Repeat after me: (Most of) the GOP does not want the stimulus to work
I hear a lot of talk about whether Obama's governing approach can be 'bipartisan' if a good number of Republicans don't vote for his Stimulus Bill. But that dubious point seems to be obscuring a more obvious and telling reality: the Republican leadership in both houses has decided that it's in their political interest to oppose the Stimulus Bill no matter what.In the most cynical of evaluations, it's not clear to me that they're incorrect. If the stimulus is judged a success, their political gain from adding more votes to what will be seen as Obama's bill will not be that great. So they're figuring that only failure will work for them politically; and they judge that they want Obama to own it entirely.
One can pick apart the political ethics of their stand, but the reality of it is clear. They want to criticize as many provisions of the bill as possible, push for as many non-stimulus inducing tax cuts as possible at the expense of spending on infrastructure, and then vote against the final bill en masse. I think it's possible Obama will get a smattering of moderate Republicans in the senate. But that is the Boehner/McConnell approach -- and the one few if any reporters seem to have the wherewithal to say out loud.
Thank you. The Republicans have no idea how to get us out of this economic mess, so they have only one political gambit left: make Americans believe that government intervention is even worse than the current shitstorm. Tagging along on a stimulus bill that works might be an ok consolation prize, might help some of them get re-elected. But if you're a Republican, right now this is what you're thinking: "If giant government spending and regulation fixes this problem, my entire political ideology and reason for being is undermined." Of course they don't want this to work.
If Obama and his team think that Republicans aren't that craven, they haven't been paying attention the last eight years. And I know they have been paying attention. So I'm not sure exactly what the strategy is here.
Greg Sargent wonders too:
One quick question about the politics here: Do Obama aides actually believe such gestures will win over Republicans? Perhaps, but it's also possible that such measures are all about laying the groundwork in advance to blame GOPers and paint them as partisan obstructionists if and when most of them vote against the stim package, which they appear likely to do, no matter how many concessions Obama grants.
Well good god, I hope it's the latter, because the former would be naive and foolish. But even if it is the latter, I would ask David Sirota's question: How much should taxpayers have to pay for political aesthetics?
Hey, you know what would be great? If Obama and his team realized the Republicans weren't going to vote for this anyway and then took back the sweeteners they put in it for them. Let's go with the Paul Krugman/House progressive caucus version of the stimulus bill - restore the mass transit funding, the contraception funding, and make it even more ambitious.
Great idea. Do you think they'll do it? It would make me very happy. And it would make John Boner absolutely limp.
January 27, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew you were an educated woman CVille Dem, but I didn't realize your disipline was economics.
Educate me? What economics theorem are you adhereing to in which contraceptives play such a key role? Okay, I didn't think so.
First of all, it's folly to call this massive vote buying , pork laden, decifit spending bill a 'stimulus'. Obama's problem is, he know it isn't either.
He HAS to have GOP support for political cover. If repubs vote against it en masse, the congressional majorities he now enjoys are toast in 22 short months. He and his ilk wish to destroy this country with socialism, but they realize that at present, even with the help of ACORN, we still have free elections.
January 28, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you ever make a point without it being a polemic?
There is very little "pork" in this bill and doing nothing is clearly not an option. All republican representative can do by standing in the way is hasten their defeat in the 2010 primary elections.
Offer alternative, more conservative solutions to the problem if you like, but one way or another this country started building a progressive future on January 20 at noon. The republican party can either modernize to meet the demands of the 21st Century or they can face a massive decline in membership over the next eight years as all the moderates flee for more independent shores.
I don't care which, because either way I attain my vision of a new, more intelligent and common sense focused party for progressive conservatives. One that seeks to find inspiration in its early leaders in order to determine the direction of its future platform.
January 28, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the contrary.
Doing nothing is the VERY best thing to do now. Smart money says this little recession is halfway over already. We've already had a more beneficial stimulus than money can buy. And it came from that all powerful king of all economies; the marketplace.
Have you noticed, jason, that a barrel of oil is going for around $35? Have you noticed industrial metals prices have fallen through the floor?
That you could call this king of pork barrel spending bills a 'stimulus' shows me you and I don't even share a common ground on which to discuss the subject.
January 28, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Herbert Hoover couldn't have said it any better.. and the country never regretted throwing him out on his ass, either, whilst we got the recovery rolling.
Repubs just never seem to learn.
January 28, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you look, way, way down Pennsylvania Avenue, you should still see Hoover, bouncing along on his ass, wondering what happened.
January 28, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Herbert Hoover made the mistake of intervening in what would have been a two year recession with government spending. The recession worsened and the charismatic Roosevelt defeated Hoover in his reelection bid on that economic issue.
Roosevelt's solution was even more massive government spending and the economy then nosedived into a depression. But he never intended his spending as recovery.
He invested the money strategically insuring his reelection and entrenching his party in power. Starved thousands of children to death, but that is a price socialists are more than willing to pay for increasing their control over the American people. What we see in Obama's 'plan' is nothing but a replay of the New Deal.
A few thousand children dying a death by starvation is tragic. But when socialists gain enough control, they begin killing millions they feel are in their way of even greater repression.
Witness the more socialist societies of the twentieth century. The National Socialists of 1940s Germany, the Socialist Republics of the 1930s, Chairman Maos socialists of the 50s and 60s, and Pol Pot.
January 28, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's some actual history for you. Feel free to confirm by watching the Internet and using the Google.
The great stock market crash of October 1929 is generally considered the start of the Great Depression.
The market's low points all happened between 1929 and 1932. In fact, in July '32, the market reached its lowest point of the entire 20th Century.
The problem with pinning this on FDR? He didn't take office until six months later.
January 28, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dhhh,
Thanks Boyd. I didn't realize the dow was the sole indicator for depression condition. Now you've really simplified things for everyone. Good Greif!!!
January 28, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then find one indicator that supports your position. Just one, that's all I ask for. Well, that and a link that supports your indicator, as I don't trust your "facts".
January 28, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, spric, you would think you could at least produce SOME evidence that Roosevelt "plunged" the country into a Depression.
Because I can produce plenty of evidence saying that the New Deal, while not a universal success, certainly played a major role in the country emerging from the Great Depression.
Then again, spric, we all know that evidence isn't your strong suit.
January 28, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure Boyd, always glad to be of help,
This is the best direction I know to point you. It's 'FDR's Folly' by Powell, ISBN 0-7615-0165-7
you're welcome!!!!
January 28, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw, c'mon, spric, you can do better than that.
James Powell? The Cato Institute's James Powell? The ultra-conservative think tank? Sure. They'll also argue that SDI was the reason Clinton was able to balance the budget.
And to think that, just a short time ago, you dismissed evidence from the NBER as being overly partisan (despite the fact that perhaps the leading conservative economist in the country agreed with them).
Yet, you are enough of a hypocrite to cite a hyperpartisan like Powell. Appropriate for a winger, though, so at least you're consistent.
January 28, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure if renaye is spric or not but it is large coincidence that she appeared right when he(?) disappeared. Maybe she ate him for dinner.
January 28, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Justin Wilson might say, "Ah gar-awn-TEE it's spric!"
January 28, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wilson would also say "Tastes like owl!"
January 29, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't like the Dow as an economic indicator?
Then consider that GDP growth* (for the years that figures are available) averaged -9.3% year-over-year during Hoover's Administration, +6.2% during the Pre-War years of the Roosevelt Administrations, and +15% during WWII. And I suppose you can cite some real data from some non-ideological source to support your position.
Right?
*Source: https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
January 28, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Renaye and facts are like vampires and garlic.
January 28, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like it! Good observation!
January 28, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's funny stuff.
January 28, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That you would point the price of oil as an indication of the economy recovering is spurious at best and lacking in intellectual honesty. The price of oil in the US is kept artificially low via numerous shady means. Kind of like the price of Big Macs.
The American "marketplace" is nothing more than a compendium of competing special interests trying to peel dollars off the federal wad. We have been locked in a corporate welfare state for at least the last thirty years. Until that essential issue is solved, nothing you write will have contextual relevance.
That said, you still offer no viable alternatives and instead serve up sad old neocon talking points.
January 28, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice.
January 28, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think the recession is ending because prices are falling?
Economics is clearly not your discipline, either.
January 28, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you see the price of oil falling 500 percent as anything other than a positive development for our economy, we likely don't share the common ground necessary to discuss the issue.
January 28, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that we lack common ground to discuss the issue.
Market prices are about supply and demand. (Not only about that, but there's a major correlation.) Sharply falling prices indicate sharply falling demand.
If you think sharply falling demand means the recession is almost over, we can't have this discussion. Let's wait and see, shall we?
January 28, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm... I'll bet you think Sarah Palin knew what she was talking about too!
January 28, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
In what respect, Charlie?
January 28, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
With no Republicans voting for the bill this afternoon, why not amend it in conference and do it right? I see absolutely no downside and all upside.
January 28, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope they do. As long as repubs stay united to a man, the dems are wearing this thing around their necks. Zero political cover. Standing naked out in the open waiting to be picked off in 2010.
The dems are in a bind now. Even their fawning media can't gloss this one over!! The repubs have won round one for sure!!!!!
I look for several of the more vulnerable dems to start defecting when the more scandalous contents of this bill become well known. The pusillanimous dem leadership is being exposed as I type this!!!
January 28, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are aware that there are more REPUBLICAN seats up than Democratic seats in 2010, right?
You are aware that most of the country wants some sort of solution for this problem to come from Washington, right?
You are aware that the GOP is tilting with a very large, 68%-approval windmill, right?
Your fellow Republicans are taking the only political shot they have. They're holding an inside straight flush draw on the turn against a guy who flopped a boat. If that draw doesn't get there on the river (i.e.: the stimulus fails completely), the GOP will be up the creek as they have to somehow explain voting against economic recovery.
And the best part is, no matter what happens, GOP will now stand for "Goofy Obstructionist Party" in the minds of the voters. You may want to take a long, slow boat ride the first week of November 2010. Don't take any communication devices with you.
January 28, 2009 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It'll be obvious well before November 2010 as republican incumbents fall like dead wood they are so bent on imitating. While many seats may not go democratic in November, I expect GOP moderates to send a more talented republican team back to Washington at their next available opportunity.
January 29, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I meant to say the incumbents will fall in the 2010 primaries, bringing a more moderate and progressive opposition party to Washington come November.
January 29, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is not this something? Radio pundits, republican pols all crossing their fingers that this country stays in a depression, praying that millions more will lose their homes and their jobs.
Talk about sour grapes. They will have some trouble, getting the Christian Right, or most of it, to pray for human suffering in the name of political power.
January 27, 2009 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really think they will ask for church members to pray for human suffering? These guys are not that stupid. They will preach to their flocks to pray against the socialistic menace that would provide health care to the unworthy.
Their voices will rise up against the heathens who will bring the evil of birth control to the masses who are dying on a daily basis of starvation and thirst --MAKE THEM SUFFER THE LITTLE CHILDREN!!!!
Chris Matthews said that providing birth control and abortion services to the third world "sounds a lot like China" (where there is FORCED abortion because there is a one-child only policy.
The rhetoric is appalling. You can justify anything to anyone if only the person to whom you are doing the justifying doesn't bother to think.
January 28, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have a good point CVille but I catch five or ten minutes of Robertson in the morning once in awhile and this guy who was praying for the death of Supreme Court Justices five or six years ago is talking real nice about the New President.
Propaganda by people like Hegel or whatever that fathead calls himself or Dobbs will not cease.
But Robertson's reactions since the election and their little news time really surprised me.
January 28, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no nice way to say this..... if you let them, they will fuck you! If the Dems do not get this right then the cons and the fascists will rise again to make the rich richer and stomp down the little people for another generation. It is a no brainer to me to make the stimulus as progressive and common sense as possible and success will reward the Dems and bury the cons for a generation. Compromise will yield only small successes and curse us with this damned debate over and over and over again.
When Bill Clinton put his economic package together there was not a single Repub vote to be had. Clinton gave us a small moment of relief from the rich get richer and the economy boomed for everyone. We need to do it again only BOLDER and never let compromise with stupidity and greed to slow us down again.
January 28, 2009 6:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Au Contraire my dumb, misguided friend.
Bill Clinton's socialist ambitions were stymied by Newt Gingrich and his heroic '94 landslide which gave us the prosperity of the Clinton years despite the feeble efforts of the Marxists.
See? This is EXACTLY the replay the dems wish to avoid.
January 28, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually not. The Gingrich Congress may have had some good ideas that got them elected, but they failed to execute on each and every one of them.
Both Gingrich and Clinton were beneficiaries of the coincidence that they happen to be in power when Information Technology came into its own. Both failed to mess up badly enough to derail the economy, but neither did anything to put it on stable footing and eventually led us to the place
we are today. They are both responsible for a whole host of ills that the Baby Bush administration simply made worse.
We are at the tail end of a forty year depression that has seen the average American family go from one income to needing two or three jobs just for the basics.
January 28, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason,
You need to read your last paragraph. I bet that's a little more over the top than you intend to come off.
January 28, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It says exactly what I meant to say. All the statistics are out there if you do a little research.
Average wages have flat-lined and as income distribution has concentrated at the top of the ladder. As wages stayed put, everything else that matters has risen in cost - housing, energy and food - forcing people to take a second and sometimes third job to make ends meet.
I am happy that your life hasn't necessitated such a drastic and painful measure. I haven't had to either, but our lack of personal experience with being a member of the working poor doesn't make the facts go away.
Sounds like you need to get out more or at least expand your reading materials.
January 28, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, yeah, yeah,
You only missed it by 12 percent. Closest I've seen you get. Wages in real terms peaked in 1972. Not 1968. They've been in decline since for three reasons I'll cite below.
1. Labor unions have priced our industrial base out of the country. Please, don't even argue this point.
2. MASSIVE welfare spending instigated by democrats has saddled us with a breathtaking debt we have to service. This debt service is strangling our economy.
3. Unionization of public school employees has ended our preeminence in education, depriving the country of an educated pool of workers essential in a modern post industrial economy.
January 28, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You missed all the real bad guys in your ideological hatred of "liberals" and "socialism" rather than the true culprits.
1. Unions are certainly a part of the problem, but the lack of a real national pension and health care system are the real culprits, not to mention globalization and over-paid MBAs who deliver very little value for their outrageous salaries.
2. MASSIVE corporate welfare has straddled our country with huge amounts of debt thanks to Saint Ronnie and Uncle Bill. The Military Industrial and Prison Industrial Complexes ushered in by both administrations, though the trends started much earlier under both parties, are the real culprits.
3. Again, unions are certainly part of this problem, but the real culprit is a lack of a coherent national strategy and funding for education from the federal level. Add in increasing rates of poverty at every level of society and the problem is one that won't succumb to talking points. The American voter, for not holding our "leaders" accountable, is the real culprit.
Blinders are only good when you want to get some sleep.
January 28, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me address that part of you comment which made my hair stand up. That being your advocacy for a 'national pension'. I realize we come from different backgrounds, and likely the cause we find ourselves at ideological odds.
But other than communicate with you on a blog, all I want to do with you is leave you alone. Like, not shun you or anything like that, but keep my nose out of your business. I respect your right to mind your own business more than you I'm afraid you would ever believe.
You see, I believe if you feel you might need some means in your old age, that as a assumably capable adult you would take care of that matter in a way that suited you best. And without my meddling, interference, or even advise unless you solicited it.
But you don't have the same respect for me. You wish to employ the power of the government to have me conform to your wishes. You can't imagine how threatened I feel by the designs you have on me.
January 28, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice black and white view of the situation, but groups of people band together to get better deals and more bang for their buck all the time.
Perhaps you have heard of the stock market?
Why should the millions of people with zero hope of being included in a group pension plan from their employer not band together as citizens and enjoy a real retirement instead of a fake safety net provided by SSI?
You are all for privatized profits and socialized losses for businesses, yet you would deny your fellow citizens the right to a decent retirement by pooling their resources. That is not only hypocrisy but it isn't even the most efficient use of our resources.
You are in the leave 80% behind because they need a hand crowd. You believe that success done alone is somehow more righteous than that attained with a helping hand. Of course, you forget that there isn't a single person in the country who attained their success alone. That is the nature of society - individuals aligning their fates to gain benefit from economies of scale.
Seriously, crack a book every now and then. I know you listen to a lot of talk radio, but shock jocks are idiots. They don't do their research. They are paid to offer opinions, not facts.
January 28, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look Jason,
I'm not some hard hearted bastard who would deny someone with a disability government supplied maintanence.
Yeah, people organize and form partnerships, corporations, churches, all kinds of enterprises. Those organizations are voluntary. I have the freedom to make my own decisions as to whether I wish to join them. And that is contingent on their right as to whether they would want to admit me. I believe it's called freedom of association.
You want to manipulate the power of government to force me to do things. I hope you can understand why I would resent you wanting to curtail my freedoms of self determination.
January 28, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I want to take programs that we are already spending billions of dollars on and make them more effective for more people and cost less money.
Your hard heartedness will be up for other to decide, but for me it is hard to come to any other conclusion when you clearly hate the obligations of society while freely enjoy its benefits.
January 28, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet your favorite book is 'the sour grapes of wrath'.
January 28, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we should pay attention here, The righties are scared to death that Obama will succeed. They are reaping the fruits of hyperpartisanship. They have been living in a paradigm where politics is war and their side is getting their ass handed to them. They expect from us what they would do to us if they were victorious.
If we become hyperpartisans, [as much as I want payback] someday we will be in the same place the right is today. And we could find ourselves in as awkward a place as they are.
I have heard some pols of the past lamenting the acrimony in the congress today. A common thread with these folks on both sides of the aisle is that when the republicans were in charge they shortened the work week in congress so they worked Tuesday thru Thursday. So most of the congress people don't have their families in Washington. In the old days democrats and republicans had their kids in the same schools and went to church together and basically had personal relationships where they were not defined by their party. Hard to demonize someone when you are sitting next to each other cheering your kids on on the same little league team or taking communion together.
CSPAN is another culprit. Now they can see what's going on on the house and senate floors without being there. Without public funding of campaigns, they almost have to be in their offices raising money all the time and only go to the floor to vote. They have very little chance to sit stand around a create relationships with the other side.
I think Obama is breaking some things open with these meetings with the right wing pundits and the republican congress people.
He is doing the unexpected and when confronted by the unexpected, people come up with new ways of being.
God knows we can use some new ways of being in Washington.
January 27, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't have to wait around for that day to come, the Democrats have been in that position quite a bit the past 30 years and have never been cut a break. When we know they will never return the favor what is the point of doing it other than to look nice? If the effort yielded something positive it might be worth it but it never has and it never will.
January 28, 2009 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I get what you're saying. I just think it would be a mistake for us to have the republicans to be our teachers.
January 28, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, failing to take responsibility for failed tactics and strategies when it comes to the democratic party.
Maybe democrats "have never been cut a break" in the last thirty years because they never took a moment to go beyond positioning their ideas as self-evident truths and instead demonized anyone who didn't agree or asked for clarification or even offered an alternative complimentary solution.
There is a reason that the democratic party has lost membership these many decades and it has nothing to do with your political opponents.
January 28, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
But what you give is not the reason.
January 28, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think there is no correlation between falling democratic rolls (mostly to the ranks of independents) and the way they have pursued their stated goals? That was the primary reason I never considered myself a democrat, notwithstanding a mostly progressive mindset.
January 28, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
correlation is not causation, Jason.
I stopped reading your reply when I got to that word. "reasons" are about causality (of whichever kind).
January 28, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way you split hairs leads me to believe you have a bright future as a politician or a stylist.
Highlighting the correlation between the democratic party's inability to succeed in attaining its stated goals and falling numbers of democrats over the last thirty years as a percentage of the electorate is a statement of causation as well.These aren't mutually exclusive terms.
January 28, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are totally different notions for most well-educated folks.
I didn't take your implication (that it's primarily causal) because I don't agree with it, or it doesn't agree with me. Call it hair-splitting or call it rigorous thinking. Whatever.
January 28, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Most well-educated folks" would have noticed the bold word in the definition I provided for correlation that calls it a CAUSAL analysis.
"Most well-educated folks" also don't spend so much time telling other people how well educated they are. Such things should be self-evident.
"Most well-educated folks" know the education level of the person they are attempting to belittle before they make such asinine remarks.
January 28, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relationship"
1/4 (of the option set) is not dominant, Jason, and since reciprocal relationships can be inverse, the "causal" meaning you may have intended was wide open to interpretation or even counter-interpretation.
You bolded one word, but again, that would have been your preferred implication as I already said.
Maybe there's too much crossover from your "sophistry" blog here?
You have not stated a basis to justify that the apparent correlation is primarily causal (did I miss it?). You may have wanted people to think you meant "causal", and that you could justify that meaning effectively, but your replies tell me you want to play sophist first.
Case closed.
January 28, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not an either or set, despite the use of the word or, so there is no quarter of the set. Every term is considered 100 percent accurate when talking about that particular definition. Then again, there are three definitions to choose form so take your pick.
As I explained, more than once, that a history of failure at attaining their stated goals can easily be considered ONE REASON why democrats have shed membership over the last few decades. A sloppy and ill-defined platform, a history of capitulation and a lack of coherent, long-term strategy would also be on a list of reasons.
The GOP lost about the same percentage for the exact opposite reason. They were all too effective at imposing fringe ideologies, thus forcing all their moderates to look elsewhere for a political identity.
As usual, you describe everything in black or white terms. Either this or that but never a third or fourth. It is an intellectually dishonest way of debating as well as an overly aggressive stance that is meant to prompt like responses.
Sorry to not respond in kind and thus justify your mendacity.
January 28, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Case closed."
Your appeal is rejected (as are your added distortions).
January 29, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant riposte. Been watching Boston Legal again? That sounds like some crazy non sequiter that William Shatner might make.
January 29, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your God Damned right Miller! For once, but of course for the wrong reasons. It has not one thing to do with our opponents. What it has to do with is who we made friends with and who we started treating decently which was African Americans and other minority people in this country. It's racsim you moron and it has been at the very heart of the Republican ascendancy. There is a direct correlation between the success of the major civil rights bills and the disappearance of southern Democrats and the peeling off of ethnic Democrats in the rest of the country. Racism was the backbone of GOP dominance and no other issue even came close. Now, with Obama we have hopefully broken that backbone for good.
Once the Democraticy Party strongly sided with the civil rights movement and started treating black people like human beings who are and ought to be equal citizens the scumbag Nixon allied himself with the racists of the south mainly but all over the country. Don't take my word for it. Look at the shameful history of the Republican Party, their tactics, their rhetoric and their sickening appeals to white racsim over the years. Yes, there were other factors but this was the critical one without any question at all. The Democrats could have wrested control from the Grotesque Old Party anytime they chose to do so if only they had gone back to the racist, segregationist ways of the past. But thank God they didn't. It has been a long time we've waited to let the nation catch up but they have.
"Now is our time!" Who said that? Our leader. The time of the GOP has passed. Fuck em!
January 28, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, racism is the one-word explanation for all that is wrong with America. Must be easy to see things in such simple terms, totally devoid of historical accuracy or context.
The rest of your screed and old-fashioned framing is just so much hot air on the warm summer day that is our changing country. You think that the failure of one ideology is somehow indicative of Americans being willing to embrace another.
I am optimistic enough to believe that we won't simply throw one ideological Jihad for another.
January 28, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
As my mother used to say:
"You can't tell the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground!"
You are woefully uninformed, small-minded simpleton full of canned, right wing hooey. Your Rush-like response demonstrates in crystal clear fashion your willful ignorance. If you got your head out of your ass long enough you might notice the reality all around you. If you knew anything at all about the political history of the United States in the last 50 years you would be ashamed to repeat that right wing BS.
January 29, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are not only wrong about me and all of my positions, but you are too full of ideological hatred to see it.
Perhaps one of these days our president's example will rub off on his still suffering partisan warriors. You have political PTSD that taints your perceptions and remain among the minority here at TPM on this particular issue.
It is kind of sad, actually, though I am sure my recognizing that is some sort of insult as well.
January 30, 2009 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, again you just don't get it pal: it's you and your boneheaded, sophomoric arguments along with your dunce's lack of information about history.
Read the following excerpt from The Daily Beast smart guy and then offer up your idiotic sophistry in response:
"The votes against Obama’s stimulus package came from a Southern confederacy of Republicans and conservative Democrats. Their message to America? Drop dead.
"On Wednesday, January 28, 2009, President Barack Obama’s $819 billion stimulus plan passed the House of Representatives, despite the solid opposition of the Confederates.
"By the Confederates I mean the Republican Party and their allies among Southern conservative Democrats. The battle in Washington is not between liberals and conservatives; it is between the Union and the South.
"The Republican Party that voted unanimously against the stimulus bill is, in essence, the party of the former Confederacy. In the House of Representatives, there is not a single Republican representative from New England. In the U.S. Senate, there is not a single Republican from the Pacific Coast.
"The battle in Washington is not between liberals and conservatives; it is between the Union and the South.
"The Republican congressional delegation is disproportionately Southern. Half of the four congressional leaders of the Republican Party are Southerners: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Virginia). (Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl is from Arizona and House Minority Leader John Boehner is a relic of the dying Midwestern wing of the GOP). The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Mike Duncan, is from Kentucky. Half of the candidates for the RNC chairmanship are Southerners: Duncan himself, Katon Dawson, chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party, and Chip Saltsman, former chairman of the Republican Party of Tennessee. (The other three are Michael Steele of Maryland, Ken Blackwell of Ohio and, Saul Anuzis of Michigan.) If you think most GOP spokesmen on TV seem to speak with a drawl, you’re not imagining things.
"In addition, a majority of the 11 House Democrats who voted against the stimulus bill are Southerners or from states that border the South: Bobby Bright and Parker Griffith, both of Alabama; Gene Taylor, of Mississippi; Heath Shuler, of North Carolina; Jim Cooper, of Tennessee; Allen Boyd, Jr., of Florida; Frank M. Kratovil, of Maryland; and Brad Ellsworth, of Indiana. (The other three are Walt Minnick of Idaho, John Peterson and Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania.) Congressman Boyd, a prominent Blue Dog Democrat, was the only Democrat to support President Bush’s bill to partly privatize Social Security, which he co-sponsored. Appropriately, his 2nd Congressional District in the Florida Panhandle near Georgia and Alabama includes Dixie and Calhoun counties.
"Do you see a pattern here?
"The vote about the stimulus package was not about economics. It was about nullification. It was the bipartisan Confederacy sending a message to the rest of America, stricken by the greatest crisis since the Depression. That message? DROP DEAD.
"Those who think that the Democrats could have won over more Republicans by making more concessions do not understand the neo-Confederate/Dixiecrat mentality. There was no one to bargain with on the other side. The Republiconfederate “alternative”—a joke of a bill consisting almost entirely of tax cuts—would not be taken seriously by any mainstream conservative economist. It was pure provocation.
"The rest of the country needs to understand. This is not the nation-minded Republican Party of Lincoln and McKinley, Eisenhower and Dole. Nor is it the party of Herbert Hoover who, if he were alive, would be denounced by the Southern Right as the flawed but public-spirited Progressive he was. No, this is the party that was hijacked after the civil-rights revolution by former Democrats on the Southern far right. Its spiritual ancestors are the old states’ rights Southern conservative Democrats, like John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis and Strom Thurmond and Orval Faubus. The slogan of the segregationist Democrats—“massive resistance”—characterizes today’s Southern conservative resistance to necessary federal economic action, just as it inspired yesterday’s Southern conservative resistance to equal rights for black Americans.
"The new Republican Party is a strange version of the old Democratic Party. It's the Dixiecrat wing without any other wings. The morphing of the Grand Old Party into a Southern-dominated faction goes back half a century to the so-called Southern Strategy to win a slice of the Southern vote in the Electoral College. Under George W. Bush, it would have seemed that this strategy reached its climax. But after the utter repudiation of Bush's presidency and the experiment with conservative Republican Party rule, the congressional Republicans left in the rubble are turning even more to the right—and the South."
Here's the link for the full piece:
January 30, 2009 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the link disappeared and I don't know why but here it is:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-29/the-south-rises-again/full/
January 30, 2009 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the end of an old era not the beginning of a new one. Quoting a bunch other people who can't see the forest for the trees hardly bolsters your argument nor does calling me names.
You are confrontational, irrational, bigoted, unreasonable and generally a piss-poor excuse for a person with the Golden Rule as their supposed compass. You clearly exhibit symptoms of a the latest addition to the DSM IV. It's being called PPTSD - Political Partisan Traumatic Stress Disorder.
If I was you, I would take a long hard look in the mirror before I engaged in speaking with other people.
January 30, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are a nitwitted simpleton who joined the Republican Party in August for God's sake! How naive, foolish and stupid can you be boy? You are a tiresome dittohead.
January 30, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet, it is you who are using nasty, provocative language rather than offering logical and reasonable counterpoints. Somehow, I don't think most people would agree with your characterization of me or my "ideological" stands on the use of labels in our political environment.
January 30, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If giant government spending and regulation fixes this problem, my entire political ideology and reason for being is undermined." Of course they don't want this to work.
Ya think ??? Abso-f***lutely they want it to fail..big time. Because if it works, their brand is worse than ten day old fish left out in the sun.
So yep...the republicans will do what ever is necessary to monkey wrench it.
Lets hope the dems aren't naive enought to think that they won't.
But I ain't holden my breath.
C
January 27, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would take a stretch to be so cynical as to say the repubs wish it would fail, but obviously they're betting it will. That's why they're not buying into it. How can you blame them for not supporting something they know will fail? They want to keep their jobs too!!
Just take the vote, count 'em, then let the chips fall where they may. The dems have the numbers to push it through, if enough of them wish to risk their political future.
January 28, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. I'm sure there are any Republicans who want this to fail. ;)
January 28, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm familiar with this little brohaha. I'm sure all red blooded Americans hope Obama fails in turning the US into a socialist country. I share Mr Limbaugh's take on it.
But is Limbaugh a republican? I know I'm not. Little off the point aren't you?
January 28, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
He might claim to not be a Republican, but he's their water-boy, make no mistake about it. Do you not remember Operation Chaos?
And, his later claim about referring solely to Obama's supposed desire to make us socialist (which one has to live in either a nightmare realm if you're a conservative or a daydream realm if you're a liberal and believe this), is pure hogwash. Even as he made the claim, he still made the broader claim that he wants Obama to fail as President. Obama failing as President means our economic crisis continuing. There's no other way around it.
If Rush had been thoughtful (but then he wouldn't be Rush), he would have said that he hopes Obama succeeds, but that to succeed he'll have to adopt more conservative ideals, but then Rush didn't say that, did he?
January 28, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talking about Rush Limbaugh, at least to me, is kinda senseless. I don't have the time nor the inclination to follow him.
I figure the reason he's eliciting so much resistance must be he represents a threat to the advancement of socialism. The socialist elements are the ones reacting to him. To that end, I hope he's effective.
January 28, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, too, think the Repubs are scared you-know-what-less...They know in their hearts he is good, and he is right, and that if they help him along, it's going to be a VERY long time until they see the White House again. They are going to do everything in their power to make sure he doesn't succeed, and if that means taking the whole country and it's economy down with them, it's okay with them. After all, if a Dem can come in and clean up the mess they left and restore our position of respect in the world, that means they are irrelevant. And we couldn't have that, now could we?
I love the idea of scrapping their contributions unless there is an agreement that they will vote for the bill if their ideas are left in. If we're going to go it alone, it may as well be with a bill we think will be successful, rather than a watered down version they won't vote for anyway.
January 28, 2009 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the exact opposite is true, but you are right that won't see it.
If they contributed to and supported Obama's measures, then the success of those measures would enable them to rebrand as a 21st century party and would probably allow a republican to see the White House sooner.
The current republican leadership will have to be totally discredited before a new, more modern party can emerge in the 2010 primaries and beyond.
January 28, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't envy the Repubs trying to figure this out...Have you heard ANY of the leadership beginning to say anything remotely intelligent yet?
I know you are hoping to see a shift in the republican party...can you tell me, Jason, what you personally are doing to affect a change? I'd like to know if there is something you recommend. (And I know you know I am serious, not snarky.) I'm at a loss as to how just regular folks to get them to start being part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
January 28, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
All great questions with no easy answers. I embarked on this quest mainly because of normal, everyday republicans (and former republicans) who convinced me that they must represent the majority of people who call themselves conservative. That it was less about ideology and more about methodology.
Notwithstanding their long indoctrination in autonomic refusal to consider anything that could be called "liberal" most had long started to feel a disconnect between the myth they were being told and the reality of their own lives and associations.
Common sense takes a while to become common, so I am patient enough to look out over two or three elections cycles, say two to six years, before I expect to see rank and file republicans start to put a new breed of republican in office. Joseph Cao, who won Jefferson's seat in Louisiana, is a perfect example given what I saw of him during the general. Arnold in California is trying to be another. David Brooks has modified his tone. There is at least anecdotal evidence to support my thesis that the republican party is ripe for rebranding.
What can we do?
Nothing more than I assume you are already doing - treat everyone with respect and be patient when explaining things to people who may still have their programming firmly in place. Be sure to tell republicans in your life who may not be political junkies all the shady shit their "representatives" are doing to keep Obama from fixing the country. Encourage them to get involved and turn-out for the primaries so they can put better leaders in office.
Don't be afraid to be a "former" conservative Christian republican woman who is nonetheless liberal and empathetic and democratic and still very much born again. You are a walking, breathing example of a paradigm shift as well as a Rosetta Stone.
You can help deprogram our fellow citizens, many of whom are probably still your friends or friends of friends, but I would hope you challenge them to change the GOP rather than join the democratic party. I seriously doubt we'll see a lot of conservatives turning liberal, but I am convinced we can make them progressive, which is more than enough for our needs.
I would also add that you can help the democrats shouting to your left that republicans aren't the enemy, as much as their current leadership deserves all their anger. They also need to be reminded that it takes a thousand hugs to make up for one bloody lip. It is very hard to overcome conservative doubts or misinformation by becoming the very picture of every stereotype they have ever heard.
For my part, I am going to continue to articulate a new vision for what the republican party can become. Really an old vision, but I am not opposed to tradition.
If by offering myself as a stand-in for all the logical and reasonable republicans I know in real life, but who don't really come to TPM, I hope to facilitate a better understanding of the arguments that most rational conservatives try to make but liberals never hear. Having been a super left leftie, I think I have a unique perspective that might be helpful. That I am stubborn as hell and loquacious should help as well.
I know much of this isn't as concrete or clear as it could be, but I suspect the way forward will become more clear as Obama succeeds in a pragmatic and sensible fashion.
That will impress many conservatives as his transition and campaign already have. There is a grudging respect for Barack to be found throughout the right side of the spectrum - regardless of what we hear from the frightened men and women in Congress or the arrogant attention whores on the radio - that can be turned into a paradigm shift for the republican party if given half a chance.
Sorry for the length, but I wanted to offer the msot complete answer that I could.
January 28, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Jason...really just what I was looking for (except for the compliments, which I also thank you for. :-))
I really do hope you are visiting the conservative blogs (is there even such a thing?) and I wouldn't mind putting in a few appearances if you know of a few that you think would be worthwhile. Perhaps a testimonial from someone they alienated might be helpful.
January 29, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I don't think those guys can be helped yet, which is why I come here. I am sure many a moderate conservative are getting their news from more places than Red State. I only have so much time to spare.
Where I plan to really help is by supporting local progressive conservatives like Patrick Mara here in DC. He was robbed of a second "at large" council seat by Michael Brown who lost the primary as a democrat and pulled a Leiberman and ran as an independent. IN DC, the at-large seats are designed to go to each party.
At any rate, I figure I'll do my best to educate those conservatives that show up here and will continue to speak to our silent audience who are looking for new ways to heal old divisions and address systemic challenges.
January 29, 2009 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its easy to see revealed that conservatives would prefer that Obama (and the nation) fail.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howie-klein/republicans-in-congress-g_b_161329.html
There is also the obvious contradiction where senate minority leader Mitch McConnell in public plays up bipartisanship but in closed door republican caucus has laid out obstructionist plans.
January 28, 2009 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're exactly right Mr. Fawkes!
Obama should go with the progressive package. It's a better bill, will be better for the nation in myriad ways and is better politics. The very idea that we should kowtow ever again to the collection of bootlicking swine that is the Congressional Republicans is absurd.
Any concessions Obama makes will never be enough. They will do what they always do, wrench concessions out of the Democrats and then both refuse to vote for the bill and attack it as socialism even including their preferred options. Don't understand why DC Democrats don't ever wise up to this act. I think the GOP would fall in line if someone would just kick their ass once and make it hurt. That approach certainly couldn't be any less effective than what Democrats have tried for years and years and which, apparently, Obama wants to keep trying.
January 28, 2009 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, they should go with the 'progressive package' and sacrifice their political futures, and their parties control of the government in one failed swoop!!!
Power to the people!!! Down with the capitalist pigs!!!!! Long live Marxism!!!!!
January 28, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey...Works for me !
C
January 28, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh, I didn't realize dog catchers could be caught up in this kind of political upheaval.
January 28, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stuck in the 50's right wing mindset I see. What a pity.
January 29, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better a 1950's right wing mindset than an 1850's Marxist mindset.
January 30, 2009 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's unpatriotic to wish the stimulus package ill, and hope for failure. Nothing short of unpatriotic.
But you're right, they do.
January 28, 2009 4:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The dems have been praying for the downturn we're in now for the last two years. News models were talking recession in the months coming up to the election even though we were still in a growth period.
As soon as the recession was official, they began hysterically crying depression. Now just what group wishes ill for our country in the name of selfish political gain?
January 28, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
And to thing, you were calling someone dumb earlier.
Please find me a single piece of evidence that says "we were still in a growth period" in "the months coming up to the election". No, the recession officially started over a year ago, well before "the months coming up to the election".
Education, it's a good thing.
January 28, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Education is essential, turn off Air America a couple of hours a day and treat yourself to a little.
January 28, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've actually never listened to Air America, although maybe I will one day since it seems to bother you so much.
I notice that you were unable to provide a source to back up your fallacious claim. In case you're not sure how this internet-tube thing works, I did provide a link in my previous response that demonstrates you're full of it. If you click on that link, it'll take you to another page where you can read, and maybe even learn something. Maybe you still haven't spent enough time trying to educate yourself?
January 28, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nebton,
A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth in real GDP. The NBER has announced 11 recessions since 1947, nine of which didn't meet this criteria.
This is the second recession NBER has announced in the eight years of the GWB administration. If you'll look at NBER's track record, they call recession according to what party is in the White House. You may as well quote the daily KOS.
January 28, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll note the publication in which the following quote appears. Not exactly Markos' spot, eh?
January 28, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice riposte.
January 29, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
(A) Can you find a single source (other than yourself) that doesn't think we were in a recession in the months leading up to the election?
(B) Perhaps the track record is not NBER's, but the Republican party's...
I've never heard anyone question NBER's as being partisan.
January 28, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
...yah, and visit the Creation Museum.
January 28, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello there! I truly hope you do not take this personally, but I must urge you to please be aware, you are psychotic. Need the care of concerned professionals. Get the help you urgently need!!
With the greatest respect,
Overreach THIS!
January 28, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go away and go brush your tooth.
January 30, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
It just looks more and more like Big Pork to me.
I don't want Obama to be seen as failing (at least not on the time scale of years). And I don't want taxpayer money to go to waste (nor to be spent less effectively than it might).
The Repos with their bullshit about tax cuts are clueless, crazy, or some such. They just want to eviscerate government income, never mind the consequences.
But I'm concerned about consequences, specifically, 1) how *exactly* does this get paid back, and 2) is it *really* necessary or is this a kind of left wing Shock Doctrine move which hasn't been well thought out?
I obviously don't buy the consensus notion that "spend spend spend" by "borrowing or printing money" is the clearcut best approach. However, if the Treasury can borrow $1T at under 1% real interest, I might be persuaded. Why not borrow $5T at that rate?
Seriously, how much will it cost and how will it get paid back?
January 28, 2009 5:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
To answer your questions: No one knows how much it'll ultimately cost, and there's no guarantee it'll ever get paid back.
There's a fairly compelling argument for doing nothing and letting the markets self-correct. To be honest, I'm for that - unless someone can give me specifics about exactly how this whole thing will not only work, but not screw over the taxpayers. The disposition of the first $350 billion in TARP funds does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling of confidence.
That said, public opinion seems to be running in favor of stimulus. So, obviously Washington is going to do it. I'm praying that the money gets watched carefully, and strict conditions are put on companies who receive funds through this. Make those conditions retroactive, too, while you're at it. :)
January 28, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
A wing and a prayer?
Thanks for your comments on mine. I'm looking for sanity more than for comfy agreement.
I do understand how government spending can step in where private spending fails. But I do not consider the economy, or specifically GDP=GDI, a sacred cow. It's an abstraction and a rhetorical device. The question is: When, how, and why should government intervene in markets? And the other question is, should we "take advantage" of the current situation to ram through more stupid programs we obviously cannot afford, just because we don't know *at all* how we'll pay for them?
I grant the last Q is phrased excessively, but it's meant meaningfully.
January 28, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was giving my opinions on the questions you asked. Didn't see it as "comfy agreement". If we happen to agree, okay; if not, that's okay too.
With that out of the way, I'll attempt to unpack the questions you ask.
(1) In this country, I'd generally prefer government NOT step in with massive bailouts at all. People have forgotten what it's like to have actual consequences attached to their risks. I see my individual share of the debt going up, and up, and up - and we're proposing throwing more money at the problem. More troubling, Obama wants the money without any formal restrictions - which is exactly the problem I railed about when Paulson presented the original TARP proposal.
To my (non-economist) mind, our markets are set up to punish failure and reward success. It would seem to me that the only way for them to work, therefore, is to let them punish and reward accordingly.
(2) As for ramming through programs, I find that to be an inherently bad idea on three levels - political, economic and governing.
Creating programs that aren't sustainable, to me, is fake growth - and we pay for it twice, during the buildup that we can't afford, and during the crash that puts all the people out of work.
Starting with the S&L bailout, I have yet to see a single instance of government cash infusions that really worked in my lifetime. (This includes Bush's $168B "stimulus" last year.)
(2)
January 28, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone on Huffpost made an interesting comment. Rush Limbaugh used to call the Democrats " defeatocrats" for allegedly wanting the U.S. to fail in Iraq.
Now Limbaugh wants Obama to fail. And Republicans are voting to block stimulus.
Who are the defeatocrats now?
January 28, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think the correct term is "defeatocans". ;)
January 28, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the Republican position on the stimulus has nothing to do with whether it will work, if by "work" you mean that it will improve the economy. They don't care about that. For Republicans, their ideology cannot be wrong. If a massive spending bill increases the GDP and creates jobs, that will be a failure from their perspective, because the bill was ideologically incorrect. If the bill was 100% tax cuts for the wealthy, and we entered a decade-long depression, that would be a success from their perspective, because tax cuts are always the best thing.
It's the ideology of the bill, not the economics of the bill, that matters to the Republicans. This is one more reason why Obama should not have tried to deal with these goofballs. He can't reach common ground with them on this bill because they do not want any bill of this sort, unless 100% of the spending is on bombs and prisons. That's their big exception there. But really, they don't think like normal people. It's not that they don't want a bill that improves the economic outlook. It's that they will judge the success or failure of the bill solely on its content, not on its results.
January 28, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
People who are still thinking that the White House is trying to really sell this thing to Republicans at large have an outmoded way of viewing bipartisanship.
(1) Most of the Republicans who lost their seats in this year's elections were moderate. Therefore, the remaining Republicans are, on average, closer to the right.
(2) Obama talked repeatedly through the campaign about two legislating concepts: cooperation and communication. He also made it clear that these, while related, are not synonymous.
(3) In Washington, every move is made with at least one eye on the next election cycle. Democrats have made big gains in two straight cycles. History is against a good Dem showing in 2010, on two fronts. A party typically does not gain seats in THREE straight cycles. Also, the party in power usually suffers whatever voter wrath is out there in mid-term elections. To buck this trend, Democrats have to be able to sell themselves as the party of progress and comity.
(4) Does ANYONE remember what happened the last time a party in power tried ramming through whatever they wanted without any input from or crumbs to the other major party? Here's a hint: the tombstone says, "Permanent Republican Majority. Born, January 6, 2003. Died, January 6, 2007." Democrats want to avoid the same fate.
What does all of this mean? Obviously, Obama & Co. fully realize that most Republicans are not going to go along on these major items. They also realize that they don't actually need their votes. Having said that, how can it hurt to at least be seen extending a hand to a defeated enemy? That's not just good politics, that's good governance, too.
And stuff like the contraceptives measure getting pulled? I'm sorry, but Republicans need to watch some tape of Ali's "rope-a-dope" before they fall for that again. That provision was the equivalent of a hooker under a streetlight at midnight with 5" stilettos and fishnets. It BEGGED to be noticed. Which leads one to ask why it was ever put into a stimulus bill to begin with. Very interesting question, that.
There is a difference between cooperating and communicating. The Dems are doing what they need to do, and so far, I'm happy on the whole. They can't come out and say, "We're going to do this whether you like it or not," any more than Repubs can come out say, "No matter what you do, we will oppose it." Even though, for the more controversial measures, that's exactly what's going to happen.
January 28, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Yup!
You've got this right...
Just like the draw play in football. Let the entire offensive line through to chase the quarterback around... and whooops... the fullback has the ball and goes straight up the middle for 30 yards and a touchdown.
~OGD~
January 28, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Biden carrying the ball? Interesting idea.
January 28, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is right on so many levels. Especially liked the analysis of the measures that republicans being up in arms over as sacrificial lambs. Haven't heard that idea from any other quarter.
I would add that this fits in with my main thesis of the political moment we find ourselves in. Barack isn't playing to the Congressional republicans of today. He is speaking to the republican voters who will send those idiots home in the primaries of 2010. Democrats don't need to win more seats if better republicans come to town and start voting with their brains instead of their asses.
Every single one of their opponents will use this intransigence to send indumbents [sic] home in record numbers - on both sides of the aisle. The new political reality will not be more or less government but government that works efficiently and effectively for the least amount of money as possible.
I think the new political standard will be common sense and being cool.
PS: "Indumbents" was a typo to begin with, but it was so appropriate that I kept it.
January 30, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink