Sitnam
January 29, 2009, 4:42pm
21
100% of them opposed it, I think it’s safe to say this was political grand standing.
wsbenge
January 30, 2009, 2:16am
22
They already are bipartisan. They play the ends against the middle, and we fall for their crap.
Case in point: Newt Gingrich, and the Contract with America. All flim flam, when they got in power.
Now the Dems have the whole shebang. What will they actually do? My guess is flim flam. Try to watch where the money really goes.
furt
January 30, 2009, 4:37am
23
FinnAgain:
The problem is, there has been bipartisanship on important issues so that we could be seen to be Doing Something, and it’s not always the right decision but one made to placate the electorate.
For example, the lack of analysis of evidence in the runup to the Iraq war, or the creation of No Child Left Behind with no real lit review done to determine best practices, and not enough funding to actually implement its demands. And so on.
Bipartisanship in and of itself is not necessarily a desirable goal.
Add to this the Patriot Act (98-1 in the senate).
Sitnam:
You and I fundamentally see a different future for this country. The economy isn’t in a slump that will be forgotten in 2 years. Politicians can be opposed to a ‘Democratic Recovery Bill’, but the people that will decide if the first word matters will be the voters, and if shit is really fucked up in two years voters will forget the first word.
If things are still bad in two years, it will be taken (fairly or not) that Obama and the dems and their stimulus failed to fix it. How, exactly, are voters going to blame the pubs for anything? “You guys should have voted for that bill, even though it passed anyway and even though it didn’t work!”
Squink
January 31, 2009, 2:49am
24