Dem Senators so damned ugly (both inside and out)?

Happy Nomad on December 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM

I mean sure, but… have you taken a look at the men in the Senate? Mitch McConnell? Jim DeMint? John Kerry? What was the quote again… “Washington DC is Hollywood for ugly people”

Also, let’s not forget that the Senate is… old.

zarathustra on December 13, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Then get up and take a stand! Get off your behinds and get to
work. That is what you were hired for!

And Diane Sawyer – who can
stand to even listen to her “kitten” voice? Reminds me of Jackie
Kennedy…sweet, cloying, nothing of substance. Does anyone
remember the tapes of Jackie talking to President Johnson (her
husband’s successor)in that suggestive, seductive baby voice?

O/T, however, the funniest recording was of Johnson discussing with his tailor or personal shopper LOL purchasing new slax and
making room for his “balls”. It was the best!

Amjean on December 13, 2012 at 3:30 PM

It all went downhill from the 19th Amendment. The war on marriage and the family is almost complete. The young women are now getting all the degrees, getting the jobs, while the young…men…play videogames in Mommy’s basement.

quiz1 on December 13, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Oh, for cripes sake, go “cry me a river!”. Its better that these
women get a good job so they can support their children while
their husband, “baby daddy” can play video games in mommy’s or wife’s basement.

Amjean on December 13, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Feminist Sexist Baloney.

If women where the epitome of compromise then why can’t someone like Pelosi with all her authority when she was as speaker of the House find compromise?

Oh, that’s right, it’s all be cause of the men… oh, and the conservative “women” who don’t agree.

So the real issue is if all the Senators were women (aka: Liberal Women) then they could reach a deal.

Lawrence on December 13, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Women senators agree: If women were in charge, there’d be a fiscal cliff deal by now

And it would most likely be a horrible one.

xblade on December 13, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Since these women are so wonderful where’s there fiscal ideas written into a bill to be presented. Senator K. from Minnesota is not a leader but rather a follower of who ever would lead her

pigpen5 on December 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM

If women were in charge, there’d be a fiscal cliff deal a lot of nifty new shoes in their closets by now

CrustyB on December 13, 2012 at 5:15 PM

What these liberal female Senators and Obama (this last election allows me to do as I like) apparently forgot is that they swore an oath of office. They can only do what the numerated powers of the Constitution allows them to do. Anything other then that is a direct violation of the Constitution and their oath of office. Of course we have a multitude of people in this government that have dishonored that oath, therefore we have an unconstitutional government and any laws they make are worthless and should not be obeyed. Then we have the Supreme Court ruling on these unconstitutional laws, violating their oath of office, therefore making their rulings moot along with themselves.

savage24 on December 13, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2