Dems Letting GOP Chase After Shiny 'Bipartisanship' Ball
We've been watching Republican leaders play a little game today with the economic recovery plan that's headed for its first vote in the House tomorrow. The object of said game: making the stimulus bill "bipartisan" enough to win Republican votes.
First President Obama made a concession; the GOP turned up its nose. Then Republicans had a neck-snapping change of heart.
But what do Democrats make of this silliness? You remember them -- the party that actually controls the government and wrote the stimulus bill. It turns out that Democrats are perfectly happy to let Republicans chase after their enigmatic (and, dare we say, largely non-existent) notion of a "bipartisan" stimulus.
"It may have been an epiphany," Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) said with a grin when I asked if his party planned to take Republicans' gambit at face value. "There's [something called] the James Lange theory, that if you talk about something long enough, it may change your behavior."
Nelson added that Democrats are closely watching to see how many Republicans actually vote for the stimulus after making such loud noise about cooperation. "Only time will tell. With two or three more pieces of legislation, we'll probably begin to know whether it's talk ... or changed behavior."
Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), a close ally of the president's, sounded a similarly sanguine note. "Hope springs eternal, even in this place," he told me. "We're not giving up on them ... I think it's very positive [that Obama is meeting with Republicans]."
Neither Casey nor Nelson is known as a particularly liberal member of the Senate Democratic caucus. But one who is, Barbara Boxer (CA), offered a similar reaction when pressed on the GOP maneuvering by MSNBC this afternoon:
[T]he one thing Barack Obama wants more than to have bipartisanship -- and he wants it -- the one thing he wants more is to solve the problem. And at the end of the day, we're going to do it with the Republicans or without them. We must act; these are serious crisis times. ...[T]he Republican Party is turning into the Dr. No party: No, no, no. And there's always a reason: First, it's family planning, then we won't do that, and it'll be some other little thing. ... So if the Republicans want to nitpick, God bless them, I love them, but, you know, we'll do it without them if we have to.
The media machine is churning, but Democrats are staying unruffled.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Here's the next challenge/road block/hurrdle.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/27/republican-leaders-raise-concerns-acorn-stimulus-dollars/
(I know...it's FoxNews...just click for the headline).
January 27, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, freaking, brother. Obama better cut all this shit out yesterday or he will lose all of the good will that he has right now on nonsense.
January 27, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Bro, we're usually on the same page, but either my sarcasm detector is on the fritz or I'm not following you. I'm willing to toss the Medicaid waiver thing over the side, but I'd totally dig in my heels over this one. Community development non-profits are doing critical work to hold communities together as jobs vanish and their normal funding is drying up as charitable foundation assets shrink.
But the desperation of these fools to find some plausible-to-media-idiots reason to be against this bill other than the real reason they're against it is turning into high comedy. What's next? "we're not against creating jobs, but we're going to take a principled stand against letting one dime of this money go to the prevention of cruelty to puppies and kittens! (Heh, that'll work, because, like us Republicans, everyone in America is in favor of cruelty to kittens and puppies!)"
January 27, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree with your observations. I actually didn't read the article until after I posted. I just am concerned about the christmas tree aspect of this bill. If it's for job creation and to stimulate the economy ok. We just don't want crap in there that can be waived around like some kind of handout to a dem support group like acorn. That was the point.
There will be other spending bills that this stuff can go into, but this economic stimulus bill should be just that, a stimulus bill, not a gratuitous handout.
January 27, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, progressives are dropping the ball in obsessing over the tax cuts portion of the bill. It's the suboptimal spending that represents the easy target. We should be agitating for increased mass transit spending in place of all the extras packed in there, even if that means saying "no" to provisions that, ideally, we would support.
January 27, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go. There should be massive mass transit spending. That would benefit the economy in the long run and create jobs. Also, it would reduce greenhouse gases and cut foreign oil dependence. It's a fourfer and would have broad public support. The piddly handouts like resodding the mall should totally go by the wayside.
January 27, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an economic stimulus bill, not a transportation bill. It's extremely doubtful that a significant number of mass transportation projects are close enough to "shovel ready" that the money can be spent in the next 18 month. We need to resist the temptation to hang all sorts of favorite projects on this bill, lest it becomes a typical Christmas tree. And please don't tell me how important mass transit is - that's not the issue. Unless the project can be started in the next 18 months, it doesn't belong in the bill.
January 27, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but I would be willing to bet that there are ton of shovel ready projects ready to go that just need funding. LA's subway system alone has had extensive spending and planning already, it just needs funding.
January 27, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Almost anything you want to build will take 3-5 years just for studies and land acquisition. That limits the projects to simple improvements on existing infrastructure. How many of those are there and how much benefit can you derive? I'm sure there are some. I'm not so sure there are lots.
January 27, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Chicago Transit Authority has had to cut bus routes and is in danger of losing ridership it gained during the summer. If they had the money they could start buying hybrid buses built in NC that get double the mileage of the old fleet yesterday.
January 27, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This bill is a big pigroast by its very definition. It's already way too easy a target with the stuff that supposed to be in there.
There are a lot of worthy orgs and projects that need funding and they should get it. Just not here, not in this bill.
Fixing the economy is what gave Obama his majority. If he can get even a couple base hits early, a lot of good things can happen.
Keep it clean. If it's not going to create jobs, lose it.
January 27, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they've played this poorly.
First it was the contraception issue. Now it's Acorn. Next it will be something else. Since it's already out there that Boehner and Cantor told members to vote nobefore they met with the President, each additional objection to the bill is going to be framed as just more nitpicking.
And it's not just this particular bill that's of issue. What they do here will bleed over into other conflicts.
I think Boehner and Cantor have stepped in it this time.
January 27, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought many here were falling all over themselves to agree that Obama and the Dems were clueless, caving in, and had proposed a bill that won't work.....
That seemed to be the consensus among one side of the debate this morning.
My, how quickly things change.
January 27, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if you're directing that comment at me, personally, or just in general at the conflagration that was ignited on the McConnell thread.
Either way, I thought Bob Herbert made an excellent point this morning, and I tend to side with the "reach out, and then do what you want with the plan" side of the argument. I don't know that I qualify as having changed my position.
But the tone of the discussion got nasty, and the self-righteousness on both sides of the divide is quite a turn-off for me.
January 27, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree. I was adressing it to that McConnel thread from earlier and not at you personally, though I know you are concerned about the bill as currently proposed (me too I would add).
I just found some of what was said this morning (not by you) to be so ridiculous as to be counterproductive. Making that one issue a litmus test on Obama's Presidency and the Democrats' effectiveness as a leadership was WAY over the top for me.
January 27, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Herbert's point was a good one, though I also see why President O would want as many Republicans on board as possible. Make them "own it" and all.
January 27, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have concerns, yeah.
But in the past, nearly every time I've thought Obama stumbled, I was wrong, so I'm willing to wait and see what happens with the vote on the bill, and how the media chooses to frame it and how much "compromising" actually occurs before I start criticizing Obama and his leadership.
There's a path between accepting everything the President does, and staunchly refusing to compromise on any principle, and I'm still navigating that.
January 27, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too.
January 27, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know...if you just turn on the news and see Mitch proclaiming "...but we made them take out the earmarks they tried to sneak by to Planned Parenthood and ACORN..." that might not sound so bad.
January 27, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean funding for family planning and community development right?
Yeah, those things are evil, screw making our communities stronger and screw family planning, 5 kids and STDs for ALL!!
January 27, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pointing out what the quote on the news will be...
January 27, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The republicans have an absolute genius for turning an issue on its head. McConnell is saying now that Obama's not the problem, it's the Democrats. They are fully aware of Obama's approval ratings and also know that Congressional ratings are in the toilet so they can go after the bill on that basis. Reid and Pelosi have given them plenty of targets, too.
January 27, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant! Because we all know how well trying to blame the mortgage crisis on ACORN worked for the GOP during the election.
I guess it's not technically animal abuse ... but it's just sad watching the GOP whack the hell of horse carcasses.
January 27, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Repugs: "ACORN *could be eligible* for some of this money . . ."
Wow. That's really scary that this group *might be eligible*.
January 27, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good grief! Is this nut actually objecting to an entity like Habitat for Humanity building in an urban neighborhood?
January 27, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bipartisanship is nothing more than a quaint ideal. Republicans will abuse any goodwill we extend to them and beat us with our own olive branches:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2009/01/ahhh-bipartisanship-what-quaint-ideal.html
We need to stop pretending that every idiot deserves a seat at the table, and start only letting in the ideas that WORK, regardless of who makes them. If Republicans want a seat at the table they need to start doing two things:
1) Prove that they can behave and act in good faith, and
2) Bring ideas that actually work to the table
So far they have proven they have no interest in doing either. So screw 'em.
January 27, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just wondering...did you support the same principles when Dems were in the minority?...or were you a "Hey, 51% isn't a mandate!!! Everyone deserves a seat at the table!!!" guy?
January 27, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say "WE WON SO SUCK IT", my principles were that I want it to be about what works, what makes the best public policy. These apply to both Republicans and Democrats, both now and when the situation was reversed. Anyone contributing needs to:
1) Prove that they can behave and act in good faith, and
2) Bring ideas that actually work to the table
When Dems were the minority they were bringing plenty of ideas to the table that were far superior to the Republican ideas, and they were acting in good faith for the public good, not playing politics.
January 27, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"When Dems were the minority they were bringing plenty of ideas to the table that were far superior to the Republican ideas, and they were acting in good faith for the public good, not playing politics."
I could say the same thing about Republicans... if I thought the Democrats ideas were far superior, I'd be a Democrat, as I'm sure if you thought Republican ideas were far superior you'd be a Republican...that's kind of the whole point of politics.
January 27, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wallace, I normally find your comments to be fallacious and trivial, but you hit it exactly on the nose here.
January 27, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while. Ooh, a blind squirrel may be my next avitar...hmmm.
January 27, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could have suggested that for you long ago, SFC, though I still wish you would bring back Hank. How about when Spring Training starts?
January 27, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you could say that about Republicans, only you'd be wrong, so my point still stands. Yes, in practice it will be political because it is all happening in Congress (and there is no apolitical overlord to apolitically decide which policies are good or bad), but I'm talking about which ideas *ought* to be considered. I'm saying that people in Congress should START looking at the merit of ideas, instead of acting like something ought to get included, regardless of its worthiness, just because its what Republicans want or Democrats want.
There is an objective element to this...you can say I think the Iraq war was a good idea, I could say the Iraq war was a horrible disaster. Sure, you can say you think you are right all you want, but if we look at the facts, the war in Iraq was a horrible disaster by all objective measures.
The same goes for a whole host of issues, from idiotic financial deregulation to global warming denial to tax cuts for the rich.
January 27, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say they were all playing politics.
January 27, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's good to see you back, Lux.
January 27, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gracias :)
January 27, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why were we so breathless about the waiver thing earlier today?
January 27, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
All you chicken little's really need to take a bigger view of this. Obama is no fool.
If he kisses a little GOP arse the Repubs have 2 choices - 1) Vote for the stimulus in which case if things go badly they share in some of the blame or 2) Vote against it and they look like obstructionists and the dems can point to the concessions they made if things still go sour.
Remember most Americans want this to pass and Obama has sky-high approval ratings. Why do you think they are going after the Dems in Congress and not Obama?
Repubs are kind of between a rock and a hard place.
January 27, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I agree that bipartisanship only takes us so far. But what people want, what they voted for at least, is good government. Government not so hellbent on ideological point-scoring, but actually helping make the economy so people can put food on tables that are under a roof they can afford.
If Republicans want to go on, as Elana says, "dickering around" on this stuff, then they deserve the losses their intransigence will engender.
But, on the other hand, Democrats also can't be using this stimulus bill as some kind of Christmas tree to hang their surplus wants from. Just as I am outraged by the bailout corporations refurbishing offices with the money, or buying new jets, or jacking up compensation for execs, I am equally against stupidity like funding contraception or re-sodding the mall, or funding ACORN and the like.
This bill and TARP should be about three things: (1) fixing our credit markets so credit is flowing again, (2) creating new jobs fast, and (3) putting down investment for long term items that will do number 1 and 2.
Democrats run the risk of losing support fast if the people think we are using this bill to fund pork all the day long.
January 27, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded!!
January 27, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Third!! See, we agree again. Amazing.
January 27, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could come to lunch too.
January 27, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
January 27, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, the Republicans are quite adept at baiting the likes of kos and other reactionary progressives into a sniping war over family planning.
One thing that much of the left hasn't realize yet is that when you're in power, your own side is in a competition for resources against itself. This is why coalitions often fracture while they're in power. Those wanting more infrastructure spending need to realize that they're also going up against social welfare advocates, whether they like it or not.
January 27, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree. You outlined the objectives exactly, Lars. Reid and Pelosi are just giving the republicans ammunition with the pork.
January 27, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
January 27, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
>> I am equally against stupidity like funding contraception or re-sodding the mall, or funding ACORN and the like. >>
Read beyond the headlines, dude. There is no funding ACORN in the stimulus. The repugs are saying that "if ACORN stood on its head and touched its nose while eating a Big Mac, they *might* be eligible for some of this money."
Organizations that aid the poor are crucial to stimulating the economy.
January 27, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a bad inclusion on my list. But the contraception and the mall resodding I stick by.
January 27, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lucy. Charlie Brown. Football. FAIL. How many times have we already seen this movie over the years? can't anybody here play this game?
January 27, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you describing your own comment here?
January 27, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're awfully witty for a numbskull. Bugger off. There are important policy matters at stake which you're too dim to understand.
January 27, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like trite Charlie Brown analogies?
January 27, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
See what happens when you agree with me?
January 27, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The lead character isn't the same. The plot isn't the same. The scenery isn't the same. The supporting cast has many new players. The script is even different.
I think you need to watch some new movies.
January 27, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing to keep in mind is there's a LARGE difference between the Republican leaders expelling hot air and Republican rank-and-file toeing the line. We'll see, but I suspect that the instinct for self-preservation will kick in and a lot of Republicans will get on board. He doesn't need all of them - just enough to negate the R's later assertion that they had no say in this. Moreover, once R's start abandoning the leadership, said leadership will have no choice but to stop being obstructionist, or else they quickly become irrelevant. They're well on their way already, but if there's one thing a political leader cannot afford to be is irrelevant.
January 27, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they had any instinct for self-preservation they wouldn't have followed their fearless leader Bush down the toilet. Remember, only the winguttiest Republicans survived, especially in the House.
The sad truth is that the Dems, as usual, are negotiating with themselves. In public, no less.
January 27, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't be so quick with the broad brush. For starters, take a look at Republican Senators up for re-election in 2010. I'd expect that half or more of them can be convinced to get on board. Don't confuse hot air emanating from the leadership with the preferences of the rank-and-file.
January 27, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree the Senate is the key. So can you explain to me why Obama has rolled over for irrelevant wingnut Representatives?
January 27, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Rolled over"??? More specifics please.
January 27, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Contraception and taxes, for two. Have you been reading the news items here? What do you think all this discussion is about?
And by the way, anybody (look upthread for examples) who dismisses family planning funding for poor women as "pork" is, quote simply, a misogynist.
January 27, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
So when Obama say "I'm not changing my position on taxes" he's been rolled?
January 27, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What, pray tell, is wrong with cutting taxes for lower and middle income earners?
Family planning services may be a quite worthy cause, but the economic stimulus benefits eludes me. Besides, you don't always get everything you want. Remember, the Republicans represent almost half of Americans. They also have a right to expect the government will listen to their views, too. Or does voting for McCain mean you have to shut up for the next four years?
January 27, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans represent about a third or so, I think. Independents make up the difference. But that's neither here nor there -- you're right.
The vast majority of folks who tilt right and voted for Obama did so because of the economy. That's where the focus should be right now. If it don't create a job, pave a road, fix a bridge or string a power line, it should go.
If he can make something happen here, then he can have whatever else he wants.
January 27, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's one way to shut down debate....If you disagree, you're just a misogynist.
Well, count me in, because IMO, anything that isn't designed to fix the problem were in is pork.
January 27, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to sources in the meeting with Repugs:
"President Barack Obama rolled into the Capitol with a clear message for Republicans Tuesday afternoon: He’s happy to talk, but he’s not compromising on tax cuts.
Obama was ready for the House Republicans to pounce, telling them: "Feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part [tax cuts],” according to two sources in the room.
Yeah, he's really rolling over, isn't he??
January 27, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You missed the fact that he already seriously compromised his plan by pre-emptively rolling over on tax cuts. I'll give him a little credit if he doesn't roll even further, but not a whole lot.
January 27, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do remember that Obama promised to give tax cuts to 90% of the population during his presidential campaign, don't you?
January 27, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
But he didn't promise to festoon them with useless BUSINESS tax breaks, now did he. They're there in the misguided hope that they'll appease Republicans, We already know how that's working out.
January 27, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And as everyone knows, what's good for businesses is bad for America.
January 27, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI, Obama absolutely did promise small business tax cuts during the campaign. $3000 tax credit for every new hire. Get your head out of your ass and go back and listen to his speeches in September and October.
January 27, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus, Steve, don't waste you breath. Just see the comment from Goofy.
Newsflash: the policy for much of the last thirty years has been tax cuts for the wealthy and for businesses, small and large. The result: historic peace time budget deficits, wage stagnation, skyrocketing economic inequality and now, a crash to rival the Great Depression.
Business and the wealthy have been given far too much for too long. It's time for policies that benefit the middle and working class, and to address the income and wealth inequality exacerbated over the last thirty years.
Not only is it fair, by goosing demand at our lowest income sectors, we will also be fixing the problems that currently plague our economy. Any remedy suggested by Republicans is almost certainly the opposite of what's needed right now. They simply shouldn't be permitted much input as a matter of what's best for the country.
January 27, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't missed any "facts" ass wipe! Obama introduced his plan which were 40% tax cuts of $775 billion. The Dems objected and now those tax cuts are 33% of 825 Billion. Demonstrate a pre-emptive roll over or STFU.
And, please. you'll never say anything good about Obama regardless. You're a chronic whiner who eats a big bowl of pissed off for breakfast every morning!
January 27, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I just watched the clip of Obama talking after meeting with the GOP & I'd have to say that if anybody is being punked it's the Republicans. Obama is able to say to the country, "Hey, I went and listened, I explained myself, now it's time to get down to business." This puts the GOP in a double bind: The can play to their base and be obstructionist by opposing a very popular president at a moment of crisis, or they can say something like, "He listened tos and made some changes so we're going to vote for the thing even though we disagree with parts of it." If you're a GOP representative, which message do you want to be taking back to the home district?
I am something of a worry-wart but Obama continues to surprise me with his deft political chops.
January 27, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>if anybody is being punked it's the Republicans. >>
Totally. They're are so out of their league!
January 27, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Obama has a sooperseekrit plan! Just watch, kids!
Jesus.
January 27, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, Steve, as I said in the earlier thread, I have some instinctive sympathy for your sort of skepticism, but if those of us whose hair is not on fire turn out to be right, will you come back and talk about why?
Like you, I don't see Obama as a big time progressive, but if the Stimulus bill passes in pretty much its current form, with some GOP support, what's your reaction going to be? (If it doesn't, of course, you can come back here and tells all that you told us so.)
When Obama finally was inaugurated -- after that hideous GWB twilight period -- my bright line issue w2as torture, the Geneva Convention, and Guantanamo. I didn't expect to be pleased with what the "pragamatic" Obama would do; but he surprised me. He stood by his principles. Now, I reserve the right to give him hell if he doesn't follow through, but you see my point.
January 27, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll see, but I suspect that the instinct for self-preservation will kick in and a lot of Republicans will get on board. He doesn't need all of them - just enough to negate the R's later assertion that they had no say in this.
From The Page.
I think we've got some posturing going on.
January 27, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Posturing is what they're good at. Their constituents want this bill. The leadership can stamp their feed and hold their breath, but in the end, there will be enough Republicans on board. The side effect of this is that the wingnut faction, who will never cooperate, just becomes more and more marginalized. And that's a GOOD thing.
January 27, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Posturing, indeed. Obviuosly, the GOP knows this bill needs to pass. They just need SOMETHING in terms of a "victory" they can take back to their constituents.
(Another example of posturing: Arlen Specter. He knows he will have an interesting election coming up in my home state. I guarantee you, photos and video of him at the Holder hearings will be played in commercials throughout my fair state starting late this year.)
All the GOoPer Congresscritters want Obama in their photos early and often. High approval ratings make you the one all the kids want to be seen with.
Of course, the flip side of GOP strategery is to oppose Dems in Congress as much as possible - while simultaneously embracing Obama.
I want to write a blog on the subject of bipartisanship very soon. I believe it's being redefined from its previous uses by the Obama Administration. As such, "bipartisanship" no longer means what many of us think it means.
January 27, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does it seem like were rehashing the campaign a bit here today? I adopted the Hawaiian Punch avatar this Sumemr as a snarky response to those on the left constantly ridiculing Obama supporters as "kool-aid" drinkers.
When is that honeymoon supposed to start again?
January 27, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny, I adopted my avatar originally concerning the clintons and they were riding an atomic missle to oblivion and blowing up the party. Now it seems appropriate concerning the far left of the dem party. I am totally keeping it.
January 27, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This comment from Digby's place pretty much sums things up as far as I'm concerned:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/digby/1766574065325582619/#844107
So having posted the link I'll stop wasting my breath here. The delusional obviously aren't going to stop being so; they never learn no matter how many hundreds of times time they've seen the Democrats repeat the same old sellout routine.
January 27, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that answers my question (above). Nice knowing you.
January 27, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't wet yourself in excitement, ace. I'm only stopping commenting on this particular issue, for now. Because the dummies who don't get it, never will.
January 27, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
LaBonne & Free Rider, keeping the discourse at the highest possible level. Gee, ace, I thought you were gone for good.
January 27, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
One always in favor, one always opposed, and both quick to insult.
January 27, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and I have been OK for a while. But anytime you want to change that, just whistle. You have neither the stomach nor the brains for a fight with me but I'm game. Just don't start crying like a little girl and run away like you did last time. OK?
January 27, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for making the point better than I could.
January 27, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What point is that? That you're a pussy who can't leave well enough alone? Okie doke!
January 27, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feeling lonely that I haven't bitch-slapped you in a while? I can change that if you want. But remember, you're the one who throws in the towel.
January 27, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of wetting yourself, I suspect you need a diaper change after today's tantrum.
January 27, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever. Thanks for proving my point above about dummies.
January 27, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sure are taking a long time to leave.
January 27, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why bother talking to delusional misogynists anyhoo?
January 27, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I had asked what I thought was a serious question, i.e., What would constitute "victory" for a hardliner like LaBonne? He linked to a comment that says, basically, that such a victory would be a completely Democratic bill with no concessions even around the edges to the Republicans. And I agree, that would be one kind of victory and would be sufficient. But there is another kind of victory here that, while more of a long shot, might be better for the Democrats and better for the country. That would be a victory in which the president is seen as having responded in good faith to the Republicans by making some changes around the edges of the stimulus plan and then getting it passed with (modest) Republican buy-in. This has better political optics for the vast majority of Americans like my brother-in-law who simply say they hate all politics because it appears to be "non-political." In the end, this preserves more of Obama's political capital than the first sort of victory. Now, I think it's pretty clear that LaBonne sees this second kind of victory as a defeat. That is where, despite my very real skepticism over Obama's progressive bone fides, LaBonne and I disagree.
January 27, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have watched Obama prove every naysayer wrong for 2 years now. Even Congressional Dems are seeing that his way works and the old ways are an epic fail. Any objective observer of political reality can see that he is about to hand the Reps their heads in such a spectacular fashion that they will thank him for the experience.
But we are delusional because we don't ignore the evidence and accept your fact-free criticism? I bet there is a lovely, parti-colored sky on the planet where you live.
January 27, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay,
Am I the only one who thinks the GOP are getting played here.
On the one hand, you have the House GOP busy trying to find ways to oppose the stimulus base on "conservative principles" while there is a narrative beginning to form around the current GOP, i.e. Chris Cillizzia @ Washington Post: Is Rush Limbaugh the New Face of the GOP? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2009/01/is_rush_limbaugh_the_new_face.html
Then, from the meeting itself:
From First Read: Details From House GOP Meeting
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/01/27/1762861.aspx
Money quote:
"Obama says tax relief for some working families must come from payroll so even families who don't pay income taxes get relief and they will spend it.
He said “feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part.
Obama said that there will be time to beat him up and a time for politics. He said I understand that and I will watch you on fox news and feel bad about myself."
January 27, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink