WSJ: McCain's Vote Should Trouble Obama

[Burgold]

Ljsheeley,

I agree with you that it reeks of insincerity that it was rushed into being passed, but now he's delaying his signing. I mistrust it too. If I were to play devil's advocate I might argue that Obama promised transparency and promised to make a Bill visible to the public for a period of time before signing it into law and by rushing it into final form, but letting it sit a spell that gives the public time to try to access it and digest it.

I could argue that, but I really don't buy it.

[D'KanSkinFan]

It's cool. I actually enjoy chatting with you. You are a bit extreme, but mostly reasonable. I try to be fair about most things, including acknowledging my bias

:laugh: Me? Extreme on an Extreme board? Well, sir, "i've never" :laugh:; wouldn't guess I was bias, now would ya? I'll give some, but when the bashing starts~ I'll defend what I know to be right

Ah, but most of my sources are actually first hand. Staffers who are friends as well as my fellow members of the media and a few mediots who see things that are in front of the tables and some of the stuff that is said and done when the cameras are turned off.

After all, the backroom stuff is where it's at and the staffers are the ones who do most of the actual work.

Well, Burgold, ya didn't say that in your post; but I am not sorry I bashed your wicked step mother - however, don't want anyone in trouble, but if they are in the Press, then they are biased - except Rush:silly:

I won't name names of course (don't want anyone fired or restricted), but I feel pretty secure in the tales I've heard. There were several bad actors in this drama. Not all of them were Repubs btw.

Glad to hear that the Repubs weren't the only ones; but I'll stick to the "biased" statement above":D

[GoSkins561]

What about the Bluedog Dems?

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=A57B975B-B3E7-4C93-8E1E-DD5DDBEFF8B1

The Hill reports the Blue Dogs were in full uproar, until Obama Budget Director Peter Orszag wrote a letter to House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (a far-leftist), arguing this bill constituted an "extraordinary response to an extraordinary process" and the administration would "return to the fiscal responsibility and pay-as-you-go budgeting" as soon as this passed. Honest. It convinced some. Charlie Melancon of Louisiana deemed the letter a "direct signal that President Obama is willing to make the tough decisions necessary to put our country back on a path to fiscal responsibility.”

Had they voted as a body against it, the Coalition could have killed the bill, but they instead voted for the bill after a vague promise for future discipline. This is rather like allowing oneself a five-gallon tub of ice cream on the grounds that one will resume diet and exercise later.

...

As Senate Democrats amend the bill to make it more likely to attract bipartisan support, and as Republicans rebuff Harry Reid's wooing, Blue Dogs have rendered a valuable service. Their objections coupled with those of Republicans, undoubtedly helped strip the most onerous elements (e.g., contraception, an entirely different kind of stimulation) out of the stimulus bill. They also set down an important political marker. At a time when only 42 percent of the American people support the stimulus bill and most have major reservations, 100 percent of Republicans thus far have shown they oppose the bill. On the other hand, only 20 percent of the country's most conservative Democrats can be counted on to oppose a pork-laden, make-work bill, which will not have an appreciable effect on the economy for at least 16 months, even when it violates their most cherished principles. This is not what Republican-leaning districts elected Blue Dog Democrats to do, but it may signal a way out of the political wilderness for the GOP.

There is hope for future bills.

[mjah]

What about the Bluedog Dems?

How about not posting yet another conservative op-ed and passing it off as an impartial account of Democrats' internal communications?

[IHOPSkins]

.....account of Democrats' internal communications?

Here Ya go

Democrat: Obama Team 'Encouraged' Defiance of Pelosi on Stimulus

Rep. Jim Cooper, a conservative Democrat from Tennessee, told a liberal radio network on Sunday that the Obama White House encouraged him to defy House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the $819 billion economic stimulus bill.

"Well, I probably shouldn’t tell you this, but I actually got some quiet encouragement from the Obama folks for what I’m doing," said Cooper, one of only 11 Democrats to vote against the economic stimulus plan that passed the House last week.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487632,00.html

[mjah]

Here Ya go

Never mind that the link goes to Fox News, which in turn links to a left-wing site. If those two can agree on the facts, then there's little room for argument.

Sounds like Obama was encouraging some Democrats to vote against the stimulus bill because, by Cooper's own admission, they shared an interest in a clean bill instead of one ringed with wasteful distractions -- which put them in league with many Republicans against the comparatively sloppy offering from Pelosi and company.

Not sure why Obama is supposed to look like he's failing to be bipartisan as a result of this "revelation." He quietly encouraged members of his own party to take a stand against a bill he didn't entirely care for, even though it was crafted by "his" side and his own short-term popularity hinged on whether or not something passed. If anything, from a political standpoint he was helping out the Republicans a little bit by setting the stage for some Democrats to agree with them. These days, that's an instant credibility improvement in the eyes of the public.

Fomenting dissent based on a principled stand -- dissent within his own party and to the potential political benefit of Republicans. I guess that's what passes for "partisan" in the Obama White House. Personally, I'd call that an incredible improvement over the last guy's habits. Given what I've seen so far, I'd be perfectly happy with this guy for 4 and probably 8 years. Let's see what his next act will be.

[Jumbo]

In response to some questions and comments I have received over the last few weeks:

You CAN~~always choose~~to JUST~~ learn to~ accept ~~ certain "special" posting styles .

And~do the SAME even~ with seemingly :gus:~~ strange :rubeyes: or RIGID~~ mindsets~~if you TRY ~hard ~~enough :cool:.

BUT~ it's not a~ requirement. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

~~And~YOU can ~~do this~even if THE POSTER ~ has a ~disconcerting :insane: penchant :yes:for several interesting mannerisms :twitch:including~ TELLING others "how to be" or "what they are acting like" :yikes:, as THOUGH~~ they were any:stop: kind of~well-chosen~ judge on~ SUCH matters :no: ~~~:point2sky:helmet::applause::notworthy::helmet::2cents:

Remember~~YOU ~can just TAKE IT ~~ in stride :kickcan:and smile.

Per the topic, McCain had good ideas and part of me wishes he had been given more say in a opposition party leader role and one that would be well-heeded by the dems, but I think McCain has becoms emuch less his old self and much more the poltcial animal the last four years, so it probably wouldn't have made that big a diff. As usual, I see "both" sides being more full of **** in their attacks and defenses than either being "right." The stimpack isn't as huge a bomb as the repubs cast it (if you're going to have one at all) and it could have been a lot better if the dems tried harder and fought off their pet projects better. And that's what I wished they had done. Personally, given the huge mess to work with, I am still liking what I see in how Obama conducts himself and even his decisions though several have been very poor choices to me. I stiil have faith in his intelligence, current (and potential) competence,and his values even with all the disagreements I have. I feel far better than I did with the previous admin, but it's still damn early and Obama is walking into a far bigger ****storm in the first year.

[Springfield]

Wow. Just wow.

[ccsl2]

To be fair, it's purely factual that it takes far, far less time to stumble upon a few details you don't like than it does to read over 1,000 pages of a bill.

And I agree with that. However, if they could have stumbled on a couple of pages of the bill they didn't like, they could have spent that energy looking into what is in the bill that can work.