OpenCongress Blog

Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds

Exemplary Republicans on the Stimulus

February 11, 2009 - by Donny Shaw

Following up on my list of exemplary Democrats, here is a list of the seven Republican Senators who voted with the majority of their party (against the assumed administration position) on all 29 roll call votes regarding the stimulus:

Sen. John McCain [R, AZ]
Sen. Saxby Chambliss [R, GA]
Sen. John Isakson [R, GA]
Sen. Michael Crapo [R, ID]
Sen. James Risch [R, ID]
Sen. John Thune [R, SD]
Sen. Orrin Hatch [R, UT]

The Democratic amendment that picked of the most Republican support was Sen. Maria Cantwell’s (D-WA) S.Amdt.274, “to improve provisions relating to energy tax incentives and provisions relating manufacturing tax incentives for energy property.”

Like this post? Stay in touch by following us on Twitter, joining us on Facebook, or by Subscribing with RSS.
 

Comments

  • Anonymous 02/12/2009 4:45am

    Why do they even give these guys face time?

  • Anonymous 02/13/2009 10:13am

    But, you know what? These guys are all hypocrites. They only do this when there’s a president from the opposing party. They did NOTHING during 8 corrupt years of the Bush administration.

    Sorry, these guys aren’t heroes. They’re “heroes” for political purposes.

  • Anonymous 02/13/2009 10:15am

    It’s actually sickening that you refer to them as “exemplary”. These same guys helped trash America during the Bush years.

  • Comm_reply
    donnyshaw 02/13/2009 11:23am

    hmm.. I meant no partisanship here. I meant to use “exemplary” as in definition #3 according to Dictionary.com:

    hmm.. I meant no partisanship here. I meant to use “exemplary” as in definition #3 according to Dictionary.com:“serving as an illustration or specimen; illustrative; typical”

    hmm.. I meant no partisanship here. I meant to use “exemplary” as in definition #3 according to Dictionary.com:“serving as an illustration or specimen; illustrative; typical”Now that I’m looking up the word, I see that other might take it as meaning #1:

    hmm.. I meant no partisanship here. I meant to use “exemplary” as in definition #3 according to Dictionary.com:“serving as an illustration or specimen; illustrative; typical”Now that I’m looking up the word, I see that other might take it as meaning #1:“worthy of imitation; commendable”

    hmm.. I meant no partisanship here. I meant to use “exemplary” as in definition #3 according to Dictionary.com:“serving as an illustration or specimen; illustrative; typical”Now that I’m looking up the word, I see that other might take it as meaning #1:“worthy of imitation; commendable”Words are tricky, though I probably could have chosen a better (more precise) one here.

    hmm.. I meant no partisanship here. I meant to use “exemplary” as in definition #3 according to Dictionary.com:“serving as an illustration or specimen; illustrative; typical”Now that I’m looking up the word, I see that other might take it as meaning #1:“worthy of imitation; commendable”Words are tricky, though I probably could have chosen a better (more precise) one here.

  • busyb213 02/13/2009 4:12pm

    hmmm…

  • DJJ 02/14/2009 8:17pm

    It’s time to foreclose, pay the “piper” and start over, and be accountable for our poor stewartship. Maybe we can clean it up before our children are left holding the bag.

    The other matter: Read information I found on the below websites. Is thias true? If it is how can we trust Mr. Obama and you guys(SCOTUS, House, Senate, FBI,CIA, etc) with something as massive as this when you and he can’t cleanup simple matters from like simply providing a righteous response for a simple request to confirm Mr. Obama’s natural born US citizenship status. Ratherthan simply put this to rest by sending the information requested, I understand Mr. Obama and others named in lawsuits around the country have hired several powerful law firms requesting dismissal and to seal access to all of Mr. Obama’s records(vault copy of BC, college records, immigration records, medical records, ect.). I bet that costs lots money. Why not spend a few bucks and just provide the information? Would that clear the matter up amnd build trust in everyone.

    Before you say it, let me ask: Since when was “FactCheck.org.” Appointed offical vetting agency for the election process?

    In Texas, I understand the plaintiff’s request for dismissal used was that they have “Official Immunity.”

    This gives me great faith and trust in my President & everyone that did not demand his accountability!

    I understand Pelosi, Howard Dean and the DNC are responsible to make sure these matters are properly perfomed? HAs anyone asked them? I also understand a Phil Berg of the Democratic Party advised Mr. Obaqma he was not elligible way back when he first considered entering the race? Then why are there still lawsuits and hush by the Mainstream media? And the Subpoena from Occidental(see below)?

    Mr. Obama can very simply put this to rest as he did the concerns of Rev. Wright. He didn’t get attorny’s to resolve that matters? Is he hiding something?

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/

    A new lawsuit is being prepared by a California attorney who already has four cases pending over the issue of President Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy to Oval Office, and this one will include a demand from state lawmakers who forward state funds to Washington for documentation of his qualifications.

    Orly Taitz told WND today that she’s preparing the complaint but is holding onto it and will file it shortly to give state legislators a chance to join the action as plaintiffs.

    Four already have signed up, including state Rep. Eric Swafford of Tennessee, who agreed to be a plaintiff “for a Writ of Mandamus to obtain original birth certificate, immigration records, passports and other vital records for Barry Soetero aka Barack Hussein Obama.”

    Taitz told WND the case also probably will include members of the military as plaintiffs, since both state lawmakers and military officers are obliged to follow orders from the president of the United States and both have a need to know those orders are legitimate.

    “In the military, those would be unlawful orders, and [following them] would subject the officers to courts-martial,” she said. “In the legislatures, they cannot follow any of his bills or orders … they don’t know who he is.

    “As far as we know he is a foreign national … Why should state legislators send any funds from the state to a foreign national?” she said.

    “While we are working on the complaint, I’m gathering support from different states,” she said.

    Other sites with information:
    http://www.colony14.net/id41.html
    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/senator-alexanders-office-has-forwarded.html
    www.obamacrimes.com
    www.wethepeoplefoundation.org
    http://www.yourfellowcitizen.com/
    http://www.theobamafile.com/
    http://www.actforamerica.com/
    http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/g3.xml
    http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualifications/1244/

Due to the archiving of this blog, comment posting has been disabled.