Was Obama right to endorse the efforts of Nelson & Collins & Specter?

[Karmadillo]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020602097.html?wprss=rss_print

<edit>

The bipartisan deal was cut after two days of talks and would cut more than $100 billion from the $920 billion bill, dropping its cost to about $820 billion, if amendments added on the Senate floor are retained.

<edit>

Obama endorsed the moderates' effort and brought its leaders -- Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) -- to the White House to discuss their proposed cuts. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel attended the final meetings in Reid's office last night to work out lingering differences. Before Emanuel arrived, Collins said, Democrats were advocating $63 billion in cuts. "Then Rahm got involved, and a much better proposal came forward," she said.

more...

[Thrill]

1. I think Obama just needs to get it passed in the Senate. So they can put their stamp on it

in Conference. They won't need those Republican votes out of Conference

[PM Martin]

3. Why would Republican votes not be needed

once the conference ends?
Wouldn't the filibuster threat still apply?

[Idealism]

4. I don't understand the "filibuster threat" thing

Let these morons filibuster. I mean a real one, like Strom Thurmond-style. I want to turn on CSPAN and here these motherf@#$ers denying Americans jobs, economic recovery, and the American dream.

[tnlefty]

5. You and me,

I want to see them filibuster the old fashioned way until they're blue in the face, hoarse and pass out.

[Idealism]

6. Yes, and once they pass out

Then hold the vote.

Owned!

[Enrique]

2. Obama is right

but Harry Reid is a coward. :sarcasm:

[Pirate Smile]

7. They were both just doing what they had to to get it passed.

I know what you mean though and I get it.

They were doing this, of course:

"You see, this isn’t a brainstorming session — it’s a collision of fundamentally incompatible world views. If one thing is clear from the stimulus debate, it’s that the two parties have utterly different economic doctrines. Democrats believe in something more or less like standard textbook macroeconomics; Republicans believe in a doctrine under which tax cuts are the universal elixir, and government spending is almost always bad.

Obama may be able to get a few Republican Senators to go along with his plan; or he can get a lot of Republican votes by, in effect, becoming a Republican. There is no middle ground."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/bipartisan-bromides/#comments

They did what they had to do to get a couple of friggin votes. It sucks but that is what it is. I know some people think they should have a magic wand so that this wasn't necessary but it apparently was.

[Karmadillo]

8. Given the scope of the crisis, if Obama's words are to be taken at face value,

there's little evidence caving in to the "moderates" was necessary. A visionary stimulus package aimed at revitalizing America's health, transportation, energy, education, agriculture and manufacturing infrastructure would likely have survived any Republican filibuster. It was, at least, given the long Democratic slumber in the face of Republican criminality worth a try. Instead, we get no, or little, vision and the usual dry powder. If this is how the Democrats handle a slam dunk, what's going to happen when the going gets tough?

[stillcool]

12. I don't think that is how..

the legislative process works. You never get all you ask for, and who knows if he's getting more or less than he expected?

[ncteechur]

9. absolutely!

[MessiahRp]

10. No. He should have told Reid to make the fuckers Filibuster until their pacemakers gave out.

We need to be standing our ground and fighting these bastards. THEY fucked up the economy. They don't get to hold us hostage so they can fuck it up more and then blame us for it.

Rp

[stillcool]

11. Depends... It's like an asking price

start out high, and hopefully you'll get the amount you want.

[Metta]

13. See Krugman's article, above.

:hi:

[w4rma]

14. So, Senate Democrats supported $63B in cuts before Rahm gave away the store to Collins.

Before Emanuel arrived, Collins said, Democrats were advocating $63 billion in cuts. "Then Rahm got involved, and a much better proposal came forward," she said.