Obama's Winning Week. Really.
Smart take from Ron Brownstein on where we stand now after the stimulus has passed. I think it's the right take.
Many on the left seem truly despairing after this week, feeling that Obama got rolled by the right on the stimulus and the Judd Gregg withdrawal, that Washington media is arrayed against them and that things are generally lousy. I think that's unduly pessimistic. I'm persuaded by the economists who say that a bigger stimulus would have been better and I think the cuts imposed by the centrist gang were more nonsensical than not. Still...This is a $14 trillion economy and the differnece between a stimulus package in the $700 billion range and the $800 billion range is not going to be the determining factor in the fate of the republic. The fact is that Obama remains incredibly popular and he just passed as mammoth a rescue package as we've seen in generations. There are many reasons for despair at the moment but the events of this week, it seems to me anyway, are not really deserving of them.
I think Obama's efforts at bipartisanship on the stimulus and in his cabinet appointments will work to his advantage in the long run. He's not a sucker. The president knows that there will be occasions when he can pick up Republican votes and it wills erve him well.
I'm not sure I buy my colleague Josh's assessment about Washington being arrayed against Obama. Obviously there are institutional impediments to change of any kind, whether it's Reagan's or Obama's. Ours isn't a system designed for dramatic shifts in power. But the White House was pleased with the way business lobbies supported the stimulus. K Street, far from being Tom DeLay's pet, was more in the Democratic camp than not. It won't always be so but to see the culture of lobbying as being irreversably and irrevocably opposed to Democratic or progressive goals is the stuff of lampoon and caricature. Does an on-one-hand-on-the-other media continue to turn out some lame copy about who's at fault when the parties split? Sure, but so what? The important thing is not the atmosphere but the results.
I don't underestimate what lies ahead but I'm pretty amazed by how despairing the tone on the left has been in the wake of what was a very significant passage of legislation.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Our major issues were significantly weakened down for the goal of these three votes.
Health Care.
Obama's own tax cuts, pared down.
Mass Transit.
School construction.
February 14, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he had a choice: a watered down stimulus or no stimilus at all. Seems like you'd prefer the latter. If that's the case, say so. But don't pretend that he could have passed a package without those republican votes.
February 14, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should have played chicken... "I dare you Republicans not to vote for this thing at the 1.2 trillion level. Let's go to the electorate in 2010 with the economy in the tank and see how that works for you."
Instead President Come Let Us Reason Together got taken to the cleaners... the Republicans get to say they tried to help... and the failure was due to Obama.
A depressing start.
February 14, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a Democratic year in a blue state, Susan collins was just reelected by a WIDE margin so 2010 is irrelevant in her case. Snowe is in the same position. She's not afraid of 2010. The only one possible scardey cat is Specter and he's just as afraid of getting a challenge on the right as he is of losing to a Dem in the general.
You act as if we have something to hold over the repugs but we don't. There are no more moderates left and the hard right ones will continue to play for base votes.
February 15, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit, He could have played hardball here, but it will be possible to come back later and switch those tax cuts for spending, after all budgets that don't increase the deficit can't be filibustered.
February 14, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really think Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter ALL would have voted to uphold a filibuster? Absolute worst case scenario was they'd vote for cloture but against the bill.
Besides, it's not like the centrist clowns had a principled argument for why the stimulus would be more effective if smaller and with different priorities. They just wanted to pare back whatever Obama offered. And since Obama offered a plan that already had compromises in it so he could win over Republicans, he had to compromise twice -- once with himself in fantasyland, and another time with actual Republicans.
Point is, this was not inevitable.
February 14, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, for the millionth time, if the three Republican rebels without a clue had voted for cloture and against the bill, IT WOULD HAVE FAILED!!!! Under the pay-go rules adopted by the Senate over several years in the 90s, they had to have 60 actual votes for the bill because it increased the deficit.
February 15, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah maybe, or maybe not. The truth is anything can be done with 51 votes in the Senate, or 50 votes plus the Vice President, it just requires the political will to do so. The Democrats could have declared that Paygo doesn't apply in this instance, or they could have declared a filibuster illegal for the purposes of this one bill. What're the Republicans gonna do, take it to the Supreme Court? And even then, the Congress could choose to ignore the Supreme Court, if they had the political will to do so. They could in fact simply refuse to recognize the court's jurisdiction and not even show up. After all the branches are co-equal, and you can't really tell a co-equal what they can and can't do.
All this yammering about unanimous consent or cloture or some screwy law passed in the 90s is just a cover so they don't have to make any hard choices that might reveal that their Senator buddies are actually craven lunatics.
February 15, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"After all the branches are co-equal, and you can't really tell a co-equal what they can and can't do."
Did you just overturn Marbury v Madison? Also, the rest of your post is similarly ridiculous.
February 16, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give it up, people just don't want to hear the problem and want to ignore it. Let them rant and rave.
February 15, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking as a realist, left or not, I'm let down by Obama's allowing the GOP and idiot Senators to successfully water down the solution to a failing economy, using only their hot air. I don't see a compromised bill as something to be proud of. Our solutions are right or they're wrong. They work or they don't. Now there's more of a chance we'll never find out.
February 14, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be snide but: welcome to the constitution. It's not like he compromised with the centrists for no particular reason; he needed the votes! Now, maybe you think he should have negotiated harder, or let them block the legislation and let the chips fall where they may, but you should at least make that case. just saying you hate compromises kind of misses the point. There are political realities here, after all.
February 14, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
...actually they needed his policy, as much or more than he needed their votes, as they'll discover if we are in a depressin in 2010.
February 15, 2009 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be snide but: welcome to the constitution. It's not like he compromised with the centrists for no particular reason; he needed the votes! Now, maybe you think he should have negotiated harder, or let them block the legislation and let the chips fall where they may, but you should at least make that case. just saying you hate compromises kind of misses the point. There are political realities here, after all.
February 14, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it wasn't watered down all that much in the end. Estimates I've seen lately say 400,000 to 500,000 jobs less but it will be possible to come back for more and ask for 'makeup' stimulus, say for energy or health care.
It's still a huge amount of money. But the way it was covered, and how it all worked out was kind of humiliating, Paul Krugman is right when he says it "feels like failure" but in fact it was not.
We kind of have to get over our constant disappointment here. This was a big win and hopefully it will be followed up by more stimulus.
The next critical test, I think, will be if the banks get nationalized.
February 14, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those who think this is the last word in stimulus and recovery need to think again.
February 14, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be more than certain that Obama had Summers look over the final version before it was agreed upon. I don't think this would have left the Senate and House if Obama didn't think it was effective enough.
February 14, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Summers, all right then.
February 14, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it'd be naive to think that this bill is the last word on the matter.
I just get so tired of the faux outrage from the Repubs, as if they've been White Knights protecting the citizenry from governmental depredations. You know you're going to hear bellowing from the right, "WHAT? More money???" And you know they have some fish story for the constituents they're going to short-change in using stimulus money.
I guess they figure if they talk non-stop for the next 4 years, people won't notice that they've gone back and forth like a pendulum.
February 15, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matt, I don't think you understand what Josh was saying or what the pollsters were saying in Ben Smith's piece.
This is not about lobbyists or about "shape of earth, views differ" coverage, this is about Villager after Villager writing about what a "big blow" the Gregg withdrawl was and how the Republicans were getting their mojo back (while driving their approval ratings into the 20s).
What it best compares to is the coverage of the Clinton impeachment where the Village was firmly for it, and the public was firmly against it.
I'm glad you're reporting here, but kindly check your Villager apologism at the door, okay?
February 14, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, four things (started off as two):
1. I think Eric on Eriksen (did I get that right?) is correct when he says the village (by which I think he means the press) still tends to be wired toward the GOP. I think that's right.
I'm irritated by some of the economic assumptions embedded in AP stories and the implied criticism of Obama about the stimulus during his first press conference.
Then you have the press treating routine ups and downs (Gregg et al) as the end of his presidency. The assumption in some of the stuff you see in the Washington Post and the NYT is that, since he didn't solve all the problems of the US in (literally) his first two weeks in office, he's just the latest failed president.
2. I do think the Left has bought into this bullshit. And by the left I mean the blogosphere. Most of them don't understand the legislative process or the fact that it takes two houses, with different rules, to pass identical legislation before it can reach the Oval Office.
3. I'd like a bigger stimulus, but this bill is very similar to the size of what Obama said he wanted a month or more ago. After all the Village finger-pointing and the Left's foaming at the mouth, this guy got just about what he requested. It's an historic legislative accomplishment -- remember that Bill Clinton had trouble getting an $18 billion stimulus through in his first months.
4. This stimulus bill isn't the end of the discussion. There will be lots of opportunities to go back and take another bite at the apple. Obama has come across as the face of reason and moderation and sooner or later the Republican failure to even try to meet him halfway will come back to bite them.
February 14, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, back in late December/early January, one prominant commenter here actually told me that my response that criticism of Obama was premature given that he hadn't even been inaugurated yet was "wearing thin." Its like they've gotten so deeply invested in the calumny that his supporters have a messiah-complex that they fly into "see, see, told you he was just an ordinary man!" mode when water is not turned into wine or walked upon.
As was the case with his candidacy, Obama is staking his presidency on the concept that obsessing and catering to the 24 hour news cycle (or to the 60 minute news cycle that prevails in the blogosphere) is a recipe for failure. Jury's still out on whether that's a good idea, but it got him elected and it has the merit of being the oppposite of the CW.
February 15, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember, the President does NOT write or edit legislation. He directs, suggests, asks BUT THE IDIOTS IN CONGRESS WRITE IT...Half the time they have not read the parts that they use as talking points!
The GOP has played into Obama's hand -just like the clintons- he let them expose their TRUE MOTIVES...In the clintons it was power above all else-- in the repub's it was power over the middle class and jack up the rich!! They just voted AGAINST the
LARGEST tax cuts for the middle class in history..After voting for the largest- least restricted- no oversight bill in history -the TARP!
But they - GOP- are worried about spending--fat chance---They are worried about losing more 'face' and seats in 2010! HA HA HA
GOP DOWN TO 10 in 2010!
February 14, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, speaking as a leftier-than-ever lefty (8 years of Bush turned this "centrist" into a total knife-thrower), I am not sure I'm so much dismayed as I am underwhelmed by this incarnation of the stimulus package. I don't think it's going to do much, and in the long run, I think its tepid impact will be seen as due to and a reflection of Obama's essentially conciliatory and deferential character, and the fact that while he may be a visionary in terms of bringing the nation together, he is not a visionary in terms of "big ideas," unlike, say, an Al Gore. But the main thing I wanted to respond to in Matt's piece is that I am not sure JM was referring so much to K Street as being R-wired (as I recall, prostitutes don't care who writes the check as long as it clears), I think he was referring to the Beltway media Establishment. The CNNs, the Gloria Borgias, the David Broders, the WaPo editorial page etc. I think they've got a very clear set of parameters as to what is true, what are givens, what the American people really want, and ultimately, what is permissible and "serious" in terms of themes/concepts/arguments/beliefs injected into the general political discourse. And that world-view is center right and very R-friendly and very R-influenced. It's the reason why "liberal" is an epithet and "conservative" is not. Thus, they create an atmosphere that does in fact have a huge impact on the results, because nothing outside their parameters of acceptance is allowed into the debate, and so we get things like this feeble, timorous stimulus package. It's an endless loop and it's a very big reason for the nation's startling and profound decline.
February 14, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa! 100 billion give or take left out of the 787 billion final total of the stimulus bill and you're complaining it has been watered down to be essentially ineffectual? It was in essence an 800 billion stimulus bill when first introduced to the House, which then ballooned to 900+ billion, then in the senate was whithered back down to almost 800 billion.
Please explain what crucial parts of the stimulus bill you think have been so watered down to make the whole package ineffectual?
The facts are:
High speed and inner city transit, 300 million in original house bill, up to 2.25 billion in senate, then 8 billion in final bill.
NiH - originally 3.5 billion in house bill, becomes 10 billion in senate and stays at 10 billion.
Government Oversight board - originally 14 million in house, senate wanted 7 million. Final is 84 million.
NASA ends up with 2 billion, far more than original allocation.
Biggest program cuts:
2 billion for VA affairs wiped out including VA construction although they did get 1 billion for medical facilities renovation and retooling.
Military construction went from 600 million in house bill, 900 million in senate, but cut down to 180 million in final.
General military construction 3.75 billion in house bill, 118 million in senate and 1.45 billion for all services in final.
FBI 475 million completely cut out of final bill.
So please explain which programs you see as being cut so extensively so as to make the stimulus ineffectual?
February 14, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am looking at the overall bill, not the specifics you've delineated.
Half the bill is nonstimulative, for starters: it's tax cuts. Tax cuts are a proven failure in terms of healthy, sustainable economic growth. I'm sure I don't need to refer to George Bush on this score. The fact that proven-failure tax cuts make up half the stimulus bill is unfortunate, and dilutes its intent.
So, that leaves us with about 375-400 billion in actual job-generating spending. As the administration's team has said repeatedly, the bill will save or create 3-4 million jobs. If we say, for the sake of argument, that the bill will save 2 million jobs, then we can agree that the bill's target goal is to create 2 million jobs. I am not convinced this is going to happen. Why? Because the bill is timorous and feeble in its lack of vision. There's nothing interesting or new/"change" about it. It's classic Washington patronage. It reminds me of the $285 billion dollar ICE-T bill in the last year or so of the Clinton administration, which was designated for "rebuilding America's crumbling roads and bridges" (a permanent state of affairs, apparently). The dot-com bubble burst at about the same time, as a I recall, and then the economy contracted. ICE-T was forgotten about, and it's stimulative impact has never, as far as I am aware, been recognized as some sort of important event in our economic history.
So, we're got a stimulus bill of 400 billion, and it's all old-school, roads and bridges stuff. Roads and bridges, to me, is classic code for pork and patronage.
I'm underwhelmed and skeptical that it will do much. It's DOA, as far as I can see. Hopefully I will be proven wrong.
February 14, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, no, tax cuts to the rich have been reasonably shown to not work as stimulus. Tax cuts to the non-rich may or may not work. (But Obama also promised to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, so it is a bit late to bitch about it.)
February 15, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Candidate Obama promised permanent tax cuts, but that promise had nothing to do with stimulating the economy. No one knew at that point what a shambles the economy was actually in.
February 15, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this demonstrates, ultimately, Obama's overall strength and the minority's overall impotence.
The Republicans in this fight come off as whiny, weak would-be bullies. Obama comes off as the cool kid who doesn't even need to throw a punch to show they're really cowards.
Sure, it's an imperfect bill. Anyone not hopelessly naive always knew it would be. That's the nature of the game. But still, it looks like a win for Obama.
Plus, Obama now has goodwill stored up with the public for his attempts at bipartisanship. The Republicans just blew their shot at any semblance of goodwill. The people who care more about actually getting things done than about petty point-scoring are massively annoyed with them.
February 14, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The story was the Republicans. Obama reaching out wasn't news, uniform Republican rejection was. In some ways that's a huge victory for the Republicans: they owned the news cycle, they were unified, they were strategically moving to reclaim their brand of fiscal conservatism, they carved out a clear role to play.
But the role they're playing is transparently one of political gamesmanship and screw the country in the meantime. That's not really a well thought out rebranding is it? Isn't this what led to half a century of Democratic control of Congress?
Yes the Democrats in Congress are corrupt and divided and ineffectual, especially at messaging The other party enjoys watching folks suffer. They're gleeful that killing a desperate attempt to react to a collapse of the world's economy has given them a message. And the message is NO! Unless I'm missing something that is the entire strategy. Simply vote no.
It's really astoundingly cynical, even for Washington in the 21st Century. And that's saying something.
February 14, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arlen Specter said there was many more Republicans who were in support of the Stimulus however couldn't break ranks because they were up for re-election in 2010 or two low on the seniority to want to pick a fight with Senate and party elders.
Similarly there is a GOP house member (story over at Kos) who said he was going to vote for the package on second vote, however couldn't because of intense pressure to vote no by Boehner and Cantor. The pressure was so much that the deputy whip was standing right next to him when he cast his vote.
If Obama keeps reaching out and the GOP leadership keeps ruling with an iron fist, I could see more Republican start bucking the party powers and voting how they see fit. Especially if Obama is still popular and they worry about being cast as the "Party of No" come the 2010 elections.
February 14, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/14/163622/453/76/697604
Rep Cao from La was the congressman mentioned in above post.
February 14, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny that after this episode, just how unpopular the GOP Congress is in the polls while Obama is as popular as ever.
The GOP is really looking to be incredibly insensitive to the American people.
February 14, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Plouffe recently gave a speech where he explained that the McCain campaign micromanaged their campaign down to winning the day and the week, even so much as winning the television segment. Obama's camp didn't fight these micro-battles but looked at the campaign as a whole/ a rather macro view. And remember how the media ate up McCain's small "wins".
I think that's what we're still seeing right now. The GOP is all about winning the moment in front of them and go out of their way to use the MSM to see this, whereas The Obama Administration (I love writing that) is looking at the bigger picture, the longer term view. He's looking at his Presidency in a four year field of view, whereas the GOP and MSM are still looking at the day to day "wins" and "losses".
February 14, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is plenty of time to get more funding to the states, for mass transit, and health care, as separate legislative initiatives. This is the first step, not the last. And I would not expect Obama to wait long once the mass transit projects that will benefit from hte spending is "shovel ready."
February 14, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are people aware that 60 votes is required to pass a bill of this size in the Senate? It's got nothing to do w/ a filibuster, Obama had to have 60 to pass. This is a fact that I had to learn in the comments section of another blog. It's interesting that the MSM have spent countless hours discussing this bill and the attempts to reach 60 votes while assuming it was about a) Obama's attempts at bi partisanship and b)getting past a filibuster. Matt Cooper were you aware of this? If not, why are you in this business, if so, why are you mis informing your readers?
February 14, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless it is an reconciliation bill. Which needs only a 50 plus one vote.
February 14, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The bill will be subject to a point of order due to its deficit spending, but the point of order can be waived by a 3/5 vote of the Senate. So that means passage would ultimately have required 60 votes whether Republicans filibustered or not. "
http://congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/2/7/161443/9275/436/583
February 14, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Au contraire, Matt Cooper.
Every news program, so-called and actual, featured prominently the reaction of the Republicans to the stimulus bill, including every theatrical hissy fit of every Republican legislator to every minor proposal in it they could find to distort the significance of, even after those proposals had been withdrawn from the bill. The frame of reference was never the bill itself; it was the Republican response to it. That was Josh's point. And I agree, because I watched it happen all week long, trying to think had I ever observed such careful and prolonged attention to what the minority party had to say, when it was the Democrats who were the minority in the last eight years. (Uh, no.)
I saw a headline this past week that said "House DEMOCRATS Pass Stimulus," not "House Passes Stimulus", and if that isn't a perfect example of what Josh is saying—that the city remains wired for the GOP—that Republican is the media's default position—then I don't know what is.
February 14, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not despairing. There is nothing to despair about. Politico had a great article today that basically said how Americans feel outside of the beltway is far different to what pundits say inside the beltway. In other words Americans see Obama as someone who is trying to create concensus but is being rebuffed by the GOP.
Obama is trying to get things done for the American people while the Republicans are painting themselves as the NO party who are insensitive to the plight of Americans. Obama is as popular as ever, the Dem Congress is about the same, and the GOP Congress is even less popular. Americans could care less whether or not Judd Gregg is the Commerce secretary or not. Too many other FAR MORE important things.
WaPo has an article about just how BIG of a feat that Obama has just pulled off. They said no other President has pulled this big of a feat off so early in his presidency. They said that this is historic.
In terms of the size of the stimulus package, I am not that worried. The FINAL BUDGET comes out at the end of the month. If Obama wants he can put in the final budget things that should have been in the stimulus package such as $15 billion for school construction, etc. Who cares if no Republicans vote for the budget. The FINAL BUDGET can not be filibustered. It is a up or down vote only.
February 14, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this guy got it right, this recovery package was a darn good first step, and a big victory for progressives:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020712/darn-good-first-step
February 14, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't see K Street cozying up to Dems as necessarily a good thing Matt. If the business lobby wants to help get us all single payer healthcare, get us off fossil fuels, and develop a new transportation system then we're all for it. The problem is a lot of us don't trust them. They might be more interested in buying off Dems in congress than facing the future.
And in case you haven't noticed the parties split decades ago. None of us give a damn about that but the Beltway media sees as a sign of the apocalypse which makes us think your brethren are all nuts.
February 14, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference between $700 and $800 billion may be a rounding error, but if you think $2T is the right number than doubtless you're disappointed.
Anyone disappointed by the last three weeks -- yes, it's been less than a month -- is in for a long four years. Getting a bill with this many zeros through Congress this fast is a huge accomplishment, regardless of what we had to give up to get it.
Obama made some mistakes. He admitted as much, and Emanuel put Congress on notice yesterday that those mistakes wouldn't be repeated. That said, the President had to compromise all over the place to get enough votes in the Senate.
All in all, a good week and a great start for a President who probably hasn't had time to unpack his bags.
February 14, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, after his mid-course correction last week, getting out into the country and re-focusing on the substance of his stimulus goals, Obama is doing fine. The Brownstein interview and analysis are right on point.
February 14, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
how despairing the tone on the left
That's our job. Just like Pelosi is the bad cop and Reid is the good cop. (Apparently, the punditry have never watched "Law and Order")
It confuses the fuck outta the 'pugnants.
February 14, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
K Street, far from being Tom DeLay's pet, was more in the Democratic camp than not. It won't always be so but to see the culture of lobbying as being irreversably and irrevocably opposed to Democratic or progressive goals is the stuff of lampoon and caricature.
This makes no sense. K Street is paid by corporations to advance the interest of those corporations.
If you hired a lawyer to defend you in court, would you expect them to be opposed to the interests of the prosecution? Of course, to not do so would be a dereliction of duty and probably illegal.
K Street lobbyists are like lawyers for the corporations that hire them. of course they represent those interests and those interests alone.
February 14, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think his poorly worded point is something like: it turns out some corporations are hiring lobbyists to advance progressive ideas now that it is clear the democrats are going to craft the agenda. SOMEBODY wants to build and recycle automotive batteries or wind farms or do a feasibility study for a mag-rail between Las Vegas and LA. In many ways the lobbyist's pond just got a whole hell of a lot bigger.
February 14, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, K Streeters are lining up to make money off the democratic agenda, and in some cases you have lobbyists on both sides, look at Network Neutrality, for example.
February 14, 2009 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh. I feel a large disconnect here. I feel the stimulus bill was largely a success for Obama. I feel overall it's a good bill- not perfect, but certainly what we ended up with was much better than what the Senate came up with. I think Obama is doing a great job overall, and was especially great this last week campaigning for the stimulus package. I'm even warming on Nancy Pelosi. Oh, and I'd pretty much call myself a socialist these days (even if I do vote Dem).
Did the left lose out here some? Yes, on certain things. There could've been much more transporation/mass transit stuff in there. But, more got put in there than the Senate took out. Food stamps were increased to 14%- great news, since they were gonna cut it down in the Senate version. I was, and still am, mad about the cuts to HeadStart, etc. But overall the bill turned out as good as the House version, if not better in some ways. The problem here is the Senate- not Obama, which is what I new would be the problem when Obama was elected. The Senate is were good ideas go to die.
However, I'm certainly not desparing. Quite the contrary, the conference comm. seems to have avoided that entirely by putting out a surprisingly good bill, if perhaps too small. If it is too small I suspect Obama will be diligent, if not quick, on coming up with even bolder and more progressive plan- perhaps that New Deal we were looking for.
February 14, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not despairing about the stimulus though I think it's imperfect.
But the mainstream media rarely provides context for ridiculous GOP claims compared to their track record in the very recent past. Worse, they accept the GOP frame for the bill (ie pork) without looking its contents or -- gasp -- challenging such bogus assertions.
I find it tiresome especially considering how media shares a lot of culpability for the failure leading up the Iraq war, torture, financial meltdown, etc.
If the GOP declared the moon made of cheese, I guarantee many in the media will demand how Dems could be so silly as to not already know that.
February 14, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
'K Street, once Tom DeLay's exclusive pet, has morphed sufficiently to accommodate the Dems
NO OFFENSE INTENDED TO ANY HONEST PROSTITUTES, but those guys on K Street are cheap whores. They don't care who they screw, as long as they get paid.
They were prepping for the transition to Dems long before the general public or John McCain's dunderheaded staff imagined the deal was done and a fork was in order.
K-Street is, if nothing else, a reliably fickle whore, though, always primping for the latest beau.
Just because they were quite capable of taking full advantage of all those ankle-grabbing R's during the Bush debacle, it doesn't mean they won't expect the same posture from the Democrats, or the same results.
February 14, 2009 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO OFFENSE INTENDED TO ANY HONEST PROSTITUTES
I appreciate that, as my third wife was a working girl.
February 15, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm not sure I buy my colleague Josh's assessment about Washington being arrayed against Obama."
I apologize that I don't have time to read all of the comments but I hope that someone made the point that Josh didn't say anything like that. He said "DC is wired for Republicans," which is a completely different statement. To me that means that any Democrat, including Obama, is at a competitive disadvantage in the court of public opinion to any Republican because of right-leaning, corporatist viewpoint in the establishment press, as well as all of the institutions of power in Washington. That is empirically, demonstrably true.
And saying that "K Street" was behind the stimulus is misleading. You mean that Wall Street's lobbyists were behind it because their employers are, like, broke and all and there's, like, free money and stuff from the bill.
BTW, I'm not a pessimist, about Obama. I think he played the corporate press perfectly. He knew that Republicans weren't reliable partners in government and that media would transmit their lies on an equal footing with the truth so he did the one thing he could: he made a big show of reaching out to Republicans, including giving away enough of the store, to reap the narrative: "Obama reached out in a bi-partisan fashion to save an economy in crisis and Republicans spurned and obstructed him", in spite of the media's disgustingly inane portrayal of events and general GOP water-carrying.
February 15, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
right-leaning, corporatist viewpoint
Well these are, after all, the motherfuckers who sign the checks...
It is a perpetual hoot to hear the droolers on Fox inveigh against General Electric and its evil NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC minions as the storm troops of the left!!
General Electric! I was raised on stories of GE's union busting racketeering and how my godfather James Matles took them down. Trust me, GE is not leftwing.
February 15, 2009 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Trust me, GE is not leftwing."
The thought never crossed my mind, jolly. Not until I see Noam Chomsky on Meet the Press.
February 15, 2009 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not until I see Noam Chomsky on Meet the Press.
Heh, heh, heh...there you go again...
February 15, 2009 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, don't forget, GE created Ronald Reagan. He was a quasi-socialist head of the Screen Actors' Guild before GE hired him as a spokesman and spent fifteen years pumping his empty head full of hatred for organized labor and goverment regulation, and blind love of laissez faire economics.
February 15, 2009 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
pumping his empty head
It pains me to say this, but having observed in a parent (retrospectively from the eighties), the slow and really occult onset of Alzheimer's, the decades of the fifties and sixties and are no great shakes for thinking, ya' feel me?
In some ways his ability to make bald faced declarations in utter disregard of factual basis, and peer incredulously at any who challenged his bona fides, was a product of his incipient dementia.
This made him, in some ways, the ideal tool for the *California interests who were behind him.
*I'm waiting for the biography to come out, "Ed Meese, A Powerful Force for Evil".
February 15, 2009 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me that means that any Democrat, including Obama, is at a competitive disadvantage in the court of public opinion to any Republican because of right-leaning, corporatist viewpoint in the establishment press, as well as all of the institutions of power in Washington. That is empirically, demonstrably true.
A lot of the institutions of power in Washington aren't right-leaning now and probably never were over the last 28 years. As evidence look at the rousing welcome the new Secretary of state and AG got from their agencies their first days on the job. These folks are very happy to be led by the reality based party. All over the federal gov. employees are encouraged cuz Dems unlike Repubs aren't interested in twisting the facts, gutting their agencies and their ability to do their jobs.
February 15, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Beltway media is wired for the Republicans even if K Street is another story.
In general though, I think Cooper's right about the overdone pessimism on the left.
Still, there needs to be a way to formulate Obama's victory while acknowledging the real impact of the Republicans and the media.
In my mind, the stimulus package is a big win for Obama even though the Republicans and media were able to take all the joy out of the process. In the final analysis, the stimulus package ended up being a "root-canal" kind of victory.
I have a feeling that a lot of Obama's victories are going to end up feeling like root canals.
February 15, 2009 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we can see this as a victory for Obama but there is cause for concern. The sharp and fast attack from the media against Obama armed with nothing but republican talking points is real cause for concern. It was almost surreal how quickly republicans and/or their talking points showed up everywhere. That is what I hear in Josh's comments and that should concern every American. Its just gotta stop.
February 15, 2009 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice staw man there, Matt. The reason for despair was not just that the package got trimmed by the centrists. The problem is, first, that it was too small to begin with and, second, because so much of it was devoted to relatively ineffective tax cuts - especially corporate tax cuts - before the centrists got their goofy hands on it. Basically, because Obama was negotiating with himself.
Obama's stated goal was to save/create 3.5-4 million jobs. The projected shortfall in GDP (without the stimulus) is 3.9 trillion over the next three years. So even his stated goal would only ameliorate the damage. Best case scenario for this package is 2.5 million jobs.
This, on top of his appointments, like Summers and Geithner, his about face on State Secrets, etc., feeds into the frustration of those who were really hoping for true change.
Yes, I know, he has done many good things, Lily Ledbetter, SCHIP, GITMO (we think), torture (we think), etc., but there really was no good reason to give up a better package.
February 15, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
President Obama is leaving no time for hand wringing by anyone over the stimulus bill.
After the bill signing its on to the home mortgage crisis; over 4 million homes are currently in foreclosure, and 10 thousand a day are falling into foreclosure.
The "winning week" is likely going to turn into weeks.
February 15, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're high. DC is a freakish fishbowl of fakery. It's like watching "Friday the 13th." Everyone in the audience can see the guy in the hockey mask, but the actress on the screen can't.
So, in my bad analogy, the punditocracy and the MSM are Jamie Lee Curtis, the GOP is a homicidal maniac, and the American public should cut back on saturated fats (the palm oil in popcorn is horrible for you).
February 15, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
As others have pointed out, I think Matt Cooper misses Josh's point. The media has a significant knee-jerk willingness to report, and thus validate, Republican talking points, regardless of their veracity or how they are being perceived by the public. TV is especially complicit in the dis-information machine that was so critical to the political success of the Bush administration, and relationship smacks of corporatism, thru and thru.
Cooper's boldest assertion in his rebuttal of JM's argument? "...but so what? The important thing is not the atmosphere but the results." not only dismisses the very issue at hand, but does so with no sense of personal involvement...it's as if Matt has forgotten he works in the media business.
Does Cooper also forget the immediate past, in which he himself was inextricably entwined? It was the "atmosphere" that led to almost 8 full years of disastrous results for America on too many fronts to list, and the media helped shape that atmosphere with its absolute abdication of core responsibilities in the interest of political access (at best) or corporate fealty (at worst).
Cooper should stick to beat reporting and forgo the analysis...Frank Rich has it nailed in today's piece "They Sure Showed That Obama". Hell, even that unfunny but accurate opening skit on SNL last night was more accurate than Cooper's take...
February 15, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh is correct - the view from DC is very pro-republican. Why? Because every single talking head benifits from pro-republican policies and tax cuts. There isn't any wide spread joblessness in DC or foreclosures - we are doing fine right now. It really is a bubble here. The only complaint is about the value of retirement funds and everyone expects that to pick back up any day now...le...dee...da...
February 15, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
My God, what a lot of crybabies!
Obama has won the biggest and fastest Washington political victory in a generation - like Waterloo a close run thing, but complete and decisive.
He also OWNS the Village, even if they don't know it yet. Washington is a courtier city, and $500 billion in direct royal largesse is gonna buy an awful lot of bowing & scraping.
February 15, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't a matter of crying about the results of the stimulus package...it's about how the inside media reports on the sausage-making. It may prove to be the case that, despite the media's focus on inflating the importance, veracity, and relevance of the Republicans' perspective, that Obama "owns the Village". He didn't own it three months ago, and he didn't own it 3 years ago...yet, in all that time, the media has framed the Republican agenda as mainstream "born in the USA-ism" and the Democratic one as craven vote-buying cronyism.
The question remains, why is that, and will it change?
February 15, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Axelrod as quoted by Frank Rich in this morning's New York Times:
“This town talks to itself and whips itself into a frenzy with its own theories that are completely at odds with what the rest of America is thinking,”
I have to agree with Mr. Axelrod.
February 15, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matt,
Josh isn't the only one saying the village is wired into the Republican party. If a Martian landed here two weeks ago and took in the print and electronic media he would have thought Obama and the Dmeocrats were out of power and born losers.
The main story was the stimulus, and according to the Villagers, it wasn't that the bill passed or that the Republicans were playing obstructionist, the story was Obama was the big loser because he only got 3 Republicans to vote for it.
This is like reporting on the election this way; 'McCain sweeps the counties across the country by x%, but but the electoral college went for Obama.'
February 15, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is important to note:
"Mr. Cantor acknowledged that Mr. Obama had won points from the public for appearing less partisan than Republicans in this battle" - NYT
Not only was Obama "less partisan", but people got that. So when McCain "lambastes Obama with,
"It was a bad beginning because it wasn't what we promised the American people, what President Obama promised the American people - that we would sit down together,"
the clear inference is that people think the Republicans wouldn't sit down with the Democrats.
Of course the deck was stacked against them. Obama crafted a bipartisan proposal which the House then turned into a bipartisan bill. The Republicans wanted it all their way (100% tax cuts) or nothing, so they refused to contribute significantly and they refused to criticize honestly.
I hope the people got this as clearly as Cantor thinks they got the main point.
What confirms Repo stupidity are the MSM excerpts of their antics. Offering up 100% tax cuts as an alternative is stupid. It buys into the need for government involvement, a strong negative for most conservatives, and it's clear that tax cuts aren't as stimulative as some kinds of spending if you believe anything from the macro narrative. Juggling numbers to fake other numbers is stupid when it's done stupidly as they did, and its unprincipled too. So the Repos are disrespecting their conservative base while demonstrating patent dishonesty. When you don't have the votes, it's time to speak truth to power, not lie and demand your own stupid version of power.
February 15, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is first base, but not a homerun. Obama just wanted to get on base with this stimulus bill. The rest should be shoved down their throats making it home. You will see a few more of these steps. Healthcare is what he will shove down their throats.
Step:
Step 1: 70 - 80% stimulus package.
Step 2: Add to the transportation appropriations bill coming up what was left out for mass transit.
Step 3: Add to the energy appropriations bill for the green initiatives.
Step 4: Somehow put education back into play inside of another appropriations bill or as an earmark.
Step 5: "OBAMA'S HEALTHCARE PLAN"
The only thing that I fret is the idea of nationalized healthcare now. I like what he proposed in the campaign in contrast to Hillary's. Maybe nationalize it on his way out. For 2010, Republicans will loose again, but we need to run some of the "Blue Dog" democrats thru a few primaries up to 2016. That is my only gripe with the democratic party, discipline. The republicans have it down, be in line or get put in line, ie Arlen Specter. I have always respected him and his perspective, even though I have have disagreed with him on a lot of stuff, but he is the only republican that poses an arguement.
These "Blue Dog" Democrats need the light to shine on them. The party can afford to break a few eggs.
February 15, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure and then be relegated to the minority again with no power. Sure screw the blue dogs. They are meaningless. I love ranting and raving for a party with no power and just based on principle. Kind of sounds like republicans. I may be in the wrong party. Get rid of the blue dogs and the dem numbers will be less than the republican numbers right now. Great idea! Let's run them through the primaries and get rid of any dissent. Brilliant! Without blue dogs, dems could not even filibuster. Awesome concept! Sign me on.
February 15, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a fiscal conservative progressive, I'm appalled at the willingness to spend what we don't have and don't know how to pay back.
The Recovery bill is not a stimulus package. It largely substitutes anti-stimulative tax cuts plus non-stimulative government spending from borrowed money, for private churning which kept the economy overly inflated long enough for a housing and credit bubble to inflate.
As an American I'm quite disappointed that I didn't hear sound principled opposition to the recovery bill. Progress is not made by digging your grave deeper.
If that makes me a Blue Dog, so be it.
February 15, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
All the gloom & doomers need to hop over to TPM Cafe & read Jon Taplin. See OBAMA C change, it should make you feel less whiny & discouraged. He really is not a fool. He has been in office less than a month!
February 15, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink