If that is what they are thinking all I can say is…good luck with that. IMHO it ain’t happening and they will be completely fucked (as opposed to mostly fucked as they are today).
-XT
I don’t know what the Republicans wanted to offer up. Never claimed I knew, but Diogenes the Cynic said he did, so I asked for his reference.
In reality, neither you, Diogenes the Cynic or I know. But DtC was sure that the Republicans only wanted to push though tax cuts for the rich. He was unable to prove that.
As I said, it seems like Republican input was neither asked for nor desired.
From the Boston Globe, certainly not a conservative paper:
“The President asked Republicans for ideas,” said House Republican Policy Committee chairman Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan. “The public has looked to the president and to us, but the House Democrats weren’t so enthusiastic about that.”
As a joint House-Senate committee works out a final version of the bill, Pelosi will have to contend with fresh dissent within her own party. Last night, Obama hosted a White House reception for the fiscally conservative Blue Dog House Democrats - some of whom have criticized Pelosi for shutting Republicans out of the legislative process.
“In general, we must engender an atmosphere that allows partisan games to cease and collaboration to succeed,” Blue Dog cochairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota wrote in a letter to the House leadership. More than 50 House Democrats signed her letter.
I understand that the Dems want to step up to the bar after years of not being allowed at the trough. But it runs counter to what the President has been espousing. And it gave the Republicans an opening to rally against the “Democratic filled pork bill.”
Yeah, if not for that, they would have rallied 'round in the spirit of cooperation and civic responsibility.
Me? Tequila and bongwater, why do you ask?
We could probably get you some mescal and bogwater…would that do? How about some Kumis poured out of an old boot after being buried under a chicken coop for a year?
-XT
Explain to me how one can acknowledge that the President consulted Republicans, and that these concerns resulted in Congress changing the bill’s content (overall balance of spending/cuts, changes to buy america provisions, stripping of some education spending, etc.), but then maintain that the Democrats have shut the Republicans out of the process.
Are you sure you have enough to share?
For you? Anything old boy!
-XT
But you’re sure they did want to, as indicated by this:
You aren’t getting it. His statement was in response to your own, just quoted for easy reference. Can you support what you say or not? You should know how it works here.
Really? Your own damn cite starts:
Come on now. :dubious:
By using the same bipolar “you’re either with us or against us” crap that Dubya used exclusively. You either go along entirely with the GOP or you’re utterly opposed to it. “No Middle Left Unexcluded”, you might say.
Yep, those Democrats sure are inclusive.
Boo hoo. Do you think any reasonable compromise between the Senate and House bills would have gotten more Republican votes? The three Republicans who voted for it did get included. Perhaps if the rest had been serious, instead of being ideological assholes, they might have been included. They had their chance; now they can go fuck themselves.
There were only some Republicans present at a late-night conference that occurred after the conference committee had agreed on a package. This is your evidence of a failure to be inclusive? Seriously?
From a Washington Post story on Collins (regarding the previous meetings, not the most recent late-night affair):
If only six Republicans bothered to show up to the initial meeting and three of them left in a snit once they saw they weren’t getting everything they wanted (you can’t say they got nothing as Collins, Snowe, Specter and even Nelson can cite concessions they’ve gotten out of the bill) then I can’t really cry too hard over the Republicans not being part of the final meeting. They had plenty of opportunity to help craft the bill and make sure their voices were in the room but they wanted to go pout instead.
Maybe 20 GOP Senators should have shown up instead of six. The only one marginalizing the Republicans here is the Republicans because, as noted upthread, they want to be able to crow about the bill failing if the economy isn’t up to 110% by September 2010.
Elvis,
You can put all the dumb faces on threads that you want. The Dems wrote thier own bill, and excluded Republican Congressional leadership who were outside looking in. The fact that the Presidenent asked for ideas, certinly doesn’t mean that Pelosi did. And that left the Dems open to much flack from the press.
As long as you’re going to make flat assertions not based on fact, that’s all thje response you can expect. An example:
'Tain’t so, and you’ve been shown so a number of times already. Now cut the crap.
Elvis,
You can argue with yourself now, I’m tired of explaining this to you.
DtC made a statement. I asked him for a cite which he couldn’t provide. Which is the exact same thing you would have asked for two months ago, when the Dem/Pub roles were reversed. But we all defend our own turf I suppose. DtC had the good sense to move onto other things, since he couldn’t back it up. If you have a cite showing that the Republicans only wanted tax cuts for the rich, to the exclusion of all else, I’d be willing to see it. But since you haven’t provided it, but have argued all around it, you clearly don’t have one either.
But the main point, which you also continue to avoid, is that Dems running with this, to the virtual exclusion of Republican input, allowed the same Republicans to paint the bill as just another pork filled Democrat spending bill. This necessitated the President getting on TV to explain the thing. If you think that was smart politics, so be it. But clearly the President and Democratic Congressional leadership viewed this differently as well.
IOW, you have no factual basis for your statement. We know.
In a challenge to your own previous statement, which has been established to be nonfactual. Remember? If not, you can scroll up and reread as easily as anyone else.
And you might well profit from following that example.
The burden of proof isn’t always with the other guy, ya know. Folks who try that shit don’t last long here. When *you *make a statement, *you *have to be able to back it up. But *you *know as well as every other reader that in this instance *you *cannot. It’s time for *you *to accept responsibility for your words, innit?
Here’s a hint: When it’s already been shown that a statement you’ve made is false, simply repeating it does not help.
Actually Collins, one of the repubs that supported the bill,insisted that they gut a whistleblower provision from the bill. She felt if people could report the theft by contractors it would make America less safe. Bush thinking. But her impact was felt on the bill. The repubs also cut what they decided was pork from the bill. So, they had input.
How about the fact that a 1000+ page bill wasn’t released to be reviewed until 11 p.m. last night? How, exactly, are those not included in the “secret” talks supposed to be ready to vote this morning?
This may be some fun intellectual exercise for some of you, but in this case, my representative to the Federal government, the ones who are representing me, is getting cut out of the loop. It’s bullshit…
I don’t blame Obama for this mess, but he better rein in Pelosi and Reid before they get completely power-crazy and out of control.
I share your concern over such long bills not being properly read and debated. That said, in this case, the vast majority of the bill was not changed in conference–so all that needed to be reviewed were the new parts, which were relatively short.