Threats for going against the party...
 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...mulus-backers/


This is CRAZY to me... I thought party lines were guidelines, not the rule... secondly, I am encourage to vote for Senators who showcase they are not voting by party lines but based on their own individual opinion, because, after all, isn't that what we elect them for?

Right.. then don't vote for any of the Democrats who are all voting along party lines either.

Exactly - I don't see any big deal here.

You see nothing wrong with people putting up money to get people out of office who did not vote how they were TOLD to...

What I am saying, you should not be punished for crossing party lines... I vote for officials who republican and democrat... it is not about that for me... Snowe, and the other two were elected to vote based on what THEY think is best, not what they think their party thinks is best...

AND YES, I do find it oddly amazing and confusing that EVERY democratic senator agreed with the stimulus...

I see nothing wrong with partisans raising money to try and nominate candidates (and then elect those candidates) who represent what they believe their party stands for.

I don't think we elect Senators and representative to "think for themselves" per se. While I think we typically want them to do that, we elect them to represent us and to do what is in our best interests. One way we decide on which candidate we think we will reoresent us best is by party affiliation.

I presume that Snowe et al are confident that their own constituents will support the position they are taking, even if the Republican Party as a whole does not.

Right... but these are not the people of Maine, or Pennsylvania who announced the campaign... this was announced right before the vote as a scare tactic...

Yes, and it was announced by a PAC, not by the Republican Party itself.

Put another way: would you have a problem with an anti-abortion group donating money to the opponent of a pro-choice senator? It's exactly the same thing, just on a larger scale.

This wasn't done by the RNC, which seems to be what you think is happening.

No... I understand what is happening... I understand it is not the RNC... but these threats like this is exactly what is holding us back. We seem more concerned of preventing the other guys mission than pushing our own...

This is on top of the current situation where both sides seem to be much more stubborn then ever, and its irritating. Yes, I know it is how it has been for a while, but clearly, it has not been working...

Republican seem to be dead set against the stimulus, just because its by the democrats, and the Democrats rejected the Republican's alternatives, seemingly, because they are republican... We don't have the time for this shit!!!

I find it SOO hard to believe that there is such a clearly defined divide...

A couple of things:

1) I don't know that it's fair to say that this stuff is what's "holding us back;" I would be shocked if interest groups didn't try actions like this to get their point across, and interest groups have been doing things like this for years and years. I'm not sure how much it really impedes things because, honestly, I can't envision a world without interest groups. For all of those times that some groups may impede progress, there are other times that those same groups can help push an important issue to the forefront.

2) Maybe I'm just not cynical enough, but I'd also disagree with the notion that "Republican seem to be dead set against the stimulus, just because its by the democrats, and the Democrats rejected the Republican's alternatives, seemingly, because they are republican..." I think the issues go a bit deeper than that, having to do with the amount of money involved and how that money is being used. I'd like to think that, at some level, the debate is about deeper issues than partisan pride, so to speak.

I'd say that clear divide has existed since (at least) Reagan.

Politics as usual.

Before that...if you're talking about the modern parties, I think you can go back to the Goldwater Republicans (who inspired Reagan).

Honestly, though, there's been a big split between national parties since the days of the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists.

Well, I am a strong advocate of debate, but I really find it hard that 99 smart, education individuals come together, and have either one of two opinions... and those opinion (except for 3) line exactly with ones party... a little crazy to me... I think we are not debating enough with in our own respective parties, because you are right, due to the money involved and how that is money is being used...

Perhaps the "Gotcha" media just publicizes the divide more.

Or perhaps it's a bit of a weighing game. Say you're a Senator who is opposed to most of the stimulus package, but supports a couple of the provisions. Are you going to risk angering your party leadership and your constituents over a couple issues that may be minor in light of the big picture? Same question if you're generally in favor of the stimulus but have problems with a couple of issues.

I think, short of the floor/committee debate and sound bytes with the media, Congresspeople are a bit limited in what they can actually do.

True - but those conflicts have gone through history, from the one I referenced, through the Republican v. Democrat debates in the Civil War era, to the Republicans attacking Wilson during/after World War I, to the present day.

That's not to say that the divide is always a bad thing; there are times when it can be beneficial, when it really symbolizes the "checks and balances" ideal of the government.

... it was a joke. About Sarah Palin.