Thumbs Up to McCain!

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Speaking of the public, are there polls out there that show America's approval/disapproval of the Porkulus Plan as it stands now?

In the mean time, McCain is leading a sane charge again the current bill in the Senate.

CNN Article

I am liking his logical "pork" test for the bill:

Does a program take effect soon? Does it create jobs?

Logical, common sense government is what I want (espcially if it leads to fiscal discipline)...I don't care really where that logic and common sense comes from.


Update:

McCain asks supporters to oppose stimulus bill
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Too bad he didn't do something similar with the TARP bill. Would have been nice to see that killed.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Originally posted by: dphantom
Too bad he didn't do something similar with the TARP bill. Would have been nice to see that killed.

Well, few can be as great Ron Paul :p
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
I asked the very same question in another thread. There has not been one legitimate poll about this pork spending plan. Yet, when Bush put out both his stimulus plan and the bank bailout, all you heard was how the polls were against both. Stay classy media.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
The public voted for Obama and Dems, not McCain. If the Public wanted McCain to govern the country, it would have elected him president.
 

venkman

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2007
4,950
11
81
Originally posted by: dphantom
Too bad he didn't do something similar with the TARP bill. Would have been nice to see that killed.

Killing the TARP plan would have taken money out of the pockets of some of the senates largest financial owners. The new stimulus package doesn't help the banks as much, so the republicans are no longer under orders and are free to get back to their 'no spend' roots.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: senseamp
The public voted for Obama and Dems, not McCain. If the Public wanted McCain to govern the country, it would have elected him president.

5% of the people doesn't make the other 46% completely irrelevant. the opposition party exists for a reason.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Speaking of the public, are there polls out there that show America's approval/disapproval of the Porkulus Plan as it stands now?

In the mean time, McCain is leading a sane charge again the current bill in the Senate.

CNN Article

I am liking his logical "pork" test for the bill:

Does a program take effect soon? Does it create jobs?

Logical, common sense government is what I want (espcially if it leads to fiscal discipline)...I don't care really where that logic and common sense comes from.

Tis a mystery. I guess after the Bush bonanza they officially stopped polling.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
The public voted for Obama and Dems, not McCain. If the Public wanted McCain to govern the country, it would have elected him president.

Thanks capt obvious.
 

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,414
3
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
The public voted for Obama and Dems, not McCain. If the Public wanted McCain to govern the country, it would have elected him president.

And this has what bearing on the topic?
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Originally posted by: senseamp
The public voted for Obama and Dems, not McCain. If the Public wanted McCain to govern the country, it would have elected him president.

And this has what bearing on the topic?

The title.
 

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,414
3
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Originally posted by: senseamp
The public voted for Obama and Dems, not McCain. If the Public wanted McCain to govern the country, it would have elected him president.

And this has what bearing on the topic?

The title.

Oh .... so since he didn't win the election he deserves no props for doing the right thing. Ok, I get it now.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Originally posted by: senseamp
The public voted for Obama and Dems, not McCain. If the Public wanted McCain to govern the country, it would have elected him president.

And this has what bearing on the topic?

The title.

Oh .... so since he didn't win the election he deserves no props for doing the right thing. Ok, I get it now.

That's your opinion. The public voted to not give McCain power to implement what he thinks is the "right thing." It gave that power to Obama and the Dems.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: senseamp
The public voted for Obama and Dems, not McCain. If the Public wanted McCain to govern the country, it would have elected him president.

5% of the people doesn't make the other 46% completely irrelevant. the opposition party exists for a reason.

Funny, it seemed like -.001% did exactly that for Bush.

However, snide comment aside, I sincerely hope the republicans get some of their ideas in the bill.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Originally posted by: senseamp
The public voted for Obama and Dems, not McCain. If the Public wanted McCain to govern the country, it would have elected him president.

And this has what bearing on the topic?

The title.

Oh .... so since he didn't win the election he deserves no props for doing the right thing. Ok, I get it now.

That's your opinion. The public voted to not give McCain power to implement what he thinks is the "right thing." It gave that power to Obama and the Dems.

He is a United States senator. That means he was voted into office to represent the will of his people and to do what he feels is the "right thing" for them. Until they vote him out or he retires he has every right to do what he is doing. What kind of bizzaro world do you live in where we have mob rule? I bet you were front and center pissing about the mob rule of Republicans under bush when they didnt hold anywhere near this kind of power.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,913
3
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Originally posted by: senseamp
The public voted for Obama and Dems, not McCain. If the Public wanted McCain to govern the country, it would have elected him president.

And this has what bearing on the topic?

The title.

Oh .... so since he didn't win the election he deserves no props for doing the right thing. Ok, I get it now.

That's your opinion. The public voted to not give McCain power to implement what he thinks is the "right thing." It gave that power to Obama and the Dems.

He is a United States senator. That means he was voted into office to represent the will of his people and to do what he feels is the "right thing" for them. Until they vote him out or he retires he has every right to do what he is doing. What kind of bizzaro world do you live in where we have mob rule? I bet you were front and center pissing about the mob rule of Republicans under bush when they didnt hold anywhere near this kind of power.

Basically it works out like this: the bill must be able to get passing votes in the House and Senate. This means essentially House Republicans are ignored, and a few Senate Republicans and conservative Democrats needs to be won over. All of this talk about bipartisanship is sort of pointless in the House because that party is so nuts they can't get anything close to a majority. Bipartisanship in the Senate is needed only so much, but mostly just compromise within the Democratic party is needed.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
McCain does not lead the GOP in the Senate, Mitch McConnell does. McCain is simply saying me too instead of being mavericky or being willing to be bi-partisan.

If you strip all the smokescreen verbiage over pork, stimulus, and all that, we have a GOP Democratic showdown on this stimulus plan, the GOP is going to demand a continuation of GWB&co spend and borrow
economic policies, and if they do not get their way, they will filibuster.

Read the script, don't pay any attention to bit actors reading their script lines.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: Carmen813
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: senseamp
The public voted for Obama and Dems, not McCain. If the Public wanted McCain to govern the country, it would have elected him president.

5% of the people doesn't make the other 46% completely irrelevant. the opposition party exists for a reason.

Funny, it seemed like -.001% did exactly that for Bush.

it wasn't any more "right" then as it is now.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Traditional Liberal Media: Obama is too big to fail.

(So we won't be doing any polling if it isn't in his favor.)

What we need now is for the WSJ to step in with some polling data.
 

HannibalX

Diamond Member
May 12, 2000
9,359
2
0
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Originally posted by: senseamp
The public voted for Obama and Dems, not McCain. If the Public wanted McCain to govern the country, it would have elected him president.

And this has what bearing on the topic?

None at all.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Originally posted by: senseamp
The public voted for Obama and Dems, not McCain. If the Public wanted McCain to govern the country, it would have elected him president.

And this has what bearing on the topic?

The title.

Oh .... so since he didn't win the election he deserves no props for doing the right thing. Ok, I get it now.

That's your opinion. The public voted to not give McCain power to implement what he thinks is the "right thing." It gave that power to Obama and the Dems.

He is a United States senator. That means he was voted into office to represent the will of his people and to do what he feels is the "right thing" for them. Until they vote him out or he retires he has every right to do what he is doing. What kind of bizzaro world do you live in where we have mob rule? I bet you were front and center pissing about the mob rule of Republicans under bush when they didnt hold anywhere near this kind of power.

Basically it works out like this: the bill must be able to get passing votes in the House and Senate. This means essentially House Republicans are ignored, and a few Senate Republicans and conservative Democrats needs to be won over. All of this talk about bipartisanship is sort of pointless in the House because that party is so nuts they can't get anything close to a majority. Bipartisanship in the Senate is needed only so much, but mostly just compromise within the Democratic party is needed.

They don't need Republican support in the Senate. The Dems can pass this bill without Republican support if they exercise the nuclear option and change the rules to only require majority vote. It's a senate rule that can be changed by simple majority. There is no filibuster in the Constitution. What Dems need to do is have debate on this bill, then set a timer, 30 days, if it's not moved to a vote by then, they will exercise the nuclear option.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,913
3
0
senseamp the conservative Democrats and blue-state Republicans are essentially a toss-up in my mind. So yes they can ignore the Republicans but in reality they will lose some of their own before they get a bill that would be rejected by all Republicans.

edit: except on some of the core social issues where it would go down party lines, this stimulus plays into a lot of re-election concerns and whatnot so it is more of a mixed bag
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,913
3
0
Upon posting my last reply I came upon this and it is a good read for what the prospects for the bill in the Senate might be:

Do the Republicans Have the Votes for a Stimulus Filibster?

The possibility of a Senate filibuster of the stimulus package, which I argued only days ago was a remote possibility, now seems like a more tangible prospect, as Mitch McConnell is thinking out loud about the strategy. But does the GOP have the votes?

I still say most likely not. McConnell might well force Harry Reid to call a cloture vote -- but I'm not sure he can prevent the Democrats from getting the 60 votes they need if that time comes.

Of the 41 Republican Senators, 34 have made some statement on the record opposing the stimulus. That does not necessarily mean that all Republicans who would vote against the stimulus would also vote for a filibuster, but let's assume for now that McConnell has those 34 votes in the can (with one exception that we'll discuss in a moment).

That leaves seven Republicans who haven't come out against the stimulus. Two of those seven, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, have in fact spoken out in favor of the package. That could conceivably be ballgame for the Democrats, if all 58 of their members remain aligned. But, since the Democrats could potentially lose a couple of senators from their own ranks, they might require a Republican vote or two above and beyond the two women from Maine.

