Green Room

MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts Laughably Insists Democrats Didn’t Control Congress for Two Years of Obama Term

posted at 8:59 am on September 22, 2012 by

MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts and GOP strategist Alice Stewart

In the wake of Romney’s “47 percent” comments and less than positive polling from key swing states, every squishy Republican in the liberal media’s stable of acceptable Republicans went into full panic mode.  But just yesterday, President Obama made a huge admission when he admitted that his biggest miscalculation was that he thought he could change Washington from the inside.

Republican strategist Alice Stewart raised that point during a chat with MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts this morning, blasting Obama for it and saying that he had two years in his term in which his party ran both houses of Congress. That’s an indisputable fact, but Roberts insisted that Stewart was wrong on the length of time that Democrats in Obama’s term controlled both the House and Senate:

 THOMAS ROBERTS: All right so let’s say good morning and bring in today’s Power Panel we have Perry Bacon MSNBC contributor and political editor for The Grio, Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis, and Republican strategist Alice Stewart. It’s great to have all three of you here. Alice – I want to start with you because the race is becoming this kind of tape gotcha game – the president’s campaign responding to Romney’s remarks by digging up something that Mitt Romney said back in 2008 that basically parallels what the president said.

[Buzzfeed tape]

ROBERTS: So – Alice Romney was slammed for jumping on the situation in Libya – jumped on the redistribution remarks kind of pulling them out of context now he’s giving another knee jerk reaction by seizing on the change remarks – when basically he campaigned that way in ’08 – why does that seem so different from Mitt Romney in his own words in ’08 from what the president said on Univision the other day.

ALICE STEWART: Well – there’s a big difference in Romney saying it and President Obama saying it – when Obama saying that the biggest thing he’s learned is that you can’t change Washington from the inside – newsflash he’s been on the inside for the past four years and we have a terrible economy.  We have a terrible crisis overseas and he’s had ­not only that – he had control over the House and Senate for the first two years while he was in office and he failed to make things better for the American people.

ROBERTS: Alice technically it wasn’t the first two years it was for only several months because of the ongoing political races that were still taking place – you know that right. It wasn’t for a full two years.

STEWART: He had control of the House and Senate for the first half of his presidency and he had the opportunity to put polices in place that would help create a strong economy and create jobs for the American people – and at the end of the day the American people cannot say that their lives are better off than when he took office and he said himself if he can’t turn the economy around and he can’t create jobs it’ll be a one-term proposition and it’s looking more like that everyday.

ROBERTS:  Alice – according to the calendar that’s factually not true that he had control for two years, but I’ll move on.

The ObamaCare debate, in which the Democrats had majorities in the House and Senate, lasted longer than several months.  In fact, it took up almost a whole year. During Obama’s first two years, his Democratic allies in Congress passed not only Obamacare, but Cash for Clunkers, Dollars for Dishwashers, Cash for Caulkers, Dodd-Frank, and the massive debt-ballooning stimulus.

Democrats won big in 2006 — when they took the House from Republicans — and 2008.  They had a 60-seat supermajority in the Senate during much of the first two years of President Obama’s first term and a sizable majority in the House.  Roberts’s use of Congress’s many recesses to dismiss the two-year number is patently ludicrous.

Originally posted on Newsbusters.

Recently in the Green Room:



Trackback URL


Since Obama’s programs are not exactly drawing huzzahs and flowers from the voters, the Democrats’ math is basically that in a 100-seat U.S. Senate, one half equals 60, and if you don’t have a filibuster-proof majority, not only do you not have control, but somehow the Republicans were now the ones in control. The goal isn’t just to use semantics on which party was in charge, versus the party being unopposedly ‘in charge’, but somehow convince the swing voters who don’t follow politics all that much that somehow, all those bad things Congress did in 2009-10 were Mitch McConnell and John Bohener’s fault.

jon1979 on September 22, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Using Robert’s math, doesn’t that mean that Democrats controlled the Senate for all 8 years of Bush’s administration?

Of course not silly, because that would decimate one of their most important talking points!!!

SaveFarris on September 22, 2012 at 11:27 AM

SaveFarris on September 22, 2012 at 11:27 AM

I don’t expect to see many other comments after that one…pretty much says it all doesn’t it?

teejk on September 22, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Libs don’t like math. Since it is not based on opinion it just isn’t fungible enough for their liking. Which really really annoys them. And anything that annoys them they just ignore.

And how is that working out for us?

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on September 22, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Just what is in that blue koolaid those libturds are drinking? It makes them even less concerned than usual about how inanely and blatantly they lie and distort. Wonder if they get paid extra to dare exhibiting that kind of stupidity?

stukinIL4now on September 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM

but I’ll move on

Because your producer was screaming in your earpiece to run away from that comment I’d bet.

roy_batty on September 22, 2012 at 1:37 PM

There were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:

From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least)

From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);

For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux

Mmm...Burritos on September 22, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Mmm…Burritos on September 22, 2012 at 3:52 PM

So what’s your point? Are you saying the Democrats didn’t control the senate with 59 votes?

TarheelBen on September 22, 2012 at 8:42 PM

He’s talking about the few months that it took Al Franken and friends to find those last few trunk-loads of votes. So it wasn’t exactly 24 months that they had a strict super-majorities. So what. They still had the Maine twins and whoever else they needed from the Rhino wing of the Republican party. If you couldn’t convince Snowe and Collins that a larger government was in everyone’s best interests, you weren’t really trying very hard.

Fred 2 on September 22, 2012 at 10:55 PM

This is how they plan to win? By splitting hairs over exact chronology of events? Someone thinks this is significant that they had control of both houses and the Executive for 725 days, 22 hours, five minutes and three seconds?

Does the apparatchik media think we are that stupid?

How about putting some of that talent into examining the chronology of Benghazi when Obama went to bed while terrorists were dragging Amb Steven’s freshly slain body through the streets like dogs with a piece of meat!

StubbleSpark on September 23, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Mmm…Burritos on September 22, 2012 at 3:52 PM

So what’s your point? Are you saying the Democrats didn’t control the senate with 59 votes?

TarheelBen on September 22, 2012 at 8:42 PM

He’s essentialy stating that he/she/it’s a clueless dink.

DevilsPrinciple on September 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM

There were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:

Mmm…Burritos on September 22, 2012 at 3:52 PM

So, there’s been 119 seats in the Senate for the last four years? That must be from those extra 7 states……..

GWB on September 23, 2012 at 3:40 PM

There were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:

Mmm…Burritos on September 22, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Children engage in semantic arguments.

itsspideyman on September 23, 2012 at 11:52 PM

By that token, the Carter Administration’s first two years are the last time that a party can be held accountable for its actions because that was when there was Democratic control of the presidency, House, and filibuster-proof Senate.

blammm on September 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM