regarding President Obama's bipartisanship charm offensive. let me splain something to you

[PretzelWarrior]

While it may be true that President Obama is interested in forming a broader coalition of support that includes Democrats, independents, and moderate Republicans, that is not the chief aim politically of doing so right now.

Barack Obama technically doesn't NEED to be bipartisan. He's got a much stronger majority than Bush ever did and could scream all over the TV about how the GOP is being obstructionist. But why not instead do what he's doing?

There are 2 election cycles in a row where the Dems have made significant gains in both houses. Why dance on their graves, spike the ball in their faces or whatever?

Better to put on all the trappings of extending nominations to Republicans, inviting them to cocktail parties, bringing them into discussions but at the end of the day having a strong agenda that you will see gets put into place. In my mind, the press conference was GREAT way to put pressure on the GOP and some middle of the road and blue dog Democrats. But the coup de grace were those town hall meetings. MASTER STROKE. And the two new faces of working class plight are there for the Republicans to try and fight against.

No, this is working out quite nicely for the Democrats and Mr. President. The picture is essentially one of the president extending his hand to welcome them and in some cases the GOP turning away or in others grabbing his hand and then knifing him with the other.

If this were "It's a Wonderful Life", Barack is George Bailley, The American public are the townspeople who love and respect George Bailley, and the GOP is Mr. Potter. This is a horrible narrative for the GOP to be caught up in....but great for me. I'm loving it.

[Joe the Liberal]

1. I hope that's what Obama is doing..........

if it's not well then I hope he figures it out soon.

[PretzelWarrior]

2. this so-called "fight" looks like easy boxing against stupid sparring partner

Here's the score after 3 weeks:

Barack has gotten Rush Limbaugh looking like the defacto leader of the Republican Party.

Barack Obama's popularity has zoomed back upward at the tail end of this week.

GOP congress critters see very low approval ratings for themselves get lower.

Barack played the old negotiators game allowing the house and senate to put together much more expensive packages and ended up getting in the end pretty much what he wanted.

Turns out Barack is even better at town halls than McCain supposedly was.

The single most important piece of legislation to kick start a tough term for Obama will have been passed less than three weeks in.

Tell me how this is turning out bad for Obama?

P.S. all that rolling shit put out by New York Times and Karl Rove's op ed in WSJ about this victory for Obama possibly coming a a heavy cost to him is bollocks.

As Al Pacino's character Frank Slade said in Scent of a Woman. "I'm just gettin' warmed up!"

[wildflower]

17. I agree

I think he's continuing to be who he is, building even more trust with the public.

After the election, I heard more than one analyst point out that the public had learned to trust Obama as thoughtful and steady, and that's why the GOP negative attacks about his "radical" associations didn't work.

I wanted to ask you about this:

GOP congress critters see very low approval ratings for themselves get lower.<\i>

Can you tell me where this study is? I'd like to show it to someone.

[Undercurrent]

3. I agree.

Obama can't do what needs to be done to set this country back on course -- and there is a lot more fixin' to come -- without the people having his back. In the end, his big plans must be a populous driven and supported, or they won't work.

[PretzelWarrior]

6. the People Powered Presidency. I LIKE it

[depakid]

4. Unfortunately, it's resulting in bad public policy decisions

Like slashing $49 billion in federal revenue sharing to the states in a lame attempt "to be bipartisan" when it wasn't necessary.

Seems to me- this guy's got it right- and the quicker the Obama administration wises up the better.

An Open Letter to President Obama About the Republicans

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x424701

And the results of failing to heed this advice:

Why Republicans Won't Support the Stimulus

Why are Senate Republicans (all, that is, except the lonely moderates Collins, Snowe, and Specter) nixing the stimulus package, as House Republicans did? Not because Obama failed to compromise -- he gave them the tax breaks they wanted, included a whopper for business. Not because Senate Democrats failed to bend -- they agreed to trim more than $100 billion out of a previous version of the bill. Not because Senate Republicans are doctrinally opposed to deficit spending -- many of them happily voted for Bush spending and tax cuts that doubled the federal debt.

The reason has to do with the timing of the economic recovery. If everything goes as well as possible and the stimulus and next round of bank bailouts work perfectly, a turnaround could begin as early as mid-2010. But even under this rosy scenario, employers wouldn't start rehiring until late 2010 because they'll want to be sure the upturn is for real (employment typically lags in a recovery). This means that under the best of circumstances -- assuming the stimulus is big enough to jump-start the economy and the next bank bailout big enough to get credit moving -- most Americans won't feel much better than they do now by November, 2010. Unemployment could easily be hovering close to 8 percent; underemployment, close to 14 percent; and many other indicators, still in the doldrums.

That's if all goes extremely well. But what if the stimulus isn't big enough? (I fear it won't be, given the large and growing gap between what the economy can produce at near full-employment and the meager demand coming from consumers and businesses.) And what if the bailout doesn't quite work? (It may not, given that the banking system is collapsing and many banks are actually insolvent.) The economy in November of 2010 may be worse than it is now, with no turnaround in sight.

Which brings us to the midterm elections of 2010.

Yesterday, while sitting across from Newt Gingrich on George Stephanopoulos's Sunday morning television show, 1994 came roaring back into my head. Gingrich, you remember, turned that midterm election into a national referendum about Bill Clinton's leadership. (No one today remembers what was in Gingrich's "Contract with America," but almost no one did then, either.) Because Clinton's presidency had had a rough start and because House and Senate Republicans had kept remarkable unity in opposing him at almost every turn, Gingrich in the election of 1994 could claim that and the Republican Party offered a clear alternative, and had earned the chance to control Congress.

Fast forward to today and listen to Senate Republicans referring to the stimulus: "This is neither bipartisan nor is it a compromise," said Sen. John McCain this morning. "It is ... generational theft"

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/

[PretzelWarrior]

5. that's one man's opinion. I like Robert Reich. but he's a better professor

and cable talk show guest than policy guy. I don't think he did that great in Clinton WH as labor secretary.

I can tell you there are a whole litany of things that could have been put in and a whole bunch more that could have been taken out.

The truth is...no one really knows what the magic numbers or magic ratios of spending/tax cuts should be. People can assert they know...but they don't really know.

It's like arguing what spray pattern of water is needed to put out a fire. Who cares? Let's just dump some water on the fire. That's what's going on with the stimulus package.

That figure you put out there is interesting....but block grants to states is actually one of the easier ones politically to go after in a second round because then you've got stories to tell about schools closing, police being laid off, etc. and people will get behind extra money to maintain state and local service levels.

[Clio the Leo]

7. You nailed it my friend! NT

[MarjorieG]

8. Getting to 60 was a real hurdle, just for the Dems. Congress hasn't been consulted in years.

We have more going forward. Change is not snapping fingers, and we have big stuff ahead. I know everyone knows, but the answers and pathways not easy. Cementing his faith in America, let's work together attitude is absolutely necessary.

[Better Believe It]

12. You won't get 60 votes for EFCA and other major legislation and liberal Supreme Court appointment

Don't you think that Senator Reid will run for the hills or compromise and give the Republicans what they want at the slightest hint of a Republcan filibuster?

The Republicans didn't even threaten a filibuster to stop the stimulus bill and Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi buckled. This "stimulus" bill is totally inadquate and the best it can do is slow down somewhat the descent into economic depression.

President Obama will need to present a much bolder stimulus bill of at least 200 billion dollars that can jolt the economy out of this crisis.

When Pelosi said on NPR that this "is not a massive public works" bill she sure got that right.

The Democratic Senate leadership can easily change the Senate rules so that only 51 votes are required to pass legislation and approve Presidential appointments. Will they do that if necessary?

[EffieBlack]

9. I think you're dead on

It's all about creating not just the the narrative but also the tableau.

[Better Believe It]

11. Let me "splain" something to you. 3 Republicans run the Senate and wrote the stimulus bill.

[KittyWampus]

13. actually, those 3 Repubs went into conference and tweaked the Democrats bill.

[Better Believe It]

18. They "tweaked" it? That's an understatement! They fricken wrote the bill!

It was pretty much a one way compromise between the weak House version and much weaker Senate version.

They sure didn't split the difference now, did they?

And we didn't even need the 3 Republican votes to get a really strong bill passed in the Senate.

51 votes were necessary.

All the Democrats had to do was change the Senate rules, just like the Republicans threatened to do in 2005.

I hope people haven't forgotten that.

Remember the so-called Republican "nuclear option" that sent some Senate Democrats running for the hills?

[mucifer]

10. what if we actually got the nutbag commerce secretary who wants to get rid of

the commerce dept? How is that a win for us?

I'm so glad he's gone. But, that was a close one.

[PretzelWarrior]

22. I think we know NOWHERE NEAR the whole truth on all of that

Senators don't just up and decide to put their hat in the ring for commerce secretary for opposing party and then just change their mind.

This guy is a football being tossed back and forth between Obama and the GOP folks. Did this guy wake up to a horse's head in his bead? It's just weird.

The funny thing is he will get another 2 years and then he'll be replaced by a Democrat. Works for me.

[FatDave]

14. In a nutshell...

The strategy is to let the republican minority impede progress because it makes them look bad?

These people are out to destroy us. They really don't even try to pretend that they're not. They failed miserably at governing for 8 years, and are now back to doing the thing they're best at: Impeding democrats.

This is our chance to prove that democratic policies, liberal ones even, are the ones that work. But in the name of working with these clowns, who've proven time and time again that they're irredeemable, we will give them enough of their provisions that either the bill will fail or they will claim credit for it's success.

Seriously. Look at the stimulus bill. It's full of tax cuts. Now what's going to happen if it's a success? You know god-damned well they're all going to be screaming "See!??!?? It was the tax cuts that worked. That's what we need more of! We saved the stimulus bill with our glorious tax cuts!" All our bipartisanship will have done is strengthened their hand.

[olegramps]

16. Right on. The Democrats caved in far too easily.

[onenote]

20. if its a success, repubs are going to have a hard time explainnig why they all voted against it

The fear that the repubs will claim any economic turnaround is a result of their efforts is misplaced. Everytime a repub claims that, he's going to have to explain why he voted against the bill anyway.

[wryter2000]

15. What you said

He's working them brilliantly.

[onenote]

19. right. If played correctly, Obama's approach can be a win-win

By reaching out to repubs, who are in the minority in Congress, Obama hopes for one of two results:

One possibility is that the repubs accept the offer and lend support to Obama's proposals. If so, they entrench themselves as the minority since its hard for repubs to make a case for folks to support them over Democrats when a lot of repubs are voting with the Democrats.

And if the repubs spit in Obama's eye and refuse to accept the offer of bipartisanship, they run the risk of the public becoming even more fed up with their political gameplaying and intransigence.

Of course, in the end, a lot will depend on whether conditions -- economic, foreign policy, etc -- appear to be improving or not by the next election cycle.

[GeorgeGist]

21. Nonsense ...

is for losers who think they're winning.