100% Agree! (4.00 / 4)

Obama made Republicans actually relevant... and their bitching is now being taken seriously by the media, and it's now hurting both support for the bill and Obama's presidency... his approval numbers are going down, down, down, and I think it's the fault of this elevation of Republicans.

I think Obama really got schooled today.... either that, or he won big tin eh PR department.  It will take time to see if Republicans will be criticized for being ungrateful obstructionists or heroes by the public.  Since they are on the TV all the time whining, I'm guessing the latter!  they are very good at distraction, and people will actually forget about how there are no more jobs 'cos the republicans will complain about some "pork" and people will buy into the garbage...

This is classic GOP playbook stuff...  We'll see how well it plays this time around... It's not 1993 anymore, even though Republicans think that it is!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 22:14:39 PM CST

Also agreed (4.00 / 3)

In a time of plenty, it's easy to wallow in self deception. But the economic tsunami that's hitting has most American's attention, so I have to believe they want real action. But somehow the Democrats just can't seize the moment and frame/direct the political debate. There are exceptions like Fiengold of DeFazio but it's still frigging exasperating.

---

by: anothergreenbus @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 22:31:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Low-brow info-tainment hates ambiguity. (0.00 / 0)

Republicans are excellent subjects for info-tainment, because they are so obviously the bad guys.

But Democrats are nothings, no principles, no commitment to anything except electing Democrats, and what did they elect?

Barack Obama is more like a fog than a politician of any particular persuasion, and if Herman Melville were writing scripts for cable TV (like The Confidence Man), Obama and all the other Democrats would be all over it all the time.

But it isn't Melville, it's cable info-tainment, and villains are way more info-taining than nothings.

---

by: Jacob Freeze @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 23:33:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Interesting, Though (4.00 / 10)

If reporters and producers permit the public to believe a real legislative "battle" doesn't exist - that is, if they actually report the mathematical reality of the situation - then it's harder to create fancy conflict-focused graphics, slogans and narratives convincing viewers they must tune in to get the latest on a supposed bloodsport.

How the cable channels never felt the need to put on twice as many Dems as Reps when Bush was President, and the GOP controlled Congress.

Somehow, David, I don't think you've actually gotten to the bottom of this one.

"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 22:21:01 PM CST

Great point (4.00 / 2)

---

by: David Sirota @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 22:34:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed (4.00 / 6)

I don't deny the ratings-based aspect of manufacturing fake controversy, but I've zero doubt that much, if not most of this is the result of an ideologically pro-right establishment media still desperately trying to shoot down the reemergence of Keynesian economics and prop up the rotting corpse of supply-side Miltonian economics.

It's all part of an overall effort by the right to do this, and the media is obviously a core part of it. Just like all the brainwashed and astroturfing shills who call into CSPAN and write LTE's, and troll around on teh interblogs. I wouldn't be surprised if Mark Penn is helping out in this effort.

I mean, when the "ideas" of hacks like Amity Shlaes and Peter Morici are given equal if not greater play than those of the likes of Krugman, Stieglitz and Baker, you know that the fix is in. Not that it'll stop the stimulus bill and ones to follow. But this is about '10 and beyond, trying to set up a narrative to explain why what the Dems are trying to do failed, if they end up failing, and paving the way for Most Glorious Conservative Restoration!

It's not like they've got anything better up their sleeves, of course.

And, of course, they're doing the exact same thing with prosecutions of former Bushies, outlawing torture, closing Gitmo, etc. It's all about promoting a narrative of why the Dems failed, if they fail, or if they don't succeed quickly enough, or if something happens that makes it look like they failed. Telling lies is what every red-blooded Repub does best.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 23:07:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly! (4.00 / 1)

But this is about '10 and beyond,

AKA "hegemony".

"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 @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:15:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think it's both. (4.00 / 3)

They want controversy, but they also want to be "centrist" (viz. not liberal, viz. covering the GOPers disproportionally).  I suspect the latter desire trumps the former when they conflict.

Here is one of the long-term effects of Rush Limbaugh and the like.  The MSM is terrified (even though they won't admit it) of being called liberal.  So they overcompensate.

This is why I think that groups like FAIR and Media Matters are so important.

---

by: MattD @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 01:45:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

My own little world (4.00 / 2)

Hmmm, so my nice little world of blogs, Oberman, Maddow, Stewart and Colbert isn't actually an accurate representation of what typical America sees?

---

by: Mark Matson @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 22:45:08 PM CST

Obama actually made the Republicans IRRELEVANT (0.00 / 0)

Without a single republican vote, Obama's bill passed by over 50 votes.   They were steamrolled trying to stop its passage...........all together, all 177 of them.

---

by: vamonticello @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 22:56:46 PM CST

Yet without a single Republican vote, (4.00 / 5)

the Republicans got what they wanted. Tax cuts, contraception removed, etc.

He gives Republicans things for nothing in return, and now they know that about him. You think they won't try it again?

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 06:50:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm hoping (0.00 / 0)

I am hoping that either

A) Obama made a mistake and can learn from it, or

B) he did this on purpose and wants to be able to say "I tried, but the Republicans are not interested in working with us for the benefit of the American people"

.. and I'm hoping that either way, the stuff that was taken out gets its own legislation.

Also, especially in the case of scenario B, Obama needs to forcefully seize the media narrative and pound Repubs (in his calm, "elite" manner) for playing politics while Rome burns, to mangle metaphors.

Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.

---

by: Ms Bluezone @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 13:02:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Media schadenfreude (0.00 / 0)

For eight years conservatives were in almost total power. News services, both as a whole and at the reporter level, were very accustomed to hearing GOP talking points and reporting/stenographing them. My sense isn't that they are showing ideological sympathies or particularly stoking conflict--their ideology is corporate, the production of profit (and therefore inherently status-quo). The reason GOP House legislators are getting as much exposure as they are is the spectacle of seeing them laid low, the contrast between now and the days of freedom fries and Ashcroft belting out "Let the Eagle Soar." Media schadenfreude.

Besides, do GOP House members have anything better to do than beg for interviews?

---

by: LockeOak @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 00:02:21 AM CST

The real conflict (4.00 / 4)

The real conflict, of course, is not between Republicans and Democrats but between mainstream Democrats and Blue Dogs.  Only the Blue Dogs did not comply this time.  Pay Go or a balanced budget fetish or however one phrases it is death to Keynesianism.  The next time the economic cycle turns harsh, the federal government and the people's representatives would be dead in the water sacrificed to ...what exactly.  The false "fiscal conservatism" of many of this crew and the Republicans too is a joke.  No Republican President has balanced the budget since the 1920s.  In that span, Truman, LBJ and Clinton all produced budget surplises.

CSPAN put on Charlie Melancon to annunciate the view.  If Obama takes the bait, it is the Blue Dogs and their relatively small numbers who will wind up controlling the debate and not the Republicans.

Democrats vs. Democrats is not as appealing to the cable folk as Democrats vs. Republicans.  In the 30s this was the key battle.  Maybe, once more, what is old becomes new again and the smaller number of southern Democrats serves the same function as the larger number of Southern Democrats in the 1930s.  Win one more election convincingly and even the Blue Dogs become achingly irrelevant.

If Republicans want to become relevant to the debate there is an opening.  The Republican stimulus package added $60 billion in infrastructure but took it away.  Well, just add the spending with no takaway.  Republicans can't seriously convince anybody that they are for "fiscal discipline."

Oh yeah.  Democrats should pound away mercilessly at both the ineffectiveness and the hypocrisy perhaps as follows:

1) Businesses have gotten their tax cut through the TARP and the Fed giveaways and it is more than twice the size of the public's stimulus.  Consumers represent 2/3 of the economy.  Logically, business should get none of the tax cuts as they already got 2/3 of the freebies.  Strip the $140 billion and give it all to infrastructure.

2) Republican tax cut policies have been given a long triasl and have failed.  Badly.  

3) Taxes on upper income groups and businesses are far, far lower than during the 50's 60's and 70's.  The gap has been filled by either deficits or by the hard working middle class.  Deficits simply mean that the middle class will pay later.  Half the national deficit is a product of Bush.  Much of the rest comes from Bush I and Reagan.

4) Pork has been cut drastically by Democrats.  Republicans are screaming now but they are the true kings and queens of pork.  That would make a heck of an add with the GOPers morphing into cartoon pigs.

5) Productivity has risen sharply but workers have not seen an increased share when Republicans are in office.

6) Bush and Hoover, Bush and Hoover.  Go together like a pair of clunkers.  Loss  of jobs and safety.  Vote Republican at your peril.

7) Deregulation is legalized theft.  Democrats will watch the henhouse so these foxes don't steal your money and future.  More money to regulate health (see peanut manufacturer), safety, environment, financial dealings, banks.  Spend money to make the results of oversight available to the public for free (free SEC reports, free health care reports, etc.)  

---

by: David Kowalski @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 02:12:23 AM CST

I'm running into some cognitive dissonance here. (0.00 / 0)

David is saying the Republicans are legislatively irrelevant, while Chris has a post up calling on Obama to activate his email list so the bill will get passed in the Senate. Which is it? After the unified Repub vote in the House, where are the 2 Repub votes going to come from to invoke cloture?  If their Senate caucus holds, the stimulus is dead, no?  Not exactly irrelevant.

Decarbonize, Deglobalize, Demilitarize

---

by: Brad Klafehn @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 07:59:41 AM CST

House vs Senate (0.00 / 0)

House Republicans are completely irrelevant.  Most Republican senators are completely irrelevant, although they may have more procedural tricks for bunging things up.

Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.

---

by: Ms Bluezone @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 13:09:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the real political battle (0.00 / 0)

I would really like to see the media show the real political battle which shows the real political balance of power, which is Dems have almost all the power and Repubs have almost no power. I would really like to see TV media showing the real political debate, which is how much are the Dems going to force the Repubs to knuckle under and cry Uncle.

---

by: T Maysle @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 08:08:07 AM CST

The Battle over Bipartisanship (4.00 / 1)

Obama campaigned for months on the idea that his goal was to bring change to the political culture in DC; "Change the way Washington does business" is how he put it.  This is how it starts.  The side with the power makes concessions and offers opportunity for meaningful discussion.  After 8 years of Republican bullying, it's bound to make Democrats feel that Obama's first priority should be to set right everything that was wrong in the Bush administration, and then work on the culture stuff after that's done.  In the long run, that would be self-defeating.  If he is going to have any chance at changing the way DC does things, he has to initiate it, he has to model it, and he has to do it for a good while before there's any expectation that the other side will ever do it.  And it will only work if the Public At Large sees it as a better way to get things done; he's really sticking his neck out, because that kind of change generates a lot of resistance from people who are invested in keeping things the same, including people on Obama's side who want to use their majority to push through an ambitious agenda...it feels like we've been fighting and losing ground for so long, and just as we have the chance to strike a blow for our side, the grownups have arrived and want to stop the fight.  It's going to be like this for a while; I suppose Obama can stand having people on his own side sniping at him for trying to fulfill the promise he ran on, but I hope he sticks to his guns.  In the long run, the nation will be better off for it.

---

by: SpankyMac @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 08:49:42 AM CST

Show me the "meaningful" discussion (0.00 / 0)

"The side with the power makes concessions and offers opportunity for meaningful discussion. "

Yes, there were discussions between Obama and House GOPpers, between Obama and Conservative Media Hacks, between Obama and conservative business CEOs....

But, where is the "meaningful" part? What does it mean that the house GOPpers were able to force concessions from the WH without even giving one token vote to the endeavor?

It means: the GOPpers have no interest in bi-partisanship and that they enter discussions in bad faith.

To me, this is more of the same.  That is, Democrats concede to the GOP and the GOP stabs them in the back.  

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

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:52:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Are you arguing that no opportunities were offered? (0.00 / 0)

Whether the GOP took advantage of opportunities for meaningful discussion or not, the opportunities were offered.  This isn't about accommodating the GOP, as you seem to think; this is about the Democratic Party being the party of grownups, as opposed to the GOP as the party for petulant children.  If what you wanted was a Democrat in policy terms but a Republican in process terms, you should have worked harder to get Dennis Kucinich nominated.  Let's be sure we match the GOP's bullying blow for blow, that'll show 'em we're serious about changing the DC culture.

Hilzoy puts it very well over at Washington Monthly:

If you try hard, and publicly, to attract Republican support, but fail, then Republicans look like intransigent ideologues who would rather try to score political points than actually deal with the serious problems the country faces. You, by contrast, look reasonable: you tried to reach out, but your efforts were rejected.

Obviously, this only works if your efforts look serious. If Obama had gone to the Republicans and said: I propose a bill entirely made up of things Democrats really want and you really hate, but please, do join us in supporting it!, that wouldn't work at all. But he didn't do that. He went the extra mile. When Republicans protested about particular things, he dropped some of them (though not all: he was not, for instance, willing to compromise on refundable tax credits, and he was right not to compromise on that one.) There's a fine line between being willing to compromise and being willing to surrender, and I think Obama generally stayed on the right side of it, while being open enough to compromise that he will get real credit for trying.

The House Republicans, by contrast, looked silly. They were carping about tiny bits of the stimulus (the capitol mall?!). They changed the bits they objected to from one day to the next, and looked for all the world like what I take them to be: people who were determined to oppose the stimulus bill from the outset.

The function of trying to win bipartisan support, it seems to me, is to clarify things to the American people. If the House Republicans could be induced to support the bill, that becomes clear, and everyone would have been better off. If, on the other hand, they were bound and determined to oppose it, no matter what, that also becomes clear. Neither would have been clear had Obama not bothered to try.

---

by: SpankyMac @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:45:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I get it now (0.00 / 0)

But that strategy doesn't seem to be working at the moment. Maybe its the spin of the M$M, but the few "news" reports and analyses I've heard don't paint the Republicans as "silly".

If this is, indeed, President Obama's strategy, he had better get out there and start spinning the stories in this direction, but instead I read reports of him setting up even more meetings with GOPpers.

And, yes, I do think the Democrats can take a play or two from the GOP book on these issues. If Dems were "un-American" to introject their "partisan politics" during the run up to, and the implementation of, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, then by god the GOP are guilty of the same when they cherry-pick a few minor programs in the Recovery Act to whine about in ways that play solely to their base. I see no reason to avoid that conclusion. Simply put: the House GOPpers put their party politics before the good of nation, and they should be called out for that.

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

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 13:58:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Bipartisanship" (4.00 / 1)

I was watching CNN and MSNBC this morning. As usual they devoted inordinate attention to Congressional Republicans.
They treated the passage of the stimulus in the House as something of a loss for Obama since he did not achieve "bipartisanship". And they talked about the Senate Republicans in the upcoming vote. Then they had Press Sec'y Gibbs who, while not expressing disappointment at the House vote, said that Obama would continue to "reach out". Where is the "we won" line?, that might not play into the hands of the media.

---

by: werner @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 11:15:54 AM CST