January 28-30, 2009
Jan 28 19:08 WSJ, Washington Post On Jimmy Carter Memorial Bill Jan 29 02:35 What DFL Priorities? Jan 29 03:53 Spending Bill's Next Step a Big One Jan 29 13:39 Obama Administration: "We Will Strengthen Bill" Jan 29 14:04 Last Minute Notice Townhall Meeting Jan 29 17:59 Senate GOP Asks DFL to Follow THEIR Rules Jan 29 19:27 There's Too Much Common Sense For The DFL to Let This Pass Jan 30 04:11 That's The Face of Postpartisan Politics?
WSJ, Washington Post On Jimmy Carter Memorial Bill
When an Opinion Journal article focuses on the same topic as a Washington Post article , you know that it's important. That's why I took notice when both focused on the Jimmy Carter Memorial Bill . First, let's look at James Freeman's Opinion Journal op-ed:
President Obama's $825 billion (and counting) "stimulus" is steamrolling through Congress. One group of conservative Republicans is betting that it will only worsen the country's economic plight.It's time conservatives showed they had a spine. It's even better that they're listening to their base. The Jimmy Carter Memorial Bill is loaded with lots of wasteful spending. Five years ago, this bill would've passed with little opposition. Today, there's vocal opposition to it. Some of that opposition is coming from Democrats, though for a different reason:
That's where the House Republican Study Committee comes in. "No Trillion Dollar Spending Spree" is the message from this conservative caucus. Led by its new chairman, Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, the RSC now counts more than 100 House Republicans among its members. Mr. Price calls the Democrats' proposal "the non-stimulus plan" and says it "simply won't work" because it offers no market incentives to create jobs. What the plan does offer are multibillion-dollar gifts to state governments, teachers unions, and the environmental lobby, with such gems as a $6 billion program to "weatherize modest-income homes."
In testimony before the House Budget Committee yesterday, Alice M. Rivlin, who was President Bill Clinton's budget director, suggested splitting the plan, implementing its immediate stimulus components now and taking more time to plan the longer-term transformative spending to make sure it is done right.It isn't that Ms. Rivlin is opposed to spending fistfuls of taxpayer money. It's that she's opposed to hastily spending the taxpayer's money.
"Such a long-term investment program should not be put together hastily and lumped in with the anti-recession package. The elements of the investment program must be carefully planned and will not create many jobs right away," said Rivlin, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. The risk, she said, is that "money will be wasted because the investment elements were not carefully crafted."
It's worth noting that, in suggesting that the spending bills be split, that she talked about things that would stimulate the economy and things that would improve infrastructure. She didn't mention a thing about $4.2 billion in grants to ACORN and like-minded organizations. She didn't mention $335 million in funding to the CDC for STD education and prevention.
UPDATE: According to MajorityTracker.com, the roll call for final passage was 244-188. The Ayes and Nays haven't been posted yet. Check this link later today for the Ayes and Nays.
UPDATE II: The Washington Post is reporting that "11 Democrats and 177 Republicans [voted] against it." It'll be interesting to see which Democrats broke ranks with Ms. Pelosi.
UPDATE III: The NY Times has posted an interactive chart that identifies the 11 Democrats who voted against the stimulus package. Voting against the spending bill were Collin Peterson, Gene Taylor, Walt Minnick, Brad Ellsworth, Heath Schuler, Parker Griffith, Bobby Bright, F. Alan Boyd, Frank Kratovil, Paul Kanjorski and Jim Cooper.
Posted Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:56 PM
Comment 1 by kb at 28-Jan-09 10:23 PM
I didn't think Peterson would have the stones to vote against it. Good for him. His blue dog credentials are hereby restamped.
What DFL Priorities?
