The Republican Bipartisan Myth
by John RidleyShangri-la and Brigadoon and Bipartisan. Three mythical places. One of which few Republicans have seemingly ever heard. Because if there is one thing we can take from the first weeks of the “New” Washington, it’s that the (liberal) Democrats are incompetent (old news, really) and the Republicans are disingenuous when it comes to bipartisanship. Oh, sure, they talk up the swellness of President Obama every chance they get. And will continue to do so as long as his approval numbers are above fifty percent. But most GOPers tend to become like children who dance hysterically in a sandbox when it comes time to play with others.
Despite all the sit-downs Obama had with the Republicans – apparently too many for Speaker Pelosi’s tastes – and despite the fact that the House version of the Stimulus Bill contained specific tax breaks for which the Republicans had asked – though not to the degree they wished – not a single GOPer would break ranks, step up and vote for the bill. A surprisingly “my way or the highway” attitude for the minority party whose eight years of good cogitating was a major factor in whipping America into the stellar fiscal shape we find ourselves.
When three Republican Senators voted for the Senate version of the bill – Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Maine Sens. Olympia J. Snowe and Susan M. Collins, who in particular worked tirelessly with moderate Dem Sen. Ben Nelson to try and reach a true bipartisan compromise – they were immediately put on a “hit” list by the conservative National Republican Trust PAC. The PAC’s executive director Scott Wheeler stating: “We just want to send a message that we’re going to have a long institutional memory, and we’re going to remind your constituents of what you did.”
What they did? What’d they do? Vote for a bill that might ultimately not be big enough to get the country out of the worst economic mess most Americans have ever lived through? Wouldn’t it be punishment enough to dis-invite them to some soirée held at South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson’s whites-only country club? To be fair, Dawson resigned his membership to the Forest Lake Country Club in Columbia, SC last September. That was just a gratuitous dig I had to throw in because…I wouldn’t have been allowed into the club to hand it to him personally. But to the point of Trust PAC’s tactics; sure, it’s not unusual for one political party to target another political party over a vote. But for a party to head hunt their own…?
And then, of course, there’s Judd Gregg. Never mind that Gregg himself lobbied for the job of commerce secretary, never mind New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch making a deal to appoint Republican J. Bonnie Newman to Gregg’s seat. When it came time to engage in the greater good Gregg, in his own words, realized he could not be a “team player.” Worse, working with the president he “couldn’t be Judd Gregg.” Political solipsism if ever there was. Gregg being something like the T.O. to the Senate.
Regardless of the Republicans’ centrist deceptions, I would hope that Obama continues to rise above and reach out. Hopefully there will be others such as Specter, Snowe and Collins who put the people’s work above myopic party ideology. But if nothing else, as the economy improves, President Obama’s actions will serve to shame the lip servers of bipartisanship into taking up true residence.
For more perspective, visit www.thatminoritything.com
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
229 Comments
John, I don't get it. The Republicans are not the one's claiming this is a bipartisan bill! The bill has almost nothing in it that any Republican would want-that's why they voted against it. The surprising thing is that they found 3 of them to vote for it.
The President spent the past year talking about how bipartisan he would be, and then the first thing he did was put out a bill that is 110% Democrat politics. You'll have to ask him what's going on.
John,
Thanks for giving the view of the 'opposition'. Debate is a good thing.
But, you guys are going to have to eventually grow up & realize that you have the White House, a huge majority in congress and a huge majority in the senate, along with a slavish media. At some point in time, you're gong to need to stop bitching and whining about the Republicans and blaming them for everything (even making Obama choose certain cabinet members! The messiah truly is immune, according to his lapdogs.). They can't do anything, John, it's all on your party.
Really, perpetual outrage is sooooo "last 8 years" (you knew the Democrats controlled congress for the last two, don't you?).
John, this isn't the worst economic mess that most Americans have ever lived through. Today, sacrifice means changing to a cheaper cell phone plan. Please. Enough with the dramatics. Time will tell if this Stimulus Plan works but let's hope it does because there isn't a Plan B. That's the problem.
http://the100mostannoyingthings.blogspot.com/
I don't get it either. I am so tired of the vile comments of Obama koolaid drinkers. Republicans are supposed to sacrifice their principles to be "bipartisan"? How does that make any sense? You post party line drivel.
I don't get it, Mr. Ridley. Why do you post here? So many comments I could make, but here are just a few:
First – newsflash – Pelosi and Reid have been running the Congress for the last two years, so don't put all the blame for the current economic mess on the Republicans.
Second – maybe the House Republicans voted against the massive Stiumuls/Spending Bill because they thought they should at least have the opportunity to read the darn thing before voting on it. And why should they be expected to vote against their core beliefs just to make the Dems feel good? If the Dems are convinced that this bill will save the country, then they should be fine with the Republicans not voting for it. After all, they have the votes, and if the spending does save the country, then the Dems can take all the credit for it and clean up in future elections.
Third – as for Gregg, good for him stepping down after Obama tried to pull a fast one and move the census from the Commerce Dept to the White House. Why should Gregg have to play the fall guy for Obama's politicization of the census? Why are you dumping all the blama on Gregg, and none on Obama who did a bait and switch. I have absolutely no respect for Obama any more. This whole chain of events is just typical Chicago-style politics. Maybe some people are fooled by Obama's attempts to look bipartisan and while arrogantly boasting every chance he gets, "I won, get over it," but not intelligent people.
Shangri-la and Brigadoon and Bipartisan. Three mythical places. One of which few Democrats have seemingly ever heard. Because if there is one thing we can take from the first weeks of the “New” Washington, it’s that the (conservative) Republicans are incompetent (old news, really) and the Democrats are disingenuous when it comes to bipartisanship. Oh, sure, they talk up the swellness of bipartisanship and openness every chance they get. And will continue to do so as long as President Obama's approval numbers are above fifty percent. But most Democrats tend to become like children who dance hysterically in a sandbox when it comes time to play with others.
Hey John–great first paragraph when you use the correct terms in their correct place.
You won. You won the stimulus bill, the ongoing wars, the military, the major airwaves and most print media.
Do you also want what remains of our conservative principles? Should we hand them over? Would that satisfy you? Probably not.
Love the power while it lasts. You know as well as we do that the pendulum of control will swing the other way at some point. That is political reality. Deal with it.
The Democrats have an overwhelming majority in congress. If this bill is so great and going to do so much good you can pass it on your own. You'll get all the credit and the Republicans will look like fools. However, If you have doubts about how well this bill will work, I can see why you want as many Republican as you can get involved. After all, you'll need scapegoats as the the country continues to have economic problems despite your massive spending. Looks like you've got three already. Don't worry about the rest. You've got until November 2010 to show America how much better Democrats are at economics. So show us and stop whining about how Republican won't play your game.
You morons won, but you're still bitching? Shut the fuck up, cry baby.
The economy wasn't doing too badly until the Dems got control of purse strings, though that argument is a bit dishonest. The root of the trouble as far as I can tell is ill-advised loans given to people to buy houses they couldn't afford, and that is a decidedly Democratic political want. McCain and Bush both warned against it, but let's blame Republicans and Wall Street for all of it, anyway.
In their insane power grab, this new administration has gone beyond liberalism into something evil. I'm not referring to mystic shades of good and bad. This conscious attempt to destroy representative democracy and capitalism is a new kind of evil.
What you fail to see is that when this stimulus all goes badly, ? the Republicans have created a very bright line of blame. Quite ingenious I might add and why are you so surprise at the political gamesmanship. That's POLITICS. This is what we want to happen. Bipartisanship is dangerous in most cases. For all of your railing, remember that it was a bipartisan effort that got us into the war that Liberals so despise.
By the way you might want to remember what Howard Dean and DNC did to Joe Lieberman for crossing party lines, Remember the 2006 Senatorial elections in Connecticut? They told him to give it up and he lost in the primary, only to run on the independant ticket and beat the Liberal Democrat. He knew his state and the Republicans rewarded him with votes.
If I am correct George Bush “gave” Ted Kennedy the “No Child left Behind” act as a concilitory move toward bi partisanship. He took Ted Kennedy to Hamilon, oh. for the signing and spoke warmly of bi partisanship etc. After that the democrats turned their back and admonished the President at every turn. Now the democrats rammed a bill through the house without any republican input. ENOUGH we need change from the ground roots up. Worry about America not about blue/red !!
If the situation were reversed you wouldn't be crying about bipartisanship. You would be praising the Democrats for standing firm on their convictions. Ridley's posts started off interesting but have quickly turned into the same kind of vapid wordy nonsense I can read on HuffPo. If we are going to have a contrarian on this site I would prefer someone who can at least hold my interest for an entire post.
It’s a good thing the Republicans are standing up against stuff like the “stimulus.” It’s just too bad they’ve waited until they lost most of their power to start standing on principle.
Mr. Ridley, it's nice to see that SOMEBODY on this planet doesn't think that this bill, passed by Democrats, unread by the American people and supporting every liberal wet dream imaginable, is a good thing. I know that there will be those who see this as a massive demonstration of Democratic incompetence and abuse of power. I am also well aware, as you must be, that this bill has virtually no hope of helping the economy and great potential for harning it.
But…wasn't THAT supposed to be covered by the Republicans?
Seriously, we ALL KNOW that this bill is going to fail…and fail spectacularly! By lashing on to a healthy bunch of Republicans, your party would become IMMUNE to the public outcry. You could just say it was a "bipartisan" bill.
Easy!
I also suspect, Mr. Ridly, that that is why the media and the Speaker ARE calling it a bipartisan bill, even thoug nobody in their RIGHT MIND would see itthat way.
So, sorry pal…it's THE OBAMA BILL…it's the DEMOCRATIC STIMULUS BILL…and when it goes down, and the American people (and the Republican caucus) finally get their copy to read…there WILL be hell to pay, sir….and it will be YOUR HELL!!
Sorry that you only found three of us to cover your sorry butt. I'm afraid that probably won't be enough.
Just 2 points
watching Glenn Beck one day, he said (paraphrasing) if your spouse came home one day and you knew you were broke, and he/she said "don't worry, if we keep spending money it will be ok!" Yes, that makes so much sense!
when the so called stimulus was signed last night (without being read) it reminded me of the people signing those nasty mortgage papers (interest free) who didn't know what they were signing cause they were told to sign cause their lives would be wonderful after that! Yes, look where we are now because of that!
Is there anyone out there planning some kind of revolution that allows us to get back to our constitution and to tell those of us who voted in those idiots that they work for us? If so, please let me know!!!
Why let this guy post here? We can read this stuff at The Huffington Post or DailyKos already.
And as far as Judd Gregg, The Messiah Barack Obama took away the Census responsibilities away from him, so it's no wonder he resigned. The appointment was a gimmick, nothing more.
"Vote for a bill that might ultimately not be big enough to get the country out of the worst economic mess most Americans have ever lived through?"
Okay- first things first. Don't know the demographics of our fine country, but IIRC we are a graying society, with the bulk of our population in the baby boomer generation. Assuming this is correct, you're wrong- Carter gave us two economic messes far worse than what Barney Frank/Dodd/Obama/etc. have given us currently. Though I do have every confidence that the pork package just passed will get us to at least as bad as 80-82.
Second- judging by the nature of the sentence I've excerpted, believe your theory is that keynesian style gov't spending is the way to solve our current recession. Was wondering if you could point out a country or time where this strategy has worked (and FDR's NRA don't count, WWII got us out of his mess). Japan was the last country to try this- in the 90's, and they pumped multiple times more cash into their economy. No positive effect.
Also- as others have asked, what do you lefties care if we don't sign on for your disastrous eejit bill? You've got the votes, you don't need us- hell, pelosi didn't even bother to invite us to her middle of the night committees- so why don't you worry about the seven senate democrats (like shuler) that voted against this thing?
And say, can you tell me how it's possible for every voting member to have read the 1000+ page legislation in 10 hours? I mean, we're talking about nearly a trillion dollars, don't you think it would be a good idea if the congress, oh I dunno, knew what the hell they were voting for? If you say such a thing wouldn't be necessary, I've got a magical time travel device I'd like to sell you for 27 billion dollars- trust me, it'll work great and you can try it out as soon as the check clears.
And finally- you seem to have a problem with long term memory, or perhaps your memory only began 26 or so days ago. Republicans aren't bi-partisan? Where the hell were you the last 8 years, son? I watched the infantile behavior of the lefties through two terms of Bush and was absolutely disgusted. How about that bi-partisan work when all you jackass lefties filibustered just about every court appointment Bush made to cite just one example? Forget that, did you? You're a pathetic hypocrite, or a blustering fool- you go ahead and pick.
Hmmmmm John sorry but what is YOUR idea of bipartisanship? Please explain it. Boehner and the rest of the GOP were not allowed even to talk about this pile of smelly garbage in meetings when your little band of merry robbers and taxers were creating it. They were closed out. So JOHNNY how is it that was bipartisanship? And the pictures of the unholy trio? Had these three wised up and decided they didn't want to bankrupt the future of the USA for momentary jolt you would be complaining for real and we would be sitting here asking you why you want to mortgage your childrens future so badly? Because John that is what this is. So please go and figure it out. You want bi partisanship? Hows about telling your Democrat buddies in that House of Ill repute to stay with in the context at least of the US Constitution. OK? Oh and tell Obamawan to. You know that law that is bigger than he is? You know that one? You know the one where any of us can ask him any question we want because we hired him. He serves US…..
Oh and about Obama's appointment of Gregg? I really find it funny how stupid you think Republicans really are. You and your buddies on the left must be either smoking something or so full of your own hubris you can't understand that you are not dealing with amatures. Gregg saw it for what it was. Taking another GOP vote from the Senate and a political tactic. Sorry if we sometimes are better at politics than Mr. Um……………dead space….Um…………you know…..Um……BTW awesome press conference. Do we get brownie points if we stayed awake for longer than 3 seconds? Please. Go condescend to the Dem rank and file they eat that stuff up.
The big problem with Ridley is the verbal hand-job he gives to Obama in every post. He's obviously intelligent enough to see the incompetence of the Democrats. And I'm no Republican cheerleader, I am as critical of the Republicans in Congress as I am the Democrats (well, almost). I'd be willing to consider his views if he wasn't so clearly a member of the Obama cult, and if his posts were at all engaging. Unfortunately we are seeing what passes for intelligent discourse in the Left today. Recycling the same drivel we hear daily from the MSM and adding a few big words here and there doesn't make it more interesting.
Obama's idea of reaching out is to invite the opposition to fancy dinners at the White House, but criticize them for (supposedly) listening to Rush. There is not a shred of evidence that he either understands or respects some of the well-spoken opposition views out there (including the views of many economists who spoke out against the stimulus bill). Some high road!! Wake up and smell the wilted roses–he's just an opportunistic politician like any other, albeit with a somewhat more silver tongue when it comes to reading off a teleprompter. I did expect Pelosi and Reid to roll him, and they have, I just didn't think it would happen this soon.
Hey John,
Have you even read a summary of the bill let alone the bill? Well, neither did any of these guys who voted on it.
The libs are funny. If you vote with them, that means bipart. If they vote against you, well they are voting their conscience.
Too funny..
Of course, trying to rig the next census MIGHT have pushed Judd back to his senses. You never know!
John:
Since you tagged on your slap at Judd Gregg for changing his mind, any personal feeling about Rahm Emanuel taking control of the 2010 census away from Commerce and putting into the White House?
That was one of Gregg's complaints in his decision to stay in the Senate, and I've yet to see one Democrat explain why this is a good idea. Perhaps you'd like to be the first?
The bill is called American Recovery and Reinvestment Reconciliation Act, or ARRRA. Arrrrrgh, just like the pirates that they are. I guess you could spin it to say they are being honest about pirating all of our money away for generations to come. Maybe we should send them all parrots and eye patches.
The gratuitous race card is the most offensive thing he said. Dude you are more privileged than me — a 40 year old white man. Get over yourself. Quit being a douche and except things as they are. You worked your ass off to get where you are so pull the stick out of your butt and enjoy it.
I am very curious; Mr. Ridley's views are more than adequately expressed at any number of other, left-leaning websites. My understanding was that this site was to be a counterpoint to the proliferation of Republican-hating, America-bashing sites that have been foaming at the mouth for years. I saw nothing new in Ridley's comments; the standard digs at Republicans, the obligatory comment painting whites as racists (yes, anyone can find racism if she looks hard enough), the snide and sneering tone…in short, there is nothing fresh or new in Mr. Ridley's column. I can get this at CNN, which is why I stopped watching long ago.
Fresh and new is why I have been coming to this site. Rehashing the same old Democrat/left wing complaints with a new face is not going to cut it. Mr. Ridley's candidate was elected, his party has a majority in both the Senate and the House; what more does he want? The ball, Mr. Ridley, is squarely in your party's court. Stop looking in the rear-view mirror and start leading.
What about the fact that the first time around, more Democrats in congress voted AGAINST the bill than Republicans voted FOR it? Sounds like a bipartisan rejection to me.
Does Mr. Ridley get any money from Mr. Breitbart for blogging on this site? If he does, then Mr. Breitbart better smarten up.
"What they did? Whatd they do? Vote for a bill that might ultimately not be big enough to get the country out of the worst economic mess most Americans have ever lived through?"
"What they did? What’d they do? Vote for a bill that might ultimately not be big enough to get the country out of the worst economic mess most Americans have ever lived through?"
Well, no, that's not what they did, Mr. Ridley. They voted for a bill laden with pork that will do nothing to affect the economy, other than make Americans owe more money to the world. As any good conservative knows, taking money out of free enterprise and giving it to the government to spend is an overall drain on the economy. And that's exactly what the bill those turncoats voted for does.
and…if Dem liberals don't get their way they will……receive funding from George Seros to open all kinds of liberal websites/groups who lie over and over about Republicans/Conservatives, use funding to seek out and destroy other politicians (See how Obama was elected twice in Chicago and his penchant for having sealed divorce records made public,).
They'll conduct violent protests against groups they disagree with, slash tires, burn down Gov buildings (Texas governors mansion ring a bell?) and the ultimate liberal trick, counting more votes for a candidate then people registered to vote (Franken).
But it's all for the good of the country.
How do you play in a sandbox with a kid who has no sand toys of his own, and as soon as you arrive, wants to take all your toys and either throw them across the playground just to see what will happen… or use them to purchase the affection (and muscle, should he ever need it) of kids who aren't even in the sandbox?
So we're supposed to be upset at Republicans for being Republicans?
Mr. Ridley,the holes in your logic are so obvious I'm surprised that an intelligent man like you would post this piece.
Mr. Ridley, Until the day when Democrats (and their sycophantic propogandists in the media) admit that the banking crisis is the unintended (but predictable) consequence of their own policies, there can be no honest discussion of how to solve it. As documented years ago by the NY Times (ironically), banks became desensitized to risk because of a series of Democratic initiatives to make more credit available to the poor. There is no growth in the "stimulus" bill. It contains a massive, long-term, taxpayer-funded lifeline to unions, the basis of nationalized healthcare, and blatant wealth-transfer; all to be funded through the issuance of debt which will suck capital out of the economy. Any sops made in an effort to buy Republican votes don't change this fact. The so-called "stimulus" bill contains little stimulus, and Congress' own budget office declared it to be anti-growth, but the Democratic line is already "it isn't big enough."
I appreciate the fact Andrew has a token goofball here who doesn't mention the Democrats in the House who voted against Porkulus. Maybe you didn't pick upon that because it wasn't in Barry's Robot Talking Points of the Day.
Does this guys cross post at huffington post? I though this website was for the non kooks in hollywood, how did this guys sneak in?
Also last time i checked more democrats voted against the stimulus that republicans voted for the stimulus. That would mean voting against the stimulus was bitpartisan and voting for it wasn't.
Isn't this the same guy who said Barack was the first real american president? I want to read his black supremacy and racism about as much as I would want to read someone from the Klans. The only difference would be that at least the Klan member would be honest about his racism. Black Pride=White Pride. It is all the same.
"Bipartisan" means "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm in power, deal with it." It's the last thing we need in government.
I normally like Mr. Ridley's counterpoint here, but this is borderline delusional. In one fell swoop, this bill more than doubles the spending of the entire New Deal, and that's adjusted for today's dollars. It is primarily made up of a long standing Democrat wish list of pet projects and pork. Every man, woman and child in the United States has just been put on the hook for between $5800 to $18,000(if you believe the ten year numbers), and not a single member of Congress even read this bill before signing it. Lobbyists on K-Street actually got a copy of this bill befoer members of congress did.
Keynesian stimulation has never worked anywhere it's been tried in the history of the world, but even if you believed it did, this bill just doesn't feature much of it for short-term stimulus. Essentially, congress has just stolen money from my family and future generations in order to lavish it on the politically connected and enhance the electoral prospects of Democrats.
And then there's the "bi-partisan" Obama and Democrats… The Democrats lied by voting unanimously to give the public a mere 48 hours to digest the bill after its posting, but then voting on it as soon as they could the day it was posted online. There would've easily been about 30 to 40 Republicans in the house who would've originally voted for this bill(the "Main Street" Republicans), but Nancy Pelosi played hardball and summarily stripped all Republican amendments from the bill before even debate or voting on them. Is that bipartisan? Later, the Republicans were locked out of the conference committee. Is that bipartisan?
Apparently, to a Democrat, bipartisan means Republicans abandoning all principles to vote with Democrats. But it never seems to go the other way. And as for Gregg, imagine the situation reversed. If Bush had taken control over the Census in order to try and stack the courts(as Obama seems to be doing), or for any other reason, and take it away from Commerce and hand it over to Karl Rove(Rham in Obama's version), liberals would be screaming totalitarianism. But Bush didn't do that – Obama is. And such a blatant power grab is okay with you guys because he's a Democrat, right? And Gregg objecting to such a cynical political move is not being "bipartisan" enough, eh?
Really, you guys are just delusional when it comes to the Obamamessiah. This guy may have talked as if he was going to be bipartisan, but he hasn't actually shown it, at all, in deed.
I am loving Big Hollywood so far. The posts are diverse, interesting, and entertaining. There is no chance of this dip—- running me out of here. But I hope Mr. Breitbart realizes that allowing Ridley to post recycled HuffPo and MSNBC propaganda will damage this site and cause readers not to come back.
'Vote for a bill that might ultimately not be big enough to get the country out of the worst economic mess most Americans have ever lived through?"
Once again, a leftist that believes history started the day he was born.
Mr. Ridley you’re a prime example of a Democrat box brain, stuck in time warp pounding off the same tired rhetoric of the past 50yrs. Your view of the world can’t get past skin color, constant victim hood. Screw, bipartisanship it’s for losers, observe how the Democratic Party consolidated it’s power. This Stimulus/ Porkulus package needs to be tied around Barry’s and Democratic parties neck. It’s nothing more than a welfare giveaway to every good for nothing, nar do well in America. What are you going to do with your $13.00? We owe Barry the same courtesy that was extended, “W,” absolutely none. This is the same worn out dogma of the Democrats have been peddling since LBJ, this is not change just more of the same. If you don’t like the rules of a club, start your own and exclude anyone you like, who cares.
I know John Ridley and have a great deal of respect for his intellect and generally his intellectual honesty. However,(you knew it was coming, right?) I must call him to task for this blog.
Why is it, John, when the Democrats threw Sen. Leiberman under the bus for breaking with the party line for supporting the war on terrorists that was just punishment but when Conservatives want to rid their side of left leaning Rhinos we are being vengeful or not "bipartisan" enough for the left?
As far as a "my way or the highway" attitude, I think that both the President and Ms. Pelosi have stated that, and I paraphrase here, "we won sit down and shut up, this is our turn" ( continued in next two comments)
Also whle I support the right of any private orginazation to restrict it's membership I would never join such an organization on moral grounds. That being said you take a cheap shot at Katon Dawson and that is below your level of intellect and humor. If I cared to, I am sure I could list a lot of minority politicians who belong to restricted orginizations and I could start with every member of the Black Congressonial Caucuss, which restricts it membership not only by race by by political ideology. (Continued in next comment)
Finally, with Sen. Gregg, is it possible that he was promised things by the Obama administration that he felt were not going to be delivered? For example, pulling control of the Census Beareau from Commerce if a Republican were going to run it, which was only anounced after the Gregg appointment. ( Continued in next comment)
"You post party line drivel." You had me until that line. In my opinion, Mr. Ridley is expressing a legitimate opposition point without the drivel (save the gratuitous shot). Although I disagree with it, his overall point would have never been presented this way from the current Democrat leaders (e.g. hyper-partisan).
I have written both here and on my personal blog ( http://www.jeffreyjena.wordpress.com) that when leftist talk about bipartisanship it always involves a Consevative moving towards the left and never the other way. The tax "consessions" you refer to Obama and the left making were already in the bill when it came down from the Reid/Pelosi cabal.
All that aside, it' seem a bit diingenuous when the last alleged Conservative president throws down almost a trillion in corpoate welfare as he is walking out the door, and the Republican leader in the house gets on the floor and starts crying that we need to pass this now, to start opposing the next bailout on some idealogical grounds. Bailouts don't work, it doesn't matter which side of the aisle they come from.
John,
I guess it doesn't make any difference that none of them took the time to read the bill before voting on it right? Or the fact that no campaign staffers couldn't review the bill because it was at K Street lobbyists for final changes right? Because being bi-partisan is way more important than actually doing something that helps right? Are you being serious John, or, are you playing devils advocate? I hope it's the latter.
It is no fun preaching to choir. Frankly I think it gets boring when everyone agrees. Diverse opinions create deeper understanding and keeps our minds sharp and clear. And remember that old saying – Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
People like you are the problem. Just because Mr. BO is part black you think he is "The Answer". This plan is about the government taking more citizens rights away and laughing in our faces as they do it. It doesn't stimulate the economy.
Barney Frank is bipartisan, he likes men and boys. Those three are bipartisan also, they like power and big government. Not saying these amoral creatures are evil, but they all get their kicks on Route 666. Ridley is just bipolar.
Moderate conservatism is what we've had for the last 8 years. Aside from the tax cuts and making national security the top priority, Bush was more of a liberal than a conservative. The only real "change" I see in Washington is that conservatives are acting like conservatives again. THAT is the closest thing to the "Change We Need."
The change we really need, in the next few rounds of elections, is to show every incumbent the door to the private sector, and get some new blood in Congress.
You had more democrats vote against the bill than republicans vote for it. So, shouldn't it be bipartisan opposition to the bill?
Mr. Ridley, if you're going to come to our side of the aisle and present the opposing viewpoint, you need to bring your A-game. Once again, you've presented something with dogmatic and unresearched default interpretations.
I'm just fine with having a liberal writer at BH, but we need one who's genuinely interested in arriving at truth rather than winning gotcha points.
Hey Dems, 2010 will be here sooner than you think. What will Dear Obambi be w/out Pelosi and Reid bowing down before him?
We should never forget who Obama is. A Saul Alinksky worshipper. I bet Axlerod, his Rasputin, is one too. And what are Alinskyites other than manipulative lying scheming Communists?
You folks watch.. everything these Democrats *do* will be the opposite of what they *say*. I firmly believe Obama and Pelosi are in a race to crush this nation, so that Obama can "Remake" (as he always says) in his Marxist wet-dream image.
They're going to use the welfare system to crash all confidence in American way of life.. Check out this article
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/the_clowar...
They are out to destroy us.
Whoa! How'd I end up at the Huff Post?! Better run a virus scan…
Speaking of Harry Reid…I thought President Hopey was supposed to get the lobbyists out of Washington. What are Reid's sons and son in law gonna do for work now?
Bipartisan used to mean doing what it would take to get the other side onboard.
Now, with the fawning, liberal media covering Barack Obama's flank, bipartisan means whatever Barack Obama says it means. If he deems the bill to be "bipartisan" than it is. And if you don't vote for it, you're against bipartisanship.
Huh?
All the talk about the parties tries to effectively cloak the real issue: this is a really bad bill and someone should be getting hell for dumping it on the people. That someone starts with the President and moves to the Speaker and the Majority leader. It's either stupid or evil.
Pres. Bush was lambasted by liberals for the last eight years for not reaching out to Democrats,while he was busy passing perhaps as much liberal legislation as Mr. Clinton – does "No Child Left Behind" & "Drug Benefit for Seniors" ring a bell. And it got Republicans tossed to the curb by the electorate. Now Mr. Ridley wants Republicans to continue in that ignominious mode. Gee, I wonder why that might be.
I agree. For 8 years the left has been standing firm that dissent is the patriotic thing to do, and now that their savior is at the helm all of a sudden we are all suposed to consent to his will…when did we turn into North Korea?
The fact is that the Democrats, with Reid/Pelosi heading up and encouraging the lockout, refused to allow the Republicans in either house of Congress to have any input whatsoever into the stimulus package. Not even a whimper of a suggestion was tolerated by the Democrats, and until nine hours before the vote on the final bill the Republicans were not even permitted to glance at it.
Essentially the only participation in the so-called bipartisan portion of this stimulus legislation that the Democrats intended to allow the Republicans was to take part in the blame should the plan backfire or blow up in their faces, failing utterly as many economists have claimed it looks like will happen. That's why there was such enormous effort to get some Republicans to sign onto the bill, so that the Democrats would not take all the heat in the event of failure.
Basically, Mr. Ridley, you are accusing the Republicans of refusing to engage in a bipartisan effort from which they were completely locked out of any meaningful input or discussion. Did you really expect that, sight unseen, these responsible representatives and senators should have blindly signed onto a bill which, for all they knew, could have sold the country to some unseen conglomerate? I'm sorry, but when I put my money up to fund something the last thing I expect is to be given a plain wrapped and sealed box, to be opened only after the money's been paid. Is that what you expected from the Congressional Republicans? To take the Democrat's assurances that there was anything seriously related to a stimulus plan after the alternative media finally exposed that it was larded up with pork?
If so, you are more out of touch with reality than even President Obama when he trustingly turned the writing of the legislation over to Pelosi/Reid, expecting that they would actually adhere to his instructions and wishes. This whole process has been a joke and a fiasco, and frankly, I'm glad that the Republicans had the maturity and good sense to demand that a "bipartisan" effort be, in fact, bipartisan, rather than being locked out of the process so severely.
Ridley is emblematic of the overall Democratic attitude towards this entire situation. They clearly have enough votes to pass this criminal legislation, and yet still they wail about the lack of 'bipartisanship'(otherwise known as abondoning your principles and adopting theirs). Why do they do this? Because they are too afraid to take full responsibility for this horrendous piece of legislation.
When this abomination of a bill is passed and utterly destroys the economy, the Democrats will be on the receiving end of a political backlash the likes of which hasn't been seen in decades. Some realists in the party are now realizing this and frantically attempting to ascribe partial responsibility for this atrocity onto the Republican side. THIS is the true goal of the Democratic crying and hysterics – nothing else. It is in this way that Ridley's apologetics for the Democrat Party perfectly encapsulate their current strategy – to both simultaneously pass legislation solely aimed at satisfying special interests and also attempt to relieve themselves of the responsibility for it. Well, thankfully the American people still have legislators and representatives in Congress who will hold fast to their principles. And this travesty of American democracy will be laid at the feet of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. And they will have to deal with the brutal consequences.
Couldn't agree more ,Bev. We have to show the Huffpo, MediaMatters crowd that we are not them.
It's always good to see what the other side is up to.
Having Ridley's stuff posted here is not ruining the site. If some of you don't want to come back because of this then that's just sad. You're no better than the creeps on the other team.
Think about it. You guys want to be like Keith Olberman. That guy never has an opposing opinion on his show because he's not man enough to take the heat.
Wouldn’t it be punishment enough to dis-invite them to some soirée held at South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson’s whites-only country club? To be fair, Dawson resigned his membership to the Forest Lake Country Club in Columbia, SC last September. That was just a gratuitous dig I had to throw in because…I wouldn’t have been allowed into the club to hand it to him personally."
Dude, give it a rest. Seriously. You write like a girl. Your self-imagined 'victimhood' impresses no one. On the other hand, if your life's goal is to be a race-baiting poverty pimp, you're there. We get it. Poor you.
The problem with bipartisanship is that Democrats and their media allies define the term as "You Republicans shut up and do what we tell you to." That was the case during the Bush years, it's the case now, and until someone buys the Lefties a dictionary, true bipartisanship will never exist.
Ridley wrote: "But if nothing else, as the economy improves, President Obama’s actions will serve to shame the lip servers of bipartisanship into taking up true residence."
As another shame-avoidant captive of the Modern Liberal culture of shame, the self-satisfied Mr. Ridley finds comfort in distorting reality to protect himself from his own poor self-esteem.
Blaming other individuals or groups (Ripley et ilk's M.O.) for his own 'shamefully' divisive "sandbox" rhetoric and behaviors have simply become second nature. His transfer of shame/blame is an indicator of displaced internal shame.
We won't further analyze his incompetent paranoias further here. Suffice to say, his shrink must be so proud (enriched) by his/her prize patient.
FYI, according to Wikipedia:
"In the recent Writer's Strike of 2007-2008 John Ridley was the only Feature, and/or Primetime Television writer to elect for financial core status."
"SHAME" on you Mr. Ridley!
Screw the era of Bipartisinaship….I'm a Partisan Hack, Conservative as Reagen and I DON"T like the Three Turncoats! Out of the Party NOW!
Go join your brethern on the other side……no RNC Funds for you!
Do you guys ever stop whining and complaining, it looks to me like you got what you wanted (albeit the most ridiculous pork bill in our history), but you got your way and all you can do is blame others.. I hate to tell you, but this is yYOUR so called stimulus bill (and I mean so called) you guys are going down in 2010, so enjoy your time and stop whining!!!! You and your party are the most annoying people ever – grow-up and take responsibility isn't that what your parents taught you. Oh wait your liberals – your part of the give me, give me, give me – work for it?? what's that mean party of the left. Thanks for giving us such a lame duck, arrogant empty suit for a President.
I thought nothing could make me more disgusted than the picture of these three turncaots … then I read the article. I have sent a message to Michael Steele, urging him to withhold any RNC funding for these three RINOs. It would be great if other conservatives joined me in doing this.
It's funny that leftists keep saying the "stimulus" bill is bipartisan when only these three spineless traitors moved across the isle in both houses.
And know one thing: The minute all these people in congress agree, we're doomed — it's the last thing any one should want.
In the meantime, I'll dig in, keep writing emails and making calls to make make my voice heard — hopefully the next crap sandwich can be exclusively eaten by the left, too, paving the way for the next Reagan revolution.
And I guess Big Hollywood didn't hear the screams the last time this idiot wrote an article: If we're going to have an opposing voice here, can we PLEASE have one that doesn't just spit out the same, race-baiting, victimizing, generalizing, poison. Thank you.
As Far as the Judd Gregg thingy….A-W-E-S-O-M-E!
So let me get this straight Mr. Ridley….your party has the White House (run by an incompetent, totally inexperienced, massive fool), both houses of Congress (run by far leftist, anti-American, socialist morons), and the Supreme Court (it will ALWAYS fall on the side of the left on 99% of the issues)…and youre actually attempting here to blame Republicans for this Welfarpalooza bill? LOL…you Democrats truly are something else.
You have all the power slick….read again….YOU HAVE ALL THE POWER. You run things, you can pass anything your little, far leftist, socialist hearts desire…we Republicans have no voice whatsoever, as was very evident during the passage of this Crapulous bill. You got your massively, socialist bill passed…so that begs the question, why the hell are you bitching, whining and complaining?
So, the Republicans refuse to sign their name to nationalizing the economy, and they're called obstructionists? Fair enough, come election time people will remember who opposed this free fall to socialism.
Well that ones easy…its because every last one of you know its going to fail miserably and you needed Republicans to blame for it. You needed more than 3 thats for sure, but sorry….thats all you have. So you have 3 pseudo-Republicans to blame for this Crapulous when it fails horribly (however Im dead certain youll try to blame President Bush for it too lol)…and guess what fella, that aint gonna fly.
This bill is your baby….youre gonna have to reap the whirlwind buddy and its not going to be pretty. Translastion: 2010 is going to be a Republican Revolution…so have fun drowning in the power for the next 2 years. The time for honoring yourselves will soon be at an end.
Also, please explain all the times when Bush was accused of "forcing his agenda on Congress", even after he had no majority there! And when he lost, he was accused of "attempting to force his agenda…". The media consistently protrays opposition Republicans as cynically obstructive, while protraying opposition Democrats as priciplied dissenters. The hypocisy has infected you.
Did Gregg really lobby for the job? I know that's what Obama's claiming now, but is it true?
I find it amusing that the only partisan people are repubs. What of the dems that voted against it? I guess not allowing the minority party to put forth an alternative bill(only something that had been done for 100 years in the house) is also bi-partisan. Anty person that would vote yes on thias after only having 8 or so hours to read it is a waste of a representative. I suppose only allowing 8 or so hours to read this monstrosity is also bi-partisan. The real problem in this country are the partisan jackasses that make up both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, Mr. Ridley, you seem to be one of those people.
The Bill was sold as a "stimulus" bill and it is nothing but a spending bill for Democratic special interests – including ACORN – which has had numerous indictments for voter fraud.
Actually in the House it was bipartisan – 7 Dems voted with the Republicans
BTW some thoughts of mine – Republicans lost control of the house in 2006 largely through a disgusted base that saw them doing the same things as the Democrats did – pile mountains of debt on future generations so they could pay off their own special interests – this latest "stimulus" bill just added $7,000 to every man, woman and child in the country – or could have paid off 90% of ALL mortgages – not just the bad ones.
Still think it is a stimulus bill John?
No he did not. That report is a total lie…Obama went to Gregg after Richardson turned out to be filthy dirty (not shocking). The reason Obama went for Gregg was twofold….he wanted to look partisan and wonderful and great and he wanted complete control of the Census so he could manipulate and control the vote, therefore solidifying his re-election and keeping Democrats in power for years to come. This worked for him because Gregg was a very strong, outspoken proponent of scrapping the Commerce Dept, the very Dept that sees over the Census.
Obama saw it as a golden opportunity to be seen as some great bipartisan savior and to get his dirty, corrupt hands on the Census.
Did you look at the photos at the beginning of this article? Oddly, each of these sell outs has an unusually large nose. Interesting.
Really,
So it's all Conservatives fault for the mess we are in. It was conservatives who voted for the CRA in the first place. When the regulator came to congress in 2006 to state Fannae Mae was undercapitlaized and Congress should raise that rate it was those conservatives balking saying the Regulator was "Racist". Frankln Raynes the big NeoCon was the gut who said to Congress "these insturments (mortgages) are inherently 'riskless' sinnce they are backed by real assets".
In 2006 RINO's led by the three individuals mentioned here who in my opinion should be primaried for voting for this are the ones who caved in and let the Congress ignore the issue when it could have been fixed not with a trillion dollars but wih a raise in Fannae Mae's capitialization rate from 2 to 4%.
But hey I am child if I don't take Mr. Ridley's "LIE" that Republicans are responsible seriously.
Sorry I DISSENT!
I'm not against having a dissenting opinion. But if we are going to have one it better be someone who can articulate themselves better than Ridley. His last post on "The Bushies" was insulting in it's ignorance and this one is just plain dishonest. The fact that I don't agree with Ridley isn't what bothers me, its that we are not going to get any kind of intelligent discourse with refurbished HuffPo drivel. I'm all for having a diversity of opinion on this site but it better be more intelligent than this stuff. So Gary, keep that in mind before you start comparing me to the drones at HuffPo and Media Matters.
Gregg has publicly stated he did not campaign for the job. Now in a open contradiction like this, it's fairly easy to decide who's telling the truth when you look at the track record of integrity,
Yeah, and Obama is the first true American President.
"White people's greed in a world of need"- Barack Obama
Yeah, that sounds really bipartisan to me.
Screw yourself, Ridley
Pelosi rewrites House rules to exclude Republicans.
Reconciliation takes place behind doors closed to Republicans.
Lobbyists get the bill before Republicans.
Again I say, SCREW YOURSELF, Ridley.
What's going on is Hussein is black and John is black. Blacks support blacks. Having a lack of moral fiber never enters into the equation. How else do you think a convicted criminal like Marion Barry was re-elected as mayor of D.C.?
blackhawk, you assume that there are liberals out there that are more informed, intelligent and articulate than Ridley. You give them too much credit. Let them spout their delusions, but you can still rest well, knowing that you are smarter than they are. They're the real angry hateful ones, remember?
SKATNG ON GLUE!
Well said but I think the focus of your outrage has been misplaced. IT should be on Senators Specter, Snowe and Collins. The Dems have had more than 10 hours to read it, they wrote it in their conference in a retreat somewhere we could not play.
The proper Republican Reponse should have been to filibuster on principle alone. Even if it was just to get a few days to read the D@#^#$ thing. Then we could state we tried to oppose it. Now when this thing destoys jobs as it is designed to do they'll state Republicans went along. Does not matter how many. does not matter they are not Conservative, the Mainstream Media will share the blame by forcing the debate along their spin for the unwashed masses.
When the H@!! does are side get the GD party discipline to stand up to this D@#@$ nonsense. The Dems never worry because the RINO's really are democrats in sheep's clothing.
If we show we can tolerate dissenting opinions without resorting to Olberman-esce vitriol, maybe we can get some intelligent liberals to post.
Skating on glue – next point
Ridley here is an example of a democratic partison liar. His purpose is to go back o HuffPo and act the victim. Oh I tried to tell them there just so mean… He'll use excerpts of your post to do it. A conversation can not be held with a Liberal because they are all dissembling liars with the morals and ethics of swine.
FOCUS your efforts on the RINO's where it belongs. Even it we get back into power these people will kill any real converative effort to lessen spending or get anything done. THEY HAVE TO GO FIRST!
THESE three senators should be the poster children for our effort. Not only should we primary them we shouild flood there office with calls everyday demanding their resignation until we have the chance to primary them.
Ridley plays the race card again. My question is have you read the bill and do you know what's in it.? If borrowing money got us into this mess how is borrowing money to spend on frivolous, speculative ideas going to get us out?
I just read the "details" of this Crapulous bill…my God its sickening. There is NOTHING in it that will create a job….and the tax breaks…an extra 13 dollars a week …until Jan 2010 when that drops to 7.70 a week. Its unreal. This is going to fail and fail horribly. I cant wait to hear the bitching and pissing and moaning from the Democrats when it does, as they scramble to find a Republican to blame for it all.
Check it out: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/14/raw-da...
Okay. That makes a lot more sense. I started reading his article and to be honest was pretty amazed that he could submit that drivel. Your explanation helps.
Yeah cause we're the problem. It has nothing to do with most leftists being perpetual children used to voicing their opinion in self-made echo chambers. If you think my above post was Olberman-esque vitriol then you have a lot to learn.
Mean old Republican party.
I'm sure that everyone can agree that so far, the Obama administration has been pitch perfect and all but amazing in efficacy levels. Truly an awe inspiring machine in action. Well oiled, worthy, experienced and a sight to behold.
Indeed, the pathetic treatment of past VP nom. Joe Lieberman came right to mind and the fact that the Dems are now in control. Didn't they win? Didn't they get what they want? Shouldn't these grievance people be a little happy? Aren't we living some miracle or something?
Of course Judd Gregg should just tow the party line (the opposition party), forgo his personal and philosophical beliefs and melt under the great light without heat of the Obama majesty.
Just sign here. Bipartisan!
What contrivance the Obama story has been from the word go.
Fantasist Ridley's posts are akin to the comics section for seal clapping people that think Maher is funny.
Actually, bipartisan means, "the Democrats are right." Whether the Dems are the majority or the minority, this definition holds true.
Some perspective from a "small L" Libertarian…
Sorry Holly… the Republicans have had control of Congress since 1995 and could have lessened the damage with more strict fiscal responsibility but they were drunk with power and they nominated a fiscal "moderate" for the presidency in 2000 (AKA "W").
During George Bush's 2000 presidential campaign he committed to "overhaul Medicare, Social Security and public education." He worked hard to fulfill those promises throughout his terms but was significantly side-tracked by 9/11)…
The expansion of "Head Start", "Title I" and "No Child Left Behind" wasn't cheap AND the Medicare Rx Bill of 2003 massively increased the annual deficit (albeit many fiscal conservatives voted "nay" and the bill narrowly passed the House with the opposing Conservatives joined by the "huge government Liberals" that wanted a bigger bill e.g. mo' deficit).
If you combine that with Phil Gramm's 1999 legislation (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) that enabled credit default swaps…..
….and George Bush's goal of expanding minority home ownership (see speech given at George Washington University in 2002) by reducing the restrictions to receive a loan. There was some "socialism" going on there.
In summary, Republicans screwed up and need to pay some penance.
And it looked at the time like Al Franken would successfully steal Norm Coleman's seat. This, along with Gregg leaving and having his Democrat governor appoint his replacement, could've given the Dems a fillibuster-proof 60-seat Senate majority. I'm sure that factored into President Obama's thinking, too.
Parliament Of Whores!
To reaffirm; my earlier post neglected W’s attempt a bipartisanship some have hit on it, No Child Left Behind, Drug Benefit for Seniors, Campaign Finance Reform, Immigration, TARP. Since this is Hollywood… ah hmm… and if I could play a Conservative President this crap would have met my, “Veto Pen!” Not because they don’t sound nice but because they grow, The Imperial Federal Government. Bipartisanship is truly overrated.
I just invested heavily in Rosetta Stone – Chinese Version.
When the Chinese call this debt home, we'll need to learn it real quick !
Bipartisanship usually means getting one side to support a bill by letting them add their own pork to it…SCREW BIPARTISANSHIP!
MO – on Bush's first "stimulus checks" – "What will $600 buy you…you can't even get a pair of earings
MO – ON hubbys stimulus Debt Creator – "Thank god, all the little people will get an extra $13 a week"
This is why writing can be so easily misinterpreted by the reader. You heard a scolding tone. I was just making a statement. What I should have written was – that if we can maintain our tolerance.
Destroy Elections – Destroy Democracy
This is the ultimate plan!
Mr Ridley,
To quote Margaret Thatcher — a woman I suspect from your Obama up-sucking that you know little about — "Compromise is the ABSENCE of leadership".
The Orwellian named "stimulus" bill is evil. It will do nothing to stimulate the economy. It isn't even meant to. It is meant to payoff liberal special interests, grow government, and make millions more Americans dependent on big government and thus dependent on Democrats for jobs and other welfare.
One would THINK that black people in particular would recognize the evil in anything that makes one person dependent on or beholden to another. But apparently a majority of Americans have been dumbed down enough not to.
But no, no one should ever compromise with evil. And socialism is evil.
What if all the conservatives shut down their Small Business and moved overseas, say Austrailia or Ireland….where would they get the taxes to pay for this heist?
How many Jobs will $2,000,000,000 to ACORN Create…that actually do something to make America Better!
Ah, Joe. Sometimes the fewest words are the most effective. Kudos to you for summing it up so succinctly.
Democrats know that this bill is a boondoggle. It's never been anything other than a massive spending bill. They know it won't "stimulate" the economy or "create jobs". So, they want to start blaming Republicans now. Those 3 Rinos are being used. They claim bi-partisanship because they persuaded the piglets to cut the total cost. They will be blamed for it not working because they made it "not big enough to work". Lose/lose.
Obama's "sit-downs" with Republicans? They were held after the fact. Pelosi had alread crafted the monstrosity, and when Republicans protested the contents, they were told "I won."
And, as for Judd Gregg? First of all, who says he "lobbied for the position?" The only person I've heard say that is Robert Gibbs, and that nitwit has acheived the impossible goal of making Scott McClellan *not* the worst Press Secretary EVER. And, Obama wanted to take the Census away from the Commerce Dept. Which Gregg learned after the fact. I see a pattern developing…. pull a bait and switch, then blame the switchee for not going along with your plan. Brilliant.
Classic observation!! They can hag the Jolly Roger from the Capital building and we can all get ready to be raped and pillaged (oh wait, I'm ready for that every year)!
$600 earrings? Michelle shows her inner learjet-liberal.
…Vote for a bill that might ultimately not be big enough to get the country out of the worst economic mess most Americans have ever lived through
Statements like that from otherwise intelligent people make me enormously pessimistic about humanity's future.
One thing about that press conference that I thought was interesting was the way he praised the three Demopublican Senators. It sounded a LOT like a dictator praising the Quislings he's put in charge of an occupied country. Very creepy…
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
The Rev. Martin Niemoller, Nazi Germany
I used to get this missive in emails from my lefty friends during the Bush years. It was sent in response to things like the Patriot Act which actually preserved freedom. Now, I can send it back to them as Barack's National Socialists have taken total control of our government thanks to John and his friends from the Northeast.
In my book, bi partisan means that they are passing a bill that both sides agree with. Just because you ask a republican for their vote, does not make it bipartisan. I know that's not what you meant but I wanted to clarify it because the only thing Dems do is show us a plate of crap to vote on and when we don't like it, they scream that we are obstructionists. But what I don't understand is all of you are defending Republicans now because they voted with your party. Why aren't you happy that we are going to throw them out? Don't you like when you're enemy is infighting?
I'll leave Specter alone now that I sent him and his 2 stooges a nice letter. Whant to read it?
"Dear Senator Specter,
I just wanted to take some time to write to you about the funding of the Porkulus bill. I am very disappointed in your choice to throw aside the Republican values time and time again. I understand that you're poll numbers have recently dropped and I just wanted you to know that I will be contributing to your opponent in order to have you unseated. I'm tired of politicians' irresponsible spending with money that they didn't work for. This is NOT you're money and you are spending it like we are playing monopoly. The way I see it, we are in this financial disaster because of Congress. (<—Bi partisan RIP) There is no constitutional basis that you can justify spending this kind of money. If I'm wrong, please show me where in the constitution is says that we are to insure the general welfare.
Regardless, I'm tired of getting angry at politicians that throw their citizens who do not have lobbyists under the bus. I'm sure you know that there are many Republicans out there who are going to help "insure" that you do not remain in your seat. I am one of them. I do not even donate to politicians, not even in my state, but I will start with your opponent.
Farewell."
Amazing how racist the GOP has become. Just wait to 2010 – the Party will be wiped out for good. Bye Bye Rethus – see ya round.
Not this time. Come 2010 you guys will be wiped out even more. Just wait.
They think that way because they are that way. As long as they get what they want, they'll tell the Romans where Jesus is for 30 silver coins. So what did Senator Specter get for his vote? Does bribing a Senator show principals? Didn't Blago just get impeached for Pay to Play? Why is bribing Senators for votes any different? Do principals matter to Democrats? Obviously not because they are defending our sell outs who benefit Democrats.
That's what I figured. Eventually Obama is going to run out of people to lie about.
This guy is not FROM Hollywood and this post is not ABOUT Hollywood.
Mr. Breitbart, why is he still posting here?
I agree with you Bev, Partisan ship is what keeps bad bills from being passed. There has always been partisanship but in my opinion, not enough. For every day that Congress meets, we lose a little more liberty. So the checks and balances are intended to make it move at a snails pace. Well, they just bipassed the snail and jumped on a 747 to pass a bill that absolutely nobody read.
Hey John, I have a car to sell you. Would you buy it from me without seeing it? Use your head. Common sense is becoming extinct.
Mr. Ridley, you give Liberals a bad name.
If you are so self-deceived that you actually believe that Democrats and especially President Obama were in any way interested in bi-partisanship in regards to this bill, how can we trust your judgment on any other subject?
To get this bill passed, the Democrats did pretty much everything that President Bush was accused of doing to push his agenda.
1. I won so do what I say.
2. If you don't go along with me, you're unpatriotic.
3. Closed meetings.
4. Limiting debate.
5. Excluding the other side from meetings.
6. Whining and yelling.
7. "Fearmongering"
8. Ignoring the concerns of the other side.
Of course, when (supposedly) he did it and the Democrats didn't fall in line, he was the bad-guy. Now that Democrats are doing it, Republicans are the bad-guys.
You claim to know a lot about prejudice, why can't you see your own?
bbbbbeautiful
Hopefully it will create some high-ranking government jobs for Republicans in a little less than two years.
I don't know why any one keeps saying GOP is racist just because we don't like that bill. Sure we want to help. But we refuse to 'help' people into socialism. The Republican plan provided for 6 million jobs at half the price. So if this bill was truley about jobs,,,and bipartisanship, then why was it discounted? I personally would have liked a raise from my employer instead of the extra $13. a week the democrats are giving back to us from our own money we already make.
All I can think of when I look at each of my four kids is: the gov't just stole $10,000 from them.
(300,000,000 U.S. citizens times $2500 equals $750,000,000,000.)
And I'm with Floyd R. Turbo (great name, btw): Enjoy life, Mr. Ridley; stop and smell the roses.
Christopher said:
"He'll use excerpts of your post to do it."
Thereby improving the quality of his imbecilic nattering five fold, at the very least.
Your points about both filibustering this recession stretching, dogshite bill as well as working to chuck out the rino backstabbers – both +1.
Yes. George Bush had recently come from Texas where he was used to working in a bipartisan way with Democrats. He tried that in Washington and wound up getting stabbed in the back for it.
Then the Democrats spent the next eight years complaining about "No Child Left Behind" and "blaming" him for it while pretending that Kennedy didn't have a thing to do with it.
What's going on is Hussein is black and John is black. Blacks support blacks.
If this were true then Mike Steele would be the senator from Maryland today instead of head of the GOP.
I'm fine with you posting here too, John. But as far as your point… I'm sorry for you that Republicans didn't vote for a bill that is more expensive than the Iraq war and the New Deal and does almost nothing to create jobs. Is that bipartisan enough for you?
Democrats=party first. This treasonous "stimulus" bill is pure political payback,8 years in the waiting. Ridley is just another racist dressed in jounalist clothing. If B. Hussein were white he woudn't have put finger to keyboard concerning this subject.
Liberals have spent so long on the low road of attacking Bush, it's all they know now. Mr. Ridley probably hasn't had to formulate a rational argument in years. "It's Bush's fault" works for pretty much everything in his world.
They have no new ideas, no real "change," just attack, attack, attack.
Mr. Ridley,
Vacuous stuff, and I think you know it. You’re just trying to draw attention to yourself.
Well, the CEO of Caterpillar said that they were going to lay off more people before they hire them which made B. Hussein O. A liar. I wouldn't doubt that Obama was stretching the truth here as well. It's all about him. That's why when he was campaigning, he never had a solution that didn't involve him.
Maybe there's something to it. That's it, for the next election, I will vote for nobody who has a big nose, or lawyers.
wow. If all Liberals think this way, who knows where we're heading. talk about upside down inside out thinking on this. Republicans throw fits and don't want to share the sandbox? Was he in Europe for the last 8 years??
drjohn,
But Ridley said that it was bipartisan and that the Dems invited Republicans to the table. Looks like Mr. Ridley needs to do some better research at sites that aren't the Daily Kons or Huffington puts
Ah, Myrna comes out gleefully for one party rule. Spoken like a true soviet.
By the way, your drool cup is overflowing…
John Ridley was on Morning Joe a few weeks ago and threw out the "well, remember at the Republican convention when people were yelling kill him (Obama)". Even the hard core lefties went "oh, come on."
That comment told me everything I needed to know about the man.
"Your kind aren't welcome in these here parts, pardner."
The GOP may disappear but it's because it's not conservative enough, and if it does it is going to be replaced by something even more to your dislike.
Sorry John,
Can't join in the DEAR LEADER cool-aid party to which RINOs Specter, Collins, and Snowe have added their names. The "moderate" Republican bloc has been the stumbling block for real economic and political reform for decades. The silver lining is that the inevitable failure of this Porkulus package may spell their final demise. Good riddance.
John, you seem to suffer from selective amnesia. Forgotten all those "He's not MY President" bumperstickers?
Ridley doesn't just assume that the stimulus bill will work, but he also assumes that if it doesn't work it's because it wasn't big enough once you remove that assumption this article falls apart. I'm not against having a liberal voice at this website, but at least find one with some commonsense.
The problem with your posts, Mr. Ridley is that boiled down they're like the questions a freshman civics teacher would throw out to their class in high school. "Should members of congress support the plans of a President because he's popular?" The class would shout "No!" and that would be it. You're better than this John!
For me, John Adams was our first true American President. No offense to George Washington, but Adams won an election and there was a peaceful transfer of government leaders for the first time.
Jeffrey, since Ridley probably doesn't even read his comments, please allow me to respond on his behalf… (clears throat)…
"What Leiberman did was a betrayal of trust in support of an unjust administration running an illegal war on behalf of oil companies. That hardly compares to what Gregg did, which is to take on the role of Judas."
Wow, I actually felt my IQ drop as I wrote that stuff.
3 RINOS does not make this huge steaming turd of a bill bipartisan. You guys own this one Mr. Ridley.
Jeez John, with your last post about the bushies, I thought you were being neophytically myopic, but after reading this… this thing, I see you are clearly delusional. The last eight years has been nothing but a textbook powerploy of blame and vitriol, and now the tax and spenders have come home to roost. This national nightmare is just beginning – and the consequences have no boundries. It's getting ugly!
Is this a joke? Is this guy serious? Does he really think this bill should be BIGGER? One lobbyist referred to it as the "superbowl of lobbying". If this is needed immediately to save us from the crisis, why is the spending allocated to occur over the next TEN YEARS?
Wow, man, someone should do to your finances what Obama has just done to our nations wealth. Then maybe you'd get it. Or maybe you do, and you want the Republicans to take the fall for when we're broke and unstimulated – then you'll cry it's their fault because they weren't bi-partisan enough.
Remember the lesson of the Mustang Ranch – if the government couldn't sell booze and sex and make a profit, they can't sell ANYTHING.
Solid point . We need to get OUR ship in order. The other team's gonna do what they do.
Dude, wasn't comparing you to them. You can kick me in the n8ts if I ever do that.
Just trying to make the point that we are not them.We can stand give and take with the other side without taking our ball and going home.
What Ridley posted is pure garbage. No logic, just feelings.
We kill the other side with logic. Bring 'em on, bro.
Ditto
This bill will not help…dummycrats ALWAYS think the answer is to throw money at useless programs that won't create jobs. Why not give all Americans $2000 (700,000,000,000/320,000,000=2182)?
The groups that forced banks to give loans to people couldn't afford to pay that cause this mess. Wake up, liberals.
If you can't afford an expensive camera…you don't buy it. If you can't afford an expensive car, you don't get the loan for it. And, if you don't make the payments the car is re-possessed.
I'm worried about our country.
Bipartisanship is the rallying cry of politicians who don't have the courage to stand behind their ideas. I'm glad the Republicans voted no on the stimulus. If the Democrats are right that government spending is the answer, then they should get the credit when the economy turns around. If they are wrong, then Republicans should be voted in at the next election.
Call Mr. Ridley here a wah-mbulance. Hey, John! Quick question. If this stimulus bill is so "great" and "vital" for our country, you should be ecstatic that no house Republican voted. Cuz when this stimulus bill works, your friends at the DNC will be able to point out every single Republican who didn't vote for it and get an even bigger majority in 2010. So, why are you complaining again? Oh yeah: "MOM!!!!! Those mean, stupid head Republicans won't drink the kool-aid! Make 'em!"
Obama forbid if we have any dissent in America…
Beth, Ridley IS the joke. And he's not even an intelligent one.
Who lets this jerk post? If I wrote in crayon after downing a six-pack, I'd still make more sense.
That's a brilliant idea – I might try that and see if I can get published too. But if one is writing about a non-sensical document – ie: the 'Stimulus' Bill – I doubt the condition of one's sobriety makes a difference!
I agree. California's governor, who is nominally Republican, uses the term "bipartisan" whenever he's selling out to the Democrats.
Obama is racist. His church is racist, but you all supported him.
your exactly correct.
Maybe the reason why none broke ranks is because they were actually paying attention to those who voted them into office – or did you miss the part about how the phone calls and emails coming into Capitol Hill were "hundreds to one" against the bill?
Any President who is going to preach bipartisanship needs to do better than handing over the drafting of the most expensive spending bill in history to NANCY PELOSI of all people. Christ, why not just turn it over to the bloggers over at Daily Kos or Democratic Underground. All that Obama showed throughout this process was passivity – letting others do all the work. They haven't even read the bill, but then they aren't the ones ultimately paying for it, so why should they care? They don't. According to Schumer, we don't either.
Remember, the big government that the liberals so desperately want will one day be turned on them when the ideology in the White House eventually shifts, just as it always does. One party will never maintain control forever. Do the liberals want conservatives having control over the fairness doctrine? The census? I thought not.
John, John, John… WTF!? Your point that $787 billion ‘may not be enough’ to bail out our economy is patently absurd. When it fails, you’ll recommend we spend even more! You should give Capitalism a chance in your considerations, my friend. Individual responsibility, free markets. Your Keynesian witchcraft aside, you miss the boat of what drives economic activity. Make-work, pork bill spending won’t do it, even if we triple the price tag.
The so-called stimulus bill is a government-growth bill, guaranteed to sink us further in bureaucratic largesse and dependency. And it is the height of disingenuousness of you to broad-swipe Republicans as racist with your ‘whites-only country club’ remarks. I won’t riddle you with forty years of being racially discriminated against for being a prolife Christian white guy because I don’t go there. It’s 2009 – get off your ‘The Man Be Holding’ Me Down’ shit. As of Nov. 4…YOU da man! LOL. Peddle your grievance-driven victimhood on the Daily KOS or the Huffpost. Your Liberal comrades will be more sympathetic to your diatribe.
Specter, Snow, and Collins deserve the fallout and rancor for masquerading as Conservatives. They’re RINOS — Liberals – hypocrites with no backbone. And whereas, I will give you that six years of Republican Congressional leadership gave us Democrat-like spending, obscenely so; it is heartening to this Conservative that all but three GOP’ers in the Senate said no thanks to this grossly socialist bill. (See STIMULATE THIS! and THE SEDUCTION OF INSANITY) But…although racism dies slowly, both white and black (and every other color)…if I should ever start a country club… you sir, are more than welcome to become a member.
And you fault Judd Gregg for backing out?? That’s like being lambasted for declining to take over as activity director on the Titanic…after they hit the iceberg. Gregg realized at the eleventh hour that the President’s plan was untenable, wasteful, and an abomination; and that for him to work within its confines he’d have to forget everything he had ever held as sensible…and become a full-blown socialist. He turned down the Koolaid.
Lastly – John, you are fooling yourself to call THAT MINORITY THING bi-partisan. As if. But I don’t fault you for your having strong opinions; just don’t represent yourself as something you’re not. And what is the great thing about ‘Bipartisanship’, anyway? ‘Centrist’? ‘The People’s work’? It sounds so wonderful…and fair… and non-judgmental. Oh, yeah…and Marxist.
Sorry, comrade. People like me don’t want to ‘move forward’ over that cliff.
All due respect…you’re talking crap, my friend. We’re all partisan, we all have strong opinions (at least those of us who hold distinct values and are driven by a definite moral compass). This whole myth that we should all ‘work together’ to ‘move forward’ and be Bipartisan. Bullshit. We agree to disagree. We are still free to do that in this country. We have opposing opinions and we both work hard, not to tie…but to win. In the arena of public opinion, I want my ideas (where they differ) to win over yours. And, I’m sure, vice versa. Our brilliant framers worked hard to allow for this in the Constitution. The obstructionism of checks-and-balances is the only thing that can keep a free people free.
God bless America, dude.
This Ridley piece is so ….. puerile. He seems not to understand that getting a few things here and there in the so-called Stim Pk doesn't nullify the other horrors in it. GOPers should agree to it anyway in the name of bi-partisanship? If bi-partisanship were high on Obama's list, he'd have spent his time purging the waste from the bill and urging his Democrat minions to practice some of it by allowing the GOP to be substantively involved. Instead, he shmoozed the GOP with drinks and football, hoping they were as shallow as his intentions were. ____Whether or not Gregg "lobbied" for the Commerce job is irrelevant if Obama fibbed to him about the so-called Stim Pk
Hear hear!
I'm always amazed at how easily people fall for the idea that we need bipartisanship or moderation. Why should you moderate principle? If I want to kill you and you don't want me to, are we supposed to come to a bipartisan agreement — maybe a good crippling?
Besides, in this intance, the bipartisan garbage is nothing more than the Dems demanding a smokescreen for an action they're afraid to take. They don't want to listen to Republican ideas, so why should we help them? They can pass this without us. If it's so needed, then pass it and beat us over the head with it.
Can you imaging being afraid to enact your own deeply held political views?
Careful mentioning the Constitution, them's fightin' words for liberals. "Why should we be tied to what a bunch of dead white guys wrote down." Uh, because it's brilliant.
"The obstruction of check-and-balances is the only thing that can keep a free people free." — 100% true!
Mr Ridley-
Helping the hangman put the noose around your neck is neither brave nor "bipartisan".
It is the act of a fool or a failure.
To make a big deal of Obama's meetings with the GOP is laughable, since he used the occasions to say, "I won, I'll trump that."
As to Chairman Katon Dawson's country club membership…
…as long as Sen Robert Byrd, former Grand Kleagle of the KKK, is the Democratic Party's "Conscience of the Senate", I will thank God I'm a Republican – the party of Lincoln.
See, "gratuitous digs" are for the immature, and political hacks. Which are you?
Whether or not Gregg "lobbied" for the Commerce job is irrelevant if Obama fibbed to him about the so-called Stim Pk, assuring him that a lot of the pork would be eliminated. What matters is that after accepting the nomination, the job changed. Suddenly, the core responsibility of the job was shifted to a political fanatic in the WH.
Should Gregg just smile and pretend things were just ducky? No. He did what any self-respecting person would do: bow out. If Obama is embarrassed, so what. Nominating Gregg was a poor decision in the first place. Gregg has far too much integrity for this administration.
A person would have to be incredibly stupid of willingly ignorant, or disingenuous to claim Republicans have not been bi-partisan. When the GOP had control, they gave a great portion of control back to the minority party, the Dems all in the spirit of bi-partisanship. This cost them greatly.
The Republican base was not impressed with giving the Dems the amount of control the GOP had AND the very power-sharing agreements put in place by the GOP have been rescinded by the Dems locking the Reps out of all debate or ability to introduce bills. The last few elections GOP base voters have had enough of RINO's (Republicans in Name Only) and either didn't vote, or vote to kick out sitting congresscritters etc.
Republicans were even shut out of the discussions of this Socialist Bail-Out act of 2009.
If you want, we can get into how Dems operatives, including bundlers for Obama's campaign disrupted both the Republican convention AND Sarah Palin's acceptance speech. But let me guess, storming the stage during the other parties convention is all in the spirit of bi-partianship…..right?
I have to chuckle with these kinds of posts. Mr. Ridley, along with "Dr. Manhattan" (whoever he is) reminds me of a cat that will walk along the top of a fence to get all the dogs below going –
However, in the spirit of "bipartisanship" let me remind our leftie friends of a few things: 1. During the Bush era "dissent was the highest form of patriotism" – at least that's what was on the bumper stickers.
Now that idea is out of vogue.
2. During the Bush era, the Democrats, then in the minority, felt that bipartisanship was letting them have strong input in writing the bills. To Bush's detriment, he allowed some of that to happen.
But now, in the era of B.O., all those ideas are so – well, old. We're supposed to simply agree with them now
BTW for those of you paying your taxes don't you feel like chumps these days when viewing the new cabinet members and nominees?
Ridley is hilarious! The conservative posters on this site are *much* harder on Republicans than Ridley lukewarm admonitions.
If you're going to have opposite points of view on this site, could we go with someone with less cognitive dissonanace? if he's wanting to chide Republicans bipartisanship, I'm more than happy to review the last eight years for him. If he seriously read any of this site, he'd understand that, but he'd rather toss out over-used platitudes straight from the DNC talking points.
To the Dems, it's always about what they want to do, it isn't about what's best for the country or wanting to be bipartisan. Talk about ringing hollow.
I don't care what party you belong to: D or R. Can you really tell me, John, that you believe it is responsible for a duly elected representative of the people of this nation (government of the people, by the people, for the people) to vote "yes" on any piece of legislation with as profound an impact as this one will have that they have not been able to fully read, digest, and consider? Personally, I wouldn't want my elected representatives to do such a thing, and I am not alone in my home state. There's a reason why our junior senator no longer allows her staffers to answer the phones as of Friday.
Wow, words from a truly ignorant jackass! No pun intended … but then again … if the mule fits ….
I came to Big Hollywood to read _this_?
Why not just post a link to the Daily Kos?
While Mr. Ridley is certainly welcome to his opinion, how is this any different than the mainstream/Hollywood point of view that no matter what the situation, the Republicans are always the bad people?
The House, Senate and White House railroad a ridiculous spending (not stimulus) plan through Congress while barely talking to the Republicans and it is the Republicans who are preventing bipartisanship?
Without a doubt, this is the worst post I have read here.
Ridley says he's pissed because a few days ago Republicans didn't vote for the crapola Pork bill of the ages. Ridley's lying. He's been pissed since November 4th. That's when this nation of racist, hate-filled, narrow minded, piece of shit white people voted a black man into the Oval Office. DAMN, Ridley's pissed.
Don't you white bastards get it? He's a victim. V.I.C.T.I.M. An oppressed, depressed, suffering victim. He's not black, male or even American – he's a victim. That's what he is, that's what he wants to be – and when we don't let him be one, well, you can just see the little snit fit he throws. (I've seen more maturity from a two year old screaming because his diapers were taken away.) No, Ridley's going to be a victim even if he has to kick truth in the ass, slam the door shut on reality and distort facts to be the opposite of what they really are. (And even then he'll pee on them. And us.)
It's no use to protest Ridley's stupidity. If we do, he'll just scream he's a victim.
Carolyn, I think you just struck the vain of truth Well put
Mr. Ridley, I'm noticing a trend here. You write a poorly thought out column that is basically a knee-jerk reaction to the news of the day (having nothing to do with Hollywood, for the record), one that is without any factually support (or without even seeming to be over-burdened by much forethought), then you disappear, never backing any of your assertions by posting a reply to the readers, as other BH columnists do. The fact that your points are completely and utterly without merit (Republicans aren't bi-partisan because in this instance they aren't in favor of the public being robbed?) is besides the point.
You, sir, are gutless.
You had me at "Keynesian stimulation has never worked anywhere it's been tried in the history of the world".
What gets me is the claim that this bill is critical in the effort to save the country from economic collapse. If it were so critical, why take chances by exploiting it for left-wing interests? Either they're lying about it being critical, or they're inappropriately taking advantage of the situation.
Also, leftists locking their opposition out of a conference committee sounds very Bolshevikian.
Nice point, Jeffrey, but please don't hold your breath waiting for Mr. Ridley to defend his positions. I'd actually have respect for him (despite the nonsense he spews) if he had the guts to discuss. Instead he wants to make speeches, then run and hide. That's what I find offensive. He shouldn't be allowed to post here because simply put, he's not man enough to back it up.
Doesn't it bother you just a tad that not one Senator or Congressman had time to read this trillion (that's the real price tag) dollar spending bill? There's nothing stimulating about it unless your in a Union or ACORN. What a fiasco this is going to be for our Country and when it does fail I will be so pleased that the Democrats will own it and having three RINO'S signatures on it won't change that. There was nothing bipartisan in what they did, that was business as usual. I hope their constituents do remember this and finally replace them with real Republicans.
As far as Judd Gregg goes, maybe he found out after accepting that the job wasn't as advertised? Especially the part about politicizing the Census Bureau. Would you have minded if President Bush handed that over the Karl Rove? Yeah, of course not.
Ni**er PLEASE!
I read a quote the other day concerning F.D.R.'s grasp of complicated economic issues, bearing in mind that I'm not bashing the late, great government expansionist, he governed during truly tough times. F.D.R.'s Sec. of State H. Stimson said that FDR would get off point in meetings telling stories and generally wandering around mentally and that he likened it to "chasing a vagrant sunbeam around an empty room". My point is, we and B Hussein Obama have GAMBLED our nations' future economic health on a bill authored by "San Fan Nan" Pelosi and "Dirty" Harry Reid (plus unamed aides and house accomplices). Now, if F.D.R. had a hard time staying focused on things during the GREAT DEPRESSION, how "tuned in" is Barry Hussein Obama? He's a witness, not participant; sad, really sad.
"Sit downs" with a megalomaniac.. Just how DID you think free thinking, intelligent, people would respond to meetings that were quite obviously designed to "massage" a yay vote from the opposition? O assumes too much. He assumes he's just that charming. He fooled 53% of America into believing he knew what he was doing by using flowery nebulous prose written by a 27 year old drunk who stole portions of the speech from several speeches uttered during prior inaugurations. BUT THANK GOD the majority of Republicans and a handful of Democrats have the knowledge and the experience to realize that the BLOAT THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND YOU LITTLE PEOPLE CAN KISS OFF BILL of 2009 was and is a big mistake.
And John: Why, in a post racial, post partisan age do you still call your website "that minority thing"? I thought that we were all supposed to be one now that the One is in office. Why do we still have the black congressional caucus, the latin congressional caucus, the ACLU, etc. ad nauseum? I thought Dr. Martin Luther King's dream was that all could come together based on character and not race, at least that's what I gleaned from the speech. Unity, my interacial fanny!
That's a good idea, but then goverment still wins they get rid of the republicans. Maybe a new version of " Boston tea party"?
Is this guy's spot on Big Hollywood some sort of penance for Greg Gutfeld having been on the Huff Po? Throwing in the name of two or three movies at the outset doesn't qualify as being a "Hollywood" blog by any stretch of the imagination. Brigadoon, Shangri-La, and oh, by the way, Republicans are not bipartisan. I'm not much on bipartisanship anyway. But if I were, I still can't see how any conservative could possibly have submitted to the porkulus bill. Bipartisanship isn't a matter of the majority party asking the minority "which would you prefer, cancer or a heart attack?" That said, I still have the question "is this site Big Hollywood or Big Politics?" I thought the point of this site was to discuss Hollywood cum politics, not to use two or three Hollywood references in order to segue into a traditional stealth attack on conservatives.
Hear Hear! I think I am as angry at the 3 RINOs as the whole porkulus bill. You have to admire the dems for one reason – they had discipline when they were in the monority.
One more thought. The author does know that Obama is enthroned in DC and that The One is not a movie or TV personality ensconced in Hollywood, doesn't he? The lefties used to say that Ronald Reagan believed that he was in a movie at the time he was President. Well, right back atcha. Except, of course, that Ronald Reagan actually was a movie star and Governor of the State of California where Hollywood is sorta located, rather than an obscure Chicago politician pretending to be a star. How's that for bipartisan?
I see I came to this party waaay late. Great comments. Ridley is a nasty piece of work, isn't he? While his posts gin up the comment count, it is driving people away in droves. I have read on several Conservative sites where people have decided not to come back, if he was still there. It happened at TownHall and NRO when they kept Kathleen Parker. I assume the idea is to have more conservatives come here, correct? I also agree that unlike the left, we don't have to live in an echo chamber, but having peurile, ignorant and racist screeds on this site drop the level of discourse, immersurably. Mr. Ridley, if I had a country club, I wouldn't let you in. Not because of your color, but because you are an asshole. Are there not some liberals out there with some genuine ideas to discuss, rather than finger-pointing and silly ascertations?
We have a winner.
Nice
Huh? It's more like what would $2B buy ACORN, not how many jobs since they're mostly volunteers or paid by signatures.
I think it is good that zero house Republican voted for this bill. Now it is Democrats standing on their own ideas and merit. No one to blame except themselves. And since Democrats do not understand free market economy, they will be the reason American will suck a$$ economically until Republicans come around again. I'm all for firing the idiots who got us into the mess. That must include all the house democrats on the housing committee, who were all black, that defied the watch dog organization over Fannie & Ferdie. Also, Clinton telling banks the must violate time honored and tested criterion for lending. Do you idiots want to fix the problem or be democrat and wrong? Jeez. I am from Maine and both Collins and Snowe get elected by city folk every time, and the Maine state is as socialist as you can get. Maine is next to last in about everything except lobsters with regard to employment, cost of living being high, insurance, workmen's comp, taxes…you name it. SMELLS WICKED BAD FOR AMERICA I SAY!
Yeah, and I didn’t get invited to the NAACP awards, Miss Black USA, Houston black firefighters union, Houston black officers union, or any number of colleges that don’t allow scholarships for whites. Boo-frickin-hoo.
The demoncraps had an outspoken policy to fight everything GWB did. They talked publicly about NOT cooperating with GWB and to make him look as bad as possible. Now it is their turn. Screw them and screw you.
What about ODumba’s staff telling the Demoncraps that they won, we don’t need to compromise? You are an unscrupulous, lying, communist like the rest of the Demoncraps.
Part 1. It is so difficult to find a leftie who can participate in an honest, intelligent conversation about our government or anything to do with politics. I have a sister who is otherwise very intelligent. She is actually an editor on a famous magazine in NYC. (Of course the minute I wrote NYC I knew that had a lot to do with it). But I believe she is in the terminal stages of PC (political correctness). Re the closing of Gitmo, I attempted to have a discussion with her, I really wanted to hear another scenario,. Her response was “We are not those kind of people”. End of conversation.
I brought up a conversation about the gas line that was supposed to be drilled off California’s coast but because they were sued by the Greenies and stopped, the line went 10 miles over the border into Mexico. Mexico got 3000 jobs, tax revenue and sells the gas to California. I said what good did it do to stop California from creating income when 10 miles over the border isn’t going to stop what pollution or use of our natural resources they object to. In fact, if we are in a more prosperous position, we can have more influence over what happens with not only our natural resources, but the importing of other countries natural resources who depend on America’s money to keep their dictatorships going. Her response – “We have to stop people from raping the country”. End of discussion. Re Israel and their right to defend themselves, “they responded inappropriately”, end of conversation.
It is hard to look at someone you love and see their descent into mindlessness. Maybe even madness.
It is the same with this post. Just no meat to have a meaningful conversation. Just more attempts to convert PC members through emotional pleas. Just like Jim Jones. It isn’t just the membership who goes crazy, so do the leaders. I do not believe Hitler started out as crazy as he became. This deliberate stunting of one’s intellectual capacity by rote talking points is taking a disastrous toll on all of us.
Let's not forget, though, what happened in the first Great Depression. Democrats sabotaged our economy with several actions very much like this so-called "stimulus" bill, then did a spectacular job shovelling taxpayer money to the right places to create a sense of gratitude in the American public. The general sentiment of the populace was, "whoa, just think how much worse it could've been if the Democrats hadn't been there for me just now!" This is how FDR was elected to four terms.
When more of us become dependent on government handouts to survive, we have to keep driving that point home: that handout was necessary ONLY because of earlier actions of the same people who voted to give us that money. Do what you have to to survive, but never forget this. Never let the people you know forget, either.
What world is Ridley living in? Republicans tried to influence the stimulus bill as much as they could, but were given little chance. Democrats tool the attitude that, "we won the election, we write the bill." This was a pork-filled tremendously large spending bill shoved through the process at top speed. Most politicians on BOTH sides were not fully aware of what was in it because it was rammed through so quickly. I say it's the height of irresponsibility to vote for something when you aren't even aware of what all you're voting for. Anyway, there were more Democrats who voted against the stimulus bill than Republicans who voted for it, so that means the politicians OPPOSING the stimulus bill were MORE BIPARTISAN than those voting for it!!
This was all about politics and power, not about economics. The empirical evidence of the USA in the 1930's and Japan in the 1990's is that government spending does not stimulate the economy much. Keynesian economic theory is old and tired, mostly believed by people who wish to justify more government control over our lives. I'm guessing Ridley knows nothing about economics and is driven entirely by politics.
Nothing new about this kind of evil.
"I'm guessing Ridley knows nothing about economics and is driven entirely by politics."
Uh……YA THINK?
Hey, John, was Katon's white's only club the same one that Bill Clinton used to golf at…and did he attend the club for 20 years without saying anything? Hey, let's be fair and just put each politicians worst connection after their name and let's see how well your party fares.
Gary! You’re absolutely right. We’re all partisan. And in 2006? Your side lost. And in 2008? Your side lost. Two economic approaches were compared by the voters in each election, and in each election, your side lost.
So yeah. I’m not all that concerned about bipartisanship either. And I could care less about Republican opinion about the stimulus package. The GOP drove the country into a ditch, and now they want us to ask them for directions?
Heh. Not gonna happen.
Heh. Yeah. Unlike the economic brain trust in here, it's Ridley who's driven entirely by politics. And nobody else. Nobody. Honest. He's the only one.
All of you who tried to respond to Ridley – It's a waste of time and effort. He lives in another universe and argues with the voices he hears there.
I like what John Cole, former Republican, said about bipartisanship and the GOP. It's like this. Say you go on a blind date with a woman (the GOP) and you suggest you have Italian for dinner. But she insists she wants to eat tire rims and anthrax. Now sure, it may be possible to find an edible compromise. But it's worth considering that the effort is a wasted one. Given her taste buds.
I'm done with big hollywood, and in less than six months, you will be done too, mark my words.
If I wanted to read crap, I'd read the stimulus bill, thanks Big Hollywood, for taking a great idea and then turning it into shit.
What a waste, gutless fools, "BIG HOLLYWOOD", how could have I not seen this coming from the start.
Bye,
JD
When are we going to declare open season on the Dhimmicrat traitors? Conservatives have all the guns, and if enough of us "right wing nutjobs" start killing liberals, they cannot prosecute all of us. Maybe it is time we take back the constitution and KILL anyone who tries to say it "is a living, breathing document".
-We slay that which is evil, that that which is good may flourish.-
He's the only one who submitted a column like this to Breitbart.
Al Gore's father was a segregationist. Robert Byrd was a higher up in the KKK. Bill Clinton only assaulted white women.
I'm telling you, you can't trust a Democrat.
Why does this guy post here? Aren't there enough liberal sites for the Obama love-fest to post at?
John, Im missing something… this was a _bad_ bill, and you're saying the RNC is wrong for trying to show that by questioning the three republicans in the Senate who did what we conservatives didn't want?
Btw.. let's also put an end to the "myth" of Republican control for 8 years, shall we?
2001 January – 2001 June = Republican controlled congress (.5 years)
2001 June – 2003 January = Democratic controlled congress (1.5 years)
2003 January – 2006 January = Republican controlled congress (3 years)
2006 January – current Democratic controlled congress (3 years)
Yes President Bush was in the white house, but Congress controls the purse strings… So it seems to me that you want "bipartisan"-ship, you got it.. and look at the mess it left. President Bush promoted some screwball spending programs, yes… but it seems that he and President Obama are just alike in that regards.
Nice analogy, but in the case of the stimulus the GOP requested a healthy but filling salad, and the democrats insisted upon not just a big old greasy rack of ribs, but an entire spitted roasted pig, many more times more food than anyone could possibly eat — with a couple of leaves of lettuce on the side as garnish. What ultimately passed retained the entire pig roast and had maybe an extra leaf of lettuce thrown in, but that's about it.
Bottom line is that republicans, who hold roughly 40% of congress and took around 47% of the presidential vote, would have voted wholeheartedly for a bill that contained even 30% republican-supported stimulus, 60% democratic-supported stimulus, with a generous 10% portion of bacon thrown in. What they were offered, on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, was something resembling 5% republican stimulus, maybe 20% democratic stimulus, and 75% pure unadulterated earmarked pork.
Supposed George W. Bush had governed in this manner? Keep in mind the environment in which he assumed office — he had just barely won an election that his opponents openly tried to steal; and then walked into a WH that had been vandalized by the outgoing frat-boy staff, in response to which he said we should move forward and cleaned up the mess without preserving any evidence, only to be accused (once the evidence was gone) by the guilty parties of having actually made the whole thing up. Yet his first legislative priorities were NCLB, and a RX drug benefit in Medicare. While neither of these was perfect in the eyes of the opposition, both of them were pretty darn close to the center, based on the fact that both sides walked away sorely disappointed in him.
It didn't take very long for Obama to seize the mantle of the most partisan president in history.
John,
Don't you ever try to take an unbiased look at what's going on? If you look and listen with an open mind, you can plainly see that, according to the left, anyone, including Joe the Plumber, that questions their agenda or doesn't agree with them is racist or not bi-partisan. Obama's whole change mantra has been a lie. Can you not see that, or do you just refuse to see it? A very wise man once said mental health depends on a dedication to reality. Choose reality, John. Don't remain stuck in poor mental health.
Mr. Ridley has things backward. It's Democrats who've always had the attitude that "bipartisanship" means "our way or the highway"…even when they were in the minority. Somehow, it's always Republicans who've been expected to move left instead of Democrats required to move right. Unfortunately, Republicans HAVE complied, time and again, because they want to be "liked" by Democrats and the national press corps. It'll NEVER happen, so why bother? Stick to one's guns, is my advice. Don't give the Democrats another inch since they've already taken several miles.
Couple things. I'm going to assume you don't actually believe Obama is the most partisan president in history, if only because the statement suggests only a faint familiarity with both presidents and history. As to the thing itself. Intentionally confusing pork with infrastructure is a politician's game, and primarily Republican politicians. There's a reason the stimulus package was well-received by one group of Republicans — Republican governors. Those are the guys who actually have bills to pay, as opposed to CSPAN cameras to play to. (Nice hissy, Senator Graham.) Just ask Charlie Crist. As for G.W. Bush, I dunno. I remember the tax cuts that we're still trying to get out from under. I remember his chesty announcement that he was going to do what he wanted because he had a mandate. I'm assuming you do, too.
Bottom line is this. The GOP is hooked on tax cuts like hookers on crack. It's the first and only solution they have to offer to any problem, including problems that are not helped in the slightest by them. Given that this is basically the sum total of their contribution to the debate, I'd suggest they're lucky if they got five percent.
And as for 40 percent of Congress? That number is trending downward, and at this rate? It'll be lower still come 2010.
It is hardly republicans in this case who confused pork with infrastructure. The bill contains a certain amount of infrastructure, a certain amount of stimulative tax cuts, and a certain amount of pork, with pork being the largest share. Even supporters acknowledge this, by the way.
Republican governors, our own Crist included, supported the bill because a substantial amount of the pork is going to bail them out. Aid to states may be worthy or it may not, but it isn't stimulus and it isn't infrastructure.
I'm not going to respond to your non-responsive revisionism of Bush's supposed partisanship. Up to and INCLUDING the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush did what he did with the support of members of both parties. And the last person to utter the words that he won and would do as he pleased (before Barack Obama, that is) was Bill Clinton. Alas, it is perhaps to my disadvantage in this particular debate that I am unable to remember things that did not happen.
When partisanship did emerge, and party line votes became the norm, it was always the case that democrats did not propose alternatives, they just opposed for the sake of opposition, which is in sharp contrast to what Republicans did with this bill. In many cases, democrats loudly demanded specific things, such as the bulk of Bush's energy package in 2001, and then voted against it right down party lines, for no other reason that to deny Bush the credit for it. We can argue all day about whether, given a clean (or at least a cleaner) bill this time around Republicans actually would have voted for it, like they said they would. But the bottom line is that they were never given the chance. There are probably some instances you can find during Bush's 8 years of similar things, but nothing as important as this. Certainly nothing as large, since there wasn't anything that large during all 8 years.
As for Republican prospects for '10, time will tell, but it's a fact, and the polls bear this out, that a substantial amount of Barack Obama's support, and most especially the support for congressional democrats in both chambers, came from people who were promised something than we thus far are getting from that party. If the people do in fact respond by giving democrats and even greater majority in '10, then I guess we'll be getting what we deserve.
We're talking past each other. A great deal of the stimulus spending will contribute to state infrastructure — billions for highway construction, water projects, park renovation, local housing projects, etc. The states naturally benefit from all of this. Also calling aid to states, including increased Fed contributions for Medicaid costs, 'pork' is moderately dishonest. There aren't the kind of snail-mating-studies that McCain is obsessed with. These are concrete ways in which the stimulus package will help the states meet their budgets. I will happily add this to the list of things you do not remember.
Including, of course, Bush's response to a question about appointing conservative judges after the 2000 election, an election in which he LOST the popular vote. He said, of course, that he had a mandate to do exactly that. And he did.
Your last graf has some weird sentence construction, so I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I'm going to assume you're suggesting that if the voters don't get what they think Obama and the Dems promised them, they will turn on the party in 2010. This is certainly possible. My point, made a couple times now, is that the GOP doing everything they can — they can't help it, of course, it's their nature — to play the Spitting Anger card at each and every opportunity. And this, in the face of Obama's thoughtful outreach — which may in fact be a sham, but that's not important, as long as it looks like one.
It's weird. Obama has the ability to drive his opponents nuts. They rant and rail about his failures and all the things he isn't, and Obama just keeps on rolling, brushing off the little things as he goes. Until he gets pretty much what he wants. Just ask Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
And you're either being willfully naive or straining to make a rhetorical point when you suggest the Republicans would have voted for the package if only Obama had been a little more like, I dunno, a Republican. That was never going to happen. The GOP is as entrenched an opposition as is humanly possible, and this is only the first in the series of battles that will pivot on that unfortunate, and I think obvious, fact. (And in large part, btw, because the only Republicans who consistently get re-elected are the most conservative members from the most conservative districts. They actually think the entire country is as crazy as they are. At least until the next presidential election.)
(And by the way, pointing out that Bush enjoyed more bipartisan support only serves to make the point that the Dems are either more cowardly or more reasonable or both.)
[...] doing enough to work with President Obama. This obstructionist myth is catching fire. Writing for Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood, African-American screenwrite and comedian John Ridley tried to claim that the grassroots uprising [...]
BiPartisan would imply a reasonable compromise is possible. It is NOT.
This is a massive "social justice" travesty. It is a blatant government JOBS measure. It will not create long term productive jobs, it will produce more long term dependency on the government.
How long before we start seeing notes on business doors:
am leaving it as I found it. Take over. It’s yours
You must be logged in to post a comment.