Replies to post #55291 on Discover GOP Opprobrium

[teapeebubbles]

THEY'RE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE....

Michael Tomasky has a good piece in the Guardian this morning, arguing that President Obama's success on the stimulus package is a "triumph" and "an enormous political victory for Obama." Tomasky has heard the concerns about what transpired last week, but he's not buying the arguments.

Well, it's already happened. Barely two weeks into the job and President Barack Obama has compromised fundamental principles, timorously caved in to Republicans and conservative Democrats in the Senate and lost control of his agenda.

Or ... wait. Maybe it's the case that, a mere two weeks into the job, President Obama has already changed the country's direction in remarkable ways. He's on the verge of a massive political victory when the Senate passes the stimulus package tomorrow, as expected, and the Republicans are apoplectic and divided and intellectually bankrupt.

Which is it? Friends, I usher you on a tour of the liberal mind.



As Tomasky sees it, liberals are "happy being unhappy," and have "a general tendency to accentuate the negative." But I think this is a misread of the progressive reaction to the stimulus debate.

I, for example, am pleased that the bill is likely to pass and I'm disappointed by what transpired. The problem isn't that Obama "compromised fundamental principles," it's that Sens. Collins, Nelson, Lieberman, and others made a good bill worse; the economy needed more; and the White House strategy miscalculated the Republican lawmakers' capacity for responsible behavior.

Paul Krugman makes the compelling case today that Obama's drive to pass a bill with Republican support got the debate off on the wrong foot, and led to a weaker package: "...Obama was reduced to bargaining for the votes of those centrists. And the centrists, predictably, extracted a pound of flesh -- not, as far as anyone can tell, based on any coherent economic argument, but simply to demonstrate their centrist mojo. They probably would have demanded that $100 billion or so be cut from anything Mr. Obama proposed; by coming in with such a low initial bid, the president guaranteed that the final deal would be much too small. Such are the perils of negotiating with yourself."

Tomasky's point is well taken, but the criticism isn't directed at Obama for having "caved"; it's that he positioned a handful of Republicans to hold the bill hostage until they made it worse.

To be sure, if the legislation progresses and reaches the president's desk quickly, there will be reason to cheer. But it's also worth taking lessons from this process and applying them to future debates. The efficacy of legislation has to be a higher priority than the percentage of Republicans willing to support it.

[teapeebubbles]

I suppose it doesn't take much to make Republicans happy these days. According to an interesting Washington Post piece, the party's leaders "see glimmers of rebirth."

After giving the package zero votes in the House, and with their counterparts in the Senate likely to provide in a crucial procedural vote today only the handful of votes needed to avoid a filibuster, Republicans are relishing the opportunity to make a big statement. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) suggested last week that the party is learning from the disruptive tactics of the Taliban, and the GOP these days does have the bravado of an insurgent band that has pulled together after a big defeat to carry off a quick, if not particularly damaging, raid on the powers that be.

"We're so far ahead of where we thought we'd be at this time," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), one of several younger congressmen seeking to lead the party's renewal. "It's not a sign that we're back to where we need to be, but it's a sign that we're beginning to find our voice. We're standing on our core principles, and the core principle that suffered the most in recent years was fiscal conservatism and economic liberty. That was the tallest pole in our tent, and we took an ax to it, but now we're building it back."

The second-ranking House Republican, Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), put it more bluntly. "What transpired . . . and will give us a shot in the arm going forward is that we are standing up on principle and just saying no," he said.



Hmm. President Obama has been in office for 20 days. He's signed the Lily Ledbetter measure into law over Republican objections. He's signed S-CHIP expansion into law over Republican objections. He's signed several executive orders on key national and internal policies over Republican objections, and he's secured agreement from both the House and Senate on an ambitious stimulus package over Republican objections.

But the congressional GOP has its head held high because they've come up with a reckless and irresponsible economic worldview, and convinced the party to rally around it. They're thrilled because, in the midst of a genuine economic crisis, the party, with near unanimity, has agreed not to have any constructive policy role whatsoever.

"We're so far ahead of where we thought we'd be at this time." I take that to mean GOP leaders feared that some contingents of the Republican caucuses would acknowledge reality and recognize the significance of an electoral mandate. The goal was to convince rank-and-file Republicans to take a firm stand against the advice of economists, governors, the business community, and the party that just won national elections, but there were widespread fears the GOP wouldn't go along.

I guess the right had nothing to worry about.