[gnawbone]

Control of the Senate’ takes 60 out of 100 votes. 41 is all that’s required to filibuster

---

Even when the (R)s control the Senate the idiots run to the front of the line and screw everything up, for example: Mcain and his gang of 14.

I think the only way to get significant change is for the (R)s to have about 85 to 100 Senators or every Rino be replaced with a Tea Party candidate.

The latter seems more possible but not very probable because too many fools go to the polls at election time that haven’t a frigging clue what is going on.

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

Even when the (R)s control the Senate the idiots run to the front of the line and screw everything up, for example: Mcain and his gang of 14.

What we are seeing is the fear in both RINO and RATS alike. They see the writing on the wall that Tea Party people will begin entering Congress. Don't for a minute believe that they are not worried. This is why we see options for "super congress" type committee's staffed with the "senior" members of Congress. Even if the multitude of new reps are Tea Party of Moderate RAT (?!?) the long term goal of safe career pols is to inculcate themselves above the common pol.

Watch for more of this in the future. RATS and RINO's care only about their survival, regardless of who occupies the whitehouse. They will gladly trade the WH back and forth as long as they are safe.

The TPM scares the sh*t out of them and their back room, wheeling and dealing ways.

[CharlyFord]

The latter seems more possible but not very probable because too many fools go to the polls at election time that haven’t a frigging clue what is going on. - gnawbone

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” - - - Sir Winston Churchill

Yep! There's a lot of agreement on the problem with ignorant voters.

[LS]

You're right, the correct debate needs to be ONLY about "conservatives" vs. everyone else.

I've said for some time that we will not---AND CANNOT---get meaningful change until we get a 2/3s majority in both houses AND the presidency. Even if the Pres is a Republican, as Bush (whom I still admire) showed, you can't trust a single guy who can be "Alinskied" to stand strong on budget hikes. So, honestly, I think you need about 68 or so votes in the Senate and about 70% of the House to be conservatives (to override a weak-kneed president).

Essentially, this was what the Dems had with Pelosi/Reid/Obama. They could pass ANYTHING, and still had trouble, barely getting Obamacare through, NOT getting immigration through, and not getting card check or "fairness" through.

That tells you a little about how difficult it is to achieve such super, super-majorities that you need for revolutionary change.