The "No" Vote

Earlier today, I posted this on the Twitter:

It provoked a bit of discussion the Facebook comments that ensued, but I think my comments were kind of misinterpreted.

In case you hadn't heard, Obama passed an economic stimulus bill without a single positive vote from a House Republican. Here's a link to the Wall Street Journal's version, and Here's a link to the other side, courtesy of Reuters UK. Depending who you ask, one of two things happened today:

1. The Republicans either threw a temper tantrum or got in a pissing contest with the Democrats, and they all secretly agreed to vote "no" to stick it to Obama.



2. The Democrats totally steamrolled the Republicans because they knew they could get the bill passed and there's nothing the Republicans could do about it.

I think it's a little of both, but either way, I think it's bad for America. If it's door #1, that's not the attitude we need in Washington. We've had enough vitriolic politics lately, and even if Obama's olive branches have been mostly symbolic, they're a step in the right direction. We need to get back to the place where the House members can passionately debate the issues, but still all meet up at the bar afterwards for a drink on the taxpayer's dime.

I think #2 is even more dangerous. Say what you want about Bush's second term as president, but for most of it he was working against a Democratic House and Senate. While Bush definitely didn't concede much to the Democrats, he at least had to have them involved in the discussion; with things as they are right now, Pelosi doesn't even have to let the Republicans in the building.

Most of recent political history seems to be the two major parties taking turns disappointing everyone—I just hope the Democrats get their share of the blame when they inevitably screw things up like the Republicans did.