Threats for going against the party...

[a.e.B.O.T.]

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...

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

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

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.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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...

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

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.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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...

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

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.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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...

[agzg]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

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

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

Politics as usual.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

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...

"Holding us back" huh? From what? Some sort of 'consensus solution' that magically solves an economic problem?

What if consensus is actually wrong, and one side or the other is actually 'correct' (or more correct enough to make a difference)?

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

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...

This is confirmation bias at its finest, don't you think? How many administrations' worth of data are you looking at? It seemed to work fine from 1985-2005, didn't it?

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

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!!!

We have all the time in the world for "this shit" - immediate action isn't always a good thing. In fact, more time to evaluate the depth of the market bottom might actually give us better information to work with. You're being reactionary.

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

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

OK?

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

"Holding us back" huh? From what? Some sort of 'consensus solution' that magically solves an economic problem?
What if consensus is actually wrong, and one side or the other is actually 'correct' (or more correct enough to make a difference)?
This is confirmation bias at its finest, don't you think? How many administrations' worth of data are you looking at? It seemed to work fine from 1985-2005, didn't it?
We have all the time in the world for "this shit" - immediate action isn't always a good thing. In fact, more time to evaluate the depth of the market bottom might actually give us better information to work with. You're being reactionary.
OK?

Oh, ok KSig RC, I am sorry, i forgot that I am not allowed to have an opinion... I was merely saying that TO ME it appears that there is a CLEAR strong divide in this particular case... I did not know that I had to research ever vote in congress over the last 24 years in order to develop that opinion. Lord forgive me for thinking that yes, we need to act now, and yes, we need to act together not separately, ... Please, KSig, will you ever forgive me?

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

What I am saying, you should not be punished for crossing party lines... 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...

On the other hand, I believe they are elected to do what their constituents want, not what their party wants, and not what THEY necessarily think is best.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by DGTess

On the other hand, I believe they are elected to do what their constituents want, not what their party wants, and not what THEY necessarily think is best.

Finally, someone said it! Thanks...