The Trouble with Post-Partisanship
I'm wondering how the honeymoon ended even before the sun came up. As Steve Benen writes apropos the current stimulus blues, "the White House lost control of the debate." The Republicans are nickel-and-diming the bill, stalling, getting the microphone as if they're the sole patriotic heroes left standing, and the White House can't really explain to the country what the trouble is. Mike Tomasky thinks Obama ought to get out in public and fire people up. I think he's right. Jeanne Cummings at Politico writes shrewdly about some of the organizational problems Obama's team has faced in adjusting to the White House. But I'm guessing there's something else awry.
The trouble with post-partisanship, which is Obama's preferred style, is that we have partisanship for reasons that haven't gone away. A big one: Republicans think the market works. Obama, who scores whenever he goes public and honest (cf. Jeremiah Wright Philadelphia speech, cf. taking responsibility for "screwing up" on Daschle), seems a bit, or more than a bit adrift, reluctant to blow the whistle on their intellectual feeblness and pettiness. Since the Republican holdouts can filibuster the Senate, he's evidently trying to peel them away one at a time. What he gets in return isn't clear, though. I wish he would go public, explain what he's doing, and put the onus on Republicans who, after all, let the economy collapse "on their watch." If he wants to share a bit of the onus with some House Democrats, too, for porkifying the package, fine.
The alternative to wooing Republicans kiss by kiss is forcing them to wheel out the cots and filibuster in earnest. But evidently this isn't his style. He should fire across the Republican bow.
I don't even think that the bill has really been porkified. But it'd be nice for Obama to say something like this:
"Stop being children. If you take a few things out of the bill, fine. I'll still sign it. Just get moving. If you don't take them out, all the better. If you take something out that I want, we'll put it in another bill and pass it without your help. Now get to work."
February 5, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exackly, Destor!
It's all pretty simple when you are engaged in the right enterprise (fixing the economy) while everyone else is playing politics.
Republicans! Tax cuts. free Market. Trickle down. The people are aware of where this has all gotten us, and so it is ludicrous for them to now be defining the debate by promoting more of the same. Obama should very nicely tell them to shove it up their ass, get outta' the way, and let the grownups take over.
February 5, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't have to be "porkified" to give the impression of being such.
Doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to spin this partisan move into a democratic party who is out of control and drunk with power. Not saying the spin is correct, but even a little bit of foresight on the part of Pelosi and Reed could have avoided all of this nonsense.
As usual, these guys are their own worst enemy.
February 5, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Jason, they could have done that differently. Obama is the best thing that ever happened to the dems in congress. Now we get to watch and see who are the ones smart enough to see that and use it well. The rest I would like to see out of office. We got the best man in the job we could have right now and those brats are kicking each other under the table.
February 5, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously. Great points.
I am hoping the larger picture emerges as the final bill comes out of Congress for Barack's signature. Perhaps our new president counted on long-standing democratic notions of over-reach, which gives him the appearance of being conciliatory over things he never really wanted in this bill to begin with.
I can already see this coming back to haunt Congressional republicans in their primaries next year, but if incumbent democrats aren't careful, they may learn first hand that 2008 wasn't just about repudiation of republican policies.
February 5, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. And I might go a step further. The election wasn't so much a repudiation of Republican policies as it was a repudiation of the Bush Administration. Congressional Dems haven't been real popular since they took over the store.
Ultimately, it was the economy that brought the election home for Obama. That's why he's trying so hard to achieve at least the appearance of consensus on stimulus.
February 5, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good point.
Only 32-percent of the electorate consider themselves democrats. Another 40-percent have no true liberal ideology and instead identify as independent of some sort, which includes many progressives. Republican make up the remaining 28 percent.
There is a case to be made that "centrist" positions are actually the majority position and many think a smart mixture of "conservative" and "liberal" measures is needed to both fix the economy as well as our politics. It is to the new generations coming up to not make it about democrats versus republicans anymore. It has to be what works versus what doesn't. That way we can all be friends even while still maintaining principled stances for our preferred solutions.
Of course, I am sure some poor culture warrior will stumble in here and call me an appeaser or a corporatist or whatever other paranoid fantasy I attribute to wide-spread and chronic Post-Partisan Traumatic Stress Disorder.
February 5, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd consider myself a good illustration of your argument. I'm a lifelong Democrat who has voted, infrequently, for Republicans at the local level. Not South Carolina Republicans, mind you, but those encountered from time to time in previous lives.
I'm liberal on social issues but consider myself a fiscal conservative. Not because I subscribe to crackpot notions of individual economic freedom, but because I think balanced budgets are sound policy.
I'm in favor of massive government intervention in this economic crisis, primarily because it's the only available option. The tax cut lunatics are being dangerously irresponsible, but I think moderates of both parties who would rather see the focus kept on job creation should be listened to. Not caved in to, but listened to.
Funding for the arts? Absolutely. Birth control for single mothers on Medicaid? Yup. Just not right now. What we need right now is good jobs paying a good wage. Lots and lots of them. Way more than the private sector is able to or inclined to provide, at least in the short term.
February 5, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said and ditto.
February 6, 2009 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is the value of firing a shot across their bow if they know that is where it ends?
Obama's professorial passivity thus far only encourages more bad behavior on the part of the Republican right who have demonstrated amply that partisan warfare is what they do and the associated rancor is their forte. Obama's handling of the stimulus bill thus far is a carbon copy of the many Democratic congressional capitulations we have seen in recent years a la that tower of strength and leadership Harry Reid. The longer Obama waits to flex his presidential muscles on this bill, the more strongly he will have to do so because the Republicans at this point are just laughing at him and daring him to do something about it. They feel quite secure that he won't do much, if anything, about their open bad-faith efforts to gut the President's legislation and bring the nation's economy even further down.
The bottom line on the whole fantasy of "postpartisanship" first of all is that there is no such thing in the real world. Even if postpartisanship were an attainable goal, it still doesn't work and cannot work when you have only one party being postpartisan. The President needs to open a case of whoopass and get things back on track. He has the public backing. All he needs to do is act.
February 5, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
only encourages more bad behavior on the part of the Republican right
Suckers!
Prez is a counterpuncher. Watch for the left cross. The Pugnants have just about finished setting themselves up in dutiful response to precisely the *encouragement he has been giving them.
*When you see this encouragement, remember:
He is not stupid.
He is not a punk.
February 5, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama is making the adjustment you and Steve Tomasky are advocating, Todd.
To those who are already expressing "disillusionment" with Obama I would say sheesh, the guy has been in office two weeks! He's shown himself a lightning fast learner consistently.
I don't think it was a bad idea reaching out to the Republicans (although of course some Republicans are happy to deny there has been any receptivity to their suggestions so far on stimulus package content). Heck, give it a shot. If some will come along and contribute constructively, that's all to the good. At least he can show that he reached out to the opposition and tried.
I suppose an armchair response is to lament that he didn't go to the public for a week or two first before inviting Republicans to contribute constructively rather than after most had declined. Well, okay, fair enough, and surely easier to see in retrospect. He's trying to move money--help and hope--out asap at a time when a lot of people and communities are getting creamed. I'm grateful that he clearly "gets it".
February 5, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry--that should have been Michael Tomasky.
February 5, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Congressional republicans aren't the only ones who think the markets work.
All of Obama's brain trust on finance think the same thing and will most likely implement progressive changes within the existing system as they move forward. Making this into some sort of ideological battle rather than a game of finesse and gamesmanship is a simplistic way to view what our challenges are.
Adding a bunch of ideologically-driven nonsense to the bill because you have the votes is just the sort of "childish things" Barack warned us to put away in his inaugural address. Hollering for "tax cuts" independent of specific proposals is just as childish. Rewarding either camp with prognostications from the Bully Pulpit is not in Obama's best interest.
The only ones who look like fools in this are Congressional representatives of both parties who will have to answer to voters in the 2010 primaries.
February 5, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chess games that are being played for a draw seldom generate excitement in those following the contest. Everyone knows that the only thing interesting that can happen is an outright blunder that leads to a loss or, worse, that one of the players changes their mind in mid-game and starts to play for a win. I say worse because in the latter case the feckless contestant can only win by luck and the commentary will fairly conclude that he lacked real chess acumen. Either way playing for a draw does not inspire and does not advance the art of chess.
And so it is with Democratic politicians. They have been telling us for years that if they just do nothing they will increase their chances of someday “playing for a win.” And so they sit in their comfortable ambivalence while the audience dozes off. I think Obama might want to play for a win but the dye is cast and this game is going to bore most observers into lethargy. A few may check their email looking for a more interesting contest.
February 5, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Fire across the Republican bow?" I'm thinking he might want to fire into the Republican bow, the stern, amidships, then set that leaky tub alight, hold the lifeboats back a bit and let the Republicans feel the cold water of reality before he pulls those who decide swimming is better than posturing out.
Bipartisanship is a nice concept and I think it might even be successful if Republicans were playing the same game, but they're not. Obama offers his hand to a band of unrepentant cutthroats who laugh at human suffering, who dismiss history and science and anyone who doesn't share their tax-cut idolatry.
What good is "bipartisanship" when the partisans you pull out of the drink work furiously to sink your ship?
Perhaps the President believes that unconditional love will eventually warm the curdled Republican heart, that someday they will join him in good faith to cure the American malady. I suppose it could happen, but I think a show of strength, of unflagging commitment to resolving the disaster that threatens us all (a commitment that brooks none of the clown-act that Republicans have been sabotaging the process with) would make more sense than Obama's perpetually outstretched hand of welcome.
Obama said it himself in his inaugural speech, "It's time to drop the childishness." Republicans will continue with their childish hijinks until they are made to pay for them, and only Obama can make them pay.
-Ted
February 5, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
tbucklin,
I agree. I wonder how long it will take Obama to realize that the modern day Republican party he's reaching out to are the worst of the ideologues.
Good luck reaching out to the likes of DeMint, Kyl, Vitter, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, John Boehner, etc.
How many Repugs in the Senate can Obama actually have an effect on, 3 or 4?
February 5, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
tbucklin - you forgot the 'strafe the survivors in the water' part after sinking the GOP Tub.
February 5, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except, of course, what you are really advocating is that Sailors serving on the port side start shooting the Sailors stationed on the starboard side. Not the best strategy I have heard to ensure the ship of state makes it to safe harbor.
February 5, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Depends on the situation, actually.
February 5, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really. We are all on the same American boat and shooting the other people because we don't agree with them is suicide. Notwithstanding that the neocons have done it for all these years, there is no such thing as political identity when the ship is at general quarters. Time for liberals to live up to their core values, which have never included shooting people as far as I can tell.
February 5, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. The Republicans are trying to sink the ship. You don't negotiate with this kind of person. If you're feeling generous, you lock them up until the ship reaches the shore. If you're not, you throw them overboard.
I'm not sure what you think the liberal "core values" are, but I am sure that they don't include letting the country fall into a Depression just to feel all gentle and tickly about themselves.
The Republicans hate the American people, they hate democracy, they hate justice and decency, and if Obama tries to cooperate with them, the ship will sink. The only way for him to do his job is to ignore or crush the Republicans. If he doesn't, we all go down.
February 5, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liberal core values don't include language that advocates killing the opposition, which includes at least 45 percent of your fellow citizens.
Your type of hateful rhetoric will not help Obama continue to enlarge the governing majority he started to build in the 2008 general election. Obama certainly doesn't agree with your take on this country and who is trying to sink the ship.
That a line of crazy captains got their hands on the wheel these last forty years is not in dispute. That rank and file republicans working in the boiler rooms are somehow responsible for their subjugation? Ridiculous.
February 5, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume you are familiar with the concepts of metaphor and simile. If so, you should no problem understanding the use of such devices in political rhetoric.
Obama has a governing majority now, which he is squandering by playing nice with his enemies over what is probably the most important legislation of his entire presidency. You call my rhetoric hateful. That's fine. I call it accurate. You say Obama doesn't agree with it? Reaching agreement with Obama was not my goal.
If the rank and file Republicans are not responsible, who is? Who voted for Republicans? Who swarmed to the Republicans as they adopted racism, greed and cruelty as the main planks of their platform? Who chose the local committeepeople, the county chairpersons, the up and coming local and state legislators in the pipeline to Washington? Who loved Sarah Palin more than John McCain? Who, right now, gives goons like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner the ability to obstruct progress? The answer to all of these questions is: rank and file Republicans.
Don't infantilize these people. They had a choice. They chose wrong. They did harm to the country. They are responsible. If Obama should succeed in saving this country, rank and file Republicans will get to free ride on that. But don't pretend that they wanted it all along. They want what they voted for, and if Obama doesn't get moving, they're going to get it along with the rest of us.
February 5, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simile and metaphor are fine if they aren't loaded with hypocrisy and historically inaccurate rhetoric that does nothing to help deliver the goals you apparently hold so dear. Pissing in the mouths of everyday Americans because they were stupid enough to believe their "leaders" is self defeating.
Don't pretend that Obama has been running the democratic party all along. The democrats haven't had progressive leadership since Carter was stabbed in the back by Teddy Kennedy.
The democratic party was the left-hand side of our slide into fascism these last 28 years. They gave Reagan everything he wanted. They institutionalized special interest politics just as much as the GOP did.
The democratic rank and file and all those independents decided to not vote or to not hold their representatives accountable as well. Bill Clinton built the stage and primed the audience for Baby Bush.
It's time for ALL of us to knock of the histrionics and figure out how to fix this bag of shit the previous generation is handing to the rest of us. Yes, perhaps a little anger is justified, but to direct it in such fury toward a single flawed portion of systemically shitty system is intellectually dishonest.
Further, it is in direct contrast to Barack's example and makes a terribly difficult job damn near impossible.
February 6, 2009 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't blame Ted Kennedy for what happened to the Democrats during the eighties and nineties. He was attacking Carter from the left. Rank-and-file Democrats are responsible for the party not being the left-wing party it should have been all along. But many Democrats stood up against that. Thousands of left-wing Democrats were years ahead of the rest of the country but got swamped by moderates and collaborators.
The dynamics have been totally different for rank and file Republicans. Left-wing Democrats had no viable party to move to when the Democrats became too conservative. But Republicans had someplace to go, and chose to remain a part of the anti-democracy movement. That is a very different sort of decision than the one faced by Democrats over the last thirty years.
Direct and truthful rhetoric, not soft-hearted fairy tales of bipartisanship, is exactly what is needed right now. This is still a democracy. In a democracy, the people get what they want one way or another. "Everyday Americans" were responsible for Nixon, and for Reagan, and for Bush. It is literally their fault that we are where we are. Voters are all grownups. They are responsible for the outcome of their actions. It is impossible for real change to occur if we insist that any voters are passive victims. They're not. People who voted for Republicans are the central cause of what we are seeing now.
Disagreeing with you or with Barack Obama is not "histrionics." This has become a standard tactic of intra-party battle regarding Obama -- claiming that anyone who doesn't think Obama is perfect is "panicking" and so on. I could just as easily accuse you of being in denial, but I won't -- you're just wrong, that's all.
Lastly, "it is in direct contrast to Barack's example?" Really? We are supposed to be following the president's example? This is really incredible. Personally, I'm not on a first name basis with the man. I don't expect Barack Obama to set an example. I expect him to do his job. So far, he hasn't done it.
February 6, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barack's job is to run the country for every citizen, not give every far left ideologue a hard-on for the next four years. His strategy is one of healing our political divisions, which might take more than two weeks. You can choose not to take that lead, but seems a little self-defeating given the fact that the democrats elected him.
Sounds like you really wanted Dennis Kucinich to win, which I can appreciate even though I don't think he was the right man for the job. Speaker of the House maybe or Majority Whip.
I am not even going to comment on your long, historically inaccurate screed. Suffice it to say, Congressional dems played the Roman Senate to Carter his entire term and rather than supporting a pragmatic and progressive conservative democrat, they set their party up for 28 years of dominance by the Rapture Right.
Jimmy Carter could have just as easily developed a coalition around the same groups of people Reagan did, but in the cause of building a sustainable future. The Leift Wing sabotaged the man and took us down a very dark road.
You seek to blame the entire country who isn't far left - all 75% of us. How is that for "liberal" arrogance and conceit? You would know how to be a true progressive if God himself came down and explained the Golden Rule.
Same as it every was.
February 6, 2009 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama cannot heal our political divisions. They are not wounds. They are a normal part of human interaction. People disagree. Some positions cannot be reconciled to some others. Some positions are right, and others are wrong. I am not interested in being brought together in harmony with people who think Sarah Palin should be president. I am interested in defeating them so badly that they become politically irrelevant for the next hundred years. There is no common ground.
It is never wrong to try to move the country in the right direction. We would have been better off with Kennedy as president than with Carter. Thus the battle took place at the 1980 convention. Carter won. Then he was beaten by Reagan, so we know that didn't work out. Some American Democrats picked Carter, and then some American voters picked Reagan. The American left picked neither. In your view, this makes Reagan our fault. Ok.
Among Americans there are a variety of viewpoints. They are not all equally correct. Some of them are correct, and some of them are wrong. Obviously, I believe that left-wingers are right and everyone else is wrong. I expect any rational person to believe the same about whatever positions they take. If I didn't think my viewpoint was right, I would not have that viewpoint. Politics is where we fight it out to see whose viewpoints we will proceed on the basis of. I want to win. The Obama approach seems to be to win only if we can be nice while doing it. That is not going to work.
And I'm certain God is not going to appear to argue for your position.
February 6, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. We would have been better off with Carter being supported by his party in Congress. Your inability to treat your fellow citizens with respect will make all of our jobs more difficult.
You are like the kid who threw the game board across the room rather than playing nice. Babies and bathwater come to mind as well.
Kennedy has yet to really get anything done in all his decades in the Senate. Oh, this and that around the edges, but nothing truly transformational. The only thing transformational that happened on his watch was the country being shoved all the way to the right.
Your blinders keep you from truly seeing what is right in front of you. Good luck with living life with such an enormous chip on your shoulder. Us adults will go ahead and fix the country despite your inability to live up to your stated principles.
February 6, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
What we would have been better off with is a left-wing president with a left-wing Congress. You blame Kennedy for what the voters did. The Democrats could have picked Kennedy over Carter in 1980, and the outcome could not have been worse than what we got -- but it could have been better, if an actual liberal were elected.
You see your fellow citizens as children, at the mercy of politicians who magically find their way into office on their own. I choose to see my fellow citizens as adults who make decisions that are right or are wrong, and I expect them to take responsibility for those decisions.
This is not a board game or a nice warm bath. It is a war. The goal is to win, not to achieve some sort of self-validation as a team player. I'm not sure what your goals are, but winning doesn't seem to be your primary goal. I do know that if "adults" think like you do, we're done for. There is only one way to save this country and that is to turn leftist positions into laws. Anything else is defeat -- a defeat with the consequences measured in lives.
February 6, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kennedy took it to the convention. Had zero to do with the voters.
I see my fellow citizens as dupes, playing the tune of equally shady politicians on both sides of the aisle. You see the world in black and white where the democrats are the good guys and the republicans are the bad guys.
This is not war. It is pluralistic society. You are a sad, frightened little person with an inability to think outside the box or to remove your ideological blinders. You sound every bit as unhinged as the most rabid Limbot.
Forgive me if I don't want to "play" in your partisan world where all good republicans report to their liberal indoctrination camps. Kind of like the ones FDR created for the Japanese- and German-Americans but more Orwellian in scope and focus.
February 6, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying this blog article expresses outright panic, but it does seem to be leaning in that direction.
I do agree that it's time for Obama to show more leadership.
February 5, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Concern is not panic.
February 5, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you think of his little speech tonight, as a 'shot across the bow'?
He basically stopped pussyfooting around about "could maybe" and said "will" as in
if we don't do X, the shit WILL hit the fan, folks.
What concerns me about "concern" are two things: Concern trolling, and Brownian Motion. I'm not attributing the former to you.
Sometimes we get so close, so microscopic, that we loose track of the larger picture. There is a lot of apparently "random walk" which can look like aimless drift up close but which resolves to patient pressure.
February 5, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The trouble with "post-partisanship" isn't that Obama is practicing it so much as that the Republicans are getting away with calling Obama and the Democrats partisan, and not being called on their own partisanship. The fact that not a single House Republican voted for the stimulus can only be explained by the fact that they are engaging in concerted, partisan, collusive behavior. So if Obama wants to get some movement on this, in addition to the suggestions already made about what he should say, he needs to call them on this. A bipartisan bill is only possible if both sides are willing to even admit to the possibility.
Furthermore, he should insist on a quid pro quo for any more Republican-initiated changes to the package. He should say to the Republicans -- I am not going to consider any more suggestions from your side unless they come with a guarantee of support by a majority of the Republican caucus.
February 5, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
For good reasons, the Republicans see the Democrats as weak and prone to vacillation.
They're now testing the new kid on the block, Obama.
When the Republicans simply threaten filibuster, Harry Reid whines about not having the votes rather than allowing the Repugs to be seen filibustering on C-SPAN and on the nightly news.
As this is happening the Dems and Obama would flood TV with people criticizing the obstructionist Republicans. Let the voters in the red states see their Senator obstructing the help they need.
Reid, Dick Durbin (he of sobbing apology on Senater floor) need to be replaced. Hoyer, and "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi need to
stop the money grubbing, it only enslaves them.
February 5, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure about the last paragraph but the first three are right on. For it to work, the public mobilization campaign needs to come first, though.
February 5, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry Summers is a toxic asset.
February 5, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
February 5, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It might help if liberals actually supported Obama on this instead of whining over every one of their pet ideas that didn't make it into the bill.
I'm starting to see why so many Americans think Republicans are better at getting the job done, even after 8 years of the most incompetent administration ever. Look at how they hang together in Congress, while we Dems bicker.
February 5, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have something of a point but how do liberals get behind a leader and effectively support him if he won't get behind his own bill or listen to the liberals but instead bends over backward trying to please the enemy and essentially hands the destiny of the legislation over to the Republicans?
The President's naive idea that some sort of comity can exist with the Republican crazies in Congress is a major problem that is hobbling his most important piece of legislation significantly. Every liberal I can think of is squarely behind the President and his effort and the few things that have been mentioned by liberals that would certainly improve the bill and make it more effective are a damn sight more constructive and supportive than the Republican and Blue Dog/centrist efforts to diminish the effectiveness of the bill and run the President's efforts aground.
February 5, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely Oleeb.
February 5, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack's not playing to Congressional republicans - he's on rank and file conservatives at home.
If you think that trench warfare for the next four years with republicans will pull our ass out of the fire, you've have been paying attention for the last 28 years. One bill, no matter how important or comprehensive or "liberal" is not going to fix this country overnight if it is designed in a couple months.
You're advocating checkers strategy for a game of three-dimensional chess.
February 5, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't look now but it's the Ben Nelson types who are undermining Obama by enabling the Republicans. If Obama would take strong progressive stands, he wouldn't have any trouble with his base.
Don't look now, but Obama is extolling the virtues of faith-based b.s. and appointing a Pentecostal to waste money promoting more of it. Change? What a joke.
February 5, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congressional Democrats and Obama = Stockholm Syndrome.
February 5, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any money for therapists in the bill? There should be.
February 5, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
President Obama has written an Op-Ed piece in today’s Washington Post where he states his case for the stimulus package. He went on TV today, speaking at the Department of Energy, where he again stated his case for the importance of the stimulus package. What he’s NOT DOING is saying, clearly and simply, just who are these enemies of the stimulus, these folks who would rather see the country fail and fall further into a massive depression. HE IS NOT SAYING THAT THEY ARE REPUBLICANS. He is using the euphemisms of politics as usual, or lack of bipartisanship, or far too much partisanship. Millions of us didn’t vote for you, didn’t vote for change, to hear platitudes and euphemisms. This is clearly war, a war declared by the Republicans in the Senate and the House led by their Viagra-crazed fatboy, Rush Limbaugh, on the middle and lower classes and the working class and the working poor and the poor and the underemployed. And if you’re going to fight a war one of the first things you must know before going into battle is this – KNOW YOUR ENEMY. Well, folks, we know the enemy – the REPUBLICAN PARTY. Now we need our President to say it. We need the Senate and House leaders to say it. Over and over again, on television and radio and in newspapers and magazines and on the internet. Everywhere. To borrow a paraphrase from Walt Kelly’s Pogo, We have met the enemy and he is not us. HE IS A REPUBLICAN.
February 5, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I share the feeling that there is a needless element of panic in the current debate. Obama rolled out the big PR blitz today. This bill is probably going to be passed by the end of the week. It's massive. It's filled with lots of great stuff. It's going to help. And it's getting done very fast. When's the last time a president passed a $900 billion bill in less than 30 days? Most of the debate is just over which specific deficit-increasing Keynesian injections to apply to which of the economy's many trouble spots.
And they've apparently fought of the Blue Dog challenge to shrink the bill. Obama and the Democratic Congress are delivering, oh ye of little faith.
February 5, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's big mistake is believing that members of Congress think first of their country and only later of themselves. The average member of Congress thinks only of himself, which means he is dedicated to getting himself reelected at any cost.
When you recognize that basic fact, then it is ludicrous to expect a senator from a solid Repub state to do anything to help the Democrats fix their blunders of the past 8+ years. Doing so would guarantee the loss of their seat in the Senate. Surely we can remember what happened when FDR successfully lead the country out of the Depression. You may forget, but I can guarantee there isn't a single Repub senator who forgets.
One more point: Either we are in dire straits here or we aren't. If we are, the Democrats and Obama are duty bound to get a stimulus bill passed ASAP. If we aren't, we shouldn't even consider such a massive increase in the national debt. The half way approach being taken now is insane.
February 5, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's big mistake is believing
I think you have fallen for the "Bambi" meme.
He is not a schmuck
Whatever he projects to be his belief, know that in his heart he is about to shank the motherfuckers. This is all set-up drama. He particularly will eschew credit for the shanking. Alas, we will be deprived of the pleasure of watching the strafing, but we can enjoy watching the floating debris when it's done.
February 5, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Theoretically non-partisanship is great and practically as a rhetorical device to put the onus on the Republicans it is great but in reality given the current situation it is a disaster. What Obama has to grasp is that the goals of the two parties are different. Republicans are for a subservient populace that is terrified and willing to do the bidding of leaders whether from the local fundamentalist church or George Bush. Democrats are looking for a healthy econonmy where people are independent and stand on their own two feet but where there is a safety net for times such as these, where people address the difficulties the world currently faces forthrightly. Rahm Emmanuel says a disaster should not go to waste. The Republicans have always held to this. See the attack on Iraq. From the viewpoint of the neo-cons this is a great time to futher undermine the independence of the people of the United States and if the economy has to be dammed to to do this so be it. How can one bargain with someone who has the stimulus bill down as for anti-gravity chairs?
February 5, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe it is even theoretically great. Ideas matter. Priniciples matter. It matters if you believe in the rule of law. It matters if you truly believe all people are created equal. Nonpartisanship may be reduced to nothing more than amoral expediency.
February 5, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm beginning to wonder if this is a part of a Rope-a-dope strategy. Let the R's punch themselves out early. Foreman thought he was cleaning Ali's clock for five rounds. He got KO'd himself in the 8th. It's still the early rounds. The R's are landing a lot of punches, but are they having any effect? After all the wailing in the House, the bill passed more than 95% intact. Don't be surprised to see much the same thing happening in the Senate. He needs a handful of Republican votes to get it passed, so concentrate on winning those and let the rest wear themselves out to no effect.
February 5, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we could have predicted that the Republicans would be out there showboating, given their highly theatrical behavior during the TARP votes.
But, I can't quite throw the feeling that these dogpatch Congressional Republicans--and even the whole fight over the stimulus bill itself, in some sense-- is a distraction from the underlying issue that produced the problem the stimulus bill is promoted as being able to fix.
I spent some time today, reading up on our finance sector BS. This is just the last article I read, but here's the "real" post-partisanship, it seems to me, and it comes in the form of putting yourself above the law: http://www.truthout.org/020509M
Are we going to see "the Democrats" dealing with that? Or is it "just throw some cash (but not too much) at their pet projects and shut the idiots up"?
February 5, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
So pathetic, going to the "liberal indoctrination camp" smear. A typical right-wing tactic. I said nothing about camps or indoctrination. It's you who thinks people are indoctrinated. You see people as helpless children. I see them as adults who know what they want and act accordingly. Your attitude is quite dangerous. It could be used to justify anything -- after all, we're just doing it to protect the poor, trembling American voters from themselves.
And comparing me to the dittoheads! Oh me, the agony. I'll say this: Rush Limbaugh and his fans know what they want and they're willing to fight for it. Are you?
I wonder why you are so fixated on Kennedy. Kennedy got quite a bit of support at that convention. He obviously would not have bothered if he didn't know he had that support. But the Democrats at the convention chose the more conservative candidate, which was a mistake, and then the voters as a whole chose Reagan, also the wrong choice. But, yeah, the voters had nothing to do with it. Reagan just walked in there and declared himself president. Truly remarkable.
You're a fool if you don't understand that politics is war. Fundamentally incompatible factions are competing for finite resources. There are winners and losers, and every win for you is a loss for the other side. It is unpleasant and often ugly, but it is how we make collective decisions in a pluralistic society. The alternative is literal physical conflict. To avoid that, we have governments and we have politics. You can have political war, or you can just have war. There are no other options.
You know what's sad? What's sad is that you and I probably agree on most of the political issues before us. The difference is that you refuse to stand up for anything but your own image as an even-handed, mild-mannered good citizen, whereas I don't think politics is about me. It's about the society, and the decisions it makes. Society can only follow one path at a time, and some paths lead to peace and prosperity, while others lead to violence and deprivation. You can try walking in between somewhere, but that always leads back to authoritarianism.
February 6, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink