Threats for going against the party...

[CrackerBarrel]

There was no chance in hell Republicans were going to support this. Here's why:

1. It's way the hell too big.

2. Most of it is a waste.

3. I think we're probably fairly close to the market bottom already and nothing in the bill goes into effect particularly fast in any case, so why not have someone know what is in the bill?

4. This administration's idea of "bipartisanship" seems to be: invite the Republicans to dinner, go to Capitol Hill to meet Republicans, explain your idea of the bill, when
Republicans suggest changes respond "We aren't going to repeat the failed ideas of the last 8 years. The election was a referendum on that and we won", get upset when no Republicans vote for your bill.

And looking at those aspects of the process, I'm kind of upset those three Republicans caved anyways. This stimulus is a huge bundle of waste which will only prolong the recession and kick the real issues down the curb to deal with later, Democrats demanded to have it that way, so make them own the bill.

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

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

There was no chance in hell Republicans were going to support this. Here's why:

1. It's way the hell too big.

2. Most of it is a waste.

3. I think we're probably fairly close to the market bottom already and nothing in the bill goes into effect particularly fast in any case, so why not have someone know what is in the bill?

4. This administration's idea of "bipartisanship" seems to be: invite the Republicans to dinner, go to Capitol Hill to meet Republicans, explain your idea of the bill, when
Republicans suggest changes respond "We aren't going to repeat the failed ideas of the last 8 years. The election was a referendum on that and we won", get upset when no Republicans vote for your bill.

And looking at those aspects of the process, I'm kind of upset those three Republicans caved anyways. This stimulus is a huge bundle of waste which will only prolong the recession and kick the real issues down the curb to deal with later, Democrats demanded to have it that way, so make them own the bill.

I think, from your opinion's standpoint, that maybe being upset at the 58 democrats who did not stand up to their party and say hell no, would be more in line...

[CrackerBarrel]

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

I think, from your opinion's standpoint, that maybe being upset at the 58 democrats who did not stand up to their party and say hell no, would be more in line...

They're Democrats, I've already come to terms with the fact they don't make rational decisions.

(Although I'm damn impressed with Heath Shuler in the House. Put himself in the Democrat doghouse by voting against the bailout and then saying
"In order for us to get the confidence of America, it has to be done in a bipartisan way ... I truly feel that's where maybe House leadership and Senate leadership have really failed." That's pretty smart for a former Tennessee Vol QB.)

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

There was no chance in hell Republicans were going to support this. Here's why:

1. It's not politically expedient. If the bill doesn't work, they don't get any blame and they can blame Democrats to their hearts' content. If it does work, they count on people not remembering come election time that they didn't support it or at least giving them credit for being "careful."

Fixed it for you.

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Finally, someone said it! Thanks...

I said it in post # 5:

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.