The five Republicans who haven't articulated a clear position on the stimulus are John Barrasso, Mike Johanns, Mel Martinez, Dick Lugar and Arlen Specter. Throw Barrasso out, who is a conservative party-liner who presumably just hasn't bothered to articulate a position on the public record. Johanns seems like a remote possibility of voting against a filibuster, but only that; although he has been in and out of meetings with the Susan Collinses of the world, he has also legislated as a conservative in his brief time in the Senate. Martinez, Lugar and Specter, on the other hand, all of whom came from states that Barack Obama won, might have a harder time voting to obstruct the package. We can probably also add Judd Gregg to the "maybe" list, whom while having issued a lukewarm statement against the stimulus, has obvious incentives these days to stay on the good side of the administration.

On the Democratic side, Ben Nelson is the most outspoken skeptic of the recovery package, while Kent Conrad has also been increasingly critical of the contents of the bill, if not necessarily its magnitude. But would they actually stand with the Republicans on a filibuster? In Nelson's case, quite possibly; in Conrad's, I doubt it.

Another issue for Democrats is Ted Kennedy's health, as the septuagenarian has yet to make a roll call in the Senate this year.

Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln are always theoretically problems, but all represent impoverished states that would tend to benefit from some of the social welfare programs in the stimulus, and none are particularly conservative on pocketbook issues. Someone like Mark Warner, who comes from a wealthier state, might actually be a bigger problem.

Still, if the Democrats are starting out at exactly 60 votes assuming party unity plus Collins and Snowe, they seem to be in pretty good shape in terms of averting a filibuster, as there are five additional Republicans votes they could conceivably gain (Specter, Gregg, Lugar, Martinez, Johanns, probably in that order of likelihood) versus only two Democratic votes (Nelson and -- for health reasons -- Kennedy) that seem to be at real risk.

Now, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there is more tangible Democratic opposition to the stimulus in its present form. But if so, I imagine those Senators would let Obama know ahead of time and work with him toward tweaking it rather than having him endure the embarrassment of a failed cloture vote. In other words, I doubt that Harry Reid goes to the floor unless he feels fairly assured about 60. I also wouldn't rule out the possibility that the filibuster fails and then the stimulus passes, but with only 53-55 votes.

But in terms of sustaining a filibuster, I think McConnell is most likely bluffing. Then again, I didn't think the GOP would manage unanimous opposition to the recovery bill in the House.

from fivethirtyeight.com
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
266
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
McCain does not lead the GOP in the Senate, Mitch McConnell does. McCain is simply saying me too instead of being mavericky or being willing to be bi-partisan.

If you strip all the smokescreen verbiage over pork, stimulus, and all that, we have a GOP Democratic showdown on this stimulus plan, the GOP is going to demand a continuation of GWB&co spend and borrow
economic policies, and if they do not get their way, they will filibuster.

Read the script, don't pay any attention to bit actors reading their script lines.

Uuuummmm. Just where are we going to get the $820B - $850B for this plan anyway? I think it's called 'borrowing'.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Originally posted by: senseamp
The public voted for Obama and Dems, not McCain. If the Public wanted McCain to govern the country, it would have elected him president.

And this has what bearing on the topic?

The title.

Oh .... so since he didn't win the election he deserves no props for doing the right thing. Ok, I get it now.

That's your opinion. The public voted to not give McCain power to implement what he thinks is the "right thing." It gave that power to Obama and the Dems.

He is a United States senator. That means he was voted into office to represent the will of his people and to do what he feels is the "right thing" for them. Until they vote him out or he retires he has every right to do what he is doing. What kind of bizzaro world do you live in where we have mob rule? I bet you were front and center pissing about the mob rule of Republicans under bush when they didnt hold anywhere near this kind of power.

Basically it works out like this: the bill must be able to get passing votes in the House and Senate. This means essentially House Republicans are ignored, and a few Senate Republicans and conservative Democrats needs to be won over. All of this talk about bipartisanship is sort of pointless in the House because that party is so nuts they can't get anything close to a majority. Bipartisanship in the Senate is needed only so much, but mostly just compromise within the Democratic party is needed.

They don't need Republican support in the Senate. The Dems can pass this bill without Republican support if they exercise the nuclear option and change the rules to only require majority vote. It's a senate rule that can be changed by simple majority. There is no filibuster in the Constitution. What Dems need to do is have debate on this bill, then set a timer, 30 days, if it's not moved to a vote by then, they will exercise the nuclear option.


Yes yes the nuclear option republicans were raked over the coals for even suggesting when democrats were filibustering judicial appointments. Now if democrats do it, it is in the best interest of the nation.

If democrats pull the nuke option there is your issue in 2010 that walks the democrat party into a bloodbath. Democrats arent dumb, they wont pull that shit even if you fantasize about is.