Republican Support For Obama’s Stimulus Plan

Obama might not have received hardly any Republican support for the Democratic stimulus plan in Congress, but that does not mean that Republicans were universally opposed. The New York Times points out that many Republican governors, who are more pragmatic out of the necessity to actually run a state government, supported the plan.

Obama has received some criticism by those who question why he even bothered to reach out to Republicans in the development of the plan. The support from Republican governors shows that moderating policies to be acceptable to more rational Republicans can still be of value, even if it doesn’t help with Congressional votes. Many of the Republican governors also expressed favorable views of Obama compared to George Bush. Although he also served as a governor, Bush quickly allowed extremist ideology as opposed to pragmatism determine his policies.

Even more important than the support of Republican governors, Obama can benefit from the support of people who voted Republican in the past. Some voted for him in 2008, and they are more likely to do so in 2012 if they see Obama as someone who considers their views as opposed to adopting the Republican policy of attempting to govern with 50% plus one, even if some on the left are displeased.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. 1
    nitish says:

    you mean people who on average have a 10% budget shortfall want free money from DC…?

    this has little to nothing to do with bush or obama, they’d take money from bernie madoff and blago if it meant not having to face budget cuts and tax hikes

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    That is consistent with them being more pragmatic as opposed to ideological.

  3. 3
    Holt Murray says:

    What’s are those elephants doing in the room? some GOP Govs back the O plan –

  4. 4
    Nitish says:

    i see “pragmatic” being the new code word for “unprincipled”…
    i have a feeling many obama supporters will be expressing that rationalizat–i mean, excus–whoops, sentiment often the next several years (lobbyists, 5 days of sunlight, iraq withdrawal, DADT,  rendition, car czar, etc)

    the problem with this pragmatism which pushes more towards political opportunism is that we as citizen-voters have little to no idea what these ‘pragmatic’ politicians will do at the next ‘opportunity’.
    seriously, what’s the point of all this campaigning and electioneering if we can’t know where these guys stand…?

  5. 5
    Ron Chusid says:

    I don’t see pragmatic as meaning unprincipled at all. Obama has been pretty clear as to where he stands, allowing for changes based upon circumstances at the time. To sign some bills without waiting five days, or to change from a single car czar to a group, is hardly a sign of being unprincipled. These sound far more like petty partisan attacks than real concern for principle.

  6. 6
    Holt Murray says:

    What’s are those elephants doing in the room? some GOP Govs back the O plan –

  7. 7
    Nitish says:

    “Obama has been pretty clear as to where he stands, allowing for changes based upon circumstances at the time.”

    telecom immunity, public financing, NAFTA, state secrets…. i had to stop listing policy position switches and looking for links because there are so many it would take too long.

    these switches aren’t simple ‘changes in circumstances at the time’ but rather diametrically opposed policy positions.  there’s plenty  more evidence and instances of obama’s own contradictory words

    bush 43 did this too  (nation building, harriet myers, medicare prescription drug plan, these are just the first that popped into my head) where his campaign rhetoric didn’t match his actions
    putting us/we (whichever plural 1st person pronoun is right) conservatives in a bad position often.

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:


    You can cherry pick words and give a biased description of his actions, but this does not make it so. Many of these claims from some on the left are based not upon Obama changing his position but from people having only a superficial idea of what Obama was really saying.

    You might disagree, and I’ve disagreed with some of his actions, but they are consistent with how he ran. He has frequently made it clear that he plans to govern more from the center, and that he is reluctant to take legal action against the Bush administration or those who supported their actions. His actions such as stopping torture but also opposing legal actions against those involved in rendition (as well as wire taps) is consistent with what he was saying as a candidate. Issues such as NAFTA are difficult to resolve and if you thought he had one definite solution while a candidate you were simply not paying attention. It is rather dishonest to even compare a strategic change in running a campaign such as on declining public financing to matters of public policy. It is also rather ridiculous to judge Obama as president compared to what he said as a candidate after less than a month in office.

    Unfortunately, while on the whole the left is far more reality-based and respectful of facts than the right, there are many writers on the left who also use Malkin-style logic in making their political arguments.

  9. 9
    Sammy says:

    I’m happy for the stimulus plan, I think it is a step in the right direction, but it’s still annoying to hear about people playing frivolous political games with our energy infrastructure, our children’s education, and really the future of the planet.  Just listened to a podcast  ( about a book from the progressive movement, talked about how we need to restore our faith in government, and how government needs to reform to be something we can have faith in.  I hope Obama can pull it off.

Leave a comment