<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[The Big Lies of Mitt Romney V: Obama Had A Super-Majority In Congress For Two Years,&nbsp;Ctd]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[
<p>A reader writes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/the-big-lies-of-mitt-romney-v-obama-had-a-super-majority-in-congress-for-two-years.html" target="_self">Good  catch by your readers</a> about Obama&#39;s seven-week supermajority.&#0160; But  there&#39;s another thing that irked me about this &#8211; what did Obama do during  those seven weeks?&#0160; He tried to get bipartisan consensus.&#0160; This was the  time of the &quot;Gang of 6&quot; and the courting of Chuck Grassley.&#0160; He  possibly could have tried to &quot;ram things through&quot;, but to the obvious  frustration of lefties chose to continue to seek bipartisan agreement.&#0160;  For Romney and the Republicans to fault Obama for not being <em>more</em> partisan&#8230; I feel like this is a &quot;Annals of Chutzpah&quot; moment.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is. There are various scenarios to do with Kennedy&#39;s and Byrd&#39;s health, along with the Kirk replacement, that could be argued with. And you can find small periods in which Obama had a fleeting supermajority in the Senate &#8211; but still sought bipartisan support. Just remember that Romney claimed a supermajority in <em>both</em> houses for <em>two</em> years. Just untrue. And he clearly doesn&#39;t care.</p>
]]></html></oembed>