Have the Republicans turned a corner?
posted at 7:58 am on January 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Republicans faced some difficult decisions in Congress in how to proceed after two successive defeats in national elections and the election of a popular Democratic President. They needed to find a way to rebuild their credibility as a party of fiscal discipline and common-sense accountability after losing it in a six-year spending spree and several corruption scandals. Without power to move legislation to the floor in either chamber, though, they had to avoid being hyperpartisan, showing the kind of cooperation that the American public wants while remaining firm on core principles. The real question is whether the Democrats would give them that chance with their overwhelming control of Congress.
It took them eight whole days:
Obama engaged in an all-out lobbying push for the bill, which is among the most expensive pieces of legislation ever to move through Congress, and marked a big victory for his presidency a little more than a week into his term. He will now turn his attention to the Senate, where Democrats are scheduled to begin debate on the measure on Monday and the price tag is likely to reach $900 billion.
Larger than the combined total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so far, the two-year stimulus plan would provide up to $1,000 per year in tax relief for most families, dramatically increase funding for alternative energy production, and direct more than $300 billion in aid to states to help rebuild schools, provide health care to the poor and reconstruct highways and bridges.
But Obama’s personal salesmanship effort failed to secure a single Republican supporter for the spending plan, which passed on a 244 to 188 vote. Just a day after the president spent more than an hour behind closed doors at the Capitol seeking their support, all 177 House Republicans opposed the measure, arguing that it would spend hundreds of billions of dollars on initiatives that would do little to stimulate the economy. Eleven Democrats opposed the bill.
It’s no big victory; passage of anything with the numbers Obama has in Congress should be assured. In fact, it’s something of a defeat for Obama, as he lobbied heavily for Republican votes on this package. Obama met three times with Republican leadership, received warmly each time and even posing for pictures with some of them. Not only did he fail to gain a single GOP vote, he lost 11 Democrats in the House.
Republicans had no investment in this bill, and the blame for that falls squarely on Speaker Nancy Pelosi. While Obama met three times with Republican leadership, she refused to meet with her counterparts at all to negotiate on the stimulus. Her high-handed approach lost Obama any potential Republican support he might have gained as she attempted to stuff a Democrats-only bill down Republican throats. That’s an odd position to take on something supposedly so important that it required everyone’s support. It also reveals the real partisan in House leadership.
Politically as well as economically, Republicans made the right choice in refusing to sign onto this stimulus package. In the first place, only 12% of this bill has any actual stimulus value, and it comes too slowly to help. The rest, filled mostly with historical Democratic spending priorities for government like family planning, education spending, and poverty programs, should have been handled through normal appropriations and not emergency economic stimulus spending, which it clearly is not. If this package passes Congress and it works, the Democrats will get all the credit, as Pelosi especially ensured that Republicans couldn’t offer any of their ideas for improvements. If it fails (and it surely will), the blame falls squarely on Obama, Pelosi, and Harry Reid, which is exactly what Obama hoped to avoid — and why the vote was actually more of a defeat than a victory.
So who did win yesterday? John Boehner and Eric Cantor, and I’d argue especially Cantor. He took the first major vote of the Republican wilderness era and managed to score a shutout, despite obvious impulses among some Republicans to appear cooperative with Obama. They never let their discourse get hyperpartisan, and they continued to offer their own alternatives to the plan as well as invite House Democrats to negotiate the terms of the bill to win their support. When that failed, the GOP stripped the Democrats of any bipartisan fig leaves, and managed to take eleven Blue Dog Democrats with them.
Some suggested that the Republicans couldn’t oppose it because they’d already lost their credibility on spending and accountability. That’s rubbish. One doesn’t regain credibility by refusing to take a stand on principle just because of mistakes made three years ago. The way to build credibility on principle is to start acting on it. Let’s hope Senate Republicans figure that out when the bill hits the upper chamber.










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 2 Next »
-
Someone forgot to drink the Coolade.
RalphyBoy on January 29, 2009 at 8:02 AM
One correct vote don’t mean they have “turned” a corner!
grapeknutz on January 29, 2009 at 8:02 AM
When will the Dems understand that the best and only way to help those facing unemployment is to proivde tax cuts and incentives to the places that had to the laying off in the first place? NEVER.
The GOP did good, but they need to stay on the offensive as to what they could support.
joepub on January 29, 2009 at 8:03 AM
That’s kinda what I was thinking. Let’s see if they can maintain a responsible track record for this election cycle and then we can talk about turning a corner.
I loved Ace’s headline: “Republican take first tentative steps toward Republicanism”. Summed it up pretty well, I think.
Purple Fury on January 29, 2009 at 8:05 AM
PIMF: ““Republicans take first tentative steps toward Republicanism”
Purple Fury on January 29, 2009 at 8:06 AM
Regain credibility, like President-we’re-all-going-to-have-to-sacrifice-and-be-responsible-cocktail-party-and-expensive-steak-Obambi?
Good for the GOP! Now………what happens next?
ctmom on January 29, 2009 at 8:07 AM
It’s a start. Their future votes will determine whether the Republicans in the House took a stand based on conservative principle or political leverage. Not that political leveraging is bad, it is, in fact, necessary, but it has to be founded on core principle.
I feel a little better about them than I did yesterday, though.
pugwriter on January 29, 2009 at 8:07 AM
One can only hope, but it’s unlikely hope can redeem and reform the likes of Snowe, McCain, Graham, Hatch, McConnell and Specter. I’m afraid the left will continue their rape of the treasury and their redistribution of wealth with the help of these panderers.
rplat on January 29, 2009 at 8:10 AM
The GOP hasn’t turned the corner, and if the idiots vote them back in they’ll prove it in less than eight days. They are every bit the socialists that the Dems are, they just want to walk that instead of running. They’re no damned good, they suck and if you trust them you’re a fool.
PERIOD!
RWLA on January 29, 2009 at 8:11 AM
They should go belly up on the Dems at every conceivable turn; make the Dems solely responsible for the mess they’re causing–for the next four years. The isn’t a stimulus plan, for example, it’s a looting spree. Steadfast refusal is the only way for the Repubs to have any effect on public opinion: stand tall against any action that is not in the public interest.
ahem on January 29, 2009 at 8:11 AM
When the witches of Maine vote against this trillion dollar fiasco, then I’ll believe that Republicans have turned a corner. Until then… nah.
Kevin M on January 29, 2009 at 8:13 AM
and it’s now our job to contact our Representatives and Senators urging them to continue their opposition.
Ann on January 29, 2009 at 8:13 AM
No. They’re still wanting to side with the “masters of the world” at Wall Street.
If they want to get people on board for a tax cut, give them something they want as well.
Those 177 people on the GOP side.
sethstorm on January 29, 2009 at 8:14 AM
No, THE most expensive ever.
jgapinoy on January 29, 2009 at 8:14 AM
Why is it most expensive ever?
Because BHO got the most campaign cash ever, & he has a lot of repaying to do.
jgapinoy on January 29, 2009 at 8:16 AM
Let’s see how the Republican’s vote in the Senate. Congressional Republicans just gave us a ray of hope. One step at a time!
Keemo on January 29, 2009 at 8:16 AM
Michelle’s on Fox and Friends right now finishing her interview. Michelle is calling this a “rebuke” to Obama when, (I believe) the shoulder of the blame should be on Pelosi and her “leadership” that PORKED this legislation to the point of fiscal embarrassment.
Obama may not have wanted to “force his will” too early on the house leadership, but it’s his name that will be signed on this democrat welfare package. Stimulus my @ss.
Rovin on January 29, 2009 at 8:17 AM
grapeknutz, exactly.
crabtree on January 29, 2009 at 8:18 AM
Have you checked out Rush’s “bipartisan stimulus plan” in the WSJ or on his site? He’s using the higher profile in the MSM, afforded to him by Obama’s inane reference to him, to propose a Keynseian/tax cut compromise. It won’t happen in Washington’s current political climate, and Rush knows it, but it makes his, and our, point well.
pugwriter on January 29, 2009 at 8:20 AM
Its funny, the Republicans in the House were always there.
They have defeated, opposed, all of these spending programs for the last few years
Where did the budget get inflated? where did Bush actually overspend?
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf
Did you know that in 2003, 2004 and 2005 we taxed the American People less, spent less per GDP since well you have to go all the way back to 1949.
You know when Tom Delay was asked about the deficit and he rteplied where else are we going to cut – he was talking political capital not capital.
look at those tables for three solid years receipts to the government declined and GDP growth despite
9/11
Katrina
4 Hurricanes in Florida
Rita
Homeland Security
Hiring 25000 Border Guards, Customs agents
Rebuilding the Military
Oh yeah and 2 wars
And the 150 dollar a barrel run up in oil
And the housing collaspe
And yet….
EricPWJohnson on January 29, 2009 at 8:20 AM
Why did he bother?
He didn’t need one GOP vote.
Because when this porker fails to stimulate, he wanted the GOP to have as much blame as he does.
jgapinoy on January 29, 2009 at 8:20 AM
Yes, and all of us on the right should make certain it and its results are his legacy. Hang all of it around his neck every time people talk about why things are still not working out.
MikeA on January 29, 2009 at 8:21 AM
NO!
We have NOT turned the corner, not even close….
Great first baby step, but we need real leaders who will name names, call folks out, name the prok, get in thier faces, call the MSM out for failure to report the pork and spending, make people ashamed to support this garbage…
We don’t have that… We are NOT using the MSM that we have, even though it’s Liberal…
This, as Rush said yesterday, is a LONG, LONG WAR… We won a very MINOR feel good victory in a single battle…
But maybe, just maybe the RINO’s and few real Conservatives are feeling the heat from us… Republicans are burning up the phones, faxes, e-mails… Even more then the immigration issue… WE MUST KEEP THE PRESSURE ON BIG TIME!
Refuse to support the RNC, tell them why… Call your reps and tell them to grow a set, push the Senate now!!! Another party line vote in the Senate and we have a slight push going, failing that we have won NOTHING!!!
So don’t get happy pants yet… I’m afraid that this was a temp blip… I still think we have worthless leadership!
Mark Garnett on January 29, 2009 at 8:22 AM
I have long felt that the word “compromise” should be outlawed. Bi-partisanship falls into the same category. Good on the GOP for resisting the easy way out – for once.
OldEnglish on January 29, 2009 at 8:22 AM
…well it’s not the Democrats haven’t had their own corruption scandals to deal with. That SHOULD be a wash – but isn’t due to our media’s singular focus on one party’s indiscretions and their complete willingness to ignore the other partiy’s indiscretions.
I would also point out that much of the spending was congressional spending. Bush only vetoed bills when they were directly opposed to his ideological stances thru the majority of his presidency.
His failure to exercise the veto more often was the bigger issue IMO. He didn’t veto or grant many pardons – that is how President Bush presided. He let the system work unless he strongly objected to something.
Bush pretty much let Congress do it’s job and then he signed the bill unless it was a complete disgrace in his eyes (like surrender in Iraq or funding embryonic stem cell research). I actually like that in my boss. Unfortunately Congress was a dismal failure on spending during much of his tenure.
His stimulus package was targeted to benefit the taxpayer. I got a check. Obama’s is targeted to ACORN, contraceptives and almost a trillion of other BS spending.
Bush’s bailout came with strings attached that assured a payback of monies loaned. I am actually scared to see Obama’s future bailout proposals.
Oh, and he also saw the mortgage crisis and what followed in the economy as a whole long before anyone else did.
I hold Congress responsible for the runaway spending. President Bush did a damn fine job by me. I don’t hold him responsible for Congress’ addiction to pork. They can’t pass a bill without adding some pork.
Some bills, like the stimulus bill, are nothing more than 100% presidential favor pay-to-play pork.
Stimulus dollars for Obama supporters will dwarf dollars for Obama critics by a staggering figure.
All we are missing is Blago on the phone spilling the beans and cursing up a storm.
Mr Purple on January 29, 2009 at 8:23 AM
When I see 42 Senators oppose this then I will begin to believe.
Just Yesterday I got a fundraising letter from Jim Demint.
I sent it back with only a letter telling him if the GOP wants my money again they had better show me something worth paying for because I can be a Democrat for free.
NeoKong on January 29, 2009 at 8:23 AM
By unanimously voting against a democratic bill, truly the republicans in the house have avoided the appearance of hyper-partisanship.
e-pirate on January 29, 2009 at 8:23 AM
If the Republicans have a plan for retaking 40+ House seats, I might be interested. Otherwise, a useless exercise.
huckleberryfriend on January 29, 2009 at 8:25 AM
The formula is very simple:
Get back to true conservative principles, embraced by the vast majority of Republicans. People like McCain, Graham, Specter and even Hatch are long past their expiration dates. Time to recognize that the other party is not interested in compromising or working together for the good of the nation. They want power by any means necessary.
If the Senate Republicans do what their colleagues in the House did, then I will have cause to be optimistic for 2010.
J.J. Sefton on January 29, 2009 at 8:25 AM
Is there some way Cantor could get back on tv and complain about is feelings being hurt again? That was a sure political winner last time.
e-pirate on January 29, 2009 at 8:26 AM
Interesting that the the “no” vote was bipartisan…the “yea” not so much.
joepub on January 29, 2009 at 8:27 AM
“A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.”
Confucius
NB: Would this result have occurred without Rush Limbaugh? I think not.
technopeasant on January 29, 2009 at 8:28 AM
Memo to the GOP in the Senate:
The 2008 election, with its obvious media bias, has stripped away any concern that Republicans will ever get a fair shake by the mainstream media. And now, even the most brain-dead squishy voter can even understand this.
There is no need anymore for a single Republican to give the proverbial rodent’s hindquarters that the media will misrepresent his or her stances—that, now, is a given. Now the voters the GOP is afraid of the media alienating know how in the tank for the Democrats the media are. And after these “squishies” realize what a piece of crap they were sold by a billion-dollar ad campaign—the BS detectors will start functioning.
No need to cooperate with things you don’t really want in order to keep the media from drawing you with fangs and horns. The public is starting to realize those fangs and horns were drawn on.
Sekhmet on January 29, 2009 at 8:28 AM
Good one!
sherry on January 29, 2009 at 8:29 AM
This was posted late last night, but I will repeat:
I reserve the right to revise and shorten those 67 days.
Rovin on January 29, 2009 at 8:31 AM
Exactly. So the only hope to rebuild the GOP is to begin to build a consistent conservative message sent back EVERY time such insane bills come before the house and senate.
DrStock on January 29, 2009 at 8:31 AM
I can only hope that in the event of Nancy Pelosi getting the dressing down she so richly deserves, there will be a “leak”.
anniekc on January 29, 2009 at 8:32 AM
I’s kan haz be Dimokrat, fo freee??
J.J. Sefton on January 29, 2009 at 8:32 AM
I’m not sure yet, this is one vote we will have another one next week. If they load this up like the last one, the republicans might cave again. It’s hard to say. They voted no on the first go around last time. See what happens in the next few weeks.
Brat4life on January 29, 2009 at 8:33 AM
Why are BHO & the liberal media bringing up that name so much, along with out-of-context quotes?
To drum up support for the unFairness Doctrine.
jgapinoy on January 29, 2009 at 8:33 AM
When you are on the right side of an issue, it’s neither bipartisanshp nor hyper-partisanship. And, for the record, this was an uppercase D “Democratic Party” bill not a lowercase “democratic” bill.
BuckeyeSam on January 29, 2009 at 8:34 AM
Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, thrice is by design.
TwinkietheKid on January 29, 2009 at 8:36 AM
The House Republicans must use this occasion as a reminder of how we grassroot conservatives are content when our representatives actually come through with conservatism.
I am proud of Boehner, Cantor, Pence and all the others who voted with a stern NO and provided an alternative plan.
Senate republicans must use this occasion to vote alongside House republicans against this bill. I wonder what McConnell will do as leader to bring around republicans.
jencab on January 29, 2009 at 8:37 AM
It’s a start.
Show me.
Mr. Joe on January 29, 2009 at 8:40 AM
Exactly. They havea looooooong way to go before pennance is achieved.
Vic on January 29, 2009 at 8:40 AM
Very appropriate. And I’ll add something my high school football coach used to say (though I’m sure he wasn’t the origin), “You have to crawl before you walk, and walk before you run.”
And from Robert Frost:
“The woods are lovely, dark, and deep,
And I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.”
BuckeyeSam on January 29, 2009 at 8:41 AM
This was a good thing, but the senate republicans are a LOT more mushy than the house.
I foresee a McCain-Lindsey Ghramnesty “Gang of” crap in our future. Collins and Snowe are also rinos of course.
wildcat84 on January 29, 2009 at 8:41 AM
Ogabe will still get a pass or at least a partial pass on this stimucrap bill, he already said he “can’t take ownership” of it.
The dems will be more than happy to crush a few of their own if necessary to protect the god king.
Bishop on January 29, 2009 at 8:41 AM
and Obama announced in the morning that he had overwhelming republican support.
Phoenician on January 29, 2009 at 8:43 AM
did you hear that raving idiot bitch, andrea mitchell, intone this a.m.(and i paraphrase)” well, the republican congressman will have to go back to their districts & explain their vote.” hell, if i had a republican congressman/woman, i would be offering them my heartfelt thanks right now.
kelley in virginia on January 29, 2009 at 8:44 AM
I’m very worried about Judd Gregg. I’m hoping he doesn’t vote for it but think that’s a false hope.
jeanie on January 29, 2009 at 8:45 AM
One vote isn’t going to make me re-register as a Republican. The Republicans were gravely ill with a rapidly spreading Common Sense Deficiency Syndrome. It made them susceptible to other diseases such as Obama Butt Kissing/Dem Bend Over Complex B. They’re showing signs of recovery, however, unless they can prove they’re completely clean, I don’t plan on sleeping with them again for a while.
Tuari on January 29, 2009 at 8:47 AM
If the GOP thinks that this one act lets them off the hook they’re sadly mistaken. They’ve got a lot of baggage to unload. The Base does want to see this sort of combativeness, however. On other issues especially. Lets see it on some of the radical environmental/climate change hoax initiatives put forth by the dem’s. Then we’ll see if the GOP has a real backbone. DD
Darvin Dowdy on January 29, 2009 at 8:47 AM
The Whigs have stepped back from the cliff, momentarily. Now its on the Senate, the heart of darkness for Republicanism. The RINO impulse, the “bipartisan” foolishness, they are home in the US Senate. Most likely outcome there–not only will the Bring Socialism to Lower Canada Act win Whig votes, but certain Whig Senators will reach across the aisle first to make a completely indefensible bill a bit more palatable and more easily defended come 2010, while doing nothing to change its essential character.
When the Whigs stop writing and saying things like this–” They never let their discourse get hyperpartisan…”–they will have turned a corner.
james23 on January 29, 2009 at 8:47 AM
You Democratic Trolls should be dancing in the street over the Porkalicious Bill being passed instead of being upset that the Republicans grew a spine. Are you upset because, like Mr. President, that you know that this bill has the potential to bomb bigger than Hiroshima?
Yep.
O/T: On Fox And Friends this morning, they told Michelle that Barry comes to work in the Oval Office in shirt sleeves, instead of jacket and tie like the past presidents. Her answer: “Slacker!” ROFL
kingsjester on January 29, 2009 at 8:51 AM
Eric Cantor’s Washington Office
202-225-2815
Lisa would love to hear from you all. Cannot wait to see this guy on a national ticket. You want hope and change? How about Jindal-Cantor?
Jaibones on January 29, 2009 at 8:53 AM
The House GOP has been reestablishing its conservative credentials for a while now. They refused to leave for vacation last summer and stuck around to debate the drilling issue even after Pelosi shut off the lights. They (initially at least)opposed the TARP bill. And now they didn’t give a single vote to Obama for the stimulus package.
The problem has been the Senate. There are too many RINOs led by McCain who seem to be obsessed with how they’re perceived by the drive-bys and continue to sell out the conservative base on seemingly every major vote that comes their way. How they respond to this is the real test.
Doughboy on January 29, 2009 at 8:55 AM
need to point out all the pork in this thing, stuff Obama campaigned against yet lobbied for the passage of this bill
jp on January 29, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Did you say “regain” credibility or Reagan credibility?
GrayDog on January 29, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Judd Gregg will have to explain a yea vote to me, but much of NH will like it if he votes with Obama. I’m wondering if he plans to run again.
jeanie on January 29, 2009 at 9:10 AM
I don’t think they’ve turned the corner, but at least they are finally see where the corner is.
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2009 at 9:11 AM
I kind of like Paul Ryan.
Dan Collins on January 29, 2009 at 9:13 AM
As I’ve always said, to a liberal, bi-partisan means Republicans helping to pass the Democratic agenda.
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2009 at 9:13 AM
They may have turned a corner, but Rush had to line them up, get them all to hold on to the rope, and them get them to move their feet. They are incapable of doing anything on their own.
Also, I seemed to pretty much hear crickets chirping from the the Obama conservative media on this topic. George Will chimed in very weakly, mumbling something about deference due Obama.
BigD on January 29, 2009 at 9:18 AM
i’m not saying that eric canton isn’t doing a great job, especially yesterday. but he is not zippy enough to run for national office.
but congressman is a dem, so i sure wish i had eric representing me.
kelley in virginia on January 29, 2009 at 9:23 AM
FIFY.
And your point is? If you’ve got a hankering to hear Cantor speak, I guess this will have to do for now. Get snarky with that speech.
smellthecoffee on January 29, 2009 at 9:24 AM
The longest journey begins with a single step.
Rome wasn’t built in a day.
One eats the elephant one bite at a time.
You play them as they lie.
Inch by inch, anything’s a cinch.
…etc…
gridlock2 on January 29, 2009 at 9:25 AM
I’m pleased with the stand taken by the House Republicans (and how awesome is Michele Bachmann for keeping us aware of what’s going on?) and hope the spirit catches on over in the Senate, but doubt it will. Seeing how they haven’t stood up to fight a tax cheat SoB (Secretary of Bailouts) and all. As has been said before, “The Senate is where Republicans go to become John McCain.”
Fallen Sparrow on January 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM
What the RNC needs to do is take a page from the Bambi Playbook.
Obama has created a perpetual campaign… a well funded group which continues to put out commercials and interviews to bend public opinion.
The Repubs needs a counter to this. They need to get out and EXPLAIN why they have problems with this whole thing, on a philosophical level…
Do it on the Web… it would be fairly cheep…
DON’T TWITTER!!!! put out well thought out positions…
Twitter is backroom talk… what we need is somthing more along the lines of the Federalist Papaers… using New Technology
Romeo13 on January 29, 2009 at 9:46 AM
You are quite the wag, Ed, and when I read your comment that the Republicans may have turned the corner I blew coffee through my nose.
Why are the House Republicans trotting out the same tired tax-cutting, liberal bashing talking points while siding with bankers and not beleaguered homeowners that lost them the White House and Congress? Because bipartisanship is a noble concept only when they are promoting it, and most importantly they are bereft of fresh ideas, let alone a salable vision for America.
And who are these House Republicans talking to? Their shrinking conservative base in the diminishing number of Red States. In other words, conservative talk-radio listeners and that great drug-addled Keynesian, Pope Rush.
sdm on January 29, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Their is no intrinsic virtue in cooperation — or opposition. It depends on what you’re cooperating (or declining) to do.
“Cooperation” “Bipartisan” “Compromise”, etc, etc. They all miss the point. To agree with someone mindlessly is as foolish as opposing them without good reason.
The important thing is to be right, to have a solid case, grounded in unassailable fact and logic, and then to press your case with all the courage you can muster. Then let the chips fall where they may.
Where would we be if the leaders of the Constitutional era had been the kind of mealy-mouthed pragmatists urged on us today?
JDPerren on January 29, 2009 at 9:52 AM
I am glad the Republicans voted against this bill. Obama has been high handed and tone deaf. His attack on Rush Limbaugh and Fox has been just plain stupid in fact. I do not always agree with Rush, but the man has a huge following and a constitutional right to speak his mind. I think that Obama and Pelosi’s attitude has a lot to do with the fact that not one Republican voted for this.
My Representative here in Indiana is Ellsworth, a blue dog Democrat. He was one of the 11 Democrats to cross over and vote with the Republicans. I think that the leadership in the Democratic party needs to be careful or they might lose more of those blue dogs.
Terrye on January 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM
With RINOs like Graham and McCain, I have little hope that the Senate will hold the line and make the dems 100% responsible for the aftermath of HR1.
FuriousAmerican on January 29, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Hey, Democrats should be happy with the situation. If the stimulus plan is the greatest thing since sliced bread, as Nancy Pelosi seems to believe, the Democrats now get 100 percent of the credit (though there’s still the chance some Republicans in the Senate could bolt and
give the Democrats in Congress and Obama covertry to take credit for this ‘wonderful’ rescue bill themselves.OK, now that the sarcasm’s over, what you’re seeing is the same calculation as Gingrich and the Republicans made with the Clinton tax increase and spending bills in 1993, when not one single House GOP member supported it. The downside is that the big media’s going to be even more rabid than they were in ’93-94 about showing all the wonders and economic stimulus that has flowed from the bill over the next few months, whether it’s there or not (and you will see some improvement in people’s disposable income compared to last year by this summer, if for no other reason than a 50 percent drop in fuel prices since September).
So aside from being against spending like a drunken sailor, the Republicans now also have to do what Gingrich did with the “Contract for America” and tell the public what they’re for and how they would handle the situation (and they’ll be facing a more skeptical public than in 1994 because back then the GOP had been out of power since 1954 in the House and 1986 in the Senate — this time they have to also promise they won’t go right back to the sloth they fell into under Tom DeLay and Trent Lott during the past decade).
jon1979 on January 29, 2009 at 10:07 AM
I commented last night to my Democrat husband that this is Rahm Emanuel’s chickens coming home to roost. He spent millions at the DCCC to defeat the last few moderate Republicans like Chris Shays. Now he has no Republicans to give him cover, and he has to worry about those conservative Democrats that he recruited.
This was absolutely a watershed vote for both parties. Republican challengers can now hang this vote on every incumbent Democrat’s head. There are certain to be dozens of “bridges to nowhere” in this bill that voters will not like.
rockmom on January 29, 2009 at 10:08 AM
True, but Obama also did nothing to back up his earlier promises that he would go through the bill line by line and cut out pork. He only caved on one item – contraceptives -and made zero gestures to cut any of the other profligate spending proposals.
btw, if his charm offensive failed with Republicans, just how far do ya think he’ll get with Ahmadinijead and the Mad Mullahs?
Mobys or Moonbats?:
Buy Danish on January 29, 2009 at 10:10 AM
The big difference is that the economy was already recovering when Clinton took office – in fact, even before he was elected. He just got to take credit for it. And he was lucky enough to be president when the Internet and personal computer use took off and produced massive productivity gains. His 1993 tax bill had nothing to do with it.
rockmom on January 29, 2009 at 10:10 AM
I agree with grapeknutz that one correct vote doesn’t signify turning the corner, but it is a quantum step for the rudderless ship that the Republican Party has become.
The success or failure of this legislative debacle will fall squarely on the shoulders of Obama, Reid (assuming the Republican Senators follow suit) and Pelosi, as it should.
We still have other critical issues where the Republican Party needs to vote strongly and uniformly.
Those issues include:
1. Earmarks;
2. Bailouts (sellouts);
3. Amnesty for illegal aliens;
4. Second Amendment rights (which Obama and Holder will most certainly challenge);
5. Energy exploration; and
6. Taxes.
The Republican Party has the opportunity to slowly, but surely, turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse by simply acting like Republicans again.
The neocons who succeeded in bartering away our principle to maintain power, but who only succeeded at the former, need to be ex-communicated from leadership at all levels or, preferrably, shown the door.
A reconstituted conservative, fiscally disciplined Republican Party will eventually look attrative to a good bit of the electorate, particularly after Obama, Pelosi and Reid’s continuation of the Bush economic policies that they assailed to garner votes.
Viva Goldwater and Reagan.
molonlabe28 on January 29, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Even if we’re in the minority for a long time, at least we can respect our own leaders again and get behind them. That’s how the Democrats got on the road back, they got some leaders with backbone who kept their own troops together and played hardball with the Republicans. The activists on both side want their leaders to stand up to the other guys and stop compromising all the time. And we’re the ones who provide the shoe leather and the money for their campaigns.
rockmom on January 29, 2009 at 10:21 AM
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/cadamo/2009/cga_01291.shtml
This is a good article on this subject…
reshas1 on January 29, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Looks like somebody needs to make sure what is buried stays buried. That is, speaking of “Zombies Ahead”.
sethstorm on January 29, 2009 at 10:38 AM
A solitary vote does not a corner-turn make, especially since they sense that their future as even the minority party is at stake. Besides, there’s always the Senate to throw cold water on the whole plan.
steveegg on January 29, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Mitch McConnell’s contact info..
http://mcconnell.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm
reshas1 on January 29, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Agreed. This is a step forward and the Senate will likely be two steps back. Still it is important to acknowledge the step forward and the efforts of Rep. Cantor and the many bloggers/posters at HA and elsewhere to unite House Republicans against the stimulus bill.
The second step should be to continue listening to President Obama and offering him pro-growth alternatives including real tax cuts not temporary tax rebates to the progressive corporatism proposed by Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats.
Angry Dumbo on January 29, 2009 at 11:06 AM
I’d like to believe the public will strongly associate every breathlessly reported stimulus boondoggle with Harry and Nancy, but the linchpin in that little fantasy is the behavior of press. They still think they’re ablative armor for The One.
DrSteve on January 29, 2009 at 11:09 AM
I listened to NPR’s analysis of how the Republicans voted down “Obama’s bill”, and how Obama, in a gesture of nonpartisanship, visited the Repubs, only to be stiffed in the vote.
Anyone who listened to NPR’s analysis would have no idea of how Nancy Pelosi built the bill, or the lack of input the Republicans had in its makeup.
unclesmrgol on January 29, 2009 at 11:13 AM
The Senate is where Republicans can really DO something, if they have the cojones to filibuster, because they DO have enough Senators. The Democrats have 58 Senators, and need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, and the Democrats include 7 elected freshmen and 4 appointed Senators (in CO, NY, DE, and IL), who must face the voters in 2010. How many of those newbies want their first Senate vote to be for a trillion-dollar deficit full of pork?
McCain has always railed so loudly against earmarks, he would probably filibuster with the rest of the Republicans. The Maine girls and Arlen Specter may be problematic, but some of the new Democrats, especially Begich (AK), Warner(VA), Kagan(NC), and the Udall brothers (CO and NM) could be swayed into supporting a filibuster until a lot of pork is taken out. In addition, Ben Nelson(NE), Max Baucus (MT), and Mary Landrieu(LA) have been fairly fiscally responsible, and voted for the Bush tax cuts.
Republicans can’t just filibuster EVERYTHING, because SOMETHING needs to be done, but they need to stand on principle, yes to tax cuts and infrastructure, no to pork and huge entitlement increases. If Republicans can hold a filibuster together long enough to cut out most of the pork, then hammer out a final deal in a House/Senate conference, they can then go into the 2010 elections saying that Republicans prevented the deficit from ballooning while stimulating the economy with tax cuts, while Democrats were fiscally irresponsible.
Let the filibuster begin.
Steve Z on January 29, 2009 at 11:15 AM
The MSM will spin this (and already have) as a great Democratic ‘victory’. The Republicans in the House need to hammer the press with the facts about Nancy’s “bi-partisanship”. The senate Republicans need to vote NO! as a unified block.
Once the Obamassiah see’s this, you can bet there will be a lot of pressure to get rid of Pelosi and Reid. The Chosen One needs the political cover for when this stimulus charade falls apart. Otherwise, he’s toast and he knows it.
GarandFan on January 29, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Damn, Ed, sometimes you sound like a conservative.
SKYFOX on January 29, 2009 at 11:42 AM
The past nine days of Obama’s presidency have been nothing but sheer hell for me until I realized yesterday that he is going to fail miserably. I understand why Mitch McConnell isn’t going to filbuster this mess. He can’t win it and frankly it’s a perfect failure mechanism for Obama. Let this be his first win/failure and let the press go nuts over it. I hate seeing my country go down like this, but tweaking this bill to make it more palatable to the Repubs isn’t going to make it a better bill. It still stinks up the place, but I don’t want the Republicans to get it all over them. Any of them. Even John McCain. If they hold firm on this then lavish them with praise. Every time they “stand up for America” then tell them. Awfully Pavlovian, but we are going down forever if we don’t. There are other fights out there that are more odious than this one.
BetseyRoss on January 29, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Haven’t you figured it out yet?
The Republicans are the new Jews.
Did you watch the news reports are about the “great victory” over the Republicans in the House? Did you see the subtle attempt to label Republicans as “obstructionists.” It didn’t seem to me that the Obama rectum-licking media was praising the Republicans for the courageous stand on principles. Not at all.
Sometime between now and Nov 2010, the Demcorats are going to have an American version of “Krystalnacht” aimed at the Republican party. I don’t know what it will be, or how they will pull it off, but the the Democrats dare not allow the Republican party to exist as a political opposition party going into the next election after the economy tanks due to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. I have no doubt, though, that they’ll gin-up some “National Emergency” as part of it.
And don’t be surprised if this concocted “national emergency” causes the 2010 elections to be postponed.
Call them fascists or stalinists or whatever. But the Democrats (particularly under Nancy Pelosi) intend to step on our necks forever.
georgej on January 29, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Baby steps. The first one is huge, but the significance of baby steps is to keep baby steppin. Republicans need to embrace the change that Obama represents, but oppose Rep. Pelosi’s stimulus policy on the grounds that it isn’t change.
The arguments are there, Republicans need to go on talk radio and local media to make them. Here is an excellent thumbnail of the arguments from John Hood at NRO’s Corner on why the stimulus will not work any better than the October 2008 bailout or the April 2008 tax rebate stimulus worked.
Heck, even Obama’s advisors dispute whether the plan will work. Then there is always the issue of pork and special interests represented in the stimulus bill. Also, Republicans can talk about how quickly this bill has been thrown together and that much of the spending is not of a “shovel ready” nature and should thus be part of the regular budget making process. In short, there is plenty of cover for Republicans.
Some Stimulating Reading [John Hood]
With the bloated, ramshackle, pork-laden, grotesque corruption of a “stimulus bill” now headed to the U.S. Senate, here’s a handy list of arguments and sources as we debate America’s new lurch towards European-style social democracy:
• The Pacific Research Institute’s Robert Murphy explains the economic-policy mistake that underlies the legislative monstrosity—the idea that recessions are a symptom of too little consumer spending, so government should step in to prop up consumption artificially to keep people in their current jobs.
No, recessions are really the result of a mismatch between what firms are currently producing and what consumers want to buy at current prices. Inevitably, some firms and their workers need to stop making widgets and start making wadgets, or the machines that make wadgets, or the networks that sell and service wadgets. That requires new investment in capital formation across the board: financial, physical, and human (retraining and redeployment of labor). There is no shortcut.
Government efforts to prop up consumption spending hamper the true recovery process. The unsound enterprises started during the artificial boom years need to be liquidated so their resources and workers can be redeployed to better uses. By doing everything in its power to stall this painful readjustment, the government simply prolongs the slump.
Pretty basic stuff, but many Americans and most of their elected officials need a refresher course.
• Both the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute have wonderful omnibus-stimulus sites where you can go for updates, backgrounders, videos, and more. One recent Heritage paper offers a devastating critique of the job-creation numbers the Obama administration is peddling. The administration’s report is “supposed to lend academic creditability to a plan based on political considerations, but the estimates created are founded on loose assumptions that lack academic rigor,” the authors write. “The report should not be relied upon as an accurate measure of the impact of the Obama fiscal stimulus plan because it relies on rules of thumb and other back-of-the envelope calculations rather than sound economic analysis.” Heritage has also provided an estimated cost of the stimulus bill: about $22,500 for every American family with children.
Over at Cato, Lawrence White and David Rose are blunt about Washington’s current infatuation with interventionism: “Out of political cowardice, the federal government is attempting to produce a solution that is penny-wise and pound-foolish. You can’t solve an excessive spending problem by spending more. We are making the crisis worse.” It’s important not to allow the Left to claim to be bold and courageous here. The stimulus bill is neither. It’s simply a “get it while the gettin’s good” bill.
• Philip Levy of the American Enterprise Institute opens up another front against the fast-moving stimulus legislation—that its protectionist provisions will increase in the cost of funded infrastructure projects and invites unfavorable trade-policy responses from overseas. “In his campaign last year, President Obama called for a multilateral approach to foreign policy and a restoration of America’s image in the world,” Levy writes. “It may fall to other world leaders to remind him of the role that global trade plays in US international relations.”
• The Competitive Enterprise Institute calls attention to a sound alternative stimulus package from Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina. It would slash corporate tax rates, block future income-tax hikes, allow businesses to deduct their expenses more rapidly, and target wasteful spending (which creates an immediate stimulative effect if entrepreneurs and investors believe it augurs well for future tax rates). CEI also suggests regulatory reform as a forward-looking stimulus.
• My John Locke Foundation colleague, Jon Sanders, writes in his Townhall column that misguided politicians in Washington would be well-advised to read Henry Hazlitt’s classic explanation for why government interventions inevitably come too late, spend too much, and target the wrong problem:
Resorting to overturned Keynesian nostrums in the middle of a recession is as backwards as physicians today treating a deadly infection by bloodletting. Think about it: if more government spending truly stimulated the economy, then why is the economy in such a shambles after eight years of the Bush administration and Congress growing federal spending from $1.86 trillion in 2001 to $2.98 trillion in 2008? Federal spending adjusted for inflation has increased by 48 percent since 2001 (60 percent in nominal dollars). A panicked rush to ‘save the economy’ with a massive increase in federal spending now would be like trying to cure dysentery with Ex-Lax.
Yes, we like picturesque analogies down South.
01/29 09:15 AM
Angry Dumbo on January 29, 2009 at 12:07 PM
This is a great analysis but the one problem i’ve been seeing is that the republicans have been terrible about getting their message across to voters. They should have had a website ready to launch as soon as the bill passed last night called “whyWeVotedNO.com” highlighting all of the ridiculous pork spending in the bill.
Of course, the MSM is parroting this bill as a “great triumph” and making the GOP seem like obstructionists for voting no. They need to get their message out there louder and clearer.
jks16 on January 29, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »