Only three Republicans vote for the stimulus in the Senate
James Forsyth 9:03pm
The stimulus has passed the Senate and now heads to a conference to iron out the differences between the House and Senate versions. However, the bill only got three Republican votes meaning that it passed 61-37, only avoiding the threat of being filibustered by one vote. Back at the beginning of January, the Obama team were talking about getting 80 votes for the package in the Senate.
The latest polling suggest that Obama is having the better of the public opinion fight over the stimulus. But there must be worry in the Obama camp that they are into partisan warfare so early on in the presidency. This means that they have little to no room for Democratic defections in the Senate, weakening the White House’s negotiation hand with Congressional leadership.
Ironically, the more ground the administration has to cede to Congressional Democrats the more unlikely it is to pick up Republican votes. It was House Democrats loading the stimulus with extra spending and almost halving the tax cuts on offer that energised and solidified the Republican resistance to it.
Previous
mac
February 10th, 2009 9:34pm Report this commentWhat's the story behind Collins, Snowe, and Specter dissenting? Principle or pork-barrel?
Gazinya
February 10th, 2009 9:59pm Report this commentThe longer this 'thing' is in the public realm the more clear it is that this is a 40yr. wish list of Liberal Democrat fantasies. That is why the 'Rush'.
TrevorsDen
February 10th, 2009 10:06pm Report this commentPutting Nancy Pelosi in charge of anything does not bode well for the future.
TGF UKIP
February 10th, 2009 11:43pm Report this commentBest possible result for the GOP for this to pass. Obama is now well and truly nailed with it.
As for Collins, Snowe and Specter, to describe them as being Republicans is a bit like labelling Cameron as a conservative.
Anybody else have the sense of a presidency rapidly unravelling?
James Forsyth
February 11th, 2009 12:00am Report this commentMac, All three of them are from states that are increasingly Democratic so it is largely pragamatism. All three are also moderates who pride themselves on being 'Senatorial', eg 'reaching across the aisle'. Best, James
Hysteria
February 11th, 2009 12:20am Report this commentTGF - I agree - the only surprise to me is how quickly.
I am amazed - shocked even! at the lack of commentary on the risible "press conference" yesterday- prepared questions (and answers)no follow ups - dodging the Middle East nuclear question (with obvious microphone management) - the guy behaves and talks as if he is still on the stump.
The market response to the lastest bank/credit rescue package says it all really.
These are not serious people, and they are "wingin' it" - they seem to think that (like Blair) just talking nice is going to make everything come good.......
mac
February 11th, 2009 8:17am Report this commentJames, TGF:
Thanks. So it's calculated self-preservation: they're trimmers. Jack Straw must know them.
Ian C
February 11th, 2009 9:26am Report this commentTGF and others -
Yes, and it seems quite clear. We all need him to be a successful president, and therefore we on the right want him to succeed. But not if he is going about it in as stupid a way as we have come to expect from politicians as a whole. He held himslef out as different and has missed the one big chance to establish that difference.
But for now we have to sit on the side, watch and point out the folly of it all. Have a look at the comments on my post on Martin Bright's piece of yesterday and you will see what we are up against. It is 1997 all over again - this time in the USA.
RMH
February 11th, 2009 10:39am Report this commentThe GOP are standing firm, asking for tax cuts for the rich, more money for bankers and hoping that the stimulus fails.
The same money there or therebaouts for bank bonuses was approved........... by them, but not for Main Street.
Main street is getting angry...... Beware....
Ian C
February 11th, 2009 5:26pm Report this commentMartin Wolf in Today's FT:
"it is extraordinary that a popular new president, confronting a once-in-80-years’ economic crisis, has let Congress shape the outcome"
says all everyone needs to know how stupid Obama has been. The article is a must read as it comes from someone with no history of political favouritism and a first class reputation in his economic journalism.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9ebea1b8-f794-11dd-81f7-000077b07658.html
God help us all!
Hal
February 14th, 2009 12:58pm Report this commentI am inclined to give Obama more credit than this. The idea of getting 80 votes in the Senate was a goal, not a prediction, a statement that Obama would reach out to the Republicans. The perception now is that he did reach out, and the Republicans rejected his overtures. They are now on record (all save Snowe, Specter, and Collins) as favoring the same fiscal policies that we had under Bush, and opposing anything new or extraordinary. But the economy is likely to get worse over the next year, and that leaves only Obama and the Democrats as the party with some sort of policy to address it. Keep in mind that FDR was more popular in 1936 than in 1932, even though he hadn't ended the Depression. The thing is, he was the only one trying to attack it.
The GOP has no policy alternatives, and Obama's tactics are making this quite clear.
Back to top