Rahm: Obama Lost Control Of Stimulus Debate With Bipartisanship

[babylonsister]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/13/rahm-obama-lost-control-o_n_166692.html


Rahm: Obama Lost Control Of Stimulus Debate

The Huffington Post | Rachel Weiner | February 13, 2009 09:53 AM



White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, in an interview with reporters, conceded that President Obama lost control of the stimulus debate by focusing too much on bipartisan outreach. The Wall Street Journal reports:

Mr. Emanuel owned up to one mistake: message. What he called the outside game slipped away from the White House last week, when the president and others stressed bipartisanship rather than job creation as they moved toward passing the measure. White House officials allowed an insatiable desire in Washington for bipartisanship to cloud the economic message a point coming clear in a study being conducted on what went wrong and what went right with the package, he said.

According to Emanuel, the White House "lost" control of the message for four days. He suggested that the president decided to change his tone after the House vote, when not a single Republican voted for the bill.

According to the WSJ Emanuel added that "Washington should have learned something about Mr. Obama as well, with the shift from bipartisan overtures to outright mockery of his opposition."

When the president spoke to House Democrats at a February 5th retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia, he'd moved from courting Republican support to attacking them as obstructionists who clung to ""false theories of the past."

The top aide argued that despite the missteps, the final stimulus bill is "close to about 90%" of what they had wanted.

He also promised that the president will not stop reaching out to the GOP.

"The President's always going to reach out to people in both parties. I mean we have these upcoming summits, one on fiscal reform, and another one on health care. There's gonna be Republican participation, and that will never change."

[derby378]

1. Uh, gee, ya think?

Bipartisanship, my ass. Democrats weren't elected to play patty-cake with Repuke neo-cons - they were elected to get shit done.

[babylonsister]

2. He's not going to stop trying, so plan on being constantly

annoyed. I hope you heard his speech last night celebrating Lincoln's Birthday. It went a long way towards explaining his attitude. And Maddow elaborated on it wonderfully.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

4. Partisanship runs very deep. It is not easily changed. What

these people think is diametrically opposed to what we believe. How do you change
that? You can not. It's like Iraq - you either want to stay or get out. There
is no compromise position on that.

All we can hope for is that Obama brings in a larger and larger group of thinking moderate
Republicans - especially those who may lose their seats.

And the biggest thing that will bring more to our side is if he is successful trying
to dig out of AssHat's mess.

For the life of me, I do not understand why in the world the house threw in non-stimulating
provisions. Sure, they are worthwhile - but they should be put somewhere else. It only
added ammunition to their argument. To me, this was a critical misjudgement.

Also, I do agree with the wingnuts on this one - giving them only hours to try and read
1,000 pages.

[derby378]

22. I tried to listen, but we just got word that an old friend of ours died

I'll try to dig up the text later on today. Sounds like it was a great speech.

Still, Obama would do well not to pin all his hopes on bipartisanship. Sometimes you just have to cut bait and let "the big one" get away.

[Cha]

8. Yeah, but Obama showed them for

what they still are by reaching out to them first. Everyone I see is talking about how vile the repods are being.

[Zenlitened]

3. The first step in getting well is admitting you have a problem.

It's good that he's able to acknowledge this simple fact. Starting this process as a quest for bipartisanship was a mistake, plain and simple.

Less good: That he is still crowing about the "virtues" of bipartisanship.

Bipartisanship is NOT the goal, folks. The goal is to serve the interests of the American people in a time of dire crisis... a crisis largely created by the other party, no less.

President Obama needs to use the momentum he himself created to win the election... plus the vast support of tens of millions of Americans who KNOW we need bold action NOW... to propel himself to policy successes.

And once the successes start to mount, the bipartisanship will come. It will coalesce around him on its own.

In other words, stop putting the cart before the horse, President Obama. Be bold. Be firm. Use the bully pulpit you've earned, and the support of the American people that has already been demonstrated. Reach out to us. Reach out for us, on behalf of us. Make us your top priority, not the mythology of bipartisanship. You'll be amazed at what you can get done.

[FrenchieCat]

7. You may see a mistake, others see the bar moving in our direction.....

Those who take our President for granted, especially those on the Left, are missing the big picture, which is truly unfortunate!


The Political Implications Of The Stimulus
....
The left claims that Obama's bipartisanship has failed. They argue his "centrist" compromises, as well as the failure to offer a bigger initial package, will fatally weaken the stimulus effort. Republicans see "glimmers of rebirth" through their opposition to the Democrats' plans. But both groups are missing the larger context.

Progressives are in the process of winning a transformative political victory that may be the harbinger of a new era of activist government. For conservatives, their unity might be cause for celebration; but from a policy standpoint they have suffered a decisive defeat.

The most striking element of the revolution that is taking place in Washington is how quickly it has occurred. Four months ago, the Democratic standard bearer made the centerpiece of his economic message a decidedly, non-liberal, middle class tax cut. No one was seriously talking about a massive spending package to revive the economy and had Obama made such a proposal then we would likely be discussing the finer points of the McCain Administration.

The shift is a result, in part, of the worsening economic recession; but the specific solution being favored by Congress is more a function of the trust that Americans have in President Obama (as well as the advantage of a Democratic-controlled Congress).

...

At the same time, Obama has changed the national conservation about taxes, away from the usual conservative mantra of broad income tax cuts, which disproportionately helped the wealthiest Americans, and toward cuts narrowly tailored toward the middle class. Not only is this arguably better from a policy perspective, but it could lead to a more progressive and egalitarian approach to reducing taxes.

While conservatives are putting on a brave face, steadfast in their opposition, they seem oblivious to the fact that the debate in Washington is no longer between big government and smaller government; it's between big government and bigger government. By supporting a slightly smaller stimulus package - and empowering centrist Republicans by giving them the credit for shrinking its size -- Obama looks conciliatory, while actually getting about 80-90% of what he wanted in new spending and tax reductions. Republicans, by holding out for only tax cuts and failing to offer any compromise that included government spending have painted themselves as political losers - a situation that could get worse for them.

more... http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/12/the_political_implication_of_the_stimulus/

[Zenlitened]

11. I think that analysis is more than a bit starry-eyed...

... to say the least.

For one thing, we have to remember that BIPARTISANSHIP IS NOT THE GOAL. The primary goal is to get things done, and there are other means to do so without giving aid and comfort to the failed ideology of republicanism.

The fact is, too much of the national conversation HAS been about same-old-same-old tax cuts.

The author writes, "The shift is a result, in part, of the worsening economic recession." In fact, it is almost ENTIRELY a result of the plunge toward Depression. The need for a huge economic stimulus package was not a part of the presidential election debate because the huge economic collapse (as opposed to "decline") was not widely acknowledged until October, when the stock markets plummeted and denial became impossible for any but the truly insane. Even at that point, the discussion was all focused on bailing out the banking system.

As for "empowering centrist republicans"... well, I suppose three is a good start. Time will tell just how empowered (or not) they've become.

There's much more critique I could offer, but I've got to head out the door for several hours. Bottom line, IMO: I recognize the inevitable incrementalism of this process. I'm very hopeful that President Obama's first budget will be a (next) major step toward the transformative political victory the author describes. But I don't think a policy of passivity, of "giving republicans rope to hang themselves" is the way to get there. I think bold action is. And I think the vast majority of Americans feel the same. They chose Mr. Obama to lead this country for a reason.

[FrenchieCat]

16. You seem to conveniently leave out the Media's role in all of this.

...which makes your analysis "incomplete".

[Zenlitened]

23. Hmmm... How could he possibly bypass the media? Hmmm...

You're right. It's a real head-scratcher. :eyes:

[damonm]

9. A swing and miss on the point!

As I've said elsewhere:

"Obama is playing a long-term game. He has seen the strong tendency to shortsightedness in the Republican party (witness the 22nd Amendment - which they passed, and then wanted to repeal so Raygun could run again; witness also their talk of "The Nuclear Option" to eliminate the filibuster, and their excoriation of the "Gang of 14" who put a stop to it - aren't they glad NOW that they didn't get their way?), and is using it to his advantage to secure long-term gains for Democrats in Washington. Unlike the Rethugs and their open talk of a "Permanent Republican Majority", Obama is more subtle and crafty.

This is chess, people, and Obama's playing well enough to put Vishwanathan Anand (current World Chess Champ) to shame. Every time he reaches out, the Rethugs MUST retreat into an unreasonable position or risk being seen as weak by their shrinking base.
He has them in a bind of their own making, where every move they make weakens them further with the larger electorate. If this continues, the Democrats will have a deathgrip on the Government for YEARS.
Or to be more musical about it, Obama's playing the GOP like Jimi Hendrix on a Fender Stratocaster.

Bear in mind that Obama cut his political teeth in Chicago - if you think for ONE SECOND he hasn't
got a plan, you are understimating the man at your peril."

[Zenlitened]

12. Chess? Or passivity? It's a fine line, IMO. - n/t

[damonm]

21. And something you're making up.

There IS no passivity here. This is strategy, though you refuse to see it.
(1)The President reaches out his hand - they slap it back.
(2)His ratings go up - theirs go down.
(3)Repeat until their approval ratings are as thoroughly in the toilet as Bush's.
(4)Clobber their asses in the midterms.
(5)Full speed ahead on green initiatives, health care, et. al., as the Republicans will be powerless save for whining.

[Zenlitened]

24. Yes, my opinion -- that I obviously invented out of thin air...

... since Democrats' passivity has never been an issue. And there's no historical evidence to suggest that bold, progressive action in a time of financial crisis has ever been effective.

Unlike your list of Indisputable Facts... heck, they're even numbered and everything. Numbered! :wow:

Look, it wasn't my intent to offend the True Believers. I just thought I'd lend a bit of approval to the idea that President Obama's Chief of Staff seems to acknowledge that questing after bipartisanship might have diffused the focus on the true goal for a bit. Wherever did I get such an idea? :spank:

[treestar]

5. How does one "control" a debate?

:rofl:

The thing passed.

[question everything]

6. I think that this was best presented on SNL last Saturday

when "Nancy Pelosi" told Republicans to screw themselves. For 8 years they did not bother to invite the Democrats to participate in any legislation, not even a courtesy call. So now they can have a taste of their own medicine. And, yes, we won.

But then "Harry Reid" sooshed her, realizing that we have less than 60 votes in the Senate and do need their cooperation.

A tight rope to walk.

[camera obscura]

10. Jane Hamsher from FDL thinks the bipartisan push was Reid/Rahm's idea:

http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/13/rahm-and-reid-who-gets-the-blame-for-judd-gregg/

[babylonsister]

13. Yes, I know what Jane thinks. This article doesn't make much

sense if that's true, which is why it caught my eye. Jane isn't always right, is she.

[wyldwolf]

15. Jane is clueless

Rahm Emanuel is well known as one the fiercest partisans in Washington. On the other hand, Obama wrote hundreds of pages on bi-partisanship in Audacity Of Hope.

I'm not surprised a blogger would have such a small grasp on recent political history.

[wyldwolf]

14. I think it's AMAZING how HuffPo is spinning this

:crazy:

[babylonsister]

17. It's mostly quotes from Rahm. How is that spin? nt

[wyldwolf]

18. what quotes?

He isn't quoted once in the HuffPo piece.

However, Politico coverage of the same story has actual quotes:

Meeting with reporters Thursday night, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said that there were times during the stimulus debate when “I don’t think we were sharp about the benefits” of the legislation, letting Washington process dominate the message.

(NOTICE: He doesn't say Obama lost control of the debate, he says the team, he included, did)

Reflecting as “somebody who has been in this town,” he observed that “there’s an insatiable appetite for the notion of bipartisanship here and we allowed that to get ahead of ourselves.”

But Emanuel said that they recognized they had overdone their initial outreach to Republicans and had offered "a sharp message for the last week."

For now, the hard-charging chief of staff added, “He has an open hand, but he has a very firm handshake.”

Again, he speaks in terms of the entire team. Never once does he say as the HuffPo claims "Obama Lost Control Of Stimulus Debate With Bipartisanship."

The original source material from the HuffPo, the WSJ, says "Team Obama lost control..." It never says Emanuel placed the blame on Obama alone as the HuffPo title implies.

[babylonsister]

19. Whatever. There are quotes in there whether you recognize them

or not. I'm not into arguing with you.

[wyldwolf]

20. anyone who knows what quotes are knows HuffPo has none from Emanuel

Quotes usually have " " around them.