Americans United for Change Joins Obama In Praise of Collins-Nelson Gangsters

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 15:56


At TPM, Josh says:

Notable

A lot of readers see what Collins, Nelson, Specter et al. are doing in the worst light. Nelson as a turncoat. And Collins, Snowe and Specter diluting the Stimulus Bill to no good end. On the policy merits, I completely agree. As many others with greater grasps of the budgetary and economics particulars have argued, the list of cuts they've pushed through follow no coherent approach to the package -- and build up the least effective parts of the package at the expense of the most. They follow a logic of political grandstanding.

But one of the biggest outside, labor-liberal groups pushing this bill, Americans United for Change, is out in these states running new ads this weekend in support of Collins, Specter, Snowe and Nelson.

TPMDC Sunday Roundup adds:

Here's the radio ad praising Specter:

"

"Fortunately, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter is providing the leadership we need to get the job done," the announcer says. "Senator Specter has with President Obama to reach agreement on a plan that has support from a broad range of groups -- including the US Chamber of Commerce and organized labor."

With friends like these...
Paul Rosenberg :: Americans United for Change Joins Obama In Praise of Collins-Nelson Gangsters

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Americans United for Change Joins Obama In Praise of Collins-Nelson Gangsters | 78 comments
With friends like these... (4.00 / 2)
...a lot will get accomplished.
A lot of damage... (4.00 / 3)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...

Howard Dean in 2016
[ Parent ]
Total and comprehensive misreading continues (4.00 / 2)
Part of your analytical weakness is due to your misunderstanding of the difference between "sounding tough" and "being tough". For example, Harry Truman, who you repeatedly cite as a model of partisan battling, was a master at sounding tough. But, aside from incinerating people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, his accomplishments were to totally fail on national health insurance, to allow the Republicans to destroy the labor movement (Taft-Hartley), to start a war in Asia, to fail on industrial policy, and to pave the way for Eisenhower and Nixon.

Obama, in three weeks, is on the verge of a massive success. He will preside over passage of an $800B spending bill that will fundamentally change the role of the Federal government and is being hysterically opposed by Republicans because they understand it is going to destroy them. And this is after passage of the Ledbetter Act and the SCHIP extension. What the Republicans have succeeded in doing is creating a massive rift between Republican governors and the Republican Congressional delegation that will be painfully dangerous to them. Yet, apparently the creation of hundreds of thousands of union jobs is less pleasing to you, than would be a losing battle, joined with more yelling.

Interesting.

Very true... (4.00 / 9)
Except for the fact that pretty much every economic expert not on the payroll of AEI accepts that the stimulus concession Obama's backing will be a lot less effective than both his original plan and the House bill (which was hardly great in the first place).

And that the bill won't take unemployment below 8% until 2010 at an optimistic estimate, hence handing Republicans not an anvil but a route back to power through the midterms.

So yeah, except for the fact that you're wrong on every substantive fact, I couldn't agree more.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
your assumption is that the chapter is closed (4.00 / 1)
What makes you think that as the states careen into collapse, Obama cannot go back to the Congress? What's going to happen next is that Arnold and Mitch Daniels and other puke governors are going to have to deal with the effects of Republican stupidity.

This is one move in a long game, not a single shot.

[ Parent ]
So then what.... (4.00 / 4)
Obama goes to Congress for another stimulus? It could possibly be easier with Franken and the NH appointee seated, but it would still be a massive battle. The Republican seem to be hardening their stance, and I don't buy the idea that further economic collapse will make them see the light - not anytime soon.

I do agree that governors need to start playing a larger role here. And Obama needs to amp up his PR campaign to the maximum level. But will that be an effective strategy in six months if the current stimulus fails to manifest any noticeable improvement because it is such a deeply flawed bill?    

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
so they will now be in a much weaker position (0.00 / 0)
The House will pass a bill to keep California from closing its jail system and in the face of an executive equipped with a significant patronage hammer.

Hello, KayBaily. This is T-Boone. I'm told that the new energy research center that was supposed to be in Houston will be in New Orleans because you won't get on the fucking bus. ....

[ Parent ]
But the Governors are already bitching ... (4.00 / 2)
and Mitch and the boys don't seem to care .. do you really think they'll change their minds later? .. I wouldn't bet on it
[ Parent ]
the governors bitching is lost on the noise (0.00 / 0)
and it will not be when we are in phase two.
[ Parent ]
This is delusion (4.00 / 4)
Look, Obama has already now gone on record to say that he believes that this stimulus is of the right size.

How does that give him any credibility to come back for more money in the near future? Either he looks like he was lying when he said it, or that he and his people are so incompetent at their projections that they couldn't see the further need just a very short distance down the road.

Neither perceived disingenuousness nor incompetence in a leader redounds to his salesmanship.  

[ Parent ]
Dems at the Majority Leader's desk have said so (0.00 / 0)
All through this debate, Reid, and on Saturday, Rockefeller, have said that the minority will have opportunities to bring up their proposals in future bills, even as the amendments to this package fail one by one.
[ Parent ]
Who cares if it doesn't work? (4.00 / 4)
I agree with most of what you're saying, but what does any of this matter if the Stimulus doesn't work? Any economist with even half-an-ounce of faith in Keynesianism is saying this stimulus is simply too small and too short on spending.

The very worst outcome imaginable (aside from total system collapse) is a half-assed stimulus bill that fails to move the economy back in the right direction. In that scenario, Republicans get to claim a ideological victory, the economy continues to sink, Obama's political capital evaporates and we just end up in another fight for another stimulus - a fight in which Republican's would surely demand and get massive new tax cuts.  

I would argue that Obama's big mistake was low-balling Congress. He should have used his bully pulpit to demand a $2 trillion stimulus. Congress could have whittled it down to $1.5 trillion, in the process Repulicans would have gained dramatic concessions from the Dems, but the end result would have been a stimulus that might have had the weight to actually divert the path of the current economic collapse.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
or it might have collapsed under its own weight and in the face of (0.00 / 0)
conservative dems' skittishness, meaning that obama would have to contend with an emboldened unholy alliance of blue dog and GOP senators.  
[ Parent ]
Maybe it is too soon (4.00 / 5)
Maybe it is/was too soon to call for a stimulus of that magnitude. So, we have to wait for further economic collapse for the conservative Dems to support something that dramatic? Fun stuff.

I recall Obama posturing on the bill during the transition. He was throwing around the number $800 billion, but said he expected it might balloon to $1.3 trillion in Congress. He wanted congressional Dems to do the heavy lifting. If that wasn't just rhetoric, and he really did want a $1 trillion-plus stimulus, he seriously miscalculated by placing the burden on Congress. He and he alone had the political power to start the bidding above $1 trillion.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
The people didn't give us a Congress (0.00 / 0)
progressive enough to pass such a bill.

too many people thought a divided government would be a good thing. I know, I heard voters talking about it on the campaign trail...can't give Demcorats everything.

Thanks guys.  

[ Parent ]
I don't think you should blame voters in 2008. (4.00 / 1)
The problem is primarily the senators elected in 2004 who still serve until 2010. Two more Democrats and there would no issue.

John

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
oops (0.00 / 0)
Hit enter too soon.  Should have been

John Kerry did his best but it didn't help in the senate races either.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
that's another issue to (0.00 / 0)
the Senators are elected so infrequently that this is the last place where Bush conservatism still exists.

I guess my general point is the Senate is our problem and that's where we need to focus...on the Senate.

I know a lot of people raised hell about the appointments of new Senators in the last few weeks, but Gillibrand, Burris and Kaufman have been very reliable in this process, there's a distinct possibility that Ken Salazar would be joining Lieberman and Nelson, instead we have Michael Bennet, who is not, and the new New Hampshire Republican is crazy for education...she may be our 60th vote for education funding, if not in this bill, for the future. Gregg wouldn't have been.

Essentially Obama decimated the Senate and some new blood entered. We got Michael Bennet instead of some five term Congressman who hid behind the trees during the Bush administration. We got Kirsten Gillibrand instead of some lackey Democrat who supported the war in Iraq.

I know this may seem hard to believe, but I still don't think we've won enough elections yet to really yield the power we want.  

[ Parent ]
Six of them (4.00 / 2)
There are six Republican Senators from states carried by Obama whose terms are up in 2010: Gregg from NH, Specter from PA, Voinovich from OH, Grassley from IA, Burr from NC, and Martinez from FL.

The options are to seat Franken now (gets to 59) and make an offer where the first Republican to sign on gets a bag full of goodies and the others get nothing.

Can we move SAC from Nebraska or something to put the heat on Ben Nelson?

Remember that Obama did not go all out for Jim Martin because he didn't want to risk his prestige?  Remember that people said that there was no difference between 59 and 60 because there were several Republicans who would cross for that 60th vote?

[ Parent ]
You raise an interesting point (4.00 / 2)
with regard to what Keynesianism would seem to require.

I think your right that the straightforward reading of the Keynesian argument would be to implement a stimulus twice the size at least of the $800B suggested. Indeed, even the projections of Obama's own economists would seem to agree that the stimulus might at most cover half of the shortfall in GDP (lately Obama himself has used even more dramatic numbers).

Why on earth did they not come out with a much larger number for the stimulus? At least one can say about the right wing that they simply don't accept the Keynesian analysis (though it's not always clear why or how they manage to do so). But Democrats and "liberal" economists like Summers supposedly do.

What does it say, then, about Obama and his team of economists that they were willing to sign on to such a ludicrously low and inadequate number? It would have been a political pipe dream to imagine that the number might plausibly go up to 1.3B from 800B.

On some level, one wonders if even Obama's economists really have the courage of their own supposed convictions when it comes to Keynesianism.

[ Parent ]
Smoot-Hawley (4.00 / 1)
what does any of this matter if the Stimulus doesn't work? Any economist with even half-an-ounce of faith in Keynesianism is saying this stimulus is simply too small and too short on spending.

This bill reminds me of the passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff act early in 1930, as the (first) Great Depression was gathering steam. Over 1,000 economists signed a letter to Congress warning that the bill was bad news. Congress passed it anyway. Other countries promptly raised their tariffs on American goods, crushing our exports and dragging down the economy. From Wikipedia:

Imports plunged 66% from US$4.4 billion (1929) to US$1.5 billion (1933), and exports fell 61% from US$5.4 billion to US$2.1 billion, both drops far more than the 50% fall in the GDP.

Of course, today economists are not as united in their opinion about this Keynesian effort. Many conservative economists have spent their lives believing that the market is perfect and Wall Street should rule, and they aren't about to change now. I guess Nelson and Spector and the Mainers don't believe in Keynes' theories either. So we may be condemned to repeat a hard economic history in a Second Great Depression.

[ Parent ]
You're welcome to your opinion (4.00 / 6)
But try to understand where Paul and others are coming from. You see the $800 billion as a success. But the economists tell us that if that's not followed up by nearly $1 trillion extra the economy won't have a chance of recovering. In short, unless Obama leverages this "success" to claim enormous later victories, it's going to turn into a failure before the midterms. And so far hasn't shown the slightest sign of even wanting to pursue the scale of success that's needed.

I understand how this can be portrayed as a success. It is a success under the proposition that incremental change will get us to the goal with less pain. It is a success under the proposition that slow change can be controlled and optimized while rapid change may fall culprit to Murphy's law (whatever can go wrong, will go wrong). Those are propositions I normally have a lot of sympathy with.

But, I've long since given up on these being normal times. It's too late to avoid the pain: the pain is already huge and the rate that it's speeding up is speeding up. There is no time to go slowly: right now going slowly may be the least responsible action available.

Right now, we're in the middle of an escalator that is moving down while we're trying to go up. Claiming success on the Senate compromise seems to many of us like claiming success because we're 10 steps past where we were before - while ignoring that the escalator has moved us 25 feet down from the level we were at before.

[ Parent ]
well there is still a conference process in the works (4.00 / 3)
And it's not at all clear to me that there is a significant Keynsian-stimulus difference coming from the small differences between this plan and the House plan. And my perspective is not that this is a great plan in itself, but that given the intransigence of the Republicans and their death grip on the media and their massive power base at the top of corporate America, one cannot simply roll over them, as satisfying as that would be.
[ Parent ]
I guess... (4.00 / 4)
well there is still a conference process in the works

If they add back the money for state, I'll be somewhat happy

And it's not at all clear to me that there is a significant Keynsian-stimulus difference coming from the small differences between this plan and the House plan.

I agree on that - the reason the House version was at least palatable was that it got significant aid to state budgets quickly. Trading that for fixing the AMT violates both Keynes and morality. If there is another big spending bill in the near future then I'll admit I'm wrong on this one - I just don't see that happening.

And my perspective is not that this is a great plan in itself, but that given the intransigence of the Republicans and their death grip on the media and their massive power base at the top of corporate America, one cannot simply roll over them, as satisfying as that would be.

But at the very least, I would ask the Dems to try to roll over them. Instead, Obama rolled over before he even came out with a plan, and continued rolling over until late last week. I simply can't believe that we couldn't have gotten a better bill if Obama had used his salesmanship to rally support for a real stimulus.
[ Parent ]
i think you underestimate the strength of the right (4.00 / 1)
The corporate media HATES infrastructure spending, expansion of federal health care, and the stimulus in general. The right has spent 30 years or more successfully strangling civilian spending and suddenly faces a trillion dollar reversal. Getting this bill through congress has required a brilliant series of tactical moves. While people here insist that Obama should have beat his chest and acted tough - he managed to push through 80% of what he wanted while making the Republicans look stupid and intransigent.  
[ Parent ]
Specifics please (4.00 / 1)
Identify one "brilliant tactical move".
[ Parent ]
I just can't agree (4.00 / 3)
Certainly Obama has succeeded in getting a huge bill passed -- a size unthinkable in say 1993.

But after wonderful promises and talks of infrastructure spending and investment I just don't see that this bill has much of that at all.  It's a huge amount of tax cuts (admittedly, Obama did promise some of the them) and no transformative at all.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
A Troll Is Banned (4.00 / 3)
rootlesse has been banned, because he was previously banned as  rootless2.  He is the only user I have ever banned.  He was banned because his persistent, baseless accusations that I am a racist were evidence of someone incapable of being a good faith actor, even as his comments totally disrupted a potentially very fruitful discussion--and earn numerous troll ratings by other users, btw.

I did not ban him immediately, but took time to consult with others here.  In the interim, his later attempts to "blend in" did nothing to offset his earlier behavior (his first appearance at Open Left in several months).  Rather, they suggested a sociopathic personality.

Sociopaths are frequently quite charming, even magnetic, very adept at playing roles, in part precisely because they have no moral core, no conscience, and thus feel no shame, remorse, or even consciousness of having transgressed.  Whether or not rootlesse actually is a sociopath is irrelevant.  I merely use the sociopath model as a point of reference describing a general pattern that reasonably approximates what I have observed.

Now, of course, it goes without saying that sociopaths can not only be charming, they can often be quite right about factual arguments they make.  And then they can go off on a completely different tangent in the blink of an eye.  Hence, they are not good candidates for rational discourse, even though they can produce very convincing set piece arguments.

"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

[ Parent ]
thank you for explaining. (0.00 / 0)
It's nice to know what happens.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
Well, I Like To Be Transparent (0.00 / 0)
But I don't like to give more attention to bad behavior.

So, that's why I'm explaining now, but didn't explain the initial ban.  This happened in realtime, which gave a clear preference to transparency.

"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

[ Parent ]
agreed (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Nelson isn't a turn coat (0.00 / 0)
he is simply trying to get bought off with more pork for lowly Nebraska.

He does that routine very well.

At this point.... (4.00 / 1)
At this point it wouldn't help anything to badmouth Collins, Specter and Snowe. This is the path Obama chose (coddling Republicans instead of humiliating them) and he needs to stick with it until this bill is signed.

Considering that this bill needs 60 votes to pass (and not just for cloture) I wonder if 'shaming' Republicans into voting for a party-line Dem bill would even have worked. We have to keep in mind that Obama was looking at a 57 seat majority, not 59, on account of Kennedy and Franken. Which means the worst-case scenario would have required all three of these Republican votes. It now appears Kennedy will vote, and only two Republicans will need to be on board, but that was never a certainty.



"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

Reality versus theory (4.00 / 1)

You may be correct that this compromise wasn't required to get through the Senate.  Or, you may be wrong.  We don't know.  I do know that not passing any bill at all seemed quite possible just a few days ago.

Hard to know which would be better (4.00 / 4)
At least passing no bill at all would guarantee that we'd get another chance soon. With this compromise, we may not get another chance until next fall.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'd rather the Democrats had decided that the funding to states was non-negotiable.

[ Parent ]
huh? no. not passing a bill would have meant not passing a bill. (4.00 / 1)
it wouldn't have increased the chances of a better bill tomorrow, it would have strengthened the hand of the GOP and blue dogs.  
[ Parent ]
Not necessarily (4.00 / 4)
What if it were progressives that scuttled the bill? And what if they did it in collusion with Republican governors?

I don't know what exactly the solution is, but Dems have got to get themselves out of the rut of compromise strategy that they've been in for the last 15 years. Doing that is going to take some balls and its going to take some actions that seem totally irresponsible.

When you're playing a game of chicken to win, the strategy is to make the other side think you're absolutely bat-shit crazy. Normally, I'm one to play to survive - but under present circumstances the only way to survive seems to be to win the game of chicken.

[ Parent ]
Simple answer (0.00 / 0)
What if it were progressives that scuttled the bill?

It means they go for a bill friendlier to MORE Republicans.  

[ Parent ]
This Is A Very Good Point (4.00 / 5)
The Democrats are entirely predictable.  They need to start thinking and acting outside the box.  If three or four liberals voted no on this "compromise" and took to the airwaves aggressively to explain why, I don't know what would happen, but it would certainly change the dynamic.  And right now the dynamic is that of a hostage situation with Snow, Collins and Nelson as the terrorist hostage takers.  We will be totally in their power for the next 2 years unless something is done to change it.

"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
[ Parent ]
yes, i actually agree that progressive dems should have put a lot of pressure on this (0.00 / 0)
process from the left, going so far as to say they might sit it out.  the problem is, strategically, their bluff could have been called by specter, collins, and snowe if those three had simply said, "ok, lets forget about this whole stimulus business..."  at that point, it would have been very possible for nothing at all to have happened.  
[ Parent ]
well that was my point about truman (4.00 / 1)
The passage of the Taft-Hartley act has had incalculable long-term terrible results. Truman's "talk tough" approach failed. And Obama's "I'm trying hard to be reasonable" approach seems to be boxing the Republicans into a no win position. If you are going to argue for a pitched battle, I think you have a burden of showing how it will lead to positive results. I do not think failure of this bill would have done anything but weaken Obama and Pelosi.
[ Parent ]
Fair enough (4.00 / 3)
But Obama and Pelosi and all the rest of the Dems will also be weakened in six months when the Republicans start talking about how the Dems spending "stimulus" failed to stop further job losses.  
[ Parent ]
That's what I fear more than anything (4.00 / 1)
Then what happens? At some point the economy could get so bad that truly drastic actions will need to be taken - but in the interim Dems will be weakened and Republicans strengthened. And then the midterms come...  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Republicans do have some spending priorities... (0.00 / 0)
Mostly military in nature.

When the right wing gets control of an economy in severe depression, it's time to worry.

[ Parent ]
true, true. the nazis revitalized the german economy in the 30s thru (0.00 / 0)
arms production.  
[ Parent ]
The pushback is easy (4.00 / 2)
Make the "centrists" own this bill.  
[ Parent ]
I don't for a single moment (4.00 / 5)
believe that it would be politically possible not to pass a stimulus bill -- though it might have taken an escalation in the political game of chicken to make it happen.

Seriously, do you believe that Senators like Collins, Snowe, and Specter, whose political futures depend on being perceived as moderates in their states, could allow themselves to be pilloried as the key votes who made sure that no stimulus at all passed, and so brought down the American economy?

However much these Senators might try to lay the blame at the door of the Democrats who insisted on a larger package, they would lose the battle of blame: the Democrats could point out that they won the last election decisively, the American people had spoken as to whose ideas they wanted to see implemented, and Collins, Snowe and Specter were enabling a political minority in the Senate to be obstructionists.

What really happened is simple: the Democrats, as usual, caved at the first sign of resistance. Their cowardice did them in, and us in.

(If you really think that it would be possible that no stimulus bill would be passed, look to the progress of the bailout bill. At first the Republicans shot it down. But the public would not stand for nothing being done, and Republicans -- even in the House, no less -- knew they could not live on politically if they didn't get on board in sufficient numbers.)

[ Parent ]
Counterpoint.... (4.00 / 1)
Republicans are batshit insane.

But yeah, it is difficult to imagine the stimulus not passing at all. But how long might it have been delayed?


"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
and how many tax cuts might it have included in the end? a few days ago (4.00 / 1)
it seemed like the final senate bill might have a 1:1 tax cut to spending ratio.  we avoided that outcome, and mccain et al are royally pissed at the three GOP senators who made it possible.    
[ Parent ]
how long might it have been delayed? (4.00 / 3)
Long enough for the Democrats to make the case that the Republicans are destroying the economy -- and that Specter, Collins, and Snowe in particular -- the supposed "moderates" -- were as batshit insane as all the rest, because they too would not budge.

I don't for a moment think that any of these three Senators would be able to resist the heat if, per impossibile, Democrats actually chose to apply it.

[ Parent ]
make their case how exactly? (0.00 / 0)
when the media won't let them...and even if it did, we've learned the Republicans DON'T FUCKING CARE.

I guess that's where we disagree...I do believe that these three Senators would resist to the very end...I really do.

[ Parent ]
the mainites are practically invincible. specter, not so much. (0.00 / 0)
but we needed at least two of their votes.  the problem with how things were shaping up during last week was that the GOP senators and the media were giving the obstructionists a heck of a lot of cover and legitimacy.  it wasn't until obama broke open a can on thursday that things really turned around.  

for the record, i agree that he should have done it sooner.  but i also think that congressional dems and the media bear a lot of responsibility for how this played out.

[ Parent ]
I'm willing to bet (0.00 / 0)
even Specter would go down opposing a larger stimulus. At this point I feel like Specter is much like Sununu was in the last Congress. He just knows his days are numbered either way, so he's sticking to his principles.

One of our biggest problems too is lack of vulnerable incumbents. We could have pressured people like Kit Bond, Mel Martinez, and George Voinovich, but they decided to not run again, thus allowing them to go however they want.

Similar problem happened in the last Congress with Allard, Domenici and Warner.

The good news is we were able to get their seats. We need to organize another progressive wave in 2010. We need to get these candidates like Robin Carnahan and Paul Hodes talking about the need for big ideas and big stimuluses...even at the risk of sounding critical of the President. The President doesn't want candidates of his own party running against him, he might come around if Paul Hodes and Robin Carnahan and running all over the state saying "The centrists have tied us down, we need principles, nnt centrisim"

In this economy, I have trouble believing wedge issues like abortion are going to matter...and if they do, then the American people deserve to live in shantytowns.

[ Parent ]
That might be Hodes (0.00 / 0)
That's not Carnahan. Missouri politics hasn't produced many strong progressive Democrats. She's not terrible, but she won't be the one to make that call.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Ding Ding Ding (0.00 / 0)
I think we've unearthed part of the problem.

A state like Missouri, closest one in this past election, obviously a state with a helluva lot of blue collar workers badly effected by this economy has not embraced progressive econimic policies?

why?

[ Parent ]
LOL (4.00 / 2)
At this point I feel like Specter is much like Sununu was in the last Congress. He just knows his days are numbered either way, so he's sticking to his principles.

Arlen Specter... principles.  Priceless!

"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

[ Parent ]
Well you know what I mean (4.00 / 1)
what's principle for him.  
[ Parent ]
I don't believe that either (4.00 / 3)
Collins or Snowe think of themselves as "invincible" -- nor do I think that they will simply go down a route of intransigence to stop a critical bill from passing.

Basically, they do what they think they can get away with. The Democrats basically make it clear what the hard lines are, and they respect them. They demonstrate their "moderateness" to the outside world by playing the game so that they come right up to the maximum allowed without passing it.

What is emphatically not moderate is voting down a bill, and continuing to vote down a bill, which dooms the American economy.  

[ Parent ]
Doing bipartisanship wrong (4.00 / 6)
If the other side is continuing to press ideological bullshit in your face, you don't do bipartisanship.  You don't let stand the other side's ideological bullshit and try to win based on how reasonable you are.  You fight, hard, so that the people hear both sides of the story (which they are not hearing now).  Instead, you can talk of your WILLINGNESS to be bipartisan as soon as the other side sends someone to compromise with.  You don't do bipartisanship by groveling first.

Bipartisanship should be done quietly, not noisily.  Individual Republicans can be dealt with on certain issues.  For example the Grassley-Sanders amendment (Bipartisan - 1 Republican, 1 Socialist, btw) which would restrict the ability of bailout recipients to bring in H1B Visa holders to replace American workers.  This is supposed to be about creating jobs ultimately, isn't it?

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

Excellent Point (4.00 / 3)
Bipartisanship should be a dinner invitation, not a blank check to dine out somewhere else with 100 of your closest friends.

"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
[ Parent ]
Not to sound like I'm a true believer in an "Obama master Plan"... (0.00 / 0)
...but once you try to be bipartisan as loudly and aggressively as you can, and are then rebutted, it is a lot easier to dismiss the opposition.
Obama has no genuine desire to be bipartisan because he thinks it is the good thing to do. I assume most people don't believe Obama just loves Republican ideas so much he can't contain his desire to embrace them. Rather, his desire is to be widely perceived as bipartisan, a PR stunt that could pay important dividends when the electorate is asked to give Democrats a super-majority in '10.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
This Would Work Like A Charm (4.00 / 3)
Except for the 13-15% unemployment rate and the riots in the streets.

"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
[ Parent ]
Well, I've been wrong before (0.00 / 0)
and tomorrow's speech will tell us something about this.  

If he now comes out with "I tried to be bipartisan and what did it get me, enough of that",  I'll eat my words.  If his speech is partly an ideological (and educational) defense of Keynesianism and a real attempt to silence the Republican noise machine, I'll eat my words.  If the House version largely prevails over the Senate version, I'll eat SOME of my words, although, if memory serves, commentary here after the House passage looked for the Senate to improve the bill.

We shall see,



sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
To hell with Nelson, Specter, Collins and Snowe. Think of the people. (4.00 / 7)
Whether you're of the glass half-full persuasion or not, you have to admit that what we've gotten from the Obama administration so far is neither the change we believe in, nor the change we need.

Does Obama understand this? It seems to me that if you believe he does, the burden of explaining his execrable personnel or policy choices falls on you, not on us. The art of the possible defense has been thoroughly debunked at this point, and nowhere more clearly and eloquently than right here in the diaries of OpenLeft, so you can't claim that you missed it.

The change we need is to move the distribution of wealth in the country back toward what it was in, say, 1965, and to steadfastly insist that the justification for doing so is that it's more just, more democratic, and more effective in giving all of us a society which is stable, sustainable and a pleasure to live in. Obama has committed to neither, except in the broadest of rhetorical terms. When you look at what he does when he isn't making speeches, what you see is the very same allegiance to administrative convenience, and the very same defense of Beltway prerogatives which got us where we are today.

Whether it's bombing Pakistani villagers by remote control, or extending a hand to those who cut assistance to collapsing state governments out of the stimulus package, his acts so far fall far short of what is absolutely necessary, and he gives no sign that the future will bring anything much different. Now is the time, folks -- not for a cult of the personality, but for a genuine understanding of what's wrong, and a genuine determination to set it right. That's not what I see when I look at the White House today.

I'd add.. (4.00 / 6)
The change we need is to move the distribution of wealth in the country back toward what it was in, say, 1965, and to steadfastly insist that the justification for doing so is that it's more just, more democratic, and more effective in giving all of us a society which is stable, sustainable and a pleasure to live in.

There's a purely economic justification as well, that Robert Reich recently articulated:
But the rich don't spend as much of their income as the middle class and the poor do -- after all, being rich means that you already have most of what you need. That's why the concentration of income at the top can lead to a big shortfall in overall demand and send the economy into a tailspin. (It's not coincidental that 1928 was the last time that the top 1 percent took home more than 20 percent of the nation's income.)


[ Parent ]
they are putting all (4.00 / 2)
their eggs in the EFCA basket. If labor is funding the organization, and it looks to me like they are, their support is more about other legislation.
I'd be shocked.... (0.00 / 0)
...if Obama pushed for the EFCA before the '10 elections. Why fight a tremendously difficult, and probably losing battle now when there is a strong chance of picking up vital seats in under 2 years?


"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
I know the push is on right now and labor wants it done (0.00 / 0)
quickly. But even it if he waits until after 2010 they are
accumulating political capital.
[ Parent ]
A failure to pass EFCA would be interesting (0.00 / 0)
if they fail by a vote of, say, 59-41 or therearounds, you take it to Pennsylvania. Specter cannot bend on EFCA, I don't see how he does.

I'm more worried he announces his retirement.

Retirement is an easy way for Republicans to avoid doing what's best for the country. That was the idea last go around.

[ Parent ]
long term issues and random notes (0.00 / 0)
Granted, the Senate stimulus compromise is problematic. But it's not over - This goes to conference committee once passed and the final version will NOT be the same.  It won't be what I want, but it will be better than the Senate version.

In the long term,
1) The idea that Collins and Snowe can be defeated is (sorry to be blunt) delusional. Maine people love them. Collins was just re-elected and she had her toughest opponent, who was well-funded with the Obama grassroots effort and plenty of money behind him - and she blew him away. Snowe is even stronger in Maine. The last there were Senate job approval numbers published, hers were #1.

2) Given that both of them will be there for awhile, you can expect that they will be needed for many issues and many votes, including on health care, judges, energy policy, environmental policy, and lots and lots of budget votes. You don't make friends by attacking them.

Of course in the meanwhile, I am calling both of their offices and trying to get others to do so as well, to encourage them to support more aid to the states. They may end up on the conference committee and they need to get that message from Maine folks.

ANYONE Can Be Defeated (4.00 / 2)
Of course, you have to run against them, first.

And what better time to start than when they're voting against schoolchildren?

Here's a clue from California:  All the politicians here regarded the Gropenator as unbeatable.  So they were afraid to challenge him.  The California Nurses Association was neither frightened nor impressed.  When he tried to illegally roll back a provision for safe staffing levels, they went after him, head on.  And they beat the pants off of him, handing him an utterly devastating defeat at the polls with a whole raft of rightwing initiatives he was pushing.  Of course they had plenty of help from a lot of other unions.  But it was the CNA standing up to him alone that got the ball rolling.

After that, of course, the state Dems got all lovey-dovey with him, and helped him cruise to reelection because they were all bipartisan and "we just want to work together to get things done."

Well, what we need--both in Maine and California, and in every state in the nation is a Democratic Party that thinks a whole lot more like the CNA and nothing at all like California Democrats.

"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

[ Parent ]
Tell that to Tom Allen (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
That's An Idiotic Response (4.00 / 1)
Sorry to be so harsh, but it totally ignores the argument I'm making, which is precisely that it requires sustained opposition to defeat so-called "invincible" politicians.

Expecting an individual politician to take them down all on their own, during the course of a brief (to the general public) campaign is simply delusional.  You have to be in it for the long haul.

Of course I understand your flippant response.  It's all you've got.  It's all anyone has to oppose a strategy that can work.

The opposition to Dean's 50-state strategy was similarly flippant and idiotic.  Nose-picking, right?

"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

[ Parent ]
Why is this message being pushed? (4.00 / 2)
I was trying to work out why Americans United for Change was pushing this message.

It's fairly clear that this version of the bill is worse than the House one. It's not yet clear that it's the only version that could pass. That's not to say the Mainites would eventually cave, but it is to say that we haven't tried yet and it's not impossible. So why the pre-emptive surrender?

AUFC get nothing from this. Obama has to be sending out the message that this is the line. No further advances beyond this point are to be attempted, the interest groups are to dig in here and wait for the next fight.

Which means we're going to lose this fight. It's unlikely we'll get the good stuff back in conference. We shouldn't give up, and we certainly shouldn't stop kicking and screaming - and taking to the airwaves if the media don't give our viewpoint a fair airing - but this is as good as it gets.

Shit.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

Compromise For The Sake Of Compromise (4.00 / 1)
And we're supposed to believe that that's not an ideological position?  

"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
[ Parent ]
For anyone reading this thread... (0.00 / 0)
Two helpful links...

Nate Silver's take on the idea of Obama asking for a bigger stimulus in the first place..
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

And Stan Collender responding to Krugman and talking about prospects for future stimulus...
http://capitalgainsandgames.co...

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

I see problems with both arguments (4.00 / 3)
Nate Silver's argument is that there's marginal return on increasing the size of the stimulus because there's limited immediate spending that can happen. I suspect that's at least part of Obama's reasoning as well. Krugman has already dismantled it, pointing out that in all of the recent recessions jobs didn't start increasing for years after the official end of the recession. Money put in the pipe now for infrastructure spending could easily be adding much needed jobs in 2011. The counterargument is that this sort of infrastructure spending is better left to a different time, and if that's Obama's intention I don't mind it.

Collender's argument is that Obama is in fact in a position to get more money in easier ways during the budget process, both in resolving the continuing resolutions on the 2009 budget and negotiating the 2010 budget. That may be true, but it fails to deal with the state budget shortfalls that will result in state employees being fired starting in March.

If it was Obama's intention to increase the "stimulus" through the budget process and later reinvestment/infrastructure bills, I don't mind that at all. But if that's the case, then the most important part of the current stimulus bill is funding to patch state budgets: that's the money that could head off major job cuts at the state and local government level in the next couple months. If all of the cuts to state assistance get put back in conference, then it may be reasonable to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. If that money doesn't get put back, then what the hell is the point of the current stimulus bill?

[ Parent ]
Right (4.00 / 1)
These are both typical no-nothing punditalkcrazy arguments that are all about the political world, and totally ignore the real world.

Even at its most generous the stimulus was only going to meet HALF the state funding gaps.  It's now down to a third.  Cutting state funding severely undermines the whole logic and purpose of the stimulus bill.  But since these geniuses don't even have the real world on their radar screens, that never enters their pointy little heads.

"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

[ Parent ]
Americans United for Change Joins Obama In Praise of Collins-Nelson Gangsters | 78 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox