Threats for going against the party...

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

A GOP group is putting Republican lawmakers "on notice," threatening to campaign against anyone who breaks ranks to vote for the more than $800 billion economic recovery package.

The National Republican Trust PAC put out a statement Tuesday claiming it would provide financial support for primary challengers to any stimulus-supporting Republican in the next election.

"Republican Senators are on notice," the group's director Scott Wheeler said in a statement. "If they support the stimulus package we will make sure every voter in their state knows how they tried to further bankrupt voters in an already bad economy."

The release did not name names, but was obviously directed at the three Republican senators who joined Democrats to advance the Senate version of the bill Monday.

Republicans Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both from Maine, are expected to vote for the bill Tuesday. Specter is up for re-election next year and Snowe in 2012. Collins was re-elected in 2008 and won't be up again until 2014.

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?

[Kevin]

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

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[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...

[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...

[agzg]

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

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

Yes, but he was not debating my opinion, but my proof behind my opinion, when I think I made it clear it as how I perceive it... lol, MysticCat: working together is crucial, a) so that all aspects come into account, b) because we are a democracy, that is what makes us great, one person's or one side's opinion is not enough judgement to spend almost a trillion dollars

[MysticCat]

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

Yes, but he was not debating my opinion, but my proof behind my opinion, when I think I made it clear it as how I perceive it...

I'm not sure that you made that as clear, at least at first, as you may think, and I'm not sure that "debating the proof behind" your opinion rather than your opinion itself isn't a distinction without a difference.

MysticCat: working together is crucial, a) so that all aspects come into account, b) because we are a democracy, that is what makes us great, one person's or one side's opinion is not enough judgement to spend almost a trillion dollars

Democracy =/= concensus. At least in our form of it, democracy = majority rules.

Nor does the fact that the majority rules mean that other opinions are not taken into account. They might be or they might not be.

[KSig RC]

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

Yes, but he was not debating my opinion, but my proof behind my opinion, when I think I made it clear it as how I perceive it...

Heaven forbid you have to defend your position . . . why don't you explain why you see it that way?

Here's a great example: why does bipartisanship matter as long as things get 'done'?

Put another way: If we have "A" and "B" as partisan views, and "C" as a synthesis (or bipartisan view), what guarantees that C is better than A or B? Maybe one side or another is wrong on this one - after all, there are two very strong competing views on this issue.

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

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Heaven forbid you have to defend your position . . . why don't you explain why you see it that way?

Here's a great example: why does bipartisanship matter as long as things get 'done'?

Put another way: If we have "A" and "B" as partisan views, and "C" as a synthesis (or bipartisan view), what guarantees that C is better than A or B? Maybe one side or another is wrong on this one - after all, there are two very strong competing views on this issue.

Because there are two competing STRONG views on the issue, I have a difficulty believing that ALL of one side believes strongly with their side and the MASS MAJORITY of the other side believes strongly with their side... People are not black and white... Secondly, these people are acting on behalf of the 300 million plus in this country who have various opinions.

It is easy to get things done... not so easy to get the right thing done. The sides are two extremes, and we need to find what is best for the 300 million plus. Both sides have people who think they have the answer, and when those answers conflict, a money contest from lobbyist will not make sure that a quality answer derives.

I love that we have a two party system, as opposed to a one party system. I want both parties at play so that a variety of solutions are researched and brought to the table. That way, we can compromise by taking the good parts here there and elsewhere and prefect it.

Both sides always use "this is what the american people want"... I heard it from the line of Republicans who spoke after the bill past, as well as Obama and Pelosi. The American people can not be put into one box either. Nor can they come together an unanimously decide on one decision. However, the use of collaboration/bi-partisanship as well as questioning one's own party will point out imperfections.

Yes, I want things done, I just want them done right. I think choosing one side or the other, in a two party system, is not going to be right. SECONDLY, this particular case relies greatly on the American people's confidence. Their confidence will increase their spending, which is important since we are a consumer-driven economy. All of those who are republican, or believe in the republican senator/representative who voted against the bill will not have the confidence that this stimulus will help. That is a lot of people...

[KSig RC]

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

Because there are two competing STRONG views on the issue, I have a difficulty believing that ALL of one side believes strongly with their side and the MASS MAJORITY of the other side believes strongly with their side... People are not black and white... Secondly, these people are acting on behalf of the 300 million plus in this country who have various opinions.

Ironically, it's you who is being "black and white" here.

Obviously, each individual congressperson probably has his or her own individual view on this situation. However, it would be sheer agony if each propped up their own idea as a proposed bill - so we have to have consolidation.

What's the most-likely way to consolidate a budget bill? Well, ostensibly, we could say that one substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans comes in the way each would prefer to spend money in the abstract - big v. small government, taxation versus tax breaks, top-down versus bottom-up economics, etc. The most likely consolidation is along party lines. The most likely problems are going to be endemic ideological differences that will not be "split down the middle" with any ease.

With all of this in mind, would you prefer that they argue 95 different bills, for every shade of gray?

If so - don't you see how this goes DIRECTLY against your "act-now" feelings?

If not - then what's the objection?

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

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Ironically, it's you who is being "black and white" here.

Obviously, each individual congressperson probably has his or her own individual view on this situation. However, it would be sheer agony if each propped up their own idea as a proposed bill - so we have to have consolidation.

What's the most-likely way to consolidate a budget bill? Well, ostensibly, we could say that one substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans comes in the way each would prefer to spend money in the abstract - big v. small government, taxation versus tax breaks, top-down versus bottom-up economics, etc. The most likely consolidation is along party lines. The most likely problems are going to be endemic ideological differences that will not be "split down the middle" with any ease.

With all of this in mind, would you prefer that they argue 95 different bills, for every shade of gray?

If so - don't you see how this goes DIRECTLY against your "act-now" feelings?

If not - then what's the objection?

I never said anything about 95 bills, I think we all can agree with the ridiculousness of that. What needs to be done is a few democrats going across the table with a few republicans to make one bill. I think the creation of a bill of this magnitude requires consideration from multiple angles.