House vote on stimulus imminent; Update: 244-188, all Republicans vote no

posted at 5:46 pm on January 28, 2009 by Allahpundit

They’re wrapping up floor debate on the last Republican amendment on C-SPAN 1 as I write this. Is the GOP really going to walk away from this crap sandwich or will the cocktail party at 1600 tonight be even chummier than hoped? A trillion dollars is a small price to pay for bipartisanship!

Prediction: 20 Republicans defect. Exit question: Who said it? “There is a temptation to expand direct interference of state in economy. In the Soviet Union that became an absolute. We paid a very dear price for that.”

Update: Final vote: 244-188. It was 242-190 moments before they gaveled it — with every last Republican voting no — but two no votes switched at the last minute and they didn’t say who they were. I assume they’re Blue Dogs, but I’ll check. Either way, for good or ill, this is entirely the Democrats’ baby now.

Update: Here’s the guest list on that White House shindig, which should be loads of fun after this vote.

Update: WaPo confirms that all 177 Republicans were among the nays.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9

sethstorm on January 29, 2009 at 9:55 PM

Even if I were to accept your premise (which I don’t), you think that damns someone to hell?

• PATCO and the precedent it has set, reaching far beyond mere unions.

How was firing these jerks any form of deception? He gave them notice, they didn’t return after violating federal law, so he did what any responsible CEO should do with insubordination. He canned them. What is your beef with that and what negative precedent could that possibly set?

anuts on January 29, 2009 at 10:14 PM

sethstorm on January 29, 2009 at 9:55 PM

Even if I were to accept your premise (which I don’t), you think that damns someone to hell?

anuts on January 29, 2009 at 10:14 PM

In the lib mindset, that’s being lenient.

ddrintn on January 29, 2009 at 10:41 PM

How was firing these jerks any form of deception? He gave them notice, they didn’t return after violating federal law, so he did what any responsible CEO should do with insubordination. He canned them. What is your beef with that and what negative precedent could that possibly set?

It gave businesses a way out of being the responsible and profitable community steward. Less of that and more of the Jack Welch variety that depersonalized business save for the legal definition.

The deception is that it was going to help the nation – but it came at the cost of reducing human lives to mere statistics.

sethstorm on January 30, 2009 at 5:09 AM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9