
It's obvious at this point, the Republican Party is in permanent campaign mode, still. Their primary concern is regaining power and making the Democrats look bad. They are most concerned about elections, about their own political future, not about doing what they honestly think is best for the country.
Case in Point, Arlen Specter, Republican Senator who listened to his conscience and actually voted for the bill. Arlen believes that some of his Republican colleges are glad the bill passed "without their fingerprints on it". From an interview after the vote, "My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary....'" (translation, he might offend the Limbaugh's of the world, and they'll try to smear him in the Primary election)



I think we can take it as a fact, the top concern of at least SOME Republicans is reelection, and their internal calculations told them voting against the bill would work out better for them. (others may just have nonsensical thought patterns :) which allowed them to believe their convoluted arguments against it, like spending doesn't stimulate the economy, and the New Deal didn't work. Sorry, but you have to wonder) anyway
If your top concern is reelection, or the survival of your party... Governing, and serving your constituents, becomes your second priority, along with everything else.
How can Obama beat the math and bring the change to Washington that he promised?
First you get the public on your side, then the politicians follow. Work from the bottom up, outside of Washington. If Congress is worried about reelection, go straight to the people who elect them.
I think Obama's press conference, and his town hall meetings were very effective. And the underlying reason is that he looks like he is fighting for the public, meanwhile congress looked like it was fighting amongst itself.
The reason for Obama's 70%-80% approval rating is his working class hero image, and his promise to bring the public into the government.
Obama left Washington, and met with people at his town hall events. He heard our concerns, and he basically promised solutions. Manwhile back in Washington, the Democrats followed his lead, to make sure those promises were kept.
I watched Obama on TV, and I called my Congressman. I wanted more School funding and state aid, but with a pre-condition of strict oversight, because I know state governments are corrupt too. I wanted the housing tax credit provision eliminated, or focused on less expensive homes so it would be useful to my neighbors who don't make $150,000 per year, and whose homes sell for $70,000. Not sure if my voice mad it to negations (Higgins was there) but my concerns were addressed.
The point is, People hear Obama speak, and they agree, then they call their congressman. That's how you get the job done. Bring the heat from the street.
The Irony, Obama is kind of a Washington outsider with a bold list of changes. As president, he is the leader in Washington. But Washington has stubborn traditions, that don't die easily. He seems to do well when he's fighting from the outside.
Symptom: Ideological Blockage
Solution: Leave Washington
Vincent, I don't expect the market to get optimistic real soon. Actually, if the financial powers weren't feeling the pinch, I don't think we'd be changing anything. If those in power were insulated from the tragedy, they'd be free to do nothing.
Jason, you definitely help me improve my understanding. I love it. When I wrote, I did qualify my comments, by saying that SOME Republicans are most concerned about winning elections, and less concerned about doing what's best. And my resentment is focused at the Republican Party, not so much individual republicans. I know some have been fiscal conservatives all along, even through the big spending Bush years (though many voted with him). And I know that people can disagree, and still work together, IF! they don't have a hidden agenda. Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Libertarians, they can negotiate in good faith and agree. Happens all the time. Something about Washington makes that more difficult.
And I agree with you, Congress should have had at least 48 hours to look at the conference report, especially after it was unanimously agreed to in the house. I should have had 48 hours to look at it and bug my representatives. In fact I emailed Schumer and told him so at about 10:30 the day of the vote. I also want simpler bills in congress, less riders.
PS I voted for Chris Collins.
I have a question - what makes you think that only the Republicans that voted for the bill voted with their conscience? That means there is only one "conscionable" decision to make, which is for me the definition of ideological orthodoxy.
If I were them I'd have a little piss and vinegar in me too. I don't get to shape the bill, I don't get any hand in it whatsoever, I don't get to even read it, and yet I'm an asshole for raising a stink about things or voting against the dog shit bill? No! What they're being told is, Fuck You, vote for the bill anyway or you're being partisan. There is no logic in that whatsoever.
I'm not even against the Democrats strong arming a bill through. They earned that right, but what they want on top of that is to claim that, again, they aren't doing what they're actually doing. They want to act like hard asses and yet not be portrayed as hard asses, which is easy when you have fanboys like Frank Rich.
And NONE of this is Obama's fault, really, he's trying as much as he is capable, I know he is but he simply can't control the animals in Congress. I will give Obama credit that he did at least reach out a little bit. He comes out of this smelling like roses.
The thing that makes the Republicans look really bad, and you've touched on this already, is the perception that they are offering no alternative, the "party of no" like the Democrats used to be. But if your starting position in a negotiation (where there is actual give and take) is that you aren't going to listen to the person across from you, the negotiation is sort of a sham.
Lastly, here's the thing that really kills me - the idea that people who don't share values with, and would never vote for or support a Republican Party candidate expressing outrage that said Republicans didn't vote their way. I don't believe any Democrat when they smile and tell me Arlen Specter's a good man because that Democrat is going to turn right around and work as hard as they can to get a real liberal elected in his place, the instant they get the opportunity. I guess I don't see the outrage or the praise as authentic, but I could be wrong.
Well it looks like the markets are tanking on the very day that he is signing it into law. What does that say about the market's confidence???
Frank Rich Summs it up :::link::: "The G.O.P. doesn’t recognize that it emerged from the stimulus battle even worse off than when it started. That obliviousness gives the president the opening to win more ambitious policy victories than last week’s. Having checked the box on attempted bipartisanship, Obama can now move in for the kill... This G.O.P., a largely white Southern male party with talking points instead of ideas and talking heads instead of leaders, is not unlike those “zombie banks†that we’re being asked to bail out. It is in too much denial to acknowledge its own insolvency and toxic assets."