Maybe it would help you to understand how Congress actually works.<quoted text>Yep, And sadly I was one of them.
By the time the presidential election happened I was thoroughly pissed.
For instance, the filibuster. There was a lot of talk about the Democrats winning a "filibuster-proof" majority in 2008. Do you know why?
Because in the Congressional Session that began after the 2006 elections, Republicans in the Senate employed the filibuster more times than in ANY OTHER CONGRESS IN US HISTORY: http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/gop-senato...
"The filibuster may be well established in the popular consciousness think of long-winded senators speechifying for days. But because modern Senate rules allow lawmakers to avoid the spectacle of pontificating by merely threatening the act, filibusters and the efforts to overcome them are being used more frequently, and on more issues, than at any other point in history.
So far in this first year of the 110th Congress, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters, most on the Iraq war but also on routine issues like reauthorizing Amtrak funding. There were 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress, 53 in 1987-88 and 23 in 1977-78. In 1967-68, there were 5 such votes, one of them on a plan to amend cloture itself, which failed.
For policy making, this is the legislative equivalent of gum on a shoe.
It has produced a numbing cycle of Washington futility: House Democrats pass a bill, but Senate Democrats, facing a filibuster by the Republican minority, fail to get the 60 votes needed to end debate. Little wonder that approval ratings of Congress stink these days."
So I gotta say, blaming the Dems for "doing nothing since 2006" is really, in all fairness, an indictment of the obstructionist GOP, which had six full years of the Presidency and BOTH chambers of the House, and failed to do anything other than get us into two badly-managed wars. Someone who REALLY voted a straight ticket at any point in their life would probably know that, though.... right?