I've criticized the DFL for the absence of spending priorities. In this statement, Rep. Steve Gottwalt has questioned the DFL's budget priorities:
The DFL is quick to criticize, but despite their overwhelming majorities in both houses, they have not provided one shred of leadership in solving our state budget deficit! Where is their plan? They have the benefit of the same information the Governor's Office has, and have had more than ample time to consider the same challenges. So where is their solution, their ideas, their vision forward? There isn't one, and Minnesotans will be subjected to weeks of bashing and wailing over the tough decisions contained in the governor's budget proposal before we see any inkling of a DFL solution (i.e., "revenue enhancers", better known as tax increases). Minnesotans did not elect us to ponder and criticize; they elected us to address the challenges facing our state, and they cannot take more tax burden. They are struggling to live within their means, and government should do no less! So far, it's only Governor Pawlenty and the GOP providing leadership on how not only to address the current budget shortfall, but reform systems of government, and position our business climate to attract and grow jobs.I'd be surprised if the DFL didn't take the next month on the road criticizing Gov. Pawlenty's budget. Remember that this is the bunch that didn't pass budget targets in 2007 even though it's mandated. If they're truly the majority party, what's the leadership's solutions to today's problems? We know that Assistant Senate DFL Leader Tarryl Clark thinks that " maybe we could figure out how to save about $500 million ."
Rep. Steve Gottwalt
House District 15A
Since the deficit is $4.8 billion and growing, possibly to $7 billion, it's a safe bet that the rest will either come from Obama's stimulus package or tax increases. That isn't a plan. That's patching things together and hoping people accept it.
Thus far, Gov. Pawlenty, along with the House and Senate GOP Caucuses, have been the people who've thought outside the box. They've been the innovators. By pinning their hopes on Pelosi's spending bill and by voting against the GOP's costcutting proposals that would have had politicmoral ground' on the status quo. That's if such a mythical place exists.
Posted Thursday, January 29, 2009 2:35 AM
No comments.
Spending Bill's Next Step a Big One
Now that the House has passed its version of a
Another question that must be asked involves something more than policies and priorities. It involves dynamics, politics and the midterms. The dynamics involved have changed. The House GOP standing together changes it from a bipartisan bill with political cover for representatives who voted for it to a partisan bill that Nancy Pelosi currently owns.
The politics have changed, too. It isn't likely that House Republicans stood in unison without getting a hint that the Senate GOP was willing to stand fast, too. That means the so-called stimulus bill will be the Democrats' property.
Let's suppose that House and Senate Democrats agree on bills that look pretty much like the bill the House passed Wednesday. Let's suppose that the conference report reconciling the bills emerges with everything staying largely intact. At that point, wouldn't that put the Democrats in an at-risk position for the midterms?
The UK Telegraph's Toby Harnden doesn't paint that bleak a scenario in this article but he isn't painting with rose-colored glasses, either:
The Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill badly miscalculated by treating the bill as a victor's charter. Not that it seemed to bother Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who grinned from ear to ear as she announced the result of the vote.Aside from her penchant for pit bull politics, Ms. Pelosi is best known for her overreach capabilities.
Mr. Harnden noted something else from Wednesday's vote:
Obama vowed to change Washington and usher in a new post-partisan era. The the mood music and optics were pitch perfect as he trekked up to the Hill. Republicans praised his gesture, welcomed his sincere demeanour and appreciated his willingness to listen.When I wrote this post , I detected more than a hint of President Obama's audacity. In retrospect, his "I won" quote is more damning now than I thought then. And I thought it was damning then.
Problem was, he wanted only to listen and did not want to act on what Republicans said. When he was asked if he would re-structure the package to include more tax cuts, he reportedly responded : "Feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part."
He apparently added : " I understand that and I will watch you on Fox News and feel bad about myself."
Mr. Harnden's statement that President Obama "wanted only to listen and did not want to act on what Republicans said" is emerging as a telltale sign of President Obama's governing style. During the campaign, I noted that then-Sen. Obama often talked about bringing people together. I also noted that his Senate record on working in a bipartisan manner was almost nonexistent.
In fact, the campaign embarassed itself when they tried characterizing his working with Dick Lugar on locking up the former Soviet Union's nuclear warchest as an effort in which he defied his party's elders. It turned out that the Obama-Lugar bill passed on a voice vote in the Senate.
It's becoming apparent that President Obama is skilled at photo op bipartisanship. Unless something changes dramatically, it's becoming equally apparent that President Obama isn't skilled at substantive bipartisanship.
That's potentially damaging to him if the bill passes, is signed into law, then flops. It's politically damaging to him if the bill passes but doesn't lift the economy out of this recession. It's especially damaging if the bill causes high inflation and unemployment rates.
Finally, if the bill passes and doesn't lift us out of this recession AND the American people can be convinced that more tax cuts would've made a difference, then President Obama can be cast as a smooth-talking partisan failure, not a statesman whose plan succeeded in lifting us out of a recession.
All this is speculation at this point but it's a plausible scenario now that the House GOP stood its ground.
Posted Thursday, January 29, 2009 3:59 AM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 29-Jan-09 08:06 PM
You know everyone complains about how President Bush ran up the deficits. In eight years federal spending increased by something like one trillion dollars.
Now in one day they want to spend the same amount of money that it took eight years to build up.
That should tell you how bloated this bill is and how it's not a stimulus package.
Walter hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Obama Administration: "We Will Strengthen Bill"
The Obama administration issued this statement last night after the House passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment plan. In it, it doesn't sound like they're in the compromise/bipartisanship mood. Here's the text of that statement:
"Last year, America lost 2.6 million jobs. On Monday alone, we learned that some of our biggest employers plan to cut another 55,000. This is a wakeup call to Washington that the American people need us to act and act immediately.I'm thinking that this administration should be called the 'Everything Immediately' administration because there isn't a Democratic special interest group that they don't attempt to pay off in this bill.
That is why I am grateful to the House of Representatives for moving the American Recovery and Reinvestment plan forward today. There are many numbers in this plan. It will double our capacity to generate renewable energy. It will lower the cost of health care by billions and improve its quality. It will modernize thousands of classrooms and send more kids to college. And it will put billions of dollars in immediate tax relief into the pockets of working families.
But out of all these numbers, there is one that matters most to me: this recovery plan will save or create more than three million new jobs over the next few years.
I can also promise that my administration will administer this recovery plan with a level of transparency and accountability never before seen in Washington. Once it is passed, every American will be able to go the website recovery.gov and see how and where their money is being spent.
The plan now moves to the Senate, and I hope that we can continue to strengthen this plan before it gets to my desk. But what we can't do is drag our feet or allow the same partisan differences to get in our way. We must move swiftly and boldly to put Americans back to work, and that is exactly what this plan begins to do."
Notice, too, that President Obama tries glossing over the pork portion of the bill:
But out of all these numbers, there is one that matters most to me: this recovery plan will save or create more than three million new jobs over the next few years.President Obama obviously knows that there's tons of pork in this bill but tries distracting us from noticing. He'd rather we look at the tax relief and the infrastructure projects than on the special interest payoffs.
President Obama made a point of frequently talking about no lobbyist insiders corrupting his administration. After seeing the rate with which his administration spends money, I'd suggest that they're spending more money than lobbyists would've suggested.
Before we're lost in the blizzard of numbers, shouldn't we ask a simple question, namely: Can we afford this amount of spending? Here's another question I'd ask: Should we want to spend this money without establishing our priorities? Paying off the winning party's political allies shouldn't be part of the nation's priorities. Neither should spending unprecedented amounts of money on dubious public works projects.
Rather than strengthening this bill, the best move would be to start over & get it right.
Posted Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:39 PM
No comments.
Last Minute Notice Townhall Meeting
I've just confirmed with Rep. Dan Severson and Rep. Steve Gottwalt that Tarryl Clark is indeed holding a townhall meeting at Whitney Senior Center this Saturday morning. According to the Times' article , "State legislators representing St. Cloud and St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis are inviting the public to a town-hall meeting on state and city budget issues at 9 a.m. Saturday at the Whitney Senior Center." The article goes on to say this:
Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud, Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud, and Rep. Larry Haws, DFL-St. Cloud, will join Kleis to discuss the impact of recent cuts in state aid to cities and the impact of Gov. Tim Pawlenty's budget proposal on cities.About two weeks ago, Rep. Gottwalt announced that he would be holding a townhall meeting at the Granite Edge in Rockville this Saturday morning from 10-11. Unfortunately, Tarryl's office didn't check with Rep. Gottwalt prior to making this announcement.
I'm not suggesting moving the meeting, though that certainly would be an option. I'm suggesting that announcements shouldn't be sent out saying people will be attending without first asking if they're able to attend.
I've confirmed with Rep. Gottwalt's office that he will attend the first part of this meeting but that he'll keep his commitment with the people of Rockville.
Since public participation is encouraged, I'm asking area conservatives to attend & make their voices heard on Gov. Pawlenty's budget.
Posted Thursday, January 29, 2009 2:15 PM
No comments.
Senate GOP Asks DFL to Follow THEIR Rules
The Senate GOP has issued the following statement:
SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER CALLS ON SENATE DFL TO RELEASE DETAILS OF SENATE EXPENDITURES AS REQUIRED BY RULESWith transparency being the rule that the Obama administration is promising to live by, the Senate DFL should follow their national party's leader and release this information.
(St. Paul) ; In a speech on the floor of the Minnesota Senate, Senate Republican Leader David Senjem (R-Rochester) today called on the Senate DFL Caucus to immediately comply with the rules of the Minnesota Senate and release a copy of Senate expenditures to members of the Committee on Rules and Administration.
"The budget deficit is getting larger and larger by the minute and we should be examining ways to cut the expenses of the Minnesota Senate and spend less of the taxpayers' money," said Senjem.
Section 51.5 of the Permanent Rules of the Minnesota Senate states:
"By the 15th day of April, July, October, and January of each year, the Secretary shall submit a detailed report of Senate expenditures during the previous quarter to the Committee on Rules and Administration."
Public records indicate that a report of Senate expenditures has not been provided to members of the Committee on Rules and Administration as required by the Senate's rules in numerous years.
Earlier this session, members of the Senate Republican Caucus attempted to cut the expenses of the Minnesota Senate by offering amendments to reduce the postage allotment for each member and banning taxpayer-funded travel.
I'd further add that both the House and Senate should enact whatever laws are required to provide total transparency to their constituents.
Posted Thursday, January 29, 2009 5:59 PM
No comments.
There's Too Much Common Sense For The DFL to Let This Pass
After reading Tom Emmer's op-ed , it's painfully obvious that the DFL won't let this bill pass because it contains utterly too much common sense to be worthy of consideration. If legislation doesn't the requisite amount of obfuscation. a bill can't be considered. Only if legislation lacks a sufficient amount of clarity can it be considered.
Here's what Rep. Emmer said in arguing for requiring Photo ID:
Photo identification requirements are designed to do one thing: prevent fraud in our elections. Unfortunately, the occurrence of fraud in our voting system is all too prevalent. The Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform (chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker) made such a determination when it released its report in 2005. The report cited numerous examples from other states that demonstrate how fraud has played a role in recent U.S. elections. One such case in East Chicago, Ind., resulted in the Indiana Supreme Court invalidating a mayoral primary based on evidence of rampant absentee ballot fraud that included the use of a vacant lot as an address for nonresident voters.Former St. Cloud Mayor John Ellenbecker always asks for proof of voter fraud to justify the 'imposition' of Photo ID. I'd suggest that "invalidating a mayoral primary based on evidence of rampant absentee ballot fraud that included the use of a vacant lot as an address for nonresident voters" should be sufficient proof that we need photo ID.
But critics of requiring photo ID at the polls argue that it somehow violates the First and 14th amendments to the Constitution because it imposes an unwarranted burden on a person's right to vote. Opponents claim it's a burden that would fall disproportionately on minorities and other groups that tend to vote in lower numbers. I'm not sure how carrying a (free, if need be) state-issued photo ID card imposes a burden on American citizens, but if someone has an explanation, I'm willing to listen.
A 2007 study by the Institute for Public Policy at the University of Missouri found that when a photo ID requirement was instituted before that state's 2006 elections, not only did voter turnout increase by two percentage points compared with a similar off-year election in 2002, but that there was "no consistent evidence" that counties with higher percentages of minorities, poor, elderly or less-educated population suffered "any reduction in voter turnout relative to other counties." To me, an increase in voter turnout and no undue burden on voters seems to be a goal that everyone, regardless of political ideology or party affiliation, should be willing to support.
Some critics of Rep. Emmer's legislation say that it's a divisive issue . The DFL insists that it's an artificial issue:
"I think it's a solution in search of a problem," said Sen. Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope.The DFL also contends that it disenfranchises voters:
Democrats have argued for years that thousands of Minnesotans lack government-issued photo IDs, and such a law would disenfranchise the people least likely to have drivers' licenses: the poor, the disabled and the elderly. Those people also are more likely to vote for Democrats.Rep. Emmer's op-ed cites studies that refute the notion that requiring Photo IDs disenfranchises voters. In fact, his study suggests the opposite.
I've got a question for Sen. Rest, Mark Ritchie and Keith Ellison. Does this trio think that Minnesota is doing its best in guaranteeing the integrity of its elections? If they think that, can they explain why they think that? I'm betting that they'll dodge the first question by saying that voter fraud, if it happens, is minimal at best.
My counter to that is that 225 votes seperate Sen. Coleman and Al Franken out of almost 3 million votes cast. I'd highlight that, in 2006, Paul Gardner defeated Phil Krinkie by 50 votes, that Jeremy Kalin defeated Pete Nelson by 204 votes, that David Bly defeated Ray Cox by 60 votes, that Kim Norton defeated Rich Decker by 99 votes and that Ken Tschumper defeated Greg Davids by 52 votes.
In other words, a little voter fraud potentially might yield big results.
That alone should be reason enough to warrant doing everything possible to prevent voter fraud. Unfortunately, that makes too much sense for the DFL to consider it.
Posted Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:27 PM
Comment 1 by Tony at 30-Jan-09 02:57 AM
Something smells fishy. It's sad that there are times that legal processes turn out to be a joke - an unfunny one unfortunately.
Comment 2 by eric z at 30-Jan-09 01:50 PM
Taking as correct your premise, it won't pass and is DOA, why discuss it? Mary K. no longer is SoS, in part over this non-inclusive thought.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 30-Jan-09 03:03 PM
Eric:
I thought that the governor was going to line item the whole Secretary of State office unless he got it. So it's coming.
By the way what's wrong with making people prove who they are? Are you not really EricZ? do you vote in more than one location?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 30-Jan-09 06:09 PM
I predict that this bill will become law.
That's The Face of Postpartisan Politics?
For all of President Obama's lofty rhetoric about being a postpartisan president, he's done precious little to change how Democrats operate when they think the spotlight isn't on them. This Hill article tells us everything we need to know about Democrats:
Democrats are preparing to attack those Republicans who oppose the $825 billion stimulus package but supported the $61 billion stimulus bill that passed the House last year, according to multiple sources.As we know, 11 Democrats joined all 177 Republicans in voting against Pelosi's monstrous pork bill. It's safe to assume that there's no chance that the DCCC will accuse the 11 Judases of "abandoning their commitments to increase infrastructure spending, create jobs and turn around the ailing economy." Here's hoping that the NRCC targets every vulnerable Democrat for voting for a pork-laden bill that does nothing to put us on the path to sustained prosperity.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is readying press releases to target the 35 House Republicans who were on board with the smaller stimulus bill in September, but who might balk at supporting the new economic recovery package when it comes to the floor on Wednesday.
The press releases will accuse those Republicans of abandoning their commitments to increase infrastructure spending, create jobs and turn around the ailing economy, a source familiar with the plan said Tuesday.
The goal of every spending bill that's signed into law should be to increase America's prosperity. PERIOD.
It isn't just the DCCC that's putting together anti-Republican ads :
Politico has learned that tomorrow Americans United for Change, a liberal group, will begin airing radio ads in three states Obama won, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada, with a tough question aimed at the GOP senators there: Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?I'd love asking Mr. Woodhouse if Collin Peterson, Gene Taylor, Walt Minnick, Brad Ellsworth, Heath Schuler, Parker Griffith, Bobby Bright, F. Alan Boyd, Frank Kratovil, Paul Kanjorski and Jim Cooper "decided to play politics rather than do the right thing", too?
"Every Republican member of the House chose to take Rush Limbaugh's advice," says the narrator after playing the conservative talk radio giant's declaration that he hopes Obama "fails."
"Every Republican voted with Limbaugh, and against creating 4 million new American jobs. We can understand why a extreme partisan like Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama's Jobs program to fail, but the members of Congress elected to represent the citizens in their districts? That's another matter.
Asked to respond, Limbaugh had a message for his party.
"Senate Republicans need to understand this is not about me," he wrote in an email. "It is about them, about intimidating them, especially after the show of unity in House. It is about the 2010 and 2012 elections. This is an opportunity for Republicans to redefine themselves after a few years of wandering aimlessly looking for a 'brand' and identity."
Brad Woodhouse, the Democratic strategist who is overseeing the ad campaign, said: "The House Republicans put their Senate colleagues in the crosshairs because they decided to play politics rather than do the right thing."
Brad Woodhouse is a partisan liberal hack. Here's what Jeff Birnbaum wrote about Mr. Woodhouse in May, 2007:
The convergence began in January of last year when USAction, a grass-roots organization with eager activists in two dozen states, was hunting for additional space and leased more square footage than it needed on the second floor of 1825. It ended up subletting to Americans United for Change, its rapid-response confederate in the successful fight in 2005 to defeat President Bush's plan to add private accounts to Social Security. (Woodhouse is president of that group.)Birnbaum's article continues with this:
Roger Hickey, co-director of Campaign for America's Future, called this clustering of a critical mass of these groups "a happy accident," and a very useful one.These are the same K Street lobbying organizations that helped Democrats retake the House and Senate in 2006. MoveOn.org's Tom Matzzie shared office space with these groups, too.
"The ability to walk down the hall and see somebody and get things done is great," agreed Jeff Blum, executive director of USAction. Then, sounding just as corporate as anyone on K Street, Blum added: "We believe in synergy."
If President Obama doesn't do anything to distance himself from these organizations, it'll be impossible for him to credibly say that he's a postpartisan presidency. Why should I trust someone who talks a great postpartisan game but who tolerates the actions of the most hyperpartisan organizations in DC?
Fortunately, the NRCC is hitting back:
The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) suggested Democrats are using the troubled economy as a way to advance their own social agenda, citing the liberal grassroots group ACORN and others as beneficiaries of the stimulus package.Let's hope Republicans realize that the Democrats have declared war on every elected Republican. Let's hope Republicans understand that bipartisanship and statesmanship isn't part of the Democrats' game plan. The Democrats' idea of bipartisanship is allowing Republicans to cave.
"Spare us the phony press releases," said NRCC communications director Ken Spain. "So far the Democrats' idea of 'protecting the middle class' has consisted of taxpayer-funded contraceptives and billions of dollars in ACORN-stuffed pork .
"It's hard to decipher which is the most fraudulent notion, the fact that ACORN is a law-abiding entity worthy of a $4.2 billion bailout or that $1.1 trillion in out-of-control government spending is going to defy the experts and have some sort of immediate effect on the economy," Spain said.
If the Democrats' highest priority was to make America the most prosperous country in the world, it wouldn't have included $4.2 billion for ACORN and likeminded organizations in the spending bill. It wouldn't have included $1 billion for Amtrak in the legislation. It wouldn't have included $335 million for STD prevention and education in the legislation.
Originally posted Friday, January 30, 2009, revised 11-Jul 3:33 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 30-Jan-09 10:38 AM
Republicans have to learn how to fight fire with fire. For example, if Democrats put up an ad saying Republicans "voted against 4 million new jobs," they should put up an ad with the video of the committee staffer who testified that, essentially, there were NO jobs in the bill. Let the Democrats lie, then show them telling the truth. Hot stuff.
Comment 2 by eric z at 30-Jan-09 01:45 PM
It's a long post, but the gist is you, Gary, don't believe spending money now on jobs and on weaning the nation from foreign oil dependency (other than by risking ocean pollution off our coast and building conventional coal and nuclear power plants) is a good idea?
What would you spend money on? More Halliburton contracts in Iraq?
On one of your other themes, the GOP need to advance its technocratic capabilities to be more competitive, there's been news that way in the last few days. It looks like some people swift-boated themselves and blamed it on Drudge traffic peaks.
Gary, they won.
Decisively. People wanted change.
Now a GOP effort to hinder and waylay their reforms and then blame them for the failure would be disingenuous, as well as transparent. And Rush has yet to be disavowed by anyone wearing one of those GOP lapel flag pins, Made in China.
Finally, the blue dogs will be a nuisance; no doubt; and you've recognized that factor correctly.
Just as the Dems were non-partisan in going along with the Bush-Cheney-Paulson massive funding of the Wall Street and bank bailout; the GOP has to own up to responsible demands of a blighted economy rather than turning to more partisan postural conduct. It's their turn. They're lurching now in the way of what the people want and voted for. That's unwise.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 30-Jan-09 03:00 PM
Eric:
Where to begin with your silliness. Obama talked about the campaign how we had to sacrifice and stop using energy. So what does he do on his first full day of the job. Take off his suit coat because he has the temperature in the oval office set to over 70 degrees. At least Jimmy Carter wore a sweater when he talked about sacrifice.
Yes we can free us of foreign energy. The best thing about nuclear is it doesn't give off those evil green house gases and France endorses it yet you don't want to use that.
Why can't we build coal plants in the United States? Won't that give jobs to construction workers? Won't that give more work to coal miners? Apparently you want more jobs in industries which you think is politically correct.
Eric people wanted bickering to stop and work together. That is what Obama talked about. Now he's president he's imposing not working together. If you want bi-partisan Rush said Obama spends 54% and the Republicans spend 46%.
Furthermore Eric people were annoyed with spending they overwheleming opposed the bailout. Yet what is Obama's idea of a stimulus package even more spending which is pork. At least the previous expenditures were for a real purpose.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 30-Jan-09 03:58 PM
Eric, Let's go through your comment point-by-point.
I'm a proponent of weaning our nation from foreign oil. What I reject is the notion that drilling on the OCS is a terrible disaster. The massive oil spill of California's coast HAPPENED ONCE. It happened decades ago. Technology & safety improvements have changed that dramatically.
2) "Decisively. People wanted change."
That's true. They did. That was then. This is now. The legislation passed through the House is losing support daily. Just because people voted for change doesn't give the Obama administration carte blanche to do whatever they want.
People are rejecting this legislation because they see it as Democrats paying off their special interest allies. That isn't something that the American people are buying into.
3) "Now a GOP effort to hinder and waylay their reforms and then blame them for the failure would be disingenuous, as well as transparent. And Rush has yet to be disavowed by anyone wearing one of those GOP lapel flag pins, Made in China."
A) I don't see a single reform in the bill just passed by Pelosi. I see this as a blatant attempt to pay off political allies, some of whom are corrupt.
B) Had the GOP not offered a thoughtful alternative that costs less money, the GOP would've been rightly criticized. Since they offered a thoughtful alternative, it's impossible to criticize them for being obstructionist.
C) Rush won't be disavowed because he's about promoting policies that make us prosperous. People understand that that's prefered over giving people a chance of living day-to-day.
