I keep hearing Republicans attempt to make the following points:
*
Democrats aren't being bipartisan. In fact, according to John McCain, Americans are more concerned that the bill is passed in a bipartisan way than the actual content of the bill. I don't have the exact quote, but he said if the Democrats "pick off" a few Republicans to get the bill passed, Americans don't want that! Americans want the bill to be bipartisan!
* There's no hurry. Congress shouldn't pass the bill until everybody, everywhere, has had a chance to weigh in. Keep working until it's perfect. What's the rush?
*
The Numbers. Are. Amazing. Shocking. Never Before Seen. $900 Billion!
Let's all step into the time machine with the dial set to "2004."
From the January 23, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle (emphasis mine):
Congress finally finished last year's spending business on Thursday, sending the president an overdue, $820 billion [Edit: OMG!!!!!] measure that finances most of the federal government as well as thousands of home-state projects sought by lawmakers.
The approval came despite serious disputes over provisions regarding food labeling, media ownership, school vouchers, new overtime rules and other issues. But Democrats, unwilling to engage in a showdown that could cause a government shutdown, signaled they were ready to let the measure become law after stalling it earlier this week. It was approved 65-28 immediately after the Senate voted 61-32 to cut off the filibuster.
"It is time to move on," said the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, who indicated he had his own reservations about elements of the bill. "You do the best you can."
Back in 2004, what was the hurry?
Members of Congress were also reluctant to let the spending proposal die since it contained what one group said were more than 7,900 "earmarks" for individual local projects valued at nearly $11 billion. "The thousands of earmarks in this bill provided enough political grease to squeeze this porker out of the Capitol doors," said Jill Lancelot, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
From the January 20, 2004 St. Petersburg Times:
A vote on whether to cut off debate is scheduled this afternoon. Should Democrats block the measure, Republicans say, it would set the tone for another year of the bitter partisanship that tainted the last session.
So if Democrats want to debate, they're being bitter. If Republicans want to debate, they're being bipartisan. Got it. It's another case of IOKIYAR (which I had to google earlier this week because I'd never seen the acronym before-- but seems to be prevalent lately).