Greenwald is really losing it. According to him, Obama is a loser because Dick Armey is from Texas. Yes, I know, that does not make sense. Nonetheless, that’s the logical construction that Greenwald lays out.
See, Dick Armey said something extremely rude to Joan Walsh on yesterday’s edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews. We shouldn’t be surprised by this however, which you would know if only you had read the platform of the Texas Republican Party (which must have something in it about being rude while appearing on cable television news programs). In any case, this Dick Armey is a bad dude and he has beliefs just like all of the 175-or-so Republicans in the House (yes, even those from New Jersey!!). And Barack Obama moved a teensy bit in their direction on this stimulus package which means he is beginning to resemble these evil-doers and perhaps even do their bidding.
Obama is a fool to have changed the legislation in any way to make it more palatable to people like Dick Armey, who hates gay people (did I mention that, yet?). In fact, if you look at the polls, you’ll realize that support for the stimulus has moved southward (within the margin of error) since the last survey. That’s the kind of reward Obama gets for looking reasonable. And Mark Halperin blames him, so he must be at fault.
I’m making fun, but Greenwald’s argument really boils down to a parody of reason.
When the House votes on final passage of the stimulus bill, somewhere near two dozen Republicans are going to vote for it. That was the point, despite the fact that no one gives a shit what the House Republicans think. We care about what the public thinks. And Obama is already talking to the people by blasting Republicans with ads in their districts. Yesterday’s vote was not the final vote.
But Dick Armey was mean to Joan Walsh, so this whole effort was self-defeating. See what I mean?
I don’t blame Glenn. Being liberal in this country is like being the dog who has been kicked all his life. Finally, a gentle master comes along, but we still flinch at the slightest sign of trouble.
That said…
Seems to me that Obama is operating straight from the FDR playbook here. FDR’s big buzzword for the early years of his first term was “cooperation.” The parties were less separated by ideology at the time, and he made better inroads than Obama has or will. But, in the end, the right did what the right always does and launched a full-scale assault on him in 1935, driving him to the left — and the country with him.
If Obama can maintain his immense personal popularity, it’s not too hard to see wingnuttia making the same mistake again this time around. They’ve repeated every other mistake they made 80 years ago, why stop now?
I’m getting annoyed by all the flinching. I don’t like to go into battle with flinchers.
Sometimes you have to go into battle with the liberals you have, not the liberals you wish you had.
I don’t like to go into battle with Geithner and Summers but you don’t get to pick that either.
Well, it wasn’t only the right pushing Roosevelt left. He had people like Upton Sinclair advocating Socialism in California while running for Governor there with significant support, and getting mainstream coverage. We have nowhere near that situation today!!
The big picture: Obama made efforts to reach out to Republicans. They decided that the party was more important. House Repugs can now be painted as obstructionists. It’s all good.
As to Dick Armey, angry old white men are an endangered species. He’s fighting back in the only way he knows, by demeaning other individuals. You were expecting maybe some kind of civil debate on the issues?
Me? I expect Dick Armey to act like a stupid prick at all times.
The best New Republic of all time was when they made him their Man of the Millennium:
Unemployment is 11% in Dayton, Mr. Boehner.
Sorry but when you are spending $800 Billion I, and I think most Americans, want to make sure it is done right.
I, and most American, trust Congress, especially one with an effective supermajority, about as far as I can hurl to do it responsibly.
Way down the list is whether one party can do it in a way that shows up the other party. I believe Obama got elected on a platform of competence, not partisanship.
But politics is politics and by design it is messy, but my standards a up a bit especially since everyone is approaching this bill (and the bail out bill) with as much thought as Chicken Little
you don’t understand, Andy. You must have missed yesterday’s Hardball. If you had seen it, all of this would make perfect sense to you.
Oh, no I get it. They are slime. I’m just saying I’m not happy about it. We are seriously f*cked and this ain’t helping me feel any better.
FWIW, Obama seems to be staying above the fray but Congress needs to bring him something to sign I won’t be sick about (not that the GOP has offered a ton of good ideas, but there is not enough transparency in this bill and not enough debate on why this and that within the bill is the right thing to do).
I’m seeing too much “well we gotta do something” and “the other party want us to fail” and not enough actual governing.
I was being snarky.
Yeah, I’m disappointed at the blogosphere’s critique of this bill. I think it is just a grab-bag of liberal goodies with not enough focused stimulative stuff in it.
But the critique is that it is a cave-in to the GOP. I guess it’s good that the debate isn’t over all the money we’re giving to good causes, but it’s a glaring failure of analysis.
The question is whether or not it will stimulate the economy as much as we need, or not. The idea that this bill is GOP-friendly is laughable.
The idea that this is a GOP friendly is indeed laughable. Without debate and analysis no one has even guessed what it would do so how the f$ck does anyone know if it supports conservative principles in macro economic terms?
The debate over striking the balance among stimulating the existing but departing consumer led economy vs investing in the emerging economy vs just fixing the shit we’ve neglected for 50 years would be a good one. Also how that plays out when compared to progressive and conservative values would be good. I’m waiting,
I forwarded Chairman Inouye’s email detailing the mark-up. You can read most of that email here.
You can be the judge.
There are many worthy job-creating projects, including in the ‘new-economy’. There is also plenty of stuff like this:
I mean, that’s great and it will undoubtedly involve the hiring of some people, but that’s a lot of cheese for pretty tangential and indirect economic benefits.
As a school board president I cherish all Title I money, but I also know that that money from Title I and elsewhere is very often not “colored” to meet the needs as intended.
For example, what I might really need is some relief from the state in budgeting mandates to reserve money to transport special needs student we can house ourselves, but the feds will just wash money over us we could never use to set up programs than never make sense given our size and needs.
Another example: my read is I have pretty good chance of scoring a half million plus to install solar panels. I also can get thousands for an energy audit. I can also get perhaps millions for new construction.
But what I need is a few hundred to replace suck as windows that either don’t open or close and lack screens (even on the second floor) and leak heat like crazy. So far, nda for the last many years I don’t see money for that. I need to ask for more to get what I really don’t want and need.
I also know that 13B is a fuck of a lot of money and I could get want I want and need if we weren’t so wasteful and in a hurry to finish the bill.
Yeah, inefficiencies in federal spending are always a huge problem. And, in this case, we’re kind of saying ‘just get the money out there fast’.
I love that we’re spending money on schools, especially for kids that have been neglected forever. And, believe me, I have no conscience whatsoever about cramming the money into any vehicle that will host it. But this IS a stimulus/jobs bill and I’m not sure that 13 billion in Title I money is going to spur much economic activity compared to 13 billion on many other things.
So, it’s kind of making me laugh when progressives complain about this bill because it has some tax cuts in it. And that’s not even considering that half the tax cuts are for payroll.
“Conservative principles in macro economic terms”?
What’s that? Running a war on false pretenses and borrowing to pay for it so that oil companies can control someone else’s natural resources?
If you are talking about the Chicago School of Business theory of economics, you are looking at it. That’s what gave us this Depression. And it drained our country of our domestic industry and it’s so concentrated wealth among the wealthy that capitalism doesn’t work with what’s left. People who aren’t paid enough money to buy things can only borrow so much. Then the house of cards folds. No consumers, no jobs, no business.
That’s why the government has to step in. Everything else is shutting down. And quite honestly, this stimulus package isn’t enough.
Just saying. Conservative principles. Please. The Republicans in Congress have proven themselves to be neither conservative nor principled.
I think we agree.
The Right has screwed this up for ages and they are acting no better now.
But I am also highly suspicious of Congress no matter who is in the majority. Honest dialog and differences of opinion in the light of day is the only remedy… and a poor one at that. But I’d like to at least see that.
It’s hard to blame the House Republicans’ belligerence on Obama. How would the Republicans change the package? The only thing I’ve heard was more tax cuts for the ultra rich.
If Dick Armey or an equivalent could go on a talk show and say, “This worked in 1977, this worked in 1952, etc.,” and carry on a reasoned debate, then maybe the debate could be advanced. But he’s apparently incapable of doing it. What does that leave?
Myself, I’d like a functioning labor party in the U.S. and a media that honestly reports on political differences.
Out here in the Bay Area the SF Chronicle’s political reporting has defaulted back to Republicanese. The failure of the House to delay the digital TV implementation was a defeat for Obama. The hostility of Republicans against the stimulus package was all blamed on Obama’s weakness. This is typical Repub newspaper slanting. Jimmy Carter, when the CIA was sabotaging his administration, was “weak”. Clinton was weak, unless he was pushing NAFTA and GATT and media conglomeration.
Bottom line: The Republicans haven’t been capable of an honest debate on issues in decades, and if they ever do don’t expect the mainstream media to report it.
All fair comments and in line with my point.
I want to know if “I” am winning. Screw the parties.
I don’t see anything that has happened in the last 10 days as Obama “losing” except that the dialog hasn’t shifted from the same failed crap of the last 25+ year (or far more).
And yes I blame Republicans far more for that. Basically, they haven’t really looked past the results of the election beyond the vote tally.
It would help if anyone in the blogosphere actually READ the bill before offering opinions on it. I’m amazed at the dearth of coverage. Bills are easy to find and read. But the press doesn’t bother because they are spinning on purpose, and the blogosphere doesn’t bother because they’re lazy. And of course, writing for free, in many cases.
Yesterday’s Hardball Armey moment was jaw dropping. It was nothing less than sleezy. Joan Walsh is about as seasoned an intellectual as you can find as a guest and I give her great credit for not flinching or falling for Armey’s bait.
That said, what really drills me is when I read the ThinkProgress piece about the 2:1 ratio of Rep’s/Dems on as guests of MSM this last week; following with such choices as Armey as messengers of the false political talking points completely unchallenged. What next Tom Delay with an open mike?
Yet despite the constant misreprentation, the polls come out, even Fox’s, that indicate the American public is siding with Obama to the point where the Dem congress is getting an uptick in approval (vs downtick with Rep).
I’m normally on the same page as greenwald, and i have to admit, i was suprised by his take on it. I would think that someone as perceptive as glenn typically is would see Obama’s gambit for what it is: a baited trap.
still, i think you’re being a little harsh here. didn’t you just yesterday say people should disagree without being disagreeable? [Imagine me being the voice of reason, when does THAt ever happen?]
I don’t think this is harsh. Greenwald’s logic is usually a steel-trap. When I find fault with him it is usually because he has become too captive to logic and failed to see nuance. But this piece is a total mess.
I agree, Booman. I read his piece, and feel your complaints are entirely fair.
here’s what ms. walsh had to say about it all:
and she posted this video remix…
that’s the kind of response armey deserves…ridicule…GG went a little over the top, looking for substance where none exists can be frustrating, eh.
Yeah, and I hoped she would have made it suck even more but I wasn’t the person up against him.
I don’t usually watch Hardball, but I tuned in to catch Olbermann a bit early, and turned the mute off when I recognized Bob Herbert as one of the guests (I had just missed the Armey exchange, apparently).
And the first thing that Herbert said when he was given his turn to talk was to say he thought Armey had been rude and way out of line in his comments to Joan Walsh.
And Herbert may have said a bit more to Chris Matthews off-camera, during one of the breaks, because when they came back, Matthews was agreeing with him on that point.
Good for Bob Herbert, to speak up like that.
No he isn’t losing it. He is just arguing that you can’t pass good legislation and please this group. Besides this bipartisanship was a disaster. CNN bubbleheads are claiming he has backtracked on bipartisanship, because he didn’t get any republican votes.
Making the argument about pleasing the Republicans is a no-win situation. They can just continue to be displeased and they win the argument.
When someone in the media throws this “lack of bipartisanship” back in Obama’s face he needs to say that it’s a two-way street. And there’s 11% unemployment in Boehner’s district and at least he’s trying to get some help to those people. And tax cuts don’t help people who don’t have jobs.
Or someone can go back through the last eight years of unfunded mandates that the Republicans voted for if the complaint is about borrowing money, and then ask why it’s okay to borrow when it benefits the rich, but not to help the rest of us.
I don’t think “losing it” is a fair characterization of Glenn’s post at all, and I don’t see the “pretzel” logic. As he says:
“Some Obama supporters will claim that the whole post-partisan song is nothing more than a political game, a super-shrewd, exotic political tactic Obama is employing in order to cast the GOP as obstructionists.”
That seems to be what Booman is saying, essentially. Glenn obviously disagrees, and explains why. Now, maybe Glenn’s worries are premature we regard to the stimulus (though the immediately available polling and media coverage seems to support his point), but they are hardly crazy. Time is going to tell, but I think Glenn’s skepticism is more than supported by the Democratic track record over many years. Obama as President obviously doesn’t have a track record yet. He might be playing the game on an entirely different level, but on the other hand believing so could just be wishful thinking.
some people require more proof than others. To think someone with Obama’s background got to be president by playing the game on a par level?
I dunno. Sometimes the evidence is so easy to see that you take it for granted.
Well, I think one of Glenn’s points is that Obama’s political strategy looks a lot like Bill Clinton v.2. Clinton came from an unlikely background as well (Arkansas poor white trash), and he was personally very successful (incredibly so), but in the end his triangulating only moved the country to the right and set the stage for Bush. I like Bill a lot, but in terms of the common good, Obama must do much better, obviously.