United Liberty

i laugh at these so called conservatives where the hell have u been.thru the last four republicain adminastions the defeits have explosed,4 trillion under reagan another 4 trillion under h bush,8 trillion under this last clown.illegal wars under all.conservatives wouldn’t be so bad if they practiced what they preached but they say one thing and do another totally urelilable.in the last 30 yrs the only time we reduced goverment where the clinton years with a balanced budget or a surplus. no wars peace and properity.the coruption that follow republician adminastion nixon reagan bush 1 bush 2 so what do conseratives stand for who knows greed blood criminal all

Perhaps Susan Collins cares for this country—even if she makes the right-wings fruit cups mad. When it comes to being an American—she does it better than Rush Limpbrain, Bill O’Really, or even that GOP darling, Ted Haggard.

Mr. Carlson

How can you attack Sen. Collins for attempting to do something that was completely unheard of during the last administration, which was to reach across the aisle and have a bipartisan approach to our nation’s problems?

President Obama and VP Biden seem far more honest on allowing ideas from both parties to enter debate in Washington in their first month than Bush and Cheney did in their entire 8 year administration.

I guess Mr. Carlson fell asleep and missed the election.He missed where the people overwhelmingly said they wanted an end to petty partisanship and more cooperation and compromise to help solve our nation’s problems. He still doesn’t understand that people are sick and tired of those who put ideology above country. But go ahead, Mr. Carlson, and continue to throw brave and honorable people like Susan Collins out of the Republican Party. You’ll be guaranteeing a Democratic majority for decades to come.

Susan Collins is writing checks to parasitical deadbeats from your kid’s checkbook.
This is theft.

Josh- Reaching across the aisle is not a problem. Especially in times like we have right now. I agree that there should be a bipartisan approach to many different topics and issues that come up in congress. But at the same time I completely agree with David. Sure let’s have our congressmen and women work together to get stuff done. But since when does a true Republican vote in favor of a bill like this one? It makes no sense. No offense but your comment about how bipartisanship not occurring during the last administration is irrelevant. It was true, but it was neither here nor there. His statement was about how she is a “Conservative/Republican” who is voting for a bill that is written with such liberal/democratic influence that we should expect each and every member of the Republican party to throw it out.

The bottom line with this issue is that true conservative values strictly go against what this economic stimulus package wants to put into place. So I, along with most Americans, would expect conservative Republicans to be against it; just like we would expect liberal Democrats to be for it.

Again, reaching across the aisle is great and I am all for it. But elected officials should not sacrifice the integrity and values of those who elected them to make things happen. They are representing the people and the people who voted for Collins are most likely against this bill. I think it is absurd that she is supporting it.

StevefromSacto- I found your post fairly inaccurate. I think you are mistaken on which one of you two it was that fell asleep and missed the election seeing as how the candidates campaigned on a lot more than just putting an “end to petty partisanship and more cooperation and compromise to help solve our nation’s problems.” To me it was pretty clear what happened on election day; way more people voted for Obama than McCain. That was the bottom line. To imply that David’s line of thinking is incorrect or off-based for that reason is a joke, especially considering the topic you are choosing to critique him on. He is disagreeing with how a republican voted in favor of a liberal bill; how is that in any way, shape, or form unworthy of criticism?

Your sarcastic advice that encourages David to “throw brave and honorable people like Susan Collins out of the Republican Party” is comical:
1. Sarcasm never wins arguments.
2. The fact that you think he should not hold a politician to the standard of voting in line with what he or she was elected to represent is plain stupid. If a liberal started voting for conservative bills and against liberal bills, as much as I would be pleased with the result, I would notice, understand, and agree with voters when they become upset with the inconsistency in that persons voting record.
3. Brave? Honorable? What constitutes giving those attributes to a politician who buckled and voted for something that goes against the core values of her party?
4. If anything, re-evaluating the Republican party and it’s members would be strengthening it not “guaranteeing a Democratic majority for decades to come.” Ridding any party of someone who does not vote in accordance to the stances and values on which that person was elected for sounds like a good thing regardless of that persons political affiliations.

Lastly, I think David worded it brilliantly when he said this, “Government cannot spend us out of a recession. If that were so, we would NEVER be in a recession or a depression.”

For that matter, if the government really had that much legitimate power to influence a recession by giving fake money to the economy then how come we don’t/haven’t just inject/ed trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of dollars into the market? Wouldn’t the brilliant minds in America have come up with that idea long ago?

My final thought for the day:
This stimulus bill along with the recent bailout is just going to prolong the rebuilding of our economy by a great number of years. We will be seeing the negative effects of this for many years to come, even after Obama is long gone.

I see the problem as labeling. I am for helping the poor, planned parenthood, education with no limits,basically alot of you would consider me a liberal.But, I am for lower taxes for the people, enforcing immigration laws at the state and federal level, and keeping the churches out of government. So to you I would be what. I never vote straight ticket, that would be asinine. I vote who I feel is best for us right now. As an election judge at my precinct I see many people, many conservative, voting straight ticket and admitting they do not know were the candidates stand. Most people do not bother to learn, they just vote straight ticket.

In Maine, especially southern Maine, you are not going to be able to elect politicians more conservative than Collins and Snowe. It’s not South Carolina or Mississippi. Generally, people don’t have a problem with gay people and/or fear other minorities. Nor do they have much of a problem with the concept of paying taxes, even relatively high ones etc. There are plenty of reasons Obama won in Maine by double digits.

Someday, when Collins and Snowe quit, their positions will, most likely, be filled by Democrats as New England as a whole has turned against “conservatism” over the last generation. “Conservatism” really only strikes a chord now, generally speaking, in the South and West. Even in places like North Carolina and Virgina, the tide is changing, albeit slowly. This is especially the case in the cities or university towns.

So, with regards to the author’s concluding statement that “You [Collins] would be doing everyone a favor by running for re-election as a Democrat and letting the people actually have a Conservative choice in the next election”, it strikes me as an interesting proposition. However, a true “conservative”, as defined by the author, would probably get around 5% of the vote in southern Maine (as it is essentially part of greater Boston now) and perhaps 30-35% in the rest of Maine. The consequence of such an election would result in the taking of office of a far more liberal Democrat than Snowe or Collins who on security issues (and on specific matters of Death Penalty etc.) tend to be pretty far to the right of most Mainers. I believe both of them wholly supported the War in Iraq and in southern Maine, the war, from the beginning was extremely unpopular. Most Mainers continued to vote for them because they considered them sincere and pragmatic rather than for strictly ideological reasons. They may not be my personal favorites but they are among the most popular politicians in Maine at the moment.
In any case, enjoyed your post.

Like most politicians, Susan Collins’ first consideration is her political self preservation. She believes that her voting for the stimulus will have more appeal to her constituants than voting against it. Republicans, a significant minority in both houses, will need Collins on other issues so why demonize her as “idealogically unclean.” Maine is not Utah and Collins reflects that reality.

Interestingly, both Collins and Snowe will have significant influence with both parties as they make the difference in cutting off debate in the Senate - less so if the democrat circus clown wins the Minnesota seat. I believe that Arlen Specter,always quirky, has already decided not to run for another term - not good for the conservatives.

Your commentary was interesting and raised valid points about Senator Collins (and, by way of extension, Sens. Snowe and Specter). In no way do I agree with their decisions to vote for the “stimulus” bill, but, at least in the case of Collins and Snowe, I am not in the least surprised. This would be very consistent with the way the Senators from Maine customarily vote. Both of them belong to an old tradition of liberal Republicanism that has long been associated with the northeast, a tradition that at one time was the dominant wing of the Republican party (known during the time of the Goldwater campaign as the “eastern seaboard” wing of the party, prompting the late Senator’s flippant remark on one occasion that “sometimes I think we’d be better off if we could just saw off the eastern seaboard, and let it float out to sea!”

Back in the day, so-to-speak, there were many such eastern “liberal” Republicans in the Senate: Clifford Case of NJ, Jacob Javits of NY, Charles Mathias of MD, and Lowell Weicker of CT, to name a few (not to mention also James Jeffords of VT). Presidential nominees along these lines included Wendell Willkie (1940) and Thomas E. Dewey (1944 and 1948). This wing of the party has largely receded in influence within the party structure, having been replaced by the neo-conservatives who were given a large voice during the Reagan years. Philosophically, though, there is little difference between the old “eastern seaboard” Republican and the neo-conservatives. The specific voting patterns we see with people like Collins, Snowe and Specter tend to be a reflection of local realities, in terms of what is considered popular among the constituents (not that any of that makes it right or justifiable under the Constitution).

In any case, I would look to see these three Senators vote frequently as they already do with the Democrats. Meanwhile, although it is refreshing to see Republicans largely sticking together to oppose the “stimulus” legislation, it would do well to read between the lines as we follow what they are saying in the debates, and recognize that most congressional Republicans are falling well short of understanding what the real issues are, as they tend to get sidetracked by talking about certain outrageous projects that nevertheless amount to only a small part of the enormous amount of money being spent. The larger issue is that, even if every program could somehow qualify as a “simulus” rather than as “pork”, the total sum of the bill is what is so destructive about it (destructive especially of the value of our money). Most of the money of the “stimulus” will have to be created out of thin air, and once that money gets into circulation, there follows a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the government-favored banking and corporate interests. It is no less than theft and pure evil. Unfortunately too few Republicans are willing to state it this way.

One other comment I’d like to make has to do with political labels. The term “conservative” has been effectively hijacked by the neo-conservatives, and has also been associated with the “theo-conservatives” (also known as the religious right). Consequently, I have chosen to disassociate myself with the word “conservative”. I prefer “libertarian”, although that label is not entirely adequate, as there is quite a spectrum of views that gets presented as “libertarian”. Indeed, some libertarians like to use the word “anarchist”, but those of us who have studied history realize that anarchy presents conditions that invite tyranny. Liberty likewise can only flourish under the rule of law. “Classical liberal” would probably be a bit more to the point, but there are those who, sadly, would think that means along the lines of FDR and JFK as opposed to Jefferson. But I digress.