Yeah, but (4.00 / 1)

how does preventing STDs stimulate the economy? :)

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 15:32:22 PM CST

STD's are a multiplier, no? n/t (4.00 / 2)

---

by: sb @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 15:42:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Crazy stuff (4.00 / 6)

Republicans love the clap.

Actually, I don't think this is about trying to win over the public generally, or that they really believe that most Americans are going to be upset about STD prevention. This is just about making some noises to keep their base energized. Their base hates the government doing anything useful, and thinks VD is God's Righteous Punishment for Sexual Deviants.

Congressional Republicans know they're powerless, so making hay out of crap like this is the only thing they can do to actually keep their base motivated. If they actually get some concessions out of gullible Democrats, that's just a bonus.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 15:47:16 PM CST

Look, (0.00 / 0)

both this provision and the provision for funding contraception are very good, very defensible policy for Democrats.

But do you really not grasp that it is pretty boneheaded politically to take such value-laden provisions (even if the values are relatively popular), and pack them into a bill that is explicitly designed to deal with a very different problem, namely, recovering the economy?

I would infinitely prefer that Democrats push as hard as they possibly can for additional tens (or, given my real preferences, hundreds) of millions for infrastructure improvements -- including public transportation -- than that they spend (I would say waste) political capital on these relatively minuscule provisions. While infrastructure improvements may likewise be characterized as progressive, they are clearly of an economic nature, and address economic problems.

The political capital lost on the extraneous "value-laden" measures is considerable: it makes the stimulus proposal look like it is being offered in bad faith. Indeed, the relatively small size of these programs provides only further evidence that it might be being generated in bad faith, because it is so implausible that such a small amount of money would materially affect the economy.

I'm no great fan of Obama, God knows, but I think his move to take out the contraception provision is on the money politically.

And I think it does not even further progressive ends to try to sneak in such provisions under the cover of night into such an unrelated bill. Better by far that such programs be defended in their proper place with the clear, emphatic, highly public arguments that they deserve. Let the Republicans try to argue against such provisions when they come up in, say, a health care bill. That is when and where they will truly and decisively lose the moral and political battle.

Bringing up these provisions here allows Republicans, instead, to win the public relations battle, because they can so easily undercut the perceived legitimacy of the measures for their stated purpose. Why should such defensible measures -- in their proper context -- be introduced in a context where they can easily be characterized as something suspect, something not entirely above board?

---

by: frankly0 @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 15:57:13 PM CST

[Oops, oops, (0.00 / 0)

I intended my comment below, which I now reproduce, to be a reply to this post.]

I meant I'd like to see Democrats push for tens or hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars more for infrastructure improvements.

[I hope my mistakes aren't starting to become recursive.]

---

by: frankly0 @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 16:06:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Cover of night? (4.00 / 3)

Seriously? Reproductive health care is stimulus in the way reducing the burden of medical costs on families is usually stimulus. You may have heard how car manufacturers in other countries are in a somewhat better position because they don't have to pick up healthcare costs in order

The only reason the GOP is scoring points with anyone outside their hardcore base with their very unpopular positions is because the Democrats are caving to the presumption that they should be ashamed of supporting these things. And using the phrase cover of night leads me to believe that you've also bought in, on some level, to the idea that we should be timid in our support of these measures and hope no one notices.

---

by: Natasha Chart @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 16:14:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I say that this was (0.00 / 0)

done under the cover of night because I'm sure the hope was that these provisions would pass unnoticed in a vastly larger bill. Did you see any attention being drawn to these provisions by the Democrats who composed them, before the Republicans seized on them? I think the answer to that is obvious: you did not, because those Democrats had no desire for anyone to notice them.

Again, I'm am emphatically not saying that the policies intrinsically have anything wrong in them, or not fully worthy of defense by Democrats.

My point is simple: by throwing these extraneous provisions into a bill whose purpose is to stimulate the economy, both the bill itself and the provisions themselves come under a cloud of suspicion -- and neither deserves to come under such a cloud, because they are each, on their own merits, fully defensible out in the open.

As I said, adding these provisions allows Republicans to question whether the stimulus bill is being offered in good faith as a stimulus, and whether the provisions themselves are fully legitimate in their own right. Both the bill and the provisions should carry only the burden of their own merits on their own separate grounds.  

---

by: frankly0 @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 16:31:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Jeff Flake didn't understand why Amtrak is stimulative (0.00 / 0)

The Republicans always notice reproductive health asks. They always complain about them. And there will always be someone who doesn't see why it's economically beneficial to reduce families' medical expenses and health burdens.

But the Democrats should really stop acting as though that matters.

---

by: Natasha Chart @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 02:45:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Oops (0.00 / 0)

I meant I'd like to see Democrats push for tens or hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars more for infrastructure improvements

---

by: frankly0 @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 16:02:58 PM CST

I'm Not Sure They Really FAVOR STDs (0.00 / 0)

they like e. coli poisoning, lung cancer, chronic obesity, black lung disease, the list goes on and on.

Hard to tell which one(s)--if any--they favor over all the rest.

In fact, we may finally have discovered an area in which they really do favor equality for all.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 16:14:00 PM CST

they got disease vectors for everyone (4.00 / 2)

and weekly specials too! This weeks special, peanut butter salmonella and a dessert of mercury tainted high fructose syrup. Yum yum, kids, the Repub I scream truck is here now, open for business, step right up.

---

by: T Maysle @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 17:12:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The whole point of the opposition ... (0.00 / 0)

Is not that they oppose preventative disease but that the entire bill is being framed as a stimulus package by Obama and the Democrats when it is something else.

The Republicans can actually gain traction on this; they are framing the argument in the sense that Obama or the Dems (or both) are hoodwinking the public.

If they keep pointing to different aspects of the bill like this the Senate Republicans will vote it down and gain public support (if they play it correctly)

I believe Obama needs to rework the way he is selling this bill. He should not use or even hint as if this is a stimulus.

Instead, frame this as a long term project. I know he said this but FORCEFULLY and frequently repeat over and over again that this is not just for the short term.

---

by: ckoeber @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 16:43:11 PM CST

We need a slogan (4.00 / 2)

I don't buy the argument that Republicans can gain traction by claiming these things don't belong in a stimulus bill. Partly because I have a suspicion that incidence of STDs tends to rise during a recession, but mostly just because that kind of nuance is hard to pull off and grabs nobody.

The flip-side is that for us to get traction off it, we need to make this easy to understand, memorable and amusing.

The best I can come up with is "Republicans: We're the reason you're pissing razorblades" but I'm certain someone else here could do far better.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 17:44:48 PM CST

How about (4.00 / 1)

"The GOP is pro VD?"

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 18:15:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You forgot to add 'objectively' (0.00 / 0)

The GOP is objectively pro-VD.

---

by: Natasha Chart @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 02:41:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

bash obama (0.00 / 0)

it's easy to go after republicans, but obama ordered democrats to remove this provision -- and we didn't even need (neither did we obtain) support from members of the gop house delegation. maybe he did it for the senate, but i'm just not sure of this. why won't the thing pass in the senate as well? we control it too.

---

by: damitajo1 @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 03:01:12 AM CST