Senate The Future of the Republican Party

Agreed, Ike is not really forgotten, Kennedy was just a different type of president. He was very young had a young family etc. JFK just sticks out more then Ike does. Anyway, they Republicans have got to back to their orignal values, which might take awhile.

 

I am usually a strong supporter of bipartisanship, but I believe that the Republican party is asking for a little too much at this point.

The Democrats have a 60/40 advantage in the House and recently won the November elections in a near landslide (with the critical issue being the economy). I mean, how many inches are the Republicans entitled to in this legislation?

As Geist said, the Democrats already listened to and gave them larger tax cuts and removed the birth control clause. The Democrats have met multiple times with the Republicans to discuss the legislation, and yet the Minority Whip is still saying things like "[Pelosi] needs to meet with us...We need to begin to work truly in a bipartisan fashion...The kind of bill they put together without any input from us was not a stimulus bill." From all aspects that I can see, the Democrats are working in a bipartisan fashion - obviously they can do more, as there is always room to improve, but like I pointed out earlier, how many inches should the Democrats give away when they won the November elections overwhelmingly? Cantor is also saying that the Keynesian theory should be rejected and we should focus on "entrepreneurship". I'm not rejecting this ideology completely, the Democrats won the election - all three branches - and that is the philosophy they hold. Why should they put the emphasis on something that they weren't elected to pursue?

 

KK, the purpose of the stimulus bill is to inject money into the economy to create jobs and boost the economy during the downturn. As such, this is a perfect time for spending, which can include 'pork projects'.

As far as fiscal responsibility, the key question is whether the U.S. deficit and overall economy will be in better shape with or without the stimulus package. Voting against the stimulus package does not necessarily equal fiscal responsibility.

And I haven't been criticizing the Republicans for not going along with the stimulus package. I've merely been criticizing their attempts to portray Democrats as partisan in this matter. The Dems have been reaching out and willing to compromise, but I haven't seen any actual compromises from Republicans.

 

If the Democrats have such a strong majority, then why should they even bother trying to bring any Republicans on board? If they are so sure that their stimulus plan will be so successful, why would they want to take any steps that would allow Republicans to claim any credit for its success?

The only reason that makes sense for them to try to bring the Republicans on board is if they are afraid that it will fail, and they want some political cover so the Republicans can't use it against them.

Except those don't really address the core points of the Republicans' opposition to the proposed stimulus. At best, those could be called token offerings.

A large portion of the proposal does nothing to provide immediate relief, and many items in there read as though they are a liberal wish list of unrelated items.

For example, the stimulus includes $150 million for the Smithsonian. Now, I live near DC, and I love visiting various parts of the Smithsonian, but what on earth does giving the Smithsonian another $150 million (in addition to their already-established budget) have to do with economic stimulus?

Or what about the $6 billion designated for mass transit agencies? I'm sorry, but I worked with quite a few mass transit agencies up and down the East Coast in my last job, and I have yet to see any of them run in anything resembling an efficient manner. That money is essentially going to go down the drain.

Almost $30 billion dollars is designated for primary and secondary education (not counting another $20 billion for building and improving the physical schools). Again, what does that have to do with stimulating the economy? I could understand education funding to retrain workers who get laid off, but primary and secondary school students aren't going to be entering the economy in any meaningful way during this downturn, and so throwing money at them can't do all that much to stimulate the economy.

The Republicans have some very valid complaints about the proposal, and the Democrats haven't done much to address those complaints. Yes, the Democrats won the last elections, but that doesn't mean that the Republicans should just roll over and give up, and that doesn't give the Democrats a blank check to do whatever they want. If the Democrats just want to push their wish lists through, then they should just go ahead and do it, and ignore the Republicans. However, if they are going to claim that they are trying to be bipartisan, then they need to actually address the real concerns that the Republicans have put forward in something more than a token manner.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Nancy Pelosi has already stated that the Democrats will be responsible for the stimulus package if it fails, I believe. I'll have to find the quote.

As for your second part, I agree with you on some of the complaints. I am opposed to some portions of it, but, then again, the only stimulus package that I'd be fully content with would be my own. I'm not too concerned over it, as I still have faith that the Senate will clean some of the details up, especially since they seem to be more bipartisan than the House.

My only complain is that the Republicans seem to be blaming the Democrats for not being bipartisan, but are making too steep of demands to be met given the mandate (and power) that the Democrats have. That's my perspective, and I think some share it. I'm just a little annoyed with how the House Republicans are acting, along with many of my conservative friends and pundits, who seem to be fussing that they're not getting everything they want when they, politically, are not entitled to it. Should the Republicans be involved? Yes, but I'm just of the opinion that with the overwhelming majority that the American public gave the Democrats that the Republicans do not have much political capital to add to the stimulus package. Like the quote I used from Cantor, the Republicans are mad that the legislation is based on the Keynes philosophy - the very philosophy that the Democrats were elected to use.

 

They know they won't get what they want (the Democrats also know it), but they can't resist making political hay out of it. Or trying to. There is absolutely no need for bipartisanship, nor is it reasonably possible.

 

One of the Republican proposals in the House today was, I kid you not, "take all the spending out of the stimulus bill." That's not negotiation; it's obstruction for the sake of obstruction.

And the thing is, if all Obama wanted to do was ram his policies through, he could. He's got the mandate and the manpower. But he doesn't want to do it that way. He understands, in a way that Bush never did, that the President is not a monarch. As he said after the election, neither party has a monopoly on good ideas. He's even invited several members of both parties over for cocktails tonight to talk things over. If he keeps it up, he'll pretty much break the cycle of retaliation between the two parties for the last twenty-odd years. (You listening, JS? )

But the Republicans have to play ball. And if they don't, not only will they not get anything they want, but they'll look like the bad guys; if they keep it up, the Dems can legitimately say, "We offered you a seat at the table, you demanded all or nothing, so now you get nothing."

It's not going to be easy for them; their most public faces are Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh (whose influence over the GOP is so great that Rep. Gingrey was forced to [liink=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/28/gingrey-apologizes-for-limbaugh-criticism/]issue a rapid retraction[/link] one day after criticizing him). And their tax policies have largely been shaped by Grover Norquist, who famously compared corporate taxation to torture and estate taxation to the Holocaust.

If they can't learn to bend, they're going to break.

 

Agreed.

I think the dems have given too much already. Taking out the birth control clause made me very angry; it is a good idea that will save billions of dollars and certainly reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, as well as the need for abortions. It costs an awful lot more to treat HIV/hepatitis C than the $335 billion dollars being spent to give out the tools and education necessary to prevent those diseases in the first place.

If a Supreme Court vacancy opens up, are they going to demand that the nominee be "centrist"? If one of the conservative judges has to leave the court (for whatever reason), are they going to insist Obama nominate someone who is against abortion rights to "keep the balance"?

Obama is doing far more than Bush ever did to reach across the aisle. I'm all for compromise, but the GOP cannot expect it to be "50/50". There are some things that they are not going to get, and they need to understand this. If they keep things from getting done just to obstruct, and the economy gets worse, it is they, not Obama and the democrats, who will suffer in 2010. The voters aren't dumb, and they will know whom to blame for holding things up.

Bush governed for less than the half the country with a far smaller mandate than Obama has come in with. Don't ignore the loyal opposition, but don't allow them to dictate the terms, either. The country has voted for a new direction, and it expects movement in that sense.

Peace,

V-03

 

But what does it have to do with economic stimulus?

If they want to do things to potentially reduce future budgets, thats great, but they should wait to do that in the next fiscal year's budget bill, not push it through as part of an unrelated "emergency" bill.

Quite honestly, that's where I've heard most rank-and-file Republicans complaining. It's not that the Democrats don't want to give big tax cuts, or that the Democrats want to spend a lot of money. It's that they want to spend a lot of money on things that don't relate to stimulating the economy. Seriously, the entire bill reads as though it's the age-old Democratic wish list using the current economic troubles as an excuse.

The economy is the main reason why a lot of Democrats were elected, but that doesn't translate into massive support for the entire Democratic platform. They need to be addressing the economy itself first, and then going for their wish list.

After all, they have a clear majority in both houses. They can push all of these agenda items through whenever they want. Why, then, do they need to do it as part of an emergency "stimulus" bill? Are they afraid that doing them later would offend people that they want to win over? Are they trying to hide their agenda under the smokescreen of the economy?

I would actually say that it depends a lot on the reason. Let's say that Clarence Thomas is assassinated by a black man who thinks that he is a "race traitor", or an "Oreo", or a [insert chosen epithet here]. In such a case, I would argue that it's more appropriate to push for a conservative replacement than if it were simply a matter of a justice passing away or retiring.

Of course, you won't see me calling for Obama to nominate a conservative justice in order to maintain "balance". I'd call for him to appoint conservative justices because it's the right thing to do.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Michael Steele has been chosen to be the new RNC chairman, the first African-American to hold that post.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090130/ap_on_el_ge/republicans

 

Personally I see that appointment as a ploy to lure black voters into voting Republican. At least partially. They're becoming a pathetically contrarian party that hopes Obama fails. Or at least supporting people who do so their position is 'justified'. Really.

link

This may be a blatantly partisan article, but he does bring up an interesting quote:

A Republican congressman from Georgia, Phil Gingery, dared tell Limbaugh to "back off" and that it's easy to "stand back and throw stones." (He included Hannity in the criticism.)

...

"Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement's conscience," he said, begging forgiveness. "Every day, millions and millions of Americans -- myself included -- turn on their radios and televisions to listen to what they have to say, and we are inspired by their words and determination."


What the...? Honestly, I was glad he stood up to Limbaugh and Hannity and then he went around and defended them. What a wuss. You wanna know what the future of the Republican party is? Death. When you get soundly defeated in an election, offer no alternative, and continue to piss away on ideas like, "Our leaders aren't conservative enough," you're in for whirlwind of crap that won't end any time soon. Oh, and cheering for Obama's failure--great job guys! Truly. To hope that our leader fails and that America slumps further into an economic depression you've truly shown you're the party of 'patriots'. It's pathetic and I'll be glad when this joke of a party fades into history. Granted I'll say the same about the Democratic party. However, they're better at reinventing themselves.

If the GOP ever wants to compete again they're gonna have to stop being known as the party for rich old white guys. And that Republican National Convention this past year....I hate to say it, but I've seen more color at a Klan rally.

 

Ghost, I know you broke the issue down to strictly partisan lines in your prior post, but what do you think about this?

An influential Senate Democrat said Friday that it's unclear whether President Obama's $819 economic stimulus bill will win enough support to pass in the Senate. "I don't even know how many Democrats will vote for it, as it stands today," Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., told FOX News.

Lawmakers are unhappy that the bill, passed by the House on Wednesday, contains billions of dollars for programs that arguably won't spark much job growth.

EXAMPLE

Although it passed the House, I think the bolded reason above is why legislators from both parties are questioning the bill. As KK mentioned above, you can't just give $150 million to the Smithsonian, for example, if that money is just going to sit in a few pockets, if the goal is to use it for the overall economy. (you could give the Smithsonian other support, just don't attach it to an emergency stimulus bill.)

Personally, I'd say such a bill should be stripped down to the bare minimum by necessity, or at least targeted as much as possible, because Congress probably isn't going to get another chance to open up such funds again.

If it doesn't pass the Senate, then a compromise version will have to be reconciled between the two, regardless of party affiliation.

 

,,If the GOP ever wants to compete again they're gonna have to stop being known as the party for rich old white guys.,,

Maybe Bob Jindal could change that?

 

Funny you say that, cause the GOP named Michael Steele, who happens to be black, as the chair of the RNC. I don't want to hear any crap about tokenism either.

Anyway, so what happens to Obama should the bill fail to pass the Senate? Would all his political capital be instantly gone?

I wouldn't mind seeing the bill be whittled down. It seems monstrously huge and wasteful in places. Who exactly is to blame for this?

 

,,Funny you say that, cause the GOP named Michael Steele, who happens to be black, as the chair of the RNC. I don't want to hear any crap about tokenism either.,,

I think the person i qouted refered too the image of the party,so did i.

 

goodfellas, when the majority of your party is white and a black man just became president and the GOP is stuck in a losing game then it is tokenism.

 

Obama's capital won't be instantly gone.

He may choose to pull back on the bipartisanship rhetoric if it continues to stop him from getting things done, however.

Compromise is fine, but the GOP is acting as if they just barely lost the election. W won with far less in the first term and governed from much further to the right. Obama has done nearly the opposite, and he is getting taken advantage of by republicans who basically are trying to stop the majority from enacting what they see as "too liberal" and agenda.

However, they seem to have forgotten that the voters spoke in November. Obama is entitled to pick and choose how many inches he wants to give. If the GOP is unhappy about this, they can campaign against it in '10 and the voters will either reward or repudiate their lockstep refusal to play ball with Obama accordingly. But they need ideas, not just obstruction, or they will end up further marginalized.

All this talk about "fiscal responsibility" is incredibly disingenuous, as far as I'm concerned. The GOP wasn't howling during '00-'06 when Bush was the one asking for the checks while bloating government and slashing tax revenue at a record pace. They are responsible for this mess, and to expect the voting public to approve of them demanding that any stimulus be fashioned in a way that continues W's failed economic policies is simply ludicrous.

Obama needs to get some steel in his spine and let them know that he will go "this far, no further!" (picture Jean-Luc Picard ranting about the Borg in First Contact). They have to understand that bipartisanship will not stand in the way of getting things done.

Cut the birth control provision and bring it back on it's own later? Fine. But get rid of energy spending? Not gonna happen. Nothing will make this country safer than cutting our dependence on foreign oil and creating jobs that cannot be outsourced in a new, green economy. America's strength remains in it's innovation; the world is waiting to see what we do. If we lead, everyone else may follow. If we fail to lead, others will, and we will be left behind, weakened and fading.

It's our choice. The voters made a declaration on November 4th, and now it's time for our new President to move forward. The "loyal opposition" cannot continue to act as if they are still in complete control, and I don't think that they will be allowed to for much longer.

Peace,

V-03

 

I'd say the Republican party is more a Southern, white/evangelical party than a 'rich white guy' party. Obama won the 'rich' vote. I'd say this is probably because wealthier whites who live in the cities and lean Republican on fiscal issues got tired of the social conservatism and 'we are the real Americans' of the Sarah Palins of the world. However, just a few years ago the Democrats were supposed to be on death's door. Michael Steele is a bright, capabale and fairly moderate Republican. He is a very solid choice.

GOP Governors press Congress to pass stimulus:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_go_pr_wh/stimulus_gop_governors

I love the call for bipartisanship/centrism from the media and others who never felt the same needed to be done when Bush and the Republicans were in charge, despite a lesser 'mandate' and lesser majorities. True, the Democrats should include the Republicans in negotiations. But if they're not going to budge on their 'tax cuts and nothing else' stance...screw em, we won and to the victor goes the spoils.

EDIT:

Very, very well said V.

 

,,I'd say the Republican party is more a Southern, white/evangelical party than a 'rich white guy' party.,,

Both parties are rich mans partyes when you look at the guys suporting the parties financialy.

 

QFT

 

QTF again. Spending so much on a stimulus package wouldn't be nearly as bad if we hadn't added trillions to the national debt over the last eight years and gone into this year already with a $500 billion deficit. Because, we if had been fiscally responsible over the last eight years, we probably could have at least afforded some of this.

 

all this talk about "fiscal responsibility" is incredibly disingenuous, as far as I'm concerned. The GOP wasn't howling during '00-'06 when Bush was the one asking for the checks while bloating government and slashing tax revenue at a record pace. They are responsible for this mess, and to expect the voting public to approve of them demanding that any stimulus be fashioned in a way that continues W's failed economic policies is simply ludicrous.

Except that's not true. I can think of a half a dozen of GOP politicians who were critical of the Bush administration's spending habits. "Howling mad?" You bet they were, and it was one of the legitimate reasons that added to Bush's disapproval. Disingenuous- meet the kettle...

And besides, I'm not sure you're "2 wrongs make a right" argument makes much sense in the current climate. So the Bush administration spent 350 billion dollars a couple of years ago? The Obama administration now gets to go on an 700 billion dollar orgy of spending, well... just because it's payback? Or are you suggesting that Obama should adopt the worst habits of Bush, especially since the stakes are now so much higher?

And quite honestly, in many situations, the Bush administration didn't start off by forcing the spending through.. Remember when Rumsfeld was blasted for saying that the "Army deploys with what it has?" It was the opposition party who got all worked up about providing the most expensive body armor, the most armored Humvees regardless of suitability or mission... Or criticized FEMA for not letting Katrina evacuees stay in furnished mobile homes, regardless of the fact that the practice was never used for prior disasters.

And I think a strong argument could be made that while the Bush administration did spend a lot of money, it was more open and honest about it. Anti-terrorism requests went to anti-terrorist efforts, for example- agree or disagree with the requests.

I don't recall anything like tacking on to an emergency stimulus bill 20 million dollars to provide condoms to middle school students.. Providing safe sex might make sense, I'm not debating the merits of the practice, but it should be brought up during normal session of Congress, not forced through on the guise of boosting the economy, because it has absolutely no economic impact.

If 100 billion of a 700 billion dollar stimulus bill has nothing to do with the economy, then we have problems. Congress can play social engineering 101 when things are more stable. The current situation is too serious to be playing around with such pork. That's where the criticism is directed.

 

I can sort of see where that criticism is coming from, but I don't quite understand it. Somebody has to make the latex. Somebody perform quality control on the packaging.

As far as stimulus goes, $20 million worth of condoms has just as much stimulus as $20 million in tax cuts or $20 million in schools. Sort of like how a pound of feathers weighs just as much as a pound of gold.

 

Because it has to do with the return of the actual money put in. This is an emergency economic stimulus bill-the entire weight, or at least as much as possible should be directed in that direction.

David Greising, who is a business columnist for the Chicago Tribune, examined this very thing in a column today:

HERE

Stimulus plan seems too unfocused to straighten out mess

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration is shoveling money at the problem as fast as it can. The landmark $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program has become a study in two ways to mess up a bailout. Now President Barack Obama's $819 billion stimulus package is lumbering through Congress?a load of budget-busting spending that the president says will save or create millions of jobs, but also may prove to be the worst of both worlds. From highway projects to school buildings, the investment targets may prove to be so broadly distributed as to dilute the total effect. Yet the bill will come due, paid by our children or their children....

The Obama stimulus package seems so unfocused as to be ineffective. The description falls short of truth in advertising. This is just a pork barrel that gives Democrats fulfillment of every wish they've had on their list for the last 100 years....

On the one hand, he must encourage prudent action where delay might cause infection and further damage. On the other, he should keep an eye on spending, to make certain the investment pays off.

He goes on to suggest that Congress should target the aid, and help banks unwind their current bad assets, and allow investors and bondholders, not taxpayers, absorb the costs and reorganize.. I'm not a economist, so the specifics are beyond me, but the principle makes sense.

 

Mr44

For every six GOP politicians that expressed dismay with the Bush administration's spending habits, there are probably 60 who voted in lockstep.

Anyway, I think it is too early to judge TARP. IMO it will be viewed as a good decision by the Bush administration, and I think it made things 'less bad', so to speak.

What I think will happen is that the Senate will come up with a much better bill, the House GOP will still vote at least 95% against it, the Senate will pass it by a comfortable margin.