As Atrios says, predictable as the sunrise.

When Republicans are in power even by the slimmest of margins, they do pretty much what they want regardless of (generally feeble) Democratic resistance. When Democrats have big majorities they can't even summon the spine to completely reverse Republican-caused damage,and heaven forbid they do anything actually progressive- why, that wouldn't be "bipartisan".

Democratic leaders and their reflexive apologists (so many of whom like to favor us with their "insights" around here) need to understand that they're playing with dynamite. The voters have given them a chance to show that they can actually accomplish something when in power. If they prove as useless as they already did in 2006-2008, a lot of people aren't going to bother showing up to vote for Democrats in 2010 and 2012, because they'll rightly conclude that it's a waste of time.

This is a counter punch from Obama. He is pretending the Repubs are actually adults and have a real problem with this provision in the bill. Once he "caves" on this issue he can then say he addressed the Repubs main concern with the bill and expects them to get on board and vote for the stimulus package.

The funding for this program will be added to a later bill and Obama gets to look like he is post partisan and the R's get to look petty.

Here's how it works: Start with a liberal bill, then when Republicans cause a stink- you meet in the middle. You do not start with a good bill and then add some Republican tax cuts to it. Then, when you meet in the middle after that it's not the effing middle- it's center right.

And that is wrong (according to 60%+ of the country in November) and it makes you look stupid.

The Democrats should've focused on the savings to the states by allowing this waiver program to go through---$400 million is a lot. This would've eased state budgets that are currently in the middle of this fiscal crisis.

Ask why the Republicans are opposed to helping the states out. The Democrats have yet to learn how to frame the language on their terms.

was Obama elected t o"cave' in to every republican
position??

and the people here who continue to make excuses for him need to go away.

you bore everyone.

Hey folks. The provision eliminates the need to seek a waiver.

My guess is that those waivers will come from Tom Daschel.

So, the only real harm here is the ding state budgets will continue taking.

Remeber, this is not the budget. This is not the health care bill. This is the stimulus package.

While it's necessity is unfortunate, the crisis allows the administration to get a jumpstart on many priorities.

You're not going to get everything you want in this one bill, in the first 2 months of the administration.

In fact, you're NEVER going to get EVERYTHING you want.

The "game" here is to keep peeling away Republican excuses for being against the bill until they have to either vote for it flatly admit admit that they are against using public money to create jobs in the worst recession since WWII.

Read what they are saying to each other. They are terrified that this bill will work. They are casting about for excuses to be against it that look principled rather than either a) admitting that they are rigid ideologues who will cling on to their dogma to the end, even if it destroys the country or b) that they are completely invested in seeing the Democrats fail, even if it destroys the country.

I know this is not pleasing to those of you who think that refusing to fight on the ground that the enemy have chosen and prepared with sighted in artillery and triangulated machine guns is cowardly and unmanly. But, as I have had to tell innumerable clients over the years who think litigation is won by bellicose chest thumping and anger, rudeness and agresssion, when warriors meet soldiers, the warriors invariably get slaughtered (albeit with their sacred Stone Age manly honor intact).

Only soldiers led by generals that think like soldiers can beat soldiers. And a big part of victory is making your enemy's general lose his composure and start thinking like a warrior.

You can't win if you don't have balls, but you also can't win if you let them do all your thinking.

Apologies to any offended by the blatantly sexist and militaristic metaphors.

This is a good provision, but what does it have to do with the current Economic Crisis. Can't we just have a stimulus bill, and not the same old special interest pork fest we always have?

Obama wants as many votes as possible, he wants them to own this bill too. Why hand them a gift with this? Sometimes you lose battles to win wars.

The Democrats can thank failed Republican policies form Iraq to Wall Street, not their own political skills, for having control of the Congress and White House. Even with this control they allow the failed, discredited losers who run the Republican Party to bully and influence them. Pathetic.

First, why is removing a provision that has arguably little to do with economic stimulus from a bill a "cave-in?" One of the problems the country sees with Congress is that anything with a remote nexus gets added to major bills. If this
provision is one the Republicans can seize upon to muddy the public perception and discourse about this bill, why not remove it and their fig leaf at the same time.

Second, for all you who argue about what Obama was or was not elected to do, please indicate to me where he addressed the issue of eliminating a requirement of states to seek a waibver to family planning. I don't suggest he did not, I just don't recall it coming to my attention and thus
having a priority.

I don't have a problem with him bargaining or making concessions, but he better damn well make sure that he is getting something substantial and real in return - no vague promises about "working together" or any bullshit like that.

I'm torn on this one. I can handle an argument that this funding has no place in a stimulus package, but a lot of folks on the right aren't arguing from that perspective. They're playing the old culture wars, likening contraception to abortion and claiming that this is eugenics. (ie, Dems want to limit poor people/minorities from having children...crazy stuff, especially since that would mean that Dems want to decrease their potential future voting base) I see very few making a economic/fiscal argument about this funding....it's all "ew, sex is icky", as Atrios has noted. This infuriates me but perhaps it will expose the wingnuts as the nuts they really are.

As for Obama putting pressure on Congress to remove this provision...I don't necessarily see it as a cave. But that's how the wingnuts will play it up. Malkin has already said that Obama is doing this because he's "panicky".

But should I really care what that idiot Malkin says?

I'm going to trust Obama here, even though I hate that the media will play this up as a "victory" for the minority party who just got their arses whupped in a election just under three months ago.

I think the whole point of putting something like this into the bill was to pull it out so you could make the GOP feel like they got something. It's not really related to economic stimulus.

Dems control 59% of the House & Senate (once everybody gets seated). This measure could probably pass on it's own and would certainly pass on a more germane bill. Hem & haw a little bit, then toss the GOP the bone.

We don't have to be dicks to them just because they were dicks to us. I'm satisfied to get what I want, and if that also pleases a portion of the GOP, well, good for them.

I think it is politically very astute to ask for it to be removed.

The problem is that in the context of the stimulus bill the Republicans only have to argue that it isn't an effective way to stimulate the economy. I suspect that they are correct about this and would win this argument in the court of public opinion because lots of people who are in favor of funding family planning do not think it would stimulate the economy.

By including it in the stimulus package the Democrats are giving the Republicans a free pass on the real issue which is bureaucratic red tape costing the states millions which is an argument they would have a hard time winning.

Seems to me Obama wants to take a losing argument turn it into a winning argument.

I find it perfectly conceivable that the family planning part was startegically placed in the bill to distract Republicans. It's just too shiny a lure and too nebulous an addition.

Furthermore, feeding a media shitstorm of debate around such a superfluous add is just too ridiculous. Removing it is such a no-brainer that I am starting to think it was deliberately put there to just as deliberately remove.

People complaining about removing this $200MM provision from a $825BB stimulus package - when it belongs in health care anyway - are busy playing tic-tac-toe. Get on the chessboard instead, and work on thinking more than two ply ahead.

Notice what's happened with the stimulus. Obama started with a low number - about $350BB. It's now grown to this $825BB, which is MUCH closer to where it was originally thought to be.

Notice this provision also. Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, Kyl - all the leading Republicans have latched on to this "contraceptives thing" as their top problem with the bill. So, you pull it out, the GOP gets to do their watchdog dance of Pyrrhic victory, and then it gets attached to an omnibus spending bill later in the session.

In the meantime, notice that THE REST OF THE STIMULUS PASSES. That is the ONLY point of this little dance - to make sure it passes with more than one or two Republican votes. If it passes by 70-30, Obama has a significant victory in his pocket, and can move on much of the rest of his proposed legislation based on that victory.

It seems to me that people citing what the Republicans would do in a similar situation take absolutely the wrong historical lesson - particularly when it comes to building a long-lasting majority.

From 2003-2007, Republicans tried ramming through whatever they wanted, without Democratic input or support. Many of the same people complaining of the Democrats' unwillingness to do that probably complained at the time of Republicans' willingness to do that.

Also, note that mid-term elections are historically unkind to the party in power (see: 1994, 1998, 2006, etc.) Democrats have made big gains the last two cycles, and need to position themselves to not lose a chunk of those back in 2010. You do that by getting your programs through Congress quickly and with at least some votes from the other side.