That's what I don't understand.
Why is it that it doesn't ever matter "how many GOP'ers we [have]" in Congress?
No matter which way the deck is stacked, we always lose. Why?
I see people saying that the GOP is stymied in Congress because we don't have a greater than 60 seat majority in the Senate, yet, we're also told that if the RATs get that same slim majority, we'll still be stymied.
Either there's something really tricky written into the rules, or our guys need to grow a set, and pronto!
You make this statement which ADMITS you don't know what the rules are and yet feel comfortable enough with that lack of knowledge to determine the GOP in Congress is doing a poor job of it? Going by that, I don't know whether you are honestly looking for information or just looking to smear the GOP'ers. I'll give you a bit, though, just in case it is the former?
1. We've had a slim majority for just over a year now since the end of 2002. A few of those that comprise the slim majority are themselves very centrist Republicans and not dependable to always vote right-wing. In spite of this, Bush has managed to force through some measures he wants though he may have to compromise more on how much he gives up than he would have to with a solid and large majority.
2. When people refer to needing a 60 seat majority they are referring to a SUPER-MAJORITY, something we need in the Senate to break a filibuster which the Dems even as a minority have been using to beat us up with on Bush's judicial nominees. The more GOP'ers we can give Bush in the Senate, the more solid conservatives he can move on to the benches. That has enormous and long-term benefits for conservatism.