I am not convinced that being portrayed as the "Party of No" is a net negative. Proper parenting requires a setting of boundries for children.

"Pass the damn bill, Senator."

I am confused. Reid asked for "unanimous consent" and Bunning didn't give it to him. All Reid has to do is put it up for a vote and it wins 99 - 1, right? Do the Senators just want to duck responsibility? Please help me understand why it is not put to a recorded vote.

"Pass the damn bill, Senator."

NO! You have to start somewhere. And the state of the US deficit today is THAT EVERYONE IS GOING TO GET HURT SOMEWHERE, SOMETIME if the issue is EVER ADDRESSED.

Screw Harry Reid.

SER,

You're only confused because you think the purpose here is to pass legislation. For Harry Reid & other dems, it is MUCH MORE important to squeeze this of every drop of publicity they can get out of their friends in the MSM on what low-life, hateful, uncaring, cold-hearted bastards republicans are.

When they have squeezed as much publicity out of this as they can, then it will go up for a vote (and pass easily).

Sen. Reid has the key to unlock this impasse. The libs & LMS need to get on his case not Sen. Bunning.

You are reading this wrong. This is the "Emperor has no clothes" moment. All of the other Republicans should be joining this stand and doing the same thing on every other appropriations bill henceforth to draw attention to the out of control spending and the damage the Trillions the Dems plan to spend on Health care will do to our country.

It is high time somebody stood up and asked "how do we pay for this one?" And the Next One, And the Next One and the Next One. Maybe if we do it long enough people will start to take notice that the bridge is out and the Democrats are pressing on the throttle.

Have you ever seen Jim Bunning on TV before? Anybody? Beuller?

It's nice to see a Republican on TV, no matter what the reason, as long as it's not John McCain or Lindsay Graham.

We must stop spending so much money but not on the next bill or the one after that or the one after that one, etc.

Thank God someone finally said enough reckless spending. If you want to pass this bill then money needs to be cut from somewhere else. That is the way it should be instead of tacking it on another credit card.

If the Republicans are smart they will back Bunning and force the Democrats to cut somewhere else.

Yes the Democrat will make political hay out of it as they always do but if the Republican find a backbone they can turn it back against Democrats and benefit from it.

Screw the damn bill and the million people who have been on unemployment for 26 weeks, plus 72 weeks.

I think 2 years of collecting is enough. Time to get job at McDonald's or Walmart for the 10 bucks an hour or less they been collecting.

The spending of my unaborted grandkids yet to be earned money has got to stop.

I agree that the politics of Bunning's stand makes me nervous, and the media response, of course, just reinforces their absolute hopelessness in general.

But I find it hard to condemn Bunning for this.

It is stunning how much this kind of standoff reminds me of the show 'Intervention'. Ya seen it?

To the addict, the interventionist is... kind of a dick. HE's screwing everything up, HE's forcing the family to turn on him, making him "get on that plane today, TODAY, no argument, no more BS, none, we are DONE with you. Now. We aren't ofering any alternatives. Now." He is just plain mean!

And, ohhhh, how the addict screams. "The BETRAYAL of you all! How DARE you do this to ME?!?! Don't you understand the AGONY I go through when I stop taking the heroin?? You don't understand!!! WHY are you doing this to me?!?!" etc etc.

Any of this sounding a bit familiar in this issue?

Maybe Bunning's stand is bad politics. Maybe it is.

But the interventionist understands with crystal clarity why "Oh, just give me a couple days, and I'll let you know, I'm sure I'll go to rehab, just give me some time.....", why that ain't gonna fly.

There just comes a time. And if not now...

When?

Dude, there's a whole crop of things in this "emergency" bill that may not pass muster in regard to the whole PayGo thingy that they thought would look really cool to us so we'd think they were "Really Serious" this time. All they have to do is vote on it. What, it's too much trouble to go press the little button for a recorded vote? Aw. They're being asked to do just too damn much ain't they?

"Logic is pretty flower... that smells bad."

J.

Why did the Democrats pass a law "PAYGO" and Obama sign it, if the intent was to ignore it the first time it applied ???

I would play in that coerrupt game either. There are any number of ways to provide for the unemployed. Brweaking the law should not be one of them.

Bunning's stand is bad politics ??? Maybe it is just the first sign of good politica and we cannot recognize it!

Sorry Shawn, I just can't support you on this one. Bunning wants Paygo to be followed, and rightly so! I'm embarrassed that he is the lone Republican. If it's so important to pass this, then cut elsewhere to pay for it. Hey, why not use stimulus funds to do that - oops, sorry I forgot that is being saved to buy votes with in the upcoming summer and fall. Can't waste stimulus funds on that!! /sarc

Most of the people effected have probably used up the unemployment benifit. If you want to take away the ability of the liberals to point their fingers then you become the liberal. Jim has taken the stand to say you have money that was already ear marked for projects in the stimlus he cannot stop you from spending. Spend it before you ask for more credit. If people like you would be shouting this information from the roof tops, instead of berating people standing on principle; then maybe the liberals would go crawling back in the holes they used to live in.

Dirty Harry doesn't even have the balls to ignore one neg vote and pass the thing. What an inconceivable pathetic fool.

#15 Rich

Right you are. I think that is exactly why the dems don't want to spend any of that stimulus money. They will time it to look good just before election time. Then they can say, "look at us - saving the world." And that tactic will work with their sheeple followers that get their opinions from Comedy Central.

Hey HARRY!! How about liquidating some ill gotten real estate and helping out a few dozen citizens for a few years until Obamas gone??

No good goes unpunished, at least not on the cocooned Internet.

Fine. Pass the bill. Just strip out the pork first.

Every time I see a bill like this, I spit venom. The issue isn't COBRA benefits. It's all the self-serving crap that rides along with it.

Just once I'd like to see an in-depth analysis of the short history of this bill. Chances are, somebody's making money from it.

I remember several years ago, Denny Hastert, ex-speaker of the House, was pushing a new interstate extension west of Chicago. Turns out, he was a partner in a real estate firm that had been quietly buying up farmland in the area. It was just before he retired, but it never got any traction beyond the Chicago papers.

What do you want to bet this isn't what's going on with this bill? Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

It's not the turkey. It's the stuffing that smells. Follow the money, Mr. Woodward.

Nice to see BryanD playing the elitist card, (Just in case anyone has forgotten how superior he is)

The argument that so, so many innocents would be hurt by not going into debt is one that the left has used time and time again to get the U.S. to this point. Stating that a conservative should vote for more debt or he simply doesn't care enough? Lets be honest, such an argument would not be out of place on most any leftist blog. That fact alone should tell you all you need know.

Democrats and Republicans passed Paygo and Obama signed it. Obama said that Paygo was needed because if regular folk had to pay as you go, then the federal gov't should have to also. Paygo stipulates that bills that are passed must include a funding provision within them and Democrats helped to pass this bill because they wanted to give the appearance that they were going to be fiscally responsible.

Democrats put forward a benefits bill that they said was badly needed, but they hypocritically did not include funding for it, as they apparently did not want to go by the rules that they imposed upon themselves. Democrats and the MSM then demonized Sen. Bunning for opposing the bill because while he was saying that there was no funding provision for this benefits bill, they cast him as being heartless nonetheless.

And that is their strategy...

Democrats are sending a message that when they put forward a bill that they say is needed badly by Americans and that bill does not include funding for it, those who want to take a stand against that bill on the grounds of fiscal conservatism and fiscal responsibility (or take a stand for whatever reason) had better get ready to be demonized as being heartless.

If Democrats really cared about the folks that they said badly needed this benefits bill then they would have put a funding provision within the bill. Instead, Democrats wanted to use regular folks as pawns. Sicko Democrats.

Wiki says quote is from Murphy's Law. Believe as much of that as you want to. ;)

Bunning is simply insisting on his right to vote "no". Why is that a problem? Just because "unanimous consent" is usually granted doesn't mean it HAS to be. He wants a vote. So vote already.