McConnell: Republicans Are More in Line With Obama Than Dems
Oh, those coquettish Republicans.
First they "are being listened to" by the president on a stimulus bill that includes more than $250 billion in tax cuts. Then they realize that they just can't support a stimulus without more tax cuts -- and the elimination of family planning aid.
They get their way on the latter, though perhaps not the former ... but then they realize that the problem isn't President Obama. It's the Democrats!
From Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) interview with the Today show (emphasis mine):
Frankly, what's developing here is, [Obama's] biggest problem is with his own party, the Democratic Party, which seems to be drifting away from what he said he wanted, which was for the package to include at least 40 percent tax relief and to be earmark-free.So he could, ironically, end up with better supporters in trying to achieve the kind of stimulus package -- which would be timely, targeted and temporary -- from us than he's getting from the Democratic majority, at least so far here in the Congress.
Listening to what he said he wanted, we think we may be closer to that, oddly enough, than the Democratic majority, which seems to be pulling in the direction of fewer tax -- less tax relief and things like fixing up the [National] Mall. You know, most people don't think that's the way we ought to spend stimulus money.
Late Update: Here's the video:
Later Wish-List Update: The Republicans have successfully stripped family-planning aid from the stimulus, but that's not the end of their wheeling and dealing. McClatchy reports on several other provisions GOPers aim to jettison from the bill ... before most of them vote against it anyway. Here's the list.
$5 billion for colleges and universities, many of them already with billion-dollar endowments.$600 million for new cars for the federal government.
$200 million to improve the National Mall, including $21 million for new grass.
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
Well if you can't beat them, co-op...err I mean join them.
January 27, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
See, people? Obama's already getting played, bigtime, just as some of us have been saying. He'd better wake up before it's too late.
January 27, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I could have guessed you would be making this argument the minute I saw the headline. I think you need a mirror to see who is being played.
January 27, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The American people are the ones getting played. McConnell et al figure it's better to just burn the whole neighborhood down at this point and all the evidence along with it.
By the time we sort through all the ashes (years from now), most of the voters will have forgotten who did what.
Some strategy. But it might just work.
January 27, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hard to argue against your point. R's can't gain anything by voting for the plan if it works.
January 27, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. You've been right for months now about how badly Obama was messing up. You've trashed every decision he's made as wrong.
You are so outdated. You, Krugman, Kos belong in a room together ranting your constant criticisms without offering a shred of solutions. Loser!
January 27, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely! Criticism without solutions. Sounds like McCain and Republicans during the general election. There are disturbing similarities between some on the Left and the Right.
January 27, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. The folks at Kos are just as insane as the folks at RedState. All they know how to do is oppose.
January 27, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman? Hasn't he been dishing out advice about what to do all along?
January 27, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
OBAMA NEEDZ TO HIT BACK AGAINZT MCCAIN
BRADLEY EFFECTZ WE GONNA LOZE!
January 27, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're the one being played -- by your own "My way or I throw a tantrum" thumb-sucking.
January 27, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much rope have the repugs pulled in so far?
January 27, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cought the hope, waiting on the rope.
January 27, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
To expand on that a little, McConnell knows that Obama is popular but teh Congressional Dems- thanks to their already not doing what they were elected to do in 2006-2008- not so much. So his best strategy to prevent progressive legislation from passing is to drive a wedge between Obama and them. And Obama has handed them the ammunition. Not smart.
January 27, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
What!?! The Republicans are just trying to find a way to not have egg on their face. Obama and the Democratic Congressional leaders are cozy in their club house with a fire going, watching the Republicans try to pick the lock to the back door and claim they were part of the party all along.
January 27, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Sigh. With delusional "friends" like you the Democrats hardly need enemies, especially since they're their own worst enemy...
January 27, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a Democrat, but a very pragmatic one. Now maybe you get your jollies by doing purity tests for the "true" democrats, but my vote counts just as much as yours.
Yes I wish there was a heavier ratio of infrastructure spending to tax cuts, but I can live with it. I doubt this plan will be the final cure the economy needs even if I got everything I wanted, so boxing the Republicans in and dragging them along for the ride is not a bad plan.
And yes I know the Republicans are not fully on board and will stab us in the back. But that will just give Obama cover to play tougher when the next phase is required.
Remember in the general election how Obama was able to start to go negative against McCain only to have McCain take all the criticism. Yea, it'll be like that.
January 27, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
You say:
"And yes I know the Republicans are not fully on board and will stab us in the back."
This, I think, is the nub of it.
It is what everyone, complaining in these threads about what they perceive to be weakness among the Democrats, sees happening: we all *know* that they will do this; we all *know* that it is a knife fight; and what those people are really asking is: given that you know they will do this, why are you *allowing* us to be stabbed in the back?
Then you say:
"But that will just give Obama cover to play tougher when the next phase is required."
...and then, they roll their eyes at your naivety. Because you just said it: "...the Republicans...will stab us in the back." and continue to hope that it will be a shallow wound. Although I could be misreading the opposing arguments, I see that hope thing all over this one, and the others: we hope Obama will do what we asked him; later. It's almost as if he's viewed as working in his Secret Laboratory on his Deus ex Machina.
Being stabbed in the back is never a flesh wound; its use is intended to inflict a mortal wound while eliminating any possibility of self-defense and injury to the attacker.
Do you wish to re-define the metaphor; or use another metaphor? Feel free; but a changing metaphor will not change the nature of Republicans. They are playing for keeps. They are not showing up with dirt bombs and waterguns.
January 27, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must have been one of those Democrats that thought that Obama was being too soft on McCain early on, and was going to get his clock cleaned by those evil(tm) Republicans. That's ok. I fell in that camp for a while myself.
But that did not happen. Obama forced McCain to show his hand. McCain went 100% negative but did not scratch Obama's approval ratings. Then Obama started playing the negative card a bit and guess what? McCain got blamed. Obama had inoculated himself.
The same thing is going on here. The Republicans will turn on Obama, but the stimulus will still go through. Obama will then be able to play hardball a bit, but the Republicans will take the rap.
This is how Obama plays things. It is also his justification for negotiating with enemy states even if he knows they won't give an inch. It gives him the high ground. Look it up.
January 27, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say:
"You must have been one of those Democrats that thought that Obama was being too soft on McCain early on, and was going to get his clock cleaned by those evil(tm) Republicans. That's ok. I fell in that camp for a while myself."
Not that this part of your reply actually responds to my post, but I'll try to reply to it anyway: no, I think not: I did not think that, and as far as I can tell (based on your apparent beliefs, to here) not like you.
You say:
"But that did not happen. Obama forced McCain to show his hand. McCain went 100% negative but did not scratch Obama's approval ratings. Then Obama started playing the negative card a bit and guess what? McCain got blamed. Obama had inoculated himself. The same thing is going on here. The Republicans will turn on Obama, but the stimulus will still go through. Obama will then be able to play hardball a bit, but the Republicans will take the rap."
I'm not going to try to fill in any blanks about how this responds to my treatment of the back-stabbing you mentioned, and to which I (am pretty sure I) limited my attention. Although it does seem that you've ratcheted down your metaphor a bit: you've gone from "back-stabbing" to "hardball". I'm not quite sure why you believe Republicans are using knives, where Obama is playing baseball...maybe, just maybe, you are right? And maybe, just maybe, that's why you should listen to people taking what *appears* to be a position contrary to yours? Maybe, just maybe, you agree with them?
You say:
"This is how Obama plays things. It is also his justification for negotiating with enemy states even if he knows they won't give an inch. It gives him the high ground. Look it up."
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to look up; but I will do it if you tell me what "...it..." is. I won't expect you to look up metaphor and its uses. But I will recommend it.
January 27, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it really to be your argument that the Democratic party is at death's door, with the twirling mustache Republicans ready to give the final push...umm I mean back stab?
I am really not sure why you are so hung up on taking backstabbing literally. Nobody is mortally wounding anyone. It simply means that someone will turn on you. To try to gain debate points by using this straw man is unwise.
Backstab: (knife fight-way too literal) simply implies to be turn on by someone of confidence
Hardball: (baseball - yea still way too literal) simply means to act more aggressively and for higher stakes (no this has nothing to do with vampires)
As for looking up something, I was referring to Obama's justification for talking with our enemies. The parallels between that strategy, the way Obama dealt with McCain in the election, and the current stimulus bill negotiation gives insight into the way Obama thinks.
I assume you agree with the first two situations which should indicate that you should give him some slack with the third.
January 27, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am really not sure why you are so hung up on taking backstabbing literally."
I thought, and it seemed clear to me that my thoughts were obvious since I used the word "metaphor", it was clear that I was not interpreting you literally. If you meant (by backstabbing) something like "betrayed confidence" or "treachery" or "perfidiousness", or any other synonym, then why not simply use those words instead of what I believe is reasonably taken as a metaphor.
You say:
"Backstab: (knife fight-way too literal) simply implies to be turn on by someone of confidence"
I do not understand this sentence; but I think you are saying, overall, that you are not using backstab in this context to mean a political knife fight; and you may also mean that you believe that this is not, in any way, a political knife fight. I'm fine with that. I think we're done.
January 27, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you're "smart" enough to not be a Democrat, because you nattering nabob Naderites have so much success to boast about.
January 27, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
How, exactly, do you think McConnell is going to do that? The guy has the exact number of votes in his caucus necessary to sustain a filibuster. He has yet to hold all 41 of them to the party line. It is already clear that there is a pool of ten to eleven Republican senators from which the Dems can pick up the vote or three needed to prevent a filibuster on any given bill.
McConnell isn't a Sith lord with the power to control men's minds--even within his own caucus. He's just out-gassing because that's all he's got.
A lot of Democrats feel a need to act like this puffguts pronouncements are meaningful because it validates their own need to act out on their rage over the last fourteen years. Personally, my experience has been that anger is neither a strategy nor a useful tactic for getting things done (though feigned anger has its uses). It's just a good way to make bad decisions.
January 27, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The most of that gas is intended to keep "the base" high as a kite on trickle-down bullshit.
January 27, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
timely, targeted and temporary hmm?
That sounds like a whole lot of nothing, just a bandaid for our systemic problems.
Oh, and something tells me that the tax cuts the Republicans wouldn't be temporary.
What we really need is the exact opposite of what the Republicans wants, we need a plan that is substantial, strategic and sustained.
T's are for suckers, the three S's are where it is at:
http://www.ourfuture.org/news-release/2008125009/economists-labor-leaders-economy-needs-substantial-strategic-sustained-900b-
January 27, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sh*t, Shower, and Shave?
I've always been a fan of the sign of the cross: spectacle, testicles, wallet, and watch.
January 27, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is getting exactly what he wants. He's using bi-partisanship to be able to walk back some of the claims he might have made during the campaign, and also to keep the progressives from pulling him too left - where he doesn't want to be.
On other issues he'll use the progressives against the GOP by saying, I need to give them this if this is going to get done all the while it really being what Obama wants.
"Bi-partisanship" and the "Progressive wing" will be competing camps that will be used against each other to get The Obama Administration exactly what they want if they work the angles properly.
So he needs to keep the progressives rallied and vocal constantly disappointed and pulling for more progressive policies and decisions, and then needs the Republican moderates saying "we're willing to work with you if...". This creates the struggle for power that allows Obama to chart his own course.
January 27, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
walk back on what campaign promises?
January 27, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well there must have been something because the Progressives are up in arms - He must have promised them something that he's no longer planning on delivering.
January 27, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, they're just up in arms. Why do you think there's any rational basis to what they're going on about?
The stimulus bill as a whole is just a giant bonus, a progressive wet dream beyond anything we could have hoped for during the campaign.
January 27, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
They aren't progressives, capitol "P" or not. They are fools, obstructionists, who, wanting it all, will settle for none, because some isn't enough.
January 27, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What campaign promises? Putting family planning money in the stimulus package was never written anywhere in Obama's platform. In fact, despite all the griping from the left, the stimulus package itself is just a giant bonus.
January 27, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, when did family planning have anything to do with a freaking stimulus package? This is a deal to help the economy, not boost every single Democratic aim. No wonder this thing is getting so expensive: it's lost focus.
January 27, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, last thread where I'm saying this.
In 2002 the estimated costs of unwanted pregnancy topped $5bn while the estimated cost savings from available contraception was $19bn. After 8 years of the GOP restricting access to these services, it seems the savings would probably be greater than in 2002.
It seems like that's investing millions to save billions. Shouldn't that help the economy (or at least free up monies to use to stimulate the economy)?
January 27, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
All the provision related to Family Planning does is eliminate a requirement that states seek a waiver fro the U.S. Dept. of HHS before they can use Medicaid funds for Family Planning.
It does not add a nicke; in spending. It does not create a job. It does not guarantee a state
will spend a nickel on family planning.
All it does is say if state's want to fund family planning with Medicaid money they don't have to ask for Tom Daschle's permission. Which permission I am sure he would grant whether this
provision makes it into the economic stiumulas bill or not.
January 27, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
But when it takes two years to get a waiver, it adds to the COSTS.
January 27, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Do you really think it'll take two years to get a waiver under this administration with Daschle at HHS?
2. There is every indication that this will be included in another more appropriate bill that the Repugs won't be able to use as political fodder to torpedo the stimulus.
Grown-ups are in charge.
January 27, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama, if I heard and understood him correctly in the clip just posted on the front page of TPM, seems to think so.
I'm not sure why anyone would argue against health care as an investment; but turn around and argue that yes, it is a common good which the government should seek.
January 27, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over the weekend, McLame explained that the real problem was that the legislation was "written by the Democrat Party". A shocking development since the Democrats control the Senate, the House, and the Oval Office.
January 27, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
And that, of course, exposes in a nutshell the stupididy of the "strategy" of constantly caving. The Rethugs will always whine unless they're actually allowed to write the legislation. IGNORE THEM.
January 27, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I thought it was real astute of him to know the irony, while also kindly finding an opportunity to insult the party's name.
January 27, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Biden did say that Obama would be tested.
January 27, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. I guess Dems will be accused of an overreach.
January 27, 2009 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well here's the problem. When you start compromise by being overly reasonable (Obama's initial proposal called for 40% tax cuts to appease Republicans even though economists say tax cuts are far less effective as a stimulus than investments), then the Republicans will not be satisfied with it. They will fight for even MORE. I prefer Clintonian triangulation to find the middle ground - a little from the left, a little from the right & you find the sweet spot in the center. Obama starts from the middle and gets pulled rightward by the Republicans. *Sigh*
Time for Obama to put his foot down and stand with the Democrats on this rather than have the Republicans play the victim "we are the reasonable ones and Obama agrees with us" PR.
January 27, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The utterly predictable is, of course, already happening:
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2009_01_25_archive.html#4688235392950304344
January 27, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Linking to another example of Democratic self abuse does not bolster your argument. It only points out that misery loves company.
January 27, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahh, yes. The Clinton "triangulation" that managed to lose both houses of congress and more than a dozen governorships. Yeah, that worked real well.
January 27, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton gained seats when he started playing hardball with the Republicans & the givernment shutdown. I'm saying Obama should learn from Clinton's early mistakes. The GOP interest is not to make the country better. Their interest is in re-winning the hearts and minds of Americans and running those raging liberal lefties out of Congress in 2010.
January 27, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genius, Clinton *never* gained seats. The republicans lost seats when they over-reached. Obama watched Clinton and won't make those same mistakes. Pelosi watched Gingrich and won't make those same mistakes.
January 27, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It took a brilliant player to turn all the blame around and leave Gingrich holding the bag for the gov't shutdown. That's how Clinton won, and the Republicans lost.
January 27, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP interest is not to make the country better. Their interest is in re-winning the hearts and minds of Americans and running those raging liberal lefties out of Congress in 2010.
Yes.
They won't back the stimulus plan (those in the House, at any rate) and will fervently hope that it fails, spectacularly.
But I think Boehner and Cantor made a giant mistake by letting it be known, before Obama even arrived for the meeting, that they had told members to vote against it.
Great PR fodder, should Obama want to use it.
January 27, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too true.
These antics remind me that sometimes politics completely, completely irritates me. But you are right about Obama can use this idiocy as leverage. But, of course, if he does we probably won't hear about it: The threat of using something is probably more influential than the actual usage (I think there's a quote like that somewhere.)
January 27, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well hey, that's a hefty lot of sophistry there! I will give you a cookie if you can explain the functional difference between the two things you just described. Bonus cookies for describing how NAFTA, bank deregulation, and welfare reform constitute "sweet spots."
January 27, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Allow me to assist with welfare reform:
Right: They're all Cadillac driving welfare queens. Get their lazy asses to work.
Left: We need a social safety net for the most vulnerable and low income Americans.
Clinton position: The goal is to end the cycyle of poverty by getting folks to work. Veto two bills until you get comprehensive welfare reform that is far, includes childcare credits, education, job training, move those to SSI who are truly unable to work.
Result: Record #s of American moved out of poverty, children grow up in households where parents are working.
Triangulation in action.
Now how is it better to begin with what should be inevitable outcome after compromose (an imperfect bill with 40% taxcuts)? The Republicans will not say oh thanks so much for bbeing reasonable! We agree! They are the opposition party with an eye on 2010. They say please sir can I have some more? They paint the democratic party as the opposition and Obama on their side. This just doesn't strike me as smart.
Seriously who walks into a divorce court, starts out saying - I'll give you 50%, and then negotiates further from there?
January 27, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fact: the initial stimulus was 40% tax cuts. After Obama and the Dems "comprised" or "caved" the stimulus is now 33% tax cuts. Now, tell me who's getting punked here.
People like you and Steve LaBonne equate screaming and ranting with winning. Even when you don't get a damn thing you don't know it because "well, at least I made some noise."
January 27, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fact: the initial stimulus was 40% tax cuts. After Obama and the Dems "comprised" or "caved" the stimulus is now 33% tax cuts.
Do you have link to a source for this?
January 27, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the news reports from two weeks ago. The plan was 40% tax cuts. Krugman, et al were livid. Look at the reports from today. The plan is 33% tax cuts and 67% spending. The Repugs are pissed.
Obama and Pelosi are moving in the right direction, giving the repugs less of what they want while making the repugs look like obstructionists. Brilliant!
January 27, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Freerider, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, ok? I'm interested in information, and I'd like to find the reports that say that tax cuts are now just 33% of the plan. I haven't come across any reporting that indicates that, so I was curious where the information was.
One of the things I've always enjoyed about TPM is the willingness of others to share the information (via links) that they're commenting about.
I'm sorry to see you don't feel the same. Multiple times in the past, when I've asked for something as simple as a link, your reply has been "Look it up for yourself!" Of course I could do that--but it seems that if you're putting numbers out there, you would have a link ready.
January 27, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I just don't have a link. I've got MSNBC and CNN on in my office and senators and congressmen from both sides been talking about it all morning--how the stimulus has changed and now contains 33% tax cuts. The repugs are quite pissed.
Really. I wasn't trying to pick a fight. I just didn't have a link but turn on Cable and I'm sure they'll repeat it.
January 27, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK--thanks for that clarification.
January 27, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for proving my point. Obama said his ideal is at 40%. The Democrats in Congress have it at 33% which is still too damn high. The Republican makes headlines saying Obama is on their side and the stimulus as written is being too liberal-fied.
January 27, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama never said his ideal was 40%. You're making shit up as usual. When he introduced it, he said that he was open to suggestions. Now, the tax cuts are down to 33%, which makes Dems happier.
Yes, the repugs are screaming about the bill being too liberal but they're looking like whiny obstructionists, especially when it came out that repug leaders say "vote no regardless."
The dems will get what they want and the repugs will look like asses! Now, I'm sure you have a way to make that out to be a bad thing . . . This is Obama and he does nothing right in your eyes.
January 27, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-stimulus-details5-2009jan05,0,4983185.story
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/us/politics/26talkshow.html
January 27, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
And these quotes prove what exactly? That the initial plan was 40% tax cuts. It was his opening gambit, never set in stone.
According to you, if Obama started with 40% tax cuts to get republicans, he should be at 50% tax cuts by now. But the opposite is happening. The repugs are getting less and less as time goes on.
Making shit up as usual.
January 27, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't make shit up. The fact the Obama's original plan devoted 40% to tax cuts allows McConnell to make statements like this:
Now where's your souce for the stimulus is not 33% taxcuts? I have not seen that either. Thanks in advance!
January 27, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this McConnell statement hurts Obama how?? NOT!
Turn on MSNBC. McConnell, Sanders, Van Hollen, Frank, have been on all talking about how the mix of tax cuts and spending has changed. The bill is now 66-67% spending and just 33% tax cuts. The vast majority of those corporate and small business tax cuts are GONE!
January 27, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, you can't call me a ranter when you're the one hurling insults and I'm the one putting up facts :) And there's plenty of things I like that Obama is doing right now on the foreign policy front. I disagree with his stimulus package in this instance not because of Hillary, but because of Krugman and other economists who insist tax cuts are less effective as a stimulus than investment. I disagree with the strategy if you give the Republicans everything they want in the beginning we can just sing kumbayah and sign a bill with bipartisan support.
You think politics is a never ending game with teams, for me getting the right stimulus passed is more important than just backing Obama even when I think he's making a mistake.
But feel free to keep calling me PUMA and assorted insults. It's kind of like the good old days and I don't maind slapping down an asshat every now and then.
January 27, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You couldn't slap me down if I gave you the swatter.
Obama didn't give the repugs *everything* they wanted initially and he's giving them even less now. You'd see that if you weren't still angry that he beat Hillary.
Krugman? Puhleeze. Krugman has one job: diss Obama and never offer a solution. No wonder you like him. Sunday even he admitted that no one knew what the "right stimulus" would be because we're in unchartered territory. So, get off your "I know what stimulus is best" BS horse.
January 27, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
*cough cough* Sorry furball :).
BTW: Krugman's ideas for Obama:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/opinion/12krugman.html?hp
You equate disagreement with treason, embodying the worst of Republicans in Congress under GWB. Sometimes Obama's ideas are not best. GWB's administration showed the folloy of only listening to those who agree with you. Democrats should not be just bobbing head dolls agreeing with everything because Obama says so. The campaign is over - now it's about governing.
January 27, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
So wrong. I sometimes disagree with Obama. But I recogonize the people who only post or blog when they have something to complain about.
When people like LaBonne and Krugman ever say "man, I'm glad Obama repealed that family planning gag order" or "I'm happy he sent Mitchell to the Middle East" then I'll believe that they are truly interested in his success. They are not.
They are interested in saying "see, I told you so! I knew he wasn't a progressive." So they ONLY point out the things he does wrong while ignoring all the things he does right. I have ZERO use for folks like that and I hope Obama continues to ignore them.
Krugman was personally invited to meet with Obama. He refused to go. He says he cares about what happens to this country and the policies that will be enacted. Yet, when he has the opportunity to get the president's ear in an intimate setting, he refuses. Then whips out his poison pen the next day to lambast Obama for all the things he does wrong. Fuck Krugman.
January 27, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no way in hell that I want Obama to act like Bill Clinton did in the White House. Obama has learned from his mistakes and successes, but Obama needs to be Obama.
January 27, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think some of us lefties spend too much time worrying about every little move Obama makes--sometimes we seem to have Chicken Little Syndrome: "The sky us falling, the sky is falling!" and all that. In general, I've been willing to trust the new prez on appointments, Guantanamo, torture, etc. But -- and it's a big but -- I tend to agree with Steve LaBonne on this. I think Obama's fetish for bipartisanship is going to come back to bite him in the ass. I was heartened the other day when he told the Republicans, "I won," but then he doesn't follow up by acting like he -- and we -- won.
January 27, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's already biting him in the ass. He pre-emptively crapped up his stimulus proposal (which is far too timid) to try to please those idiots, and they're not going to vote for it anyway. (But they'll still demand, and get, yet more concessions before not voting for it anyway.) Why would they? Their wingnut base will never punish them for it, and the only Republicans left are the ones representing the wingnut base.
January 27, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spot-on. All that's happening with the Repugs is that they're able to prove that they can still get Dems to dance to their tune even when not in power.
January 27, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This supreme power the Repubs have seems to have affected members of TPM also.
January 27, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pointing out that the Dems are caving yet again is hardly a Repug effect.
For the life of me I cannot fathom why the Dems, who won overwhelmingly just this past election, feel the need for capitulation to Repug demands -- especially considering that they're not going to vote for it anyways. If the Repugs want to play the role of obstructionist and threaten boycott, let them. It's easy enough to case the case to the people (again who voted for this stimulus package) that the Repugs are holding up the process.
January 27, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Terrier, your point is right but I think it was McConnel, not Obama who made this move. And for him to try and paint his caucus as a friend of the President is smart for them albeit preposterous. It has the added advantage of addling many of the posters on this thread.
January 27, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do we need more tax cuts? Republican tax cuts were supposed to be the salvation of the economy for the last eight years. What happened? The economy is in the toilet and the Republicans want more tax cuts. Tax cuts just don't seem to work that well.
January 27, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK. Now I officially confess. I thought Obama was brilliant. This whole bipartisanship thing REALLY REALLY makes me wonder just how effing steep his learning curve is.
The Republican notion of Bipartisanship is to get the Blue Dog Democrats to agree that the Republicans are justified in not using KY when they suggest you bend over.
January 27, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, riiiiiigggggghhhttt!
Now after giving the Republicans several chances and all they can come up with is more trickle down tax cuts, after going to their caucus lunch today, it is time to do the stimulus package the right way, the Democratic way. The Republicans want it to be watered down so it will be ineffective, and then use its failure to help themselves in 2010 and 2012. They fill the airwaves with waves of falsehoods and snarky criticisms. McCain stabs Obama in the back and joins the elephant herd trumpeting 'NO'.
The American people want jobs, infrastructure, no B.S. and oversight. We need firm leadership from the Dems and Obama. If they can get a jet ordered canceled they can certainly use the same direct fortitude to do the stimulus the right way. Move away from the old GOP ways and let's get the country going again.
January 27, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm perfectly willing to wait and see if he's really going to get played like this. Personally I think he's letting the pubs have a lot of rope before he hangs them with it - because they're more than happy to keep taking more.
Oh sure, I wish the administration would actually listen to Krugman on this stuff rather than McConnell... but hey, he's just a nobel winning economist - what does he know.
January 27, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd far rather he listen to Buffett. You realize that Krugman's prize was for work on issues that have little/no bearing on the current situation?
January 27, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I want to know is, in the transcription of McConnell's comments, he keeps referring to the "Democratic" party. Did he really say this?? Wow, if so, amazing.... just listened to the recording (duh) -- he does say Democratic. Anyone know if McConnell always used the "ic" or if the Repugs are starting to change their tune?
January 27, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the GOP is voting against the current stimulus plan, then the Progressives should vote against ti as well and defeat it. No use putting forth a compromised bill that still gets voted down by the GOP so then they can rally against it.
If the Dems are going to have sole ownership of the stimulus package like the GOP wants, it might as well be a more progressive package.
Obama should indicate as much to Boehner and Cantor this afternoon. Let them know that if the GOP doesn't buy in and vote for the package, then the progressives will vote it down as well and it will fail. And since the GOP is playing politics and being obstructionist, the next bill will be written to bring the progressives back on board.
January 27, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have the pleasure of agreeing with you for a change. Good ideas.
January 27, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
He should call their bluff and see if they have the balls to vote against economic stimulus during the worst crisis since the Depression.
January 27, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agreed. If they don't like bipartisan ... time to show them the alternative.
January 27, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty much what I've been thinking, too.
"OK, we tried to accommodate you, but you're still not going to vote for it? Fine. We'll just strike out the accommodations, then, and go back to doing what we wanted in the first place. Elections have consequences, remember -- isn't that what you were saying back in 2004?"
January 27, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be to surprised if there is some amendments popping up on the Stimulus Bill to weed out the Republican stuff!
January 27, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It appears that McConnell's adaptation of Che's Foco Theory has become an effective tool in creating dissent among the disaffected masses...
January 27, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You got that right, Sarge.
January 27, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Viva la Revolucion!
January 27, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Put your hand over your heart when you play the Disaffected National Anthem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXDgWM2fTMU
January 27, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Entablar batalla!
January 27, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Libertad o Tierra del Fuego!
January 27, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Argentina to Chile or from Chile to Argentina?
January 27, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desde Chile a Carne. Y abajo los pinches arroz con pollos.
January 27, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear President Obama,
Pay attention to Bob Herbert today:
Link: Bob Herbert lays out in very clear language why Republicans should be ignored...
By all means, reach out them. Reach out to them repeatedly. Tell everyone how you've reached out to them, and then explain why, in spite of all the efforts you've made, they want to continue doing the very things that helped put us in the mess we're in now.
And then ignore them, and create a plan that will actually work.
January 27, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The G.O.P. has successfully engineered a wholesale redistribution of wealth to those already at the top of the income ladder..."
I think he confusing Transfering wealth with redistributing wealth (there is a difference).
January 27, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brink back HANK!
January 27, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. You can spell ass, but I can't spell "bring".
January 27, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL...it happens.
January 27, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who are we now?
January 27, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's Che's long lost nephew, Jorge.
January 27, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
jorge
Bilko has visited the alternative universe, where good George still has not had his balls cut off by Barb and Laura and Billy; good George still gets high, he still strips down and dances on the bar at the Deke House--we mourn for good George...good George would have been a good prez'nit; good George only heard the Voice of God when he took acid.
January 27, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
To paraphrase so many on this thread: "Cleary this Obama guy has no clue."
My Goodness, can't you all see you sound just like Rush?
January 27, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, because they exist as the mirror image of Rush they cannot see shit. But they do love to hear themselves moan.
January 27, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, Obama is aware of what the Republicans are doing. We are not unique political geniuses, here. The question is what is his plan. Obama promised tax cuts in his campaign and economists agree that tax cuts do put money directly into the economy (even if they are not as effective as shovel-ready projects). There are limited shovel ready projects, so implementing tax cuts is not a major concession on Obama's part. Next, look at how he played the contraception issue - Republicans whine and Obama requested that it be taken out. Nobody is arguing that this was a huge stimulus; so Obama gives and the Republicans take without any loss. But the story is Obama keeps trying. I am very curious to see what the ultimate bill looks like. I have no doubt that Obama and company - if faced with Republican no votes - will spice this up before it goes to the floor. This is a huge leveraging chip to play today at the meetings.
January 27, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting.
So he goes to the meeting, says "I'm willing to make some concessions, but only if you tell me now that you'll vote for it"...
Either they agree to vote for it, and he's got the political numbers he wants, or they say no, and he jiggers the whole thing to put what he wants in it, anyway.
January 27, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
McConnels a prick and should be called for out for complaining about fixing the Mall in downtown DC. The thing has been a dirt pit for years and years due to no funding. Now they get some funding available to fix up a national park that millions of visitors from around the world come to visit and McConnel isn't for it.
Maybe we should insist people stop caring for his office and his staffs office. Stop cleaning up and taking out the trash.
Broken chair? Too bad.
Door won't lock? Deal with it.
Garbage can stinks? Suck it up.
January 27, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm amused that so many here think they're somehow smarter than Obama et. al. As though this entire ploy isn't somehow GLARINGLY OBVIOUS and only people on the internet can see what's going down.
This is obviously a political calculation, of some sort, and I don't think anyone knows how it's gonna play out. Especially with those House meetings happening today.
January 27, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing! just amazing! Obama getting played? Naive for thinking he can have bipartisanship? The complete arrogance of some of you to suggest that you know better than Obama on how to work with Republicans. He was a state and US Senator. He knows politics better than any of you and me who just read about it and watch it on tv. To the average viewer watching the evening news, Obama is reaching out and the Republicans are being dicks by trying to block a "bailout" for the people. So of course Mitch is going to say the Repubs are more in line with Obama than his own party! They do not want to be seen as the party that is getting in the way of a plan to recover the economy. His comments are not going to drive a wedge between Obama and the Dems because it's politics and they know Mitch and Bonehead are full of it! I'm going to let (like he needs my permission) Obama do his thing because half the time his critics, supporters and pundits don't know what the frack they are talking about.
January 27, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Translation: I'm a completely brainwashed Obamabot, Obama can do no wrong, la la la I can't hear you.
Beyond pathetic.
January 27, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Going from hurling childish insults to calling someone else pathetic?
Classic.
The intellectual bankruptcy of the chronic complainers and armchair strategists is most amusing.
January 27, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Amusing. Because we're just playing tiddlywinks here, not dealing with real people's lives. Lives that can be ruined by not getting the economy turned around. Women's lives that can be ruined by not having access to contraception.
Idiot. This is not a fucking game.
January 27, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yay! And the transition to shallow demagoguery begins! Get up on that soapbox, young man! Get up on that soapbox and yell like your slogans are backed by something other the half-assed speculation of a handful of internet-dwelling ideologues!
January 27, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boo! And the eternal lame mainstream Dem excuses, together with abuse of anyone who dares to speak up for actual progressive positions, continues. And continues. And continues. Yawn. We've heard this broken record so very many times before.
January 27, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You acknowledge this is not a game yet you say that the Dems should not pass the stimulus without republican support? If this stimulus is good for the country, why should we screw it over just to get back at the repugs.
You're a game-player and not a very good one, at that!
January 27, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said they should dump this bill and then pass a GOOD bill without ANY concessions to the Republicans. Are you in opposite world today?
January 27, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Translation: I told you all along I am smarter than everyone and that everything will go to shit. Tra La La.
January 27, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh baby I'm seeing this with my eyes wide open. The more I read on the blogosphere the more I see that many of you know nothing. I recall many many articles about how Obama would lose the GE if he went to the center - how did that work out? He was advised to get angry and get in McCain's face during the debates - how did that work out? Why is he always complimenting his opponents many of you asked? - Turns out Americans like nice. It was said Biden was too safe. He should go with Edwards, Richardson, etc. (where are they now?) - Turns out in comparison to Palin, Biden really was a safer pick and Americans wanted safe. I could go on and on about how many of you were so very very wrong about what Obama should and should not do. I'm not brainwashed sweetie. No one is going to be right all the time, but Obama has a better record of making the right decisions than his critics, supporters and the pundits.
January 27, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the fact of the matter is that nobody, neither among economists nor politicians, has any actual idea what the short and long-term impact of the stimulus will be. However, there is a big threat that if we overshoot with nonessential spending, it will come back to bite progressives in the ass five or six years down the line. Personally, I'd prefer a leaner stimulus with a lesser threat of forcing eventual medicare/social security cuts.
And these are real concerns that are voiced by real economists extending from the fact that we are in perilous territory where any decision is going to have extensive negative consequences.
Of course, if only they'd put aside their book learnin' and real world experience, they'd know to look to the fevered imagination of Anonymous Internet Commenter #3242234789732849 for the INDISPUTABLE TRUTH.
January 27, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's exactly the reverse of the truth. Economists- the great majority, other than hardcore Republican shills- are actually in pretty good agreement on how much demand the government needs to provide to take up the slack.
January 27, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
do no wrong
Well, in point of fact, so far his record is aces, is it not?
Job 1. Get Dem Nomination. check
Job 2. Win general election check.
Job 3. Be President. (insert small problem here with first women and children tallied to Obama's C in C. ship in Pakistan...)
What I mean is, all of our beefs to date are washed away in the success of the enterprise.
Plus, you know he's fixin' to sucker punch the Repugnants.
January 27, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I watched part of this this morning, and I noticed that Mitch has stopped saying "Democrat Party." He's up to something, I just know it.
Or is he just in PR mode?
January 27, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm hoping he's going to sell out Boehner and Cantor.
Never going to happen, but a cat can dream, right?
(btw, that is some avatar change...)
January 27, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I am heading right over to Red State to denounce this cave in. If he thinks this will keep the Democrat party from calling us Repukes or Repugs, he really has a steep learning curve coated with K-Y jelly.
January 27, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love it. But actually as long as any republicans lips are moving.....
C
January 27, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Party foul!
January 27, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last month I sent a letter to my thoroughly despicable Congressman, Eric Cantor (R-Wish I Could Be George Allen), after he starting foaming at the mouth about Obama's supposed connections to Blago. I specifically called him out on the Illinois AG's statement that there were no allegations connected to Obama and what part of "no" did he (Cantor) not understand. I also stated that I realized the letter would only be seen and responded to by some lowly staffer. Sure enough, yesterday I received the standard form response letter that had nothing to do with the topic of my letter. It thanked me for my request for Congressional bipartisanship (as I said, a ridiculous form letter to send after my letter). The irony of course is that Cantor is now telling the GOP House members *not* to support the stimulus bill. This after his letter explicit states that he will work for bipartisanship on the economy! I intend to call his office later today and ask which is the lie: the letter or his apparent statement to GOP House members. It has to be one or the other. Eric Cantor is a horrible Congressman. Truly one of the worst Representatives in ages. A blatant liar.
January 27, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should CC Webb and Warner on it next time. See if you get a better response.
January 27, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great idea. Darn sure wish I had!
January 27, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at the updated Republican kill list. It's about 6 Billion dollars or, wait for it, 0.7 percent of the stimulus bill. These people have no ideas. This is the John McCain method of economic thrift and recovery: cut 1%.
January 27, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
These all provide jobs. Colleges would hire more people, more people could attend them, the Mall work would require workers (jobs). The new Fed cars would give jobs to autoworkers.
the only one that I question is the Arts one. Not sure about that.
January 27, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the problem TPM is creating. It has an article from the AP on the family planning provision in the Stimulus Bill which TPM chooses
to headline as a Democratic "Cave-In" The article basically says sources say Obama wants to provision pulled and Dem's plan to do so.
In this article TPM includes this gem:
"Later Wish-List Update: The Republicans have successfully stripped family-planning aid from the stimulus" As proof TPM links back to its own post with the misleading headline. There is nothing in the original post about the provision actually being stripped or Republicans doing the stripping.
Democrats added a provision they could not defend.
For proof read the whole transcript between two idiots, Rep. Gingrey and Chris Matthews, and Henry Waxman. See if you think Waxman could defend the Family Planning perivision as essential to the Stimulus Bill.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/matthews-government-support-family-planning-china
January 27, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP is not in sync with one another. McConnell says the GOP are with the President, and Boehner says vote against it. Although I did not vote for the Dem's, its apparent that there will be a lot of bickering between both parties. If Obama says there are going to be no earmarks, then make sure there are none put into the stimulus package. In its current form, I would not vote for it either.
January 27, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
One man's earmark is another man's stimulus. Earmarks are stimulus; that's why congressmen put them in. We need a new lexicon, here, because people are missing the point.
January 27, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get it. A log rolling grass addition gathers no malls. Replacing the federal fleet with $600 million in new Lexicon's will not help Detroit.
Stimulate family planning and it will fall on deaf earmarks.
If I skip the Kool Aid once can I see Obama being played, or is it all in my head?
January 27, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply |