What does this mean? Just saw an interesting blip on the bottom

[acmavm]

of the CNN screen saying that House repubs have said that they may not support the Bush* budget because of increased concern over spending? Do you think that this means a minor revolt among the republicans? If so, do you agree that this could only help the democrats in the election? If the party of Bush* starts getting restive and start talking about not voting for his policies, then the republicans (it seems to me) are giving the pResident a no-confidence vote on a major domestic issue. I think that they're starting to panic at KKKarl's idiot schemes for attention, like amnesty to illegals and the mission to Mars insanity.

Did anyone else see this and what do you think? Can't dems use this in a BIG way?

[cornermouse]

1. Yahoo had it too.

Seems Bush may have a minor revolt. Then again, this could be window dressing in an attempt to ensure they don't lose their majority.

[cthrumatrix]

13. they didn't support it before -- they are under fire from conservatives

becuase there is major pork in the bill -- and spending under shrub is out of hand -- if you run as aconservative it really undermines your "campaign" for office.

[rfranklin]

2. It's got to be coordinated political posturing...

Can we really expect that the House Republicans will undercut the reselection? I don't think so. I don't have the inside knowledge to interpret this move (if it is indeed so) but I can guarantee you that they are cooking up some scheme that will tar the Democrats, and attribute Republican malfeasance to them.

Any theories?

[acmavm]

3. Cornermouse makes an excellent point, one which I didn't

consider. Maybe it's just self-serving crap from a bunch of morons who know that the 'people' are starting to wake up the the insanity of Bush* and Cheney's fiscal policies, and they want to cover their butts before they have to start looking for another job. And then in the end, they vote for this horrendous spending budget anyway.

But even discussing the fact that the spending Bush* proposes is a bad thing doesn't seem to be good news for the Bush* re-election campaign. It just shows that the guy is a nutcase with no idea of how bad the deficit he is running up is for the future of this country. Maybe the repubs are starting to wake up to the fact that people are starting to worry about the mess Bush* is creating and the effect is will have on their children. I don't know, but I find this very interesting.

[underpants]

7. OR this could be the start of truly "starving the beast"

Paul Krugman wrote an excellent op/ed piece a couple of months ago on this. Suppy siders are a tool used by starve the beasters to put positive spin on their aim to eliminate lots of spending on non-military services. He says that even the starvers see the supply siders as naive but in a useful idiot kinda way.

This could be that real start of that. They fight it out (a PR effort to show that they aren't all in lockstep) and in the end they make the HARD DECISIONS necessary and slash spending on "entitlements"* and social programs.

*not to include entitlements for corporate farming and other political contributors.

[HFishbine]

12. Just as some democrats

voted for the war for political positioning, some republican's will vote against increasing deficits for the same reason.

[underpants]

4. Has to be posturing-Spending bills originate in the House

So they control spending initially. Yes the POTUS sends his budget there but it CAN get weedled out and down (if that is a word)in the House.

It sounds like they are going to blame each other for the overspending (more on that later) and everyone of THEM can say "Hey we tried".

The problem with spending is that no one has ever been able to control it. Members of the House on both sides continue to overspend and add pure pork not only in spending bills but in no brainer bills (one's that are sure to pass). It will require strong leadership and control to limit spending but to date we really haven't seen any. I read somewhere (sorry no link but I swear I am not making this up) that when in control of the HOUSE Dems spend on average $35 Million more on Dem districts than on Republican ones.......Republicans in control spend $63 Million on their districts.

[DifferentStrokes]

5. Well, we shall see

what Mr. DeLay has to say about this.

He hammered reluctant House members into the prescription funding fraud. I'm sure he will have sufficient time to sharpen his knives for this round.

[GalleryGod]

6. FAUX "Revolt" so they can "Have it BOTH ways" in the publics

cappuccino-laden minds and attention span:argh:

[acmavm]

9. So you don't think that this might have a big impact on this year's

election? Why do you think that the public is unaware of the damage that this deficit will have on this generation and generations to come? When people run out of money, they are forced to make some big decisions. When the government runs out of money, it's the same thing. But it is education and social programs that they are cutting. These cuts impact the 'average' American big time. And they feel these cuts.

Before the depression America was a lot like it is now. They ignored the warning signs that big trouble was coming. When the crash came, and the soup lines grew, and the average guy lost his shirt, the public woke up and realized that something had gone horribly wrong. But what they didn't notice, at least not at the time, is that the very rich got even richer from the economic chaos. Is that not how it is now? And we have even bigger problems than we had then. We have an administration that feels it's 'their due' to spend money like the proverbial drunken sailor, that the only people who are making money are the contributors to and the members of the Bush* administration, that we have a bunch of kooks from the administration running around espousing the doctrine of endless war, and in the middle of this a crackpot pretending to be President of the United States starts talking about a trip to Mars, when all me really means is that he wants to militarize space. The common thread between 1929 and now is that the immensly rich will just get richer and the average American can kiss his way of life goodbye. Do you not think that they are investing in Euros? Warren Buffet has admitted that he is. What does that tell anyone?

[OHdem10]

8. To Republicans Party trumps all else---

They will make noise to appease their constituents and appear concerned over Budget. When the crunch comes they will fall into line and blame the big spending Democrats. If there are some who cannot in their conscience support their own President's Budgets, we have enough DLCers who will oblige just as they handed them the Medicare Issue.

[radfringe]

10. "true" Conservatives as opposed to the "NEO-CONS"

have always been for fiscal responsibility - and they are pissed off about the deficits

they are also ticked off by what they see as Bush* pandering to various voting groups - most recently the work permits for aliens (illegal and legal alike) is really ticking them off

according to this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/17/opinion/polls/main593848.shtml

'04 Election Could Be 2000 Redux
Jan. 17, 2003

CBS) A CBS News/New York Times poll shows that the election year is starting with a White House race that resembles the ultra-close and hotly-contested race of 2000.

If the November presidential election were held today, 45% of voters say they would vote for the Democratic candidate and 43% would vote to re-elect President Bush.

Late last month, the President held a 49% to 40% edge. The standing today is similar to what it was in November 2003, before the capture of Saddam Hussein.

---snip---

Much of this sentiment seems already locked in place, suggesting the coming year could see a tight struggle for undecided voters: 63% say their mind is already made up, while 36% say it is too soon to say for sure.

Partisans on both sides are sure of their choice, but Republicans even more so: 73% say their mind is made up, while 66% of Democrats say their decision is final right now.

------------

to me the numbers are suggesting that there aren't all that many people in the middle. Bush* is trying to woo the independents and neglecting his base

a radio talk show mentioned this also - and went further to say that the election would be determined by which candidate is best able to mobilize their base

[underpants]

11. I think most "Republicans" aren't aware where their party is going

Okay there are some here who would say the same thing about the Dems but that is another matter.

Many/most people who started to side with the Repubs during the Reagan administration aren't aware or refuse to acknowledge that the yahoos running their show now were the weirdos over in the corner who simply took over the name but really don't represent what they think they do.

This is not your father's Republican party.

Gingrich brought in the age of WINWINWIN Win every news cycle politics. This crowd have their policies set in stone regardless of facts, data, and the changes that must be considered. Aside from seeing that everday in the news (to anyone who keeps up on those things) O'Neill's book points this out in black and white, pragmatists vs. idealogues - real analysis and decision making vs. preconceived notions.

Hell I used to be a Republican but that all changed, oddly, when I was in the Army overseas and could sit back and take in the situation from a different perspective. It was Buchanan's speech at the '92 convention (juxtaposed to Jessie's at the Dem convention-funny story about that) that sealed the deal.