Threats for going against the party...

[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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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

[KSigkid]

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

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...

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.

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

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

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.

[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?

[Kevin]

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

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. Please, KSig, will you ever forgive me?

The fact that something is your opinion does not automatically give it any validity. Back your words up with something other than classic examples of fallacy.

[MysticCat]

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

Oh, ok KSig RC, I am sorry, i forgot that I am not allowed to have an opinion...

Of course you're allowed to have an opinion. Others are allowed to disagree with your opinion and even to identify what they believe are fallacies underlying your opinion.

I thought you said you like debate.

Lord forgive me for thinking that yes, we need to act now, and yes, we need to act together not separately.

Serious question: Why, in your opinion, do we need to act together rather than separately? As long as something is done, why does it matter how big the majority that gets it done is?

[KSigkid]

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

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?

ETA: Never mind, it's been said already by MC and Kevin.

Just a question, but when did it ever become ok to state one's opinion without expecting some sort of voice of dissent, especially on a board this big with this many people?