Comments on: House GOP Leaders Reach Across Aisle, Pledge to Support Obama if he will Attempt to Fulfill Promise of Fiscal Responsibility

By: paulincolo

paulincolo — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 06:48:00 +0000

is this effective strategy? me: no you: yes

:get glasses:

By: bs

bs — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 04:33:46 +0000

That’ll go far

:rolls eyes:

By: bs

bs — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 04:32:30 +0000

Earmarks are a minuscule percentage of the astronomical deficit spending that is being proposed.

By: Caleb (absentee)

Caleb (absentee) — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 02:54:47 +0000

the fundamental flaw.
– c

By: bk

bk — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 02:52:28 +0000

You either have 60 votes or you don’t. Of course if you’re in the majority and you’re a D, you just delay the vote until you get enough Rs to go along. It’s a given that some will cave eventually 99% of the time. And sometimes the R leader will chicken out and agreed to limit debate in advance.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:00:13 +0000

By: 6eorge Jetson

6eorge Jetson — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:57:13 +0000

if our representatives are that cavalier about what stands out, you know they’re not going to be prudent with our money in regards to the larger mass under the surface.

By: IJB

IJB — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:52:59 +0000

It’s not that earmarks aren’t important on both a symbolic and a practical/operational level.

It’s that, as of right now, they are so far *down* the list of things to worry about that it’s not even funny.

Don’t get me wrong – if played right, our side can get some rhetorical advantage out of the thing.

But it should be looked at for that, and not a whole lot much else.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:21:57 +0000

The real danger is from the non-earmark, non-pork permanent growth of government aspects of the stimulus, budget and the omnibus bill.

more later

By: paulincolo

paulincolo — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:12:26 +0000

The American people will see nothing. The MSM won’t report it, it hasn’t even hit Drudge or Insty, and the RNC is in a communication incommunicado.

By: JLenardDetroit

JLenardDetroit — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 23:06:58 +0000

Sorry, previous title should have ended with a "?".... I POSITIVELY AGREE WITH PURSUING THIS APPROACH as I've gone on and on all over RS and in discussions with Republican Representative offices about how the great unwashed across America are indeed hung-up on this Bi-Partisanship notion..... this addresses that and works toward the CORRECT angle of Bi-Partisanship is AGAINST the Spending (just one of the reminders).... BUT THEY MUST STAND FIRM IF SUBSTANTIAL COOPERATION FROM OBAMA ISN'T TO TRULY BE SEEN! otherwise they must continue TO OPPOSE AT EVERY TURN THE SOCIALIST AGENDA! As I said elsewhere here at RS (sorry, no link, it scrolled off my list already) WHERE ARE THE FILIBUSTERS? I want to see Republicans taking any and every legal approach to stall, delay, kill, etc, this rush to Bankrupt the country... I want to see Republicans in the Senate to Filibuster to the point where they are all hospitalized for exhaustion and therefore unable to Filibuster anymore!!!! It is ONLY that way that people will start to take notice, the MSM cannot cover forever, and our message to finally start to sink in that this is NOT the way to come out of this Recession and that Obama's method might indeed bring a Depression not avoid one!

By: Jeff Emanuel

Jeff Emanuel — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 22:51:49 +0000

Got it; thanks

By: JLenardDetroit

JLenardDetroit — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 22:46:10 +0000

More squishy Republicans on the horizon…. seems they are succumbing to the “Bi-Partisanship Disease” AGAIN….. seems they are worried about the LEFT rhetoric on the “Obama To Fail” (which I was more than happy to be on record embracing the appropriate term, language, and argument since before inauguration [welcome aboard others now the bandwagon is built and rolling]) message they never wanted to HONESTLY DISCUSS, or even to nuance – they see the Bandwagon coming and are performing a preemptive jump from the ship before the message accidentally (as they see it) may work!

WE ARE WATCHING… AND WE WILL TARGET YOU SELLOUTS!!

Settling for LESS EARMARKS rather than ZERO is NOT ACCEPTABLE! If any one item is so important, let each and every one of them be introduced as a stand alone Bill and be voted by the whole body UP OR DOWN. I will respect some of them passing that way, if they can be adequately argued – no more of this hiding them knowing they can’t stand on their own!

By: weave

weave — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 22:19:56 +0000

I think this is a positive step that I hope Obama takes them up on, but some of them have earmarks in there as well. Admittedly low compared to many of the other reps, and I have no data on whether their’s were the ones snuck in or done in the open.

Blunt, 19 earmarks, $8.6 million
Boehner, 0 earmarks, $0
Cantor, 0 earmarks, $0
Carter, 10 earmarks, $7.4 million
Dreier, 14 earmarks, $17.2 million
McCarthy, 0 earmarks, $0
McCotter, 0 earmarks, $0
Pence, 0 earmarks, $0
Rodgers, 0 earmarks, $0
Sessions, 7 earmarks, $15.7 million

Source: http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?type=Project&proj_id=1961

By: bs

bs — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:38:00 +0000

There is no way that Boehner, et. al. thought for one minute that Obama would do this. No way. For him to do what they propose would mean he would have to spit directly into Pelosi’s face. If he doesn’t do it, then he proves that he has no intent to fulfill his promises. This is a win/win for the GOP. It’s like the old “have you stopped beating your wife?” conundrum.

This is a great strategy. It’s much better than simply voting against the bill – this way we provide an alternative and the American people see that we made an effort to cooperate.

By: bk

bk — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:05:05 +0000

So if the Dems drop all the earmarks that GOP people put in, leave all the Dem pork, and that gets them to Porkulus Lite/BAU/1994, then the GOP would support it?

By: Rod_Patrick

Rod_Patrick — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:48:08 +0000

NOTHING… NADA… A VAIN EFFORT.

On a second thought, why not give it a try?

But….. I will be he first one to laugh if this one fails.

By: franklinslocke

franklinslocke — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:47:48 +0000

The political strategy was sound, because it makes Obama look worse. It will put pressure on Obama at a critical time when he is already looking bad in the media. Problem. Every time you reach across the aisle the Dems break you arms. In other words, they will make you look bad or make it not politically advantageous. Be careful where you step, especially when Obama is cornered and floundering.

http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/

By: Steph C

Steph C — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:31:17 +0000

in the spirit of bipartisanship and then go ahead and do whatever it is he feels like doing, while waving that letter as his carte blanche to do it.

By: paulincolo

paulincolo — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:54:58 +0000

However, with Obama, any and all deals can change at any time. Although, I don’t think he will take them up on this with the “last year’s business” and all, if he does he is going to extract something much bigger and call it bipartisan or outright blame the Repubs. It is much better to just stand firm and oppose Obama’s socialist policies at every turn than attempt any deal.

[Robot Devil appears]
Bender: What up?
Beelzebot, The Robot Devil: Oh. Well it so happens that I’m in the mood to make a deal with you.
Bender: Forget it. You can’t tempt me.
Beelzebot, The Robot Devil: Really? There’s nothing you want?
Bender: Hmm. I forgot you could tempt me with things I want.

From Futurama episode
The Devil’s Hands Are Idle Playthings