Let the phuckers filibuster (4.00 / 3)

The pressure on the "moderates" especially the ones up for election in 2010 would be enormous and they would cave. Why are we preemptively caving in to them? I JUST DON'T GET IT!

Howard Dean in 2016

---

by: Jim in Chicago @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 15:52:43 PM CST

WaPo says (4.00 / 4)

Collins and Nelson have "up to" twenty allies in seeking cuts, "more Democrats than Republicans."  The problem is seldom JUST Republicans.

---

by: kanzeon @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:05:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Collins is insane (4.00 / 6)

I can't imagine the Senate voting to cut $200 billion from the bill. What are they gonna do, vote against education, health care, aid to the states? The Democrats just need to keep 50 votes to block those cuts. If Reid can't cajole/threaten enough Dems to vote against such moves, he doesn't deserve to be Majority Leader.

I'm having flashbacks of 1993, where conservative Dems like Bob Kerrey nearly conspired to defeat Clinton's first big budget.

That said, Obama has said some tough things today about who won the election and where his principles lie. The sooner he wakes up to the game the Republicans are playing, the sooner he can start playing hardball. He has a bigger mic, and much greater power, than all the Republicans put together. And one email blast from Plouffe could shut down the DC phone lines.

Overall, though, it looks like we were right to get alarmed about Obama's early concession of tax cuts BEFORE the horse-trading began. The bill should have started out as 90% spending.

---

by: existenz @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:21:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama's email blast is coming? (4.00 / 2)

To quote a classic Doonesbury line:

So's Jesus, but I ain't waitin' up nights!

Howard Dean in 2016

---

by: Jim in Chicago @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:45:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What can be done? (4.00 / 1)

Even if we could get a similar sized bloc of progressive senators (yeah right) to walk away, they'll just add more tax cuts and remove more spending to make up the votes on the right.

There won't be a useful bill unless the house refuses to play ball, which won't happen.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 15:57:33 PM CST

Depressed (4.00 / 8)

I'm very depressed today.  I really don't get it.  I've been defending Obama from the worst attacks on this site, but I'm wavering mightily.  At a minimum, you were damn right about Summers and Geithner, and maybe Rahm.

On the other hand, none of this would be an issue if Kennedy was healthy and Franken were seated.  That is the focus of what optimism I have today.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:01:42 PM CST

I got no sleep last night... (0.00 / 0)

...how did the republicans manage to overthrow the election in one week?

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 Feb 04, 2009 at 16:16:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I still think (0.00 / 0)

they really had more of the public on their side than we think and we able to galvenize them with a simple message "liberals + spending = bad" and they win.

We are making the mistake of thinking this is a progressive country.  

---

by: NFR83 @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:38:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

30 years of right wing propoganda has an effect... (0.00 / 0)

I think the problem is that Reagan won... the country is so much in debt that people are legitimately terrified of spending more... tax cuts are just as bad, but the old Reaganomics mantra makes it more palatable, I guess, 'cos people are used to it.  Also, while people desire change, they also fear it at the same time...

I'm just surprised that their propaganda worked so well, especially after a "change" election.  Well, HR-1 was a definite change, and I think if people were actually able to experience some of the good stuff in the bill, we'd be making the country more progressive... that's what the Republicans were terrified of... that people would end up liking HR-1, so they poisoned the well with their tired cliches... not too tired, yet, I guess...


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 Feb 04, 2009 at 17:41:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

& Obama helped them propagate it all (4.00 / 2)

The majority of Americans over and over say they want a more active government and are willing to pay for it too -- on health, on infrastructure, etc. And they also say we should be more protectionist and grow jobs here. (there was just a story about how even tools like Luntz were shocked by group and poll results -- all the ppl were all for govt spending on infrastructure no matter what it cost -- even if it meant higher taxes)

It's not the people who believe the lies about taxcuts being the answer to everything, and that govt should shrink, and that what the rich want is most important, etc -- it's Obama and BlueDogs and big $$ agreeing with the GOP.

---

by: amberglow @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 22:05:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama agreeing with the GOP? (0.00 / 0)

Where?  

---

by: NFR83 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 01:23:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You keep repeating this claim (4.00 / 2)

Time to show some evidence. Is there polling to support your assertion?

Here's a recent pollster.com compilation - all the polls in the list show net support. Furthermore, the support increases when the question gives more details about how the government would spend the money.

Basically, I think you're ignoring the evidence in order to advance a defeatist theory. If you've got evidence, bring it into play.

To be clear, I don't necessarily think the polling indicates this is a progressive country. But it is a pragmatic country, and a country that knows we're in deep shit unless the government does something big. People in this country generally do know that Social Security was started by FDR, and people in this country generally value Social Security. More generally, people in this country do actually believe in having a safety net and taking care of those who have been unlucky: under current conditions, pretty much everyone gets the benefit of the doubt about being unlucky rather than unvirtuous, so government spending to get people working again is viewed favorably.

If Obama articulated that, he would have lasting support. If he combined it with cleaning out the financial industry, he would have overwhelming support. That's my counter-assertion to yours.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

---

by: MadScientist @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 01:03:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You're saying the same thing (0.00 / 0)

they are buying the right wing propaganda and when they hear the truth, they support it.

Unfortunately they're not hearing the truth because the media is blocking it.

If this was a true progressive country, the American people wouldn't need to hear us explain this stimulus package, it would be a given, and when the Republicans and the media scream as tax cuts, they would just dismiss it as easily as they dismiss us.

We can articulate our point of view when we don't have a median to do it. Look at what Couric asked Obama yesterday...she basically asked him "Why does this package suck so much?"

---

by: NFR83 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 01:21:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No I'm not (4.00 / 1)

Where is the evidence that they are buying the right wing propaganda?

Yes, polling does indicate that people generally favor tax cuts more than spending. But overall, the public is still in favor of passing the current stimulus package, despite overwhelming right wing opposition and media skepticism.

I see the argument that the media is loving the familiar liberal pork spending meme, but I don't see evidence so far that the public is buying it. There are examples of the media trying to sensationalize the size of the package, but again - I don't see evidence that the public is balking at the price tag more than they did before. That may change, and if it does it would validate your point.

My point is that Obama invited the Couric question by not having the courage of his convictions, and not having the courage to be honest with a public that is more than willing to support him. Obama has the platform to articulate the Democratic point of view, but he chose instead to legitimize the Republican point of view. The media isn't successful at pushing right-wing talking points because the public buys it when they do - the media is successful at pushing right-wing talking points because Obama legitimized the right-wing point of view from the beginning, and the media ran with it EVEN THOUGH the public doesn't buy it.

---

by: MadScientist @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 01:44:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No. (0.00 / 0)

This is a liberal country, based on actual beliefs held by actual people. The research on this has been published many times here on OL.

The problem is that the elite is conservative, and that includes the media. The shadows on the wall of the cave are not real, we are.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 06:33:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So Mark don't give up on Obama (4.00 / 1)

First the bad news, I think there are two dynamics going on:

1) His economic advisors are failing him. Part of that is because they're way too establishment, and part of that is just a crummy job on their part. Larry Summers actually isn't as bad as David makes him out to be, but I think he just whiffed this whole thing from the get-go, by pushing for spend to go to projects that could go full-bore at the drop of a hat. His staff then began looking so hard for things that could fit in an impossibly narrow window of time, that it opened the door to all sorts of tax cuts & programs that are easy to start, but will have almost nil effect on the economy.

2) Rookie mistakes on the part of a new White House team (and this might include our President). This administration is taking on so much, so fast, and has such a narrow margin for mistakes, that every false tactical step, every instance of team coordination miscues...risks serious damage. I think the whole Gregg thing happened when Obama thought he had a clever way of getting to 60, but nobody bothered to check with the Democratic governor of New Hampshire to see if he would appoint a Democrat (call it the Blago effect). It's such a hairy mistep that Rahm and Reid have both claimed responsibility for the idea, in effect shielding the boss in the process.

Cooper's comment is probably another example of a miscue; a third would be the fact that nobody has heard anything from the administration on why they built the stimulus the way they did...the NYT ran a column on it today...for the first time giving some light on what the underlying rationale was....this shows the adminstration is off-message on their most important effort...and even worse, they sound like they thought they were on message.

These failings are normal for an administration's first two weeks...but these are not your normal first two weeks.

But there's time enough to win. I think President Obama has got what it takes, there are still plenty of good people around him, and all-in-all his team is an example of our country putting its best foot forward in a moment of national crisis.

It's easy to gloss over what he has done right:
1) Shutting down the drilling in Utah
2) Revoking every legal writing (regarding detainees and interrogations) made in the entire eight years of the Bush administration
3) Shutting down Guantanamo
4) Ending torture (and on this one he was definitely at odds with the rest of Washington).
5) Ordering the military to begin withdrawing from Iraq, and setting the timeline for that at exactly one year.
6) Directing FEMA in responding to a winter storm in Appalachia
7) SCHIP
8) Lilly Ledbetter

That's actually a lot for two weeks; now he needs to whip his economic team into shape.

I also think he needs to be ruthless to somebody, somewhere, as these mis-steps have telegraphed a lot of weakness to the base, the opposition, and perhaps abroad. He needs to show strength and mettle, by beating the living tar out of some deserving recipient...in a way that sends chills down people's spines. It has to be a domestic target, but done with the idea that foreign governments will also be watching.

Anyway, sorry for the gab...he's my guy, and I'll probably be with him til the end, whether that be bitter or glorious.

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:47:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

bitter, if he lets them gut this bill (4.00 / 5)

And empowering Republicans was what he did.  It started with the cave in on Family Planning money which signalled to them that he could be rolled.

This is his fault...not small mistakes but a fundamental error of understanding.....To Republicans and the media bipartisanship is only a one way street.  Barack Obama is suffering from the illusion that he has some unique power to make other people come together over him.  

This is Theda Skocpol of Harvard, a very vociferous Obama supporter and Hillary antagonist writing to Josh Marshall at TPM. (my emphases)

In response to what you are saying: Obama is, sadly, much to blame for giving the Republicans so much leverage. He defined the challenge as biparitsanship not saving the U.S. economy. Right now, he has only one chance to re-set this deteriorating debate: He needs to give a major speech on the economy, explain to Americans what is happening and what must be done. People will, as of now, still listen to him -- and what else is his political capital for?

Speaking as a strong Obama supporter who put my energies and money into it, I am now very disillusioned with him. He spent the last two weeks empowering Republicans -- including negotiating with them to get more into Senate and his administration and giving them virtual veto-power over his agenda --

I agree with her...I have agreed with her long before she came to this realization herself.  This could well be Barack Obama's fatal flaw, but it's not like it wasn't visible before. He has to come to some realization that his priorites are wrong....It's the economy and the American people and not comity with Republicans that should come first That's only relevant if it actually accomplishes the former.

And I too am baffled along with Chris,  Why hasn't he unleashed his vast email list to pressure Republican and some Democratic Senators to pass a good bill.  It is a mystery.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 17:42:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is bipartisanship's great attraction (4.00 / 6)

Whatever merits there are to bi-partisanship, citizen participation in the legislative process is not one of them.

How true it is.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

---

by: David Kaib @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:02:39 PM CST

He recused himself? (0.00 / 0)

Make sure you get this one right...you guys tend to color things sometimes.

Are you telling me that the same guy who was nominated yesterday to have a top Cabinet position has recused himself from voting for a landmark bill from the same administration he will shortly join?

Don't jump on Ben Nelson just yet...the last I heard, he wasn't looking to pare down the bill per se, he was just looking to separate out the tack-ons that were not directed at reviving the economy....let's see what he comes back with...$800 bn well-spent is better than $1 trillion mis-spent.  

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:05:33 PM CST

ALL of it is directed at the economy (4.00 / 8)

Don't buy into the right-wing lie that this stuff won't revive the economy. They're talking about taking out the stuff designed to shore up the government safety net. Anyone who thinks we can revive the economy without fixing the safety net is insane.

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:07:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Have to disagree with you (0.00 / 0)

Spend does not equal spend.

Different types of spend have more impact than others. Wide-scale tax cuts/credits are too diffuse to have an impact. Smoking cessation and birth control programs (I think I heard those included) are not jobs programs.

Shoring up the safety net is great; but outside of food stamps and unemployment, it's not a stimulus...and should not be counted as such.

Pass those things in another bill, that's great, but let's not lose sight of what will really get the pistons humming in our economy:

1). targeted tax credits for the purchase of capital machinery

2). some sort of tax holiday for small biz (perhaps targeting those that are established, having already made it past the initial five year incubation period...as we know those are healthy businesses that would be likely to thrive in normal times)Small Biz is responsible for a lot of our hiring...

3). wipe out all student loans. I believe there are over 10 million student loan payees-a number larger than the population of most of our states-and this demographic is of an age that would normally be buying houses, condos, furniture, cars, and all the state and local taxes associated with those big ticket items. Just by using the inputs that make those complex items, you are creating new demand throughout the supply chain.

4). Issue bloc grants to the states, to help make up budget shortfalls, at 50 cents on the dollar. Do it in blocs, because if some of that money ends up going to a trivial state program, then the state is in the news, not the administration. Do it at 50 cents on the dollar, because federal largesse should not mask the need for budgetary reform at the state level (EX: WA State has no income tax, the budget is largely based off of user fees and sales taxes).

5). Last but most important, a massive shock & awe infrastructure program, in schools, water, energy, and rail.
-I once saw an estimate by the University of New Hampshire that the cost for constructing algeal ponds (biodiesel) to equal the nation's gas consumption would be just over $100bn. I don't know if that's true, but I'm sure Al Gore does.
-Energy grid upgrades and solar/wind farms.
- An issue close to my heart: rail, in all of its forms. There are numerous projects across the country that are on hold or slo mo because funding is at a trickle. Many of these are far beyond the pure concept stage, but not far enough thru the design stage to get into Summers' bill. A stimulus bill would dramatically increase construction on those projects already in that phase, while even those projects in the design phase could go ahead and order steel, and concrete, and rail cars, and ramp up a trained labor force, etc.

And this is the kind of stuff that creates jobs, that gets those pistons moving.

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 17:13:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

To start with, your 50 cent state grant (4.00 / 2)

misses the point of much of the social net spending in the bill. Let's make it simple.

1) States are facing huge budget shortfalls. North Carolina, for example, could lose 15% of its budget in the next two years.

2) In general, states cannot run deficits, and so lack the ability to prime the pump in the Keynesian sense.

3) After at least a quarter-century of supply-side economics taking hold in the states, finding the will to reform revenue systems is not something you can expect in the next 18 months.

4) As a result, many states are now poised to a) cut spending on services, and b) furlough, or even fire, state personnel. Both of these approaches are anti-stimulative and could negate whatever we achieve on the federal level.

5) A big chunk of the human services spending in the stimulus bill is going to go toward increasing the amount of medicaid paid by the federal government, thus freeing up money to prevent big cuts in the states. And other state-level stimulus items are intended, with varying degrees, to have the same effect, thus helping us avoid the problems listed in (4). Again, in North Carolina, the bill - as now written - could erase nearly half of our projected shortfall.

Oh, and (6) Poor people spend money. That's good for local economies.

---

by: NC 11 CD @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 18:03:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So where are we disagreeing? (0.00 / 0)

yes, as I stated in Point 4 that, as part of a stimulus package, the federal government could meet the states halfway in their budget shortfalls.

Regarding your last item (6), I had specifically mentioned food stamps and unemployment (insurance) as examples of safety net spend that can be considered, just because those funds are immediately liquidated.

I also said that safety net spend that does not boost the economy, such as medicaid payments, etc. are valuable and can be part of a separate bill...they just shouldn't be included in a stimulus bill.

Lastly, regarding your item (3) about states not willing to reform...there is nothing like a Depression to clarify priorities. The reason CA and WA are running huge deficits is because CA refuses to raise taxes on the wealthy, and WA refuses any kind of state income tax at all.

Obviously, if the federal government plugs in the entire gap, those states will use that to avoid reforming regressive tax policies. So we meet them halfway...

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 18:15:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Where? Medicaid. (4.00 / 2)

My point was that shoring up state budgets by taking a larger medicaid burden is stimulative simply by dint of preventing the states from making deeper cuts in services and payroll. And this can only be done at the federal level because most states can't run a deficit.

Also, though, "meeting states halfway" is what this bill already does, for North Carolina at least. We've still got 7% of our budget to cut or pay for. If you were writing the bill, it sounds like it would only meet us one quarter of the way.

---

by: NC 11 CD @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 21:48:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yes, Gregg recused himself (4.00 / 4)

If you haven't seen the news, now you know. It's insane, yes, but it's what Gregg has decided to do. It looks like appointing Gregg was another boneheaded move by Obama.

The best thing that could happen to Obama is for the GOP to defeat the stimulus bill. That would teach him that bipartisanship and having cookies with GOP leaders is a sucker's game, and that he needs to play hardball using his formidable political skills.

---

by: existenz @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:24:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just A Thought (0.00 / 0)

Would it be more pallatable to have, say, a couple of stimulus packages worth $6-700 billion spaced 6-8 months apart as opposed to one package at $900 billion? FDR had to pass multiple stimulus packages after he took office, and it strikes me as politically more feasible to mete things out in chunks rather than throwing around the "t" word (trillion) that Krugman has pointed out that Obama and the Democrats are scared to death of.

Granted, there's been nary a peep about future stimulus packages, but I find it hard to believe these people haven't read their history on the New Deal and don't know how it was done back in the day. I mean, the simple truth is $900 billion isn't enough to spur the proper amount of growth and job creation necessary.

I do think that Obama needs to regroup here and get on TV in prime time and elaborate on exactly what he wants in the next few days. He shouldn't have any qualms about taking his case to the people considering his current popularity, and the political posturing of 22 self-important Senators is not going to sit well with the country if Obama gives them their marching orders.

---

by: ecotect @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:07:08 PM CST

If Repubs are blocking this one (4.00 / 8)

They will block future ones.

If they succeed in watering this one down they will succeed at the same in the future.

This fight will define much of how the Obama Administration operates.

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:11:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yep (0.00 / 0)

and if they take out $200 billion in spending, the bill will be mostly tax cuts. It would be a fiasco.

I'm convinced that Obama has the ability to get the Dems in line if need be. Right now, he's open to maybe a few billion in cuts to the package. He would NOT be okay with $200 billion in spending cuts, he's made that clear today.

---

by: existenz @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:26:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Kennedy and Franken (4.00 / 1)

If Repubs are blocking this one [t]hey will block future ones.

The good news is this isn't actually true.  As I stated above, if Kennedy were healthy and Franken were sworn in, this stimulus would pass as is; better than as is, in fact.

So we really do have the votes, we just don't have the votes today.

Still, I sure hope Obama is learning the correct lessons from all this.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:41:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe (4.00 / 1)

I guess that's the best hope... Maybe whatever we get out of this package now (looks like it'll be 1:1 tax cuts and spending), then maybe a health care bill later (won't be universal coverage, but maybe it'll be a hundred billion or so of useful things), then maybe an infrastructure bill, an energy bill, a bankruptcy/foreclosure bill, etc.

In any event, the we're probably looking at only about 300 billion in actually stimulus spread over a couple years in the current bill, plus some tax cuts (most of which, like the AMT thing, will do nothing). That's not even half what's needed.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:15:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Depends on What Kind of Tax Cuts (0.00 / 0)

If they're middle class tax cuts, I'm ok with that, because you have a consumerist middle class that's been conditioned to spend money like it's going to explode in their pockets if they don't.

---

by: ecotect @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:30:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree... (0.00 / 0)

Middle/working class tax cuts can be good. Tax cuts (or credits, or rebates, or what-have-you) are stimulative if they're targeting people who are going to spend the money (e.g. people who don't have money). I'd even be in favor of certain small-business tax breaks. But those aren't the kind of tax cuts that Republicans are going to stick in the bill.

With the way things have been going, by the time the sausage is made, all that will be left is the AMT adjustment, capital gains and estate tax cuts, and a big coal subsidy.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:40:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It doesn't sound like Obama really wants it... (4.00 / 4)

...and I'm not sure if I want this, either... if it's a crap bill, without the good stuff to build and maintain a progressive majority, then I'm offboard, and kill the plan.  It does us no good if it only continues right wing "governance".

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 Feb 04, 2009 at 16:18:10 PM CST

There are a lot of Democrats who want Obama to fail. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Micheline @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:26:05 PM CST

75% of Americans want Obama to succeed (4.00 / 2)

He should be able to leverage that, right?

Howard Dean in 2016

---

by: Jim in Chicago @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:47:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

WaPo-Obama urged Dems "to drop whatever needs to be cut from the bill to gain bipartisan support and to pass Congress soon." (4.00 / 1)

that's what he cares about -- not that it'll work or create jobs -- only that it will have GOP votes and pass -- no matter what.

... The meeting was "productive," press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement afterward, adding that the president and the Democratic leaders agreed on the urgency of working to "achieve the bipartisan consensus that the president has sought throughout this process."

But two Democratic sources with knowledge of the meeting said the president took a blunt tone with the lawmakers, urging them to drop whatever needs to be cut from the bill to gain bipartisan support and to pass Congress soon.

One source said Obama appeared to be frustrated by the public perception that the recovery bill was becoming laden with partisan pet projects.  ...

-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

---

by: amberglow @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:45:12 PM CST

Cooper (who killed Healthcare in the 90s & who might get HHS now) got an ok to vote against it!?! (0.00 / 0)

ugh!

... The Office of Management and Budget was, of course, the main job folks thought Congressman Jim Cooper would end up in if he chose to go to Washington. HHS, however, would not be a bad fit either, considering the congressman's interest in healthcare.

And FYI for those of you who are operating under the misimpression that the Congressman is on the outs with the new administration for his vote against the stimulus need only to take a listen to Cooper's interview yesterday with Liberadio(!):

   Well, I probably shouldn't tell you this, but I actually got some quiet encouragement from the Obama folks for what I'm doing. They know its a messy bill and they wanted a clean bill.

   Now, I got in terrible trouble with our leadership because they don't care what's in the bill, they just want it pass and they want it to be unanimous. ...

-- http://politics.nashvillepost....

---

by: amberglow @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 17:00:56 PM CST

Yeah, he retracted that statement today... (0.00 / 0)

...he's not going to get that HHS job, not after backstabbing Obama today... no way they let a loose cannon in like that...

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 Feb 04, 2009 at 17:42:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Right. (4.00 / 3)

Instead, he gets a mandate to cut Social Security.

---

by: Kagro X @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 18:25:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

sure he'd get it -- Gregg got a job (0.00 / 0)

why not Cooper?

ugh, again.

---

by: amberglow @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 19:05:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Gregg's not a backstabber and an attention seeker... (0.00 / 0)

...like Cooper.

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 Feb 04, 2009 at 19:57:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

really? (0.00 / 0)

of course he is -- ALL pols are.  

---

by: amberglow @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 20:35:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

He at least showed loyalty to his party... n/t (0.00 / 0)

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 Feb 04, 2009 at 20:55:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

but he knew he was gonna lose his seat and power anyway (0.00 / 0)

in the next election -- and now he has more power -- personal and policy and influence -- as one of Obama's very very favorite Republicans.

---

by: amberglow @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 21:52:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't hesitate (4.00 / 1)

[I]f he didn't encourage his most dedicated activists to show their support for the current version of the stimulus...

We are the change we've been waiting for.  

We don't need to wait for orders from 'higher up.'  That's not the way it is supposed to be, at least not for us.

The President can't be expected to tell us how to handle everything.  We need to support our President by getting out and explaining the importance of this bill, calling our Senators and letting them know just how serious an issue passage is.  We cannot let the right dictate terms on anything, much less something so necessary, and especially so early on in his first term.

---

by: Whitsend @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 20:45:53 PM CST

"We cannot let the right dictate terms on anything, much less something so necessary" (4.00 / 2)

it's not us who are doing that tho -- it's Obama -- who values "Bipartisanship" and GOP buy-in far far more than crafting and passing the strongest possible bill that will tangibly create the most jobs here and improve all our lives.

it's absurd to help him pass this thing that he's encouraging even Democrats to weaken each day.

this bill shouldn't even been written to get GOP buy-in in the first place, and Obama is still fighting against putting in protections for us too.

---

by: amberglow @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 21:57:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama should threaten to withdraw Gregg's nomination (4.00 / 2)

In parliamentary systems, if a cabinet member votes against the party whip on an issue of vital importance, they are expected to resign.

The same should apply for Gregg. Either he shows his willingness to play ball by voting for the stimulus, or he can fuck off back to New Hampshire.

In the meantime, I think we need to start making noises about primarying Jim Cooper. He may be in Tennessee, but he's in a D+6 district which is nearly 25% black and is based on a relatively liberal urban centre. Frighten the fucker.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:29:31 AM CST

Obama sides with Polls silly (0.00 / 0)

 Obama is very aware of recent polls showing a majority of Americans are unhappy with this stimulus.  He will do what a good Democrat does.  Watch polls and adjust accordingly. Just as his dramatic move from Left to Center after defeating Hillary.

---

by: dencal26 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 08:08:29 AM CST

Obama decides by Polls (0.00 / 0)

Obama is very aware that most Americans are uneasy with the current plan and he is making the proper moves to ease those feelings. Its called Compromise.  

---

by: dencal26 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 08:37:30 AM CST