Monday, June 29, 2009

Republican and the Cap and Trade Bill

There were eight Republicans that voted for the controversial cap and trade bill that passed Friday. Those Reps were:

Mary Bono Mack, CA-45
Mike Castle, DE
Mark Steven Kirk, IL-10
Leonard Lance, NJ-7
Frank LoBiondo, NJ-2
John McHugh, NY-23
Dave Reichert, WA-8
Chris Smith, NJ-4

On some conservative blogs, these eight reps are being treated as "traitors" and are being asked to leave the party. Not a good idea, conservatives. You really can't afford another eight Republicans gone, just over one vote. Dee, at Conservatism with Heart, has a better idea. If you are displeased (and in their districts), call them and let them know. She has links, phone numbers, etc.

I read a great article on this whole thing today on The Progressive Republican, which had some really great points on this whole thing. Basically, these eight Representantives represent districts that favored this bill (Chris Smith being the exception). The author of the article asks "...they were simply reacting to the demands of their constituents. Since when did it become unacceptable to do what one’s constituents want a member of Congress to do?"

Good point. These eight Reps are representing a district. They are supposed to do what is asked of them by their constituents, not their political party. Example: Mark Kirk's district, IL-10, was for Obama's plan 61% for, 38% against.

I wish more Representatives would actually vote on issues based on what their constituents want, and less how their political party's leaders (radio gods nonewithstanding) say they should vote.

By contrast, a quick survey of liberal web sites found no demands that the 44 Democrats who voted against the legislation be purged or punished in any way. This is why the Democrats control Congress and why Republicans won’t for a long time to come.


TAO said...

Oh, that is SUCH a novel idea!

I thought being a republican meant being a dittohead...

Time said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sandy said...

I love this post. They should all vote for what their constituents want - they are supposedly our representatives. And it happens in both parties. The Democratic Senator from our state has made some statements lately trying to position herself as a moderate (b/c that's what her constituency wants) and she is being threatened by They are basically saying, "hey, we gave you money, we got you elected, you better tow the Obama line on this health care bill no matter what your constituents want or we will find and support a "better" Democrat to beat you in your next primary." It's maddening!

bluepitbull said...

James, I really am getting sick of this time guy. He won't stop with the name calling.

James' Muse said...

Time: Please stop. I'd love it if you would contribute to the discussion at hand, not coming here simply to vent at another blogger. You've already ticked me off by insulting & attacking me over at Pam's blog. Please don't do it here.

Pamela D. Hart said...

James: This is an excellent blog post. Even though I'm not a fan of Cap & Trade, I totally agree that Senators should vote the way their constituents want. Like Sandy said, that's why they're in Congress! They are the voice of the people. So, if these 8 Republicans voted yes due to their constituents’ desire, then the other Republicans AND talk-show hosts need to back off and give them credit for doing the right thing.

James' Muse said...

Exactly, Pam (&Sandy)...I'm not sure how I feel about the cap and trade yet, as I really haven't had time to research it thoroughly. I've been quite busy lately. But I did feel that those Reps did the right thing in voting the way their constituents wanted.

bluepitbull said...

No, actually what they need to do is not get us taxed out of existence.

That's the bottom line. I feel I can comment now that there are no personal attacks. I'm back.

James' Muse said...

Yeah I figured you'd be back. I'm getting tired of the personal insult thing as well. I'm this close to moderating EVERY post; right now I moderate those over three days old.

I don't know enough (yet) about the cap and trade thingie. I've been busy. I was at a wedding all weekend in another state, and I've been training for the Police Entrance Test, and studying too, so I feel a little out of the loop on what it is. Maybe tomorrow I'll read up on it at my boring desk job.

I just thought that for once, the Reps did what they were supposed to. Listen to their constituents. I wish they would do that more often.

Time said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Time, you have attacked Pit on every board that I go on.
Give it up already, you are getting to sound stupid.No one here cares.
Get a life!

bluepitbull said...

Frank tends to be the Green Lantern of bloggers. He only reaches out when he sees injustice.

As I said....

I didn't come here to be attacked.

Cap and trade is a bill that will hamstring the taxpayers in the longrun. Even the people who helped draft the bill pushed it through at the last moment.

The one thing that United States citizens do not need at this time is more taxes. Not now, not in the future.

Pray for Shaw's sister and Shaw since she is most likely grieving.

Pamela D. Hart said...

Blue: Cap & Trade will affect EVERY family in the United States with MORE taxes because the cost will be passed onto us. There is more expansion of government and more loss of rights and privacy than ever before.

And yes, Shaw needs peace right now. She lost her sister.

James' Muse said...

Time: I'd love to stop deleting your comments. But you are bordering on trolling. Please stop coming here just to rant about another blogger. If you want to contribute to the discussion at hand, I welcome you.

James' Muse said...

From what I'm reading, I'm missing where it is a tax on individuals.

Can you enlighten me, please?

bluepitbull said...

James' Muse said...

That sucks. What they should have included in the bill is some sort of legislation making it impossible for the companies to simply raise prices or pass on the cost to the consumer to offset their carbon price.

Time said...

That's the point!

I did come to your blog, made a serious reply to your post, then I was unreasonably attacked, which you found funny.

No serious blog allows its serious readers to be attacked for no reason, or at least not say it was out of line.

So your blog is not a serious blog, only a place where your buddies can bully people.

James' Muse said...

Thanks Time. The only bully I've been dealing recently is you. Following me around from blog to blog, making accusations and hurling insults, trying to drag everyone into your silly vendetta.

I didn't find that funny, Time. I don't know why you don't get it.

Just. Drop. It. It's over.

Back to the discussion.

bluepitbull said...

Yeah, but James, how are the power companies supposed to stay in business when this happens if they don't pass on the hurt? That's how it works in any market. Someone steals something, the price of the item goes up to offset lost inventory costs.

The ultimate point here is that we don't need this regulation in the first place. The administration knows there is no such a thing as man made global warming, they hid the reports that proved it. This is just another way to take revenue from the citizens of this country. We could wait a few years and see how this works in Australia, the EU, Japan and others. The truth is that it isn't working out in those markets and emissions aren't lowered under this plan.