Did they think he would be on some "OH NOES, REPUBLICANZ R TRICKSY!" da-duh da-duh schitt?

Come on now. Chess, not checkers. Chew gum and walk, as you say.

The most generous reading of his treatment of the GOP that I can come up with is this: he realizes that he needs to win the cooperation of the Dem caucuses in the House and Senate, and figures that making obvious gestures towards "bipartisanship" and "centrism" will make it easier to get large chunks of those caucuses to engage in a real fight when the time comes to do so.

I think he's starting to take hits in the PR war.

He needs to go on TV on a Thursday and lay it out for the nation. The country trusts Obama and if he makes his case in clear and simple terms; the country would likely follow him.

Though I do think whatever the Republicans do here, Obama wins. They're either melted by his awesomitude, or Rush-Limbaugh following obstructionists.

Though not if the framing is off. Seriously, WTF is up with all the Republicans on cable news?

This implies Obama is trading political cover for good policy. I'm not at all convinced that's what's going on here. For that matter, I don't blame the House Republicans for voting against the bill.

The bill was drafted by House democrats, specifically David Obey of the House Appropriations committee. It contains a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with stimulus, like $650M to help families with the digital cable upgrade. I'm sure these are worthy projects but they have nothing to do with stimulus. Why can't they just pass a clean bill?

The answer is: That's how things get done in Washington. As infuriating as this is for me, Jane Q citizen, it's not the kind of thing that Obama and Dems are going to quibble over; the majority of the bill is solid, and as bills go, this one is pretty clean. This is the kind of thing, however, that Republicans can, will and should quibble over. If they can be successful at removing some of the items, I say Right On. Democracy at work. Having said that, if the Republicans in the Senate truly believe this bill would be "disastrous" for the U.S., which I think is a gross mischaracterization, then the only responsbile thing to do is filibuster. Doing less than that is pure politicial theater and the height of irresponsibility.

Now tell me why this bill became an issue of "big government" to any man who was born of a woman? I think it is time for us to wakeup.

My concerns aren't about his tactical acumen. I'm concerned about his actual goals, and about the nature of institutional power in DC.

In the election, there's one goal: win. And there's a day on which you find out whether you met your goal. The goal of a presidency isn't nearly as clear, and you don't have an Election Day to point to. So I don't think it's enough to say, "Look, people who second-guessed him during the campaign were proven wrong, everyone calm down."

I believe that Obama and his team are very good at developing electoral strategies. I'm willing to believe that they'll be very good at developing legislative and governance strategies. But I happen to suspect that dan is right: Obama really believes in bi-partisanship as a value in and of itself. I personally feel that bi-partisanship is primarily about definding and preserving the status and power of the Forbidden City that DC has become, so I'm not invested at all in it. The only kind of bi-partisanship I really trust is the "holy shit, the angry mobs are rallying outside the Capitol with torches and pitchforks, what can we give them to go away and leave us alone?!" kind of bi-partisanship. Sorta like the French General Strike this week. But, of course, it's not Obama's job to make that happen. It's ours.

So you're not cynical about Obama, but you are cynical about this thing you believe Obama wants?

Like I said, I'm still hopeful Congresspeople can actuall comprimise with each other. Eventually.

The comment by some boneheaded Representative to say that all of the economic hardship was caused by the 2006 elections is beyond moronic.

But the sly comment came from Mitch McConnell, who said something like, "If we vote against this and in six months, things aren't better we'll be able to say we had nothing to do with it" is the kind of bullshit politics I can't stand.

1. Six Months?!?!? You have got to be joking.
2. If things do work out in six months, STFU and go home, Mitch.

There's something to that, but good politics are meaningless if they don't result in good policy eventually.

And while it's good to look like the guy willing to talk, it's not good to be the guy who gets taken for a ride (which isn't precisely what happened here, but the GOP got a fair number of their concerns addressed w/o providing anything in return).

This is exactly the problem that MattY pointed before with negotiating with yourself in advance of real negotiations. If you've already made all these concession before you even get to the table, it just moves the bar for the real negotiations. You know the GOP is going to ask for a bunch of stuff. So why give them a bunch up front and then let them ask for a bunch more?

At the least, this should show that the negotiations with Congress ought to be done with the Senate first. If the GOP House leadership wants to show up, fine, but they're irrelevant. They've shown they can't be satisfied, plus the way things are set up you don't need them. So sure, negotiate, but get a deal with the GOP Senators in place first, then take that bill to the house. If the House GOP folks want to vote against it en masse, let them.

Liberals really need to add Machiavelli to their reading list... and for that matter, Bismarck and Churchill.

So you're not cynical about Obama, but you are cynical about this thing you believe Obama wants?

I'm somewhat suspicious of Obama's view of political change, but I'm much more suspicious of institutional power in DC as it's currently constituted. Obama seems to be a terrific person, but the issue isn't him as a person, it's the Presidency as an institution. Whatever the Presidency was originally supposed to be or has been in the past, over the last few generations it's evolved into an office whose job it is to expand American hegemony abroad (mainly corporate hegemony), and to manage the national security state. Neither of those jobs serves the interests of the vast majority of people in the US or elsewhere.

At the same time, Institutional DC, like all institutions, is very concerned with its own stability and ongoing power. Again, that stuff doesn't serve our needs, nor is it designed to.

I don't believe that the basic structure of power will change through Presidential leadership, or bi-partisanship, or powerful people in DC sitting down to consider the General Welfare in a serious, sober way. I think it'll happen only if those folks think the system is about to fall apart, and they agree to major concessions to avoid losing everything. That's how we got the New Deal, which, after all, was less about saving us from Capitalism than it was about saving Capitalism from us.

I'm very happy that Obama is President. But I'm very, very suspicious of the office he holds and the constraints it put on anyone who holds it. Whatever his personal leanings or beliefs, the Oval Office is on the other side of the struggle from us. If we don't bring force to bear against it, we'll lose.

Branch 1: Republicans accept bipartisan outreach and vote for bill. Happy smiles at bipartisan cooperation all around.

Branch 2: Obama reaches out, Republicans rebuff him. Bill still passes, but now Republicans can claim no credit if things are better in 2 years, and they're the partisan obstructionists.

In branch 2 we have the unanticipated bonus of Republicans admitting on tape that they hope the country is in the toilet in 2010, and embracing Rush Limbaugh of all people as their spokesmodel. I really don't think Obama's team could have anticipated quite this level of shooting at Republicans' own feet, even if he did help them along to declaring Rush the face of the Republican party 2009.

In both scenarios he gets points for bipartisanship. I don't understand the talking heads like Matt at all--what does he lose by Rs not getting on board? The chance to say bipartisanship worked this time? Not exactly a stunning defeat. And he's built credibility for future outreach and working with Rs on other issues. The bill not passing would be a defeat, but that's not what's on the table here. The Rs can get on board or define themselves in opposition. And while they're correct that the polls will shift, it's not like "I boldly voted to do diddly squat!!!" is going to be a potent rallying cry in 2010.

Also, since the House GOP doesn't have the votes to actually obstruct anything he can make token efforts at bipartisanship there, let them run wild making asses of themselves and by extension GOP congressmen in general, and then use that to start forcing the Senate GOP to make a show of being grownups that can play well with others.

In a way, it is easier for him, his constituency is now all of America while Pelosi has to deal with her very liberal district who claim that every single thing on their wish list is stimulus and Repubs have to deal with their voters who think this is an exercise in socialism and giveaways.

Nate Silver gives a good example of my point in the Ledbetter bill which got more Rs in the senate (5) than in the house (3).

Did we think Bam and Rahm were so naive as to think the house Repubs would be anything other than obstructionist yahoos?

However, Matt has it wrong about bipartisanship. This will not be the only major piece of legislation in the Obama era. It is only the beginning.

I should also point out that not a single post above defended the bill on its merits. It's as if the ONLY thing that matters is the politics around its signing, but not what the bill will actually do once enacted.

Well, here's hoping the extra trillion dollars in debt actually works as promised! Nobody posting here seems to know or care about that part of it.

Librul bond trader here. The fact that government stimulus can fight deflation (the very real possiblity that demand destruction will be acccelerated by falling prices) is a pretty settled point of economic fact.

The New Deal stimulus blew deflation out of the water between 1933 and 1937, and the slump only reasserted itself until WW2 because Roosevelt got all deficit-hawkey. Like I said, this is uncontroversial enough that the first I read of it was in a research piece from a brokerage.

The question of long term deficits is a good one, but anyone who tells you we're going to turn into Argentina (hyperinflation, currency collapse, and default) is being much more speculative than someone who tells you we're going to turn into Japan (deflation, lost decade, etc).

Fight the fire currently burning, my friend.

1. The reality is that Democrats don't have a monopoly on good ideas. I think Obama knows that, and is willing to listen for that reason.

2. As far as I can tell, it's a lose-lose for the Republicans to stonewall and vote against this. Think of two situations:
a. Obama gives in on tax cuts and it succeeds and they voted en masse against it. The next election and years to come are lost to the Republicans.
b. Obama gives in on the tax cuts and they vote en masse against it and it fails. The next election is framed as "yes it failed, but at least we tried. Hell we even included their ideas. What did they do for you?"

I can't really see a down side. I mean besides the obvious massive debt. Of course we could always stop dumping money into Iraq and spend it at home to stop some of it, but why would we want to spend money on our own people?

So in terms of strategy, Obama's gonna roll up on Congress, I'm fairly confident of that. I just hope the bills he passes through it are good- I think the stimulus will help, but it isn't the kind of long-term shift in the economy I was hoping for, and with Larry Summers whispering in his ear, I gotta sweat a little...

I think he's starting to take hits in the PR war.

He needs to go on TV on a Thursday and lay it out for the nation. The country trusts Obama and if he makes his case in clear and simple terms; the country would likely follow him.

Posted by Rhoda | January 30, 2009 9:57 AM"

Give them enough rope... In the end, most people don't watch CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, etc. In all, their combined viewership (not subtracting overlap viewers) is like 5 million on a good night.

Obama and the Congressional Dems have been pretty up-front that they are going to have additional bills for infrastructure, rail and health care. Biden has been tapped for a middle class task force. It's unlikely that the Republicans can recapture Congress in 2010. If you look at which Republican Senators or up for re-election in 2010, I don't think it's any surprise so many are retiