Republican Moderates Backing GOP Stimulus Threatened To Be Targeted By Republican Group
File this in your Here We Go Again Department file:
A GOP group is putting Republican lawmakers “on notice,” threatening to campaign against anyone who breaks ranks to vote for the more than $800 billion economic recovery package.
The National Republican Trust PAC put out a statement Tuesday claiming it would provide financial support for primary challengers to any stimulus-supporting Republican in the next election.
“Republican Senators are on notice,” the group’s director Scott Wheeler said in a statement. “If they support the stimulus package we will make sure every voter in their state knows how they tried to further bankrupt voters in an already bad economy.”
The release did not name names, but was obviously directed at the three Republican senators who joined Democrats to advance the Senate version of the bill Monday.
Republicans Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both from Maine, are expected to vote for the bill Tuesday. Specter is up for re-election next year and Snowe in 2012. Collins was re-elected in 2008 and won’t be up again until 2014.
This continues the trend that we’ve seen over the past decade in both parties: wings of each party going after moderates who don’t tow a pure right or left line. The irony — but really not so ironic in 21st century politics, where consistency of principle doesn’t mean much — some of these same GOPers are probably the ones who were ranting and raving about that mean, old Democratic party left that worked to defeat Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman in his primary battle due to his stance on the war issue.
But there is another issue:
GOP moderates (I was one once, before the party left me and am now an independent) are truly a vanishing species. In essence, the PAC is saying: “If you dare vote and behave like moderates, you’re not Republicans and we’ll run you out of the party.” It’s a message that won’t be lost on some voters — as seeming past messages have not been lost (look at the 2008 election results).
But the bigger issue is in this era of narrowcasting — cable channels catering to individual tastes, weblogs read by readers who in some cases will only visit blogs they totally agree with in advance, news magazines narrowing the focus of their readership, television networks losing audience share due to the success of “narrowcasting” in a host of other media — the GOP seems to be on that track. How often have we seen a party work to REDUCE the size of its tent?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
20 Responses to “Republican Moderates Backing GOP Stimulus Threatened To Be Targeted By Republican Group”
So, what's going to happen to the Blue Dogs, especially this guy?
Here's Sil's magic solution “Sil's Bill” if you like…for the creation of jobs. It is a bill that seeds the economy at its base, in the soil, the very bottom ranks. The Bill as it stands now is trying to sew seeds too far and wide, and too high in the air. The birds will get them all..
*******
For a period of a year or so, relieve existing homeowners of their mortgage interest…just carte blanche. Uncle Sam reimburses the banks this way, through the little people. Then, home values would stabilize, the bad paper would regain strength, banks would regain their financial strength and no longer fear making loans. Loans to small businesses would start up again, the economy would be stimulated creating new jobs. If they did nothing else in the Bill, this would be the magic bullet. Personally, for now, they should do nothing else but this one thing and funding for alternative energy refurbishing for our infrastructure. OK, so those two things would restore our economy and our national security. Leave money for the ballerinas and national parks for next month's Bills.
AND all that money saved monthly would, in fact, go to spending sprees which would create demand for things like, oh, I don't know, like NEW CARS, furniture, widgets, gadgets and food…all things that would further stimulate the economy and create more jobs, creating more of a tax base and kicking money back to Uncle Sam in the end. I want to buy a new truck, I need to buy a new truck for the business I'm trying to start. But I will take on neither burden if it means having to choose between those payments and keeping my land in these troubled times. There are millions upon millions making the same decisions today. That's why christmas '08 sucked and why christmas '09 will suck too…and all the months between. People are scared shtiless that they will lose their homes if they spend…they've seen it happen to their neighbor for crying out loud.
Both republicans and democrats would gain in this scenario. But the crucial hinge is that they must unclench their tightened fists and let the money go to subsidize mortgage payments for a year or so. And sharing money with the little people is like asking Satan to go take Mass at church. It is a visceral and reflexive revulsion with the rich (politicians).
The GOP would rather die than do this and this is what all the fighting is about since I've heard that a watered-down version of my mortgage-relief plan is in the Bill. The thing is they're going to fiscally die when the economy grinds to a halt, and they cannot even see that masses of poor people suddenly finding “found” money is their key to returned financial strength for themselves. I think if Obama just forced GOP Congressmen to sit down and go through a simple economic lecture and didn't let them out of the classroom until they thoroughly understood the concept of how the little guy having money to spend keeps them rich, we'd have a hella lot more support for this on both sides of the aisle and this Bill would already be Law by now.
******
But the sad fact is that the GOP politicians already know all this…they must by now. And I have this sickening hunch that they are holding out for one simple reason: that if this thing goes through, it will make Obama look good and that means eight years instead of four…AND when they are up for re-election, the masses of little guys will associate “democrat” with “getting money to spend from Uncle Sam” and this could spell political death for their party.
The thing is it won't if they come forward loud and boisterous for this Bill I've proposed. They can stand “for the record” in front of their base and get their re-elections. If they botch this for purely selfish political reasons I've just mentioned, then their base should be FURIOUS with them because it will mean the fiscal demise of them all….for a few fatcats at the top trying desperately to hold onto the past and their jobs.
Come out, come forward GOP Congressmen and we will remember you in the elections to come…in a good way. YOU be the champions of this Bill, eh? Sound good? Publicly announce it and brag about trimming back the liberal goo goo pork to help the little guys in exactly the way I describe. Then you can regain your base, your assurance of re-election, making Obama look foolish (very important to accomplish) for supporting the pork, restimulate the consumers who will return your wealth…Trickle up…Try it, you'll like it. And you can take that one to the bank.
Silhouette, it never ceases to amaze me how you seem able to make anything fit your preconceived notions, whether or not the facts actually support them.
The GOP has offered several alternatives and amendments, not exactly like yours, but dealing with attempts to prop up the housing market and help homeowners who might be facing foreclosure. I think all of those plans are dumb for various reasons (they just won't work), but why in the world you think that “they're holding out” or “they'd rather die than do this” is beyond me.
Since you don't seem to have been following this at all, here's one link, and another.
CS,
Obama is having dinner with the Blue Dog caucus this evening. Most Blue Dogs supported the House version, by the way.
As for Walt Minnick, bless his heart. He represents an extremely conservative district. I'd expect him to push an alternative bill. I hope the people in Idaho notice.
Ah yes, having dinner. That's apparently the definition of bipartisanship or even compromise within a party. Not actually considering the other point of view, of course, but by all means, lets act cordial and then when the minority party or dissenting faction within the party fails to fall in line, we'll call them the 'do nothing obstructionists!'
And what's your view, CS? It sounds suspiciously like “Do whatever the opposition wants.”.
I think that Minnick has the right idea- because it's based on doing the things that really are agreed on by everyone, the parts that provide immediate relief and quick acting stimulus. I'm sure I wouldn't agree with everything in his plan and there are probably things I'd like to see that he leaves out- but I'll bet that it represents a true consensus of what everyone thinks is most likely to help in the short term, while leaving out the politically contentious parts and the projects that are driven by special interest group or parochial interests.
To me, bipartisanship means finding that type of consensus and demonstrating the will to do what the American people want and need as a collective, instead of what the individual constituencies might want to cobble together.
Just curious. Which alternatives are you referring to? Do they include the House's Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act of 2009? It includes a 5 percent “across the board” income tax cut; an increase in the child tax credit from $1,000 to $5,000; a freeze on capital gains and dividends tax rates at 15 percent; and a number of other measures targeted toward businesses.
Or perhaps Eric Cantor and Rep. David Camp's alternative which is wholly comprised of tax cuts? Or perhaps Sen. Mel Martinez's alternative which contains $430 billion in tax cuts; $114 billion for infrastructure projects; $138 billion for extending unemployment insurance, food stamps and other provisions to help those in need; and a whopping $31 billion to address the housing crisis?
Could you be a bit more specific?
Minnick’s plan does nothing to deal with the housing crisis. It doesn’t require any money to be spent until the last day of 2010. How does that address the immediate fiscal crisis?
Davebo- see links in my comment and click to answer your question about 'which plans'. In case I wasn't clear, I don't agree with those plans, but was just pointing out that Silhouette is either unaware of those plans or is deliberately ignoring them in order to push the meme that the GOP would never consider attempting to help homeowners more directly.
As for the Minnick START plan- your statement appears to be innacurate on the timing:
And who said this bill was supposed to address the housing crisis? There's no quick fix for that, unfortunately.
Do you have a link to that CStanley because my reference says otherwise. See here, and here for example.
100 billion dollars in tax cuts for low and middle income earners is nice, but hardly represents immediately putting the money in the pockets of Americans. Now if they were tax rebates it would be a different story, but they aren't. Bush gave three tax cuts- two stimulus checks. Why didn't it work?
Your first link doesn't work, and I don't see anything in the second one that contradicts what I'm saying.
I think the point is that your jumping on the 2010 date because his plan says that funds will be cut off then- so you're saying this means that no money will necessarily be spent until the last day of 2010. That's a bit silly though- if that's the 'use it or lose it' by date, then projects will have to get underway almost immediately (we're already midway through first quarter of '09.) No one's going to sit on a proposal if they have to spend all of the funds allotted by the end of 2010.
And the excerpt I quoted was from the dcexaminer story that I linked to in the first comment of this thread.
I'm not quite sure how you can say that 100 billion tax cut for low and middle income earners doesn't put money in American pockets. Whose pockets would it be going to?
As for what works and why Bush rebate checks didn't– I do think we're somewhat limited on how much a stimulus like that helps because consumer debt is so high and consumer confidence is so low. In that sense, a tax cut is better than a rebate check because people's spending habits have more to do with long term expectations for their net earnings rather than short term money in the pocket. And if rebate or giveaway checks are done at all, I think they have to be to the lowest income brackets and/or the unemployed, because those are the people who will necessarily spend it.
Because it's a cut in payroll deductions for federal income tax. Low income (and the unemployed) won't see any and medium income earners will see very little reduced from their weekly/biweekly paychecks as the cut will be spread out over the entire fiscal year.
From Minnick's press release:
START Tax Cuts and Incentives to stimulate Job Creation and Economic Development
EITC increase would address the problem that you mention, Davebo, that those under the minimum threshold of paying federal tax wouldn't see any benefit.
The Dems took over Congress on the backs of the Blue Dogs. The Republicans don't even have their own version of the BDs.
But how long will they still be there, Rudi, if Nancy keeps them muzzled?
But how long will they still be there, Rudi, if Nancy keeps them muzzled?
A lot longer than the moderates targeted by conservative groups in the GOP– which is what the post is actually about! Or did all of the R's in the House vote against the bill based on “principles”????LOL Only moderate Republicans from liberal Northern states can buck the conservative power base.
A lot longer than the moderates targeted by conservative groups in the GOP
On what evidence? The Dems just gained their majority, as Rudi points out, by putting up these conservative Dems in conservative districts to pick off vulnerable GOP members. Pelosi pays lip service to the idea that they have to vote with their constituents and not the party line, but apparently a lot of the Blue Dogs aren't quite satisfied with the way their leaders are handling things.
And then add to that the targeting of some of these moderates over civil liberties issues, and I really don't know why you think they're safe from the same phenomenon that happens on the right. Sure, the Democrats chose a good strategy to gain the majority back, but at some point everyone says 'what's the point of a majority if you don't get the votes on what matters to the base?'
CS-
Pelosi knows the Blue Dogs have to win reelection in order to maintain the Democrats' majority. She may not agree with their members on many issues, but she doesn't have the luxury of backing liberals to replace them.
The National Trust PAC is gunning for the 3 Senators who dared to buck the party line, but voters in those states are unlikely to back a conservative alternative. Still, shouldn't Collins, Specter and Snowe be able to vote for the bill if they think it will help the economy???