It’s possible that there is some merit in the criticism that the Obama administration built in certain concessions on the front-end of the stimulus package in an ultimately vain effort to win significant bipartisan support for the bill. Yet, considering that they passed the bill with the absolute minimum number of votes in the Senate, it’s not a particularly convincing argument. Perhaps there was a concession here or there that wasn’t strictly necessary in getting the votes of Sens. Specter, Snowe, and Collins, but in the big picture it’s hard to see how there were any significant missteps in the construction of the original package.
It’s true that the administration hoped that they could win over a small bloc of Republicans in the House and set a goal of 80 votes in the Senate. And they made good-will efforts to reach out to the Republicans. Obama visited the Republican caucuses on the Hill and invited their leaders to the White House. He took some Republicans on Air Force One and invited others to watch the Super Bowl. And he didn’t get any votes in return for these conciliatory gestures. Yet, how did it cost him anything?
Rahm Emanuel acknowledged that their efforts at outreach led to a lot of articles and commentary about why they were not succeeding in winning over more Republicans. He described this as ‘losing control of the message’ for a few days. However, they regained control of the message with the simple device of sending Obama to Indiana and Florida to do townhall meetings. Obama got his number one priority passed in the basic form that he wanted, and he got in done in record time. If he failed to pass it with substantial bipartisan support, that comes with its own opportunities going forward.
There has been a lot of ridicule in the blogosphere of the idea of bipartisanship. Most of the ridicule has been directed at the way that idea is most often expressed by Beltway pundits, and it has been spot on. The goal for the Democrats is not to water down their mandate and priorities by making unnecessary concessions. That kind of bipartisanship is a joke. Rather, the goal for the Democrats is to build the widest possible consensus for what they are trying to do.
Our Iraq policy can serve as a good example. It is helpful in foreign policy to have a wider amount of support than just your own caucus. The Republicans want to paint the Democrats as weak on terrorism and national security, but that is very difficult to do if the most respected foreign policy hands in the GOP (people like Dick Lugar, Colin Powell, and Robert Gates) are on board with the policy. This would also have been true about the stimulus package which probably explains the whole Judd Gregg gambit. Sen. Gregg is the acknowledged budget expert in the GOP caucus. You buy something with this kind of bipartisanship. At it’s most basic, you buy political cover.
The Republicans made a strategic decision to deny Obama (or Specter, Snowe, and Collins) any political cover for the enormous economic recovery act. They now lose the ability to take any credit if the economy improves, which it should eventually do. That’s their choice, but that is the extent to which Obama lost anything in this debate. On the whole, he won convincingly.
SNL, last night.
It’s not just the function of Obama winning (he did). The real result is that the GOP is now on record as the party that is hoping the economy completely crumbles.
The Democrats need to run with this. “The Republicans want you to lose your job, your house, your livelihood and your dignity. They figure that’s what it will take to make you want to vote for them.”
“…the GOP is now on record as the party that is hoping the economy completely crumbles.”
That’s been my impression too. And yet, some puzzling news this morning. Lindsay Graham, for one, is IN FACOR OF NATIONALIZING THE BANKS. Chuck Schumer and, supposedly, Obama himself, say they are against it.
From what I understand, most economists think that, while there are some solvent banks, the American banking system is essentially DOA and we need something like “The Swedish System.” And the sooner the better. So why are at least some conservative Republicans in agreement, while liberals like Schumer & Obama say no?
Are they waiting for the entire Republican Wall Street establishment to roll over, sit up and beg, and say “pretty please with a cherry on top?”
Having given it a little further thought, I’m sure Graham’s position has everything to do with the central position of banking in the NC economy. Charlotte-based Wachovia already failed (was taken over by Wells Fargo at the end of 2008, but no doubt there is lots of downsizing going on) and Bank of America, based in Charlotte, is believed to be in big trouble.
The NC economy is not doing so well:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1388606.html
So are they going to let Graham twist slowly in the wind until he can get some of his Republican buddies to go along? Is that the idea?
Schumer is bought and paid for by Wall St. … always has been .. probably always will be .. Graham and Co. are just exploiting an opportunity given them by Schumer
The issue of our times right now is the economy and the Republicans are looking more and more like the Whigs of the nineteenth century who flunked the test of what to do about slavery. Perhaps, the GOP is on the road to extinction. I wonder what will replace it if that’s what happens.
and frankly, I think you are being a little dishonest.
For example, you respond to the argument that Obama
by noting that only a few republican senators wound up voting for it”
I think that this claim ignores a basic premise (and a strong valid criticism of Obamas strategy), and I think you know (and are deliberately ignoring) that premise. Basically, the argument goes, Collins/Snowe/Specter (and the other ‘Moderates’) were going to use their ‘power’ to cut a pound of flesh from the stimulus, no matter what stimulus they got. Thus, by putting in a lot of tax cuts ahead of time to appease Republicans, and by not going for a bigger bill, Obama allowed the Moderates to cut a proportionally larger amount than they would have otherwise.
To put it more simply: if the Moderates were going to cut $100 billion and stuff in AMT tax relief no matter what, then Obama should have sent them a larger bill, so that the $100 billion and AMT crap would not have cut so deeply into the muscle. Now, there are weaknesses in this argument, but you act as if it doesnt exist, and I think you know better.
Moreover, I think its pretty obvious that Obama’s slow start (failure to push back against the Republicans quickly enough) probably gave those Moderates a lot mroe cutting momentum than they would have had otherwise. That was a real, genuine mistake. If this bill had $200 billion more in spending, that would make a HUGE difference for the economy and for general Democratic policy priorities.
Now, all of that being said, I agree with your general conclusion. This was a big win. This was a huge bill, with a lot of money that does lots of good things. Moreover, Obama regained his footing and found his stride. That prime time press conference, in my opinion, was absolutely brilliant. I think it killed the Republicans momentum.
He’s a talented poltiican and a smart guy. However, he made some serious mistakes and there is no reason to pretend otherwise.
“It’s possible that there is some merit in the criticism that the Obama administration built in certain concessions on the front-end of the stimulus package in an ultimately vain effort to win significant bipartisan support for the bill. “
If concessions means tax cuts, I disagree. A working class tax cut was a centerpice of his campaign and one of the reasons I voted for him. I even went to their website, plugged in my numbers and told I’d get back $500 under his plan. That, of course, was cut to $400.
As far as ‘losing control of the message’ goes, I pin the blame on congressional dems more then Obama. Obama gave congress a broad outline of what he wanted, the house wrote the bill. But where were they to defend it when the GOP started in with the ‘contraception’ et al stuff? Nowhere to be seen. In fact, the best defense of the bill I saw was by Wasserman-Schultz after the bill was passed. Where was she before, when the GOP had people on the air 24/7? So to me, if there were real missteps it was in letting the house write the bill, only to have them all run like little bunnypants when it came time to defend it.
I’d agree that much of the extreme criticism of Obama’s stimulus concessions was out of proportion to any actual harm done. But that’s not really what the concern is all about.
What has many lefties anxious is the concessions in the context of Obama’s love affair with the ideology of bipartisanship, postpartisanship, “reaching out”, or whatever it’s being sold as at the moment. Personally I still think all this rhetoric may well be part of a Long Game designed to box the righties into a corner, to preemptively pull their fangs before much real damage can be done. But that’s just a hope/theory right now. If Obama does intend to make concession and impunity pillars of his administration, I think that will turn out to be the fatal flaw capable of bringing him down.
Right now the signs seem to suggest that we’re near an end to the bipartisan mini-era, because if it continues it is a legitimate reason for great apprehension.
“I’d agree that much of the extreme criticism of Obama’s stimulus concessions was out of proportion to any actual harm done. But that’s not really what the concern is all about.”
I think one reason for so much “concern” is the basic need for the plethora of LW commenters to have something to write and yap about….blogs, magazines, cable teevee commenters. It fills column inches and whips their readers into a frenzy. Every day there’s ‘concern’ about this, that and the other thing. Professional concern trolls. The anger and resentment after Bush needed to go somewhere, and I think to a large degree is just now focused on nitpicking Obama.
They now lose the ability to take any credit if the economy improves, which it should eventually do.
The asshats will try to take credit regardless. They are banking on voters forgetting who helped tank the economy and also forgetting that the Republicans voted almost unanimously that they prefer the country fail then give Democrats any credit .. hell .. it has already started .. see this:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/62181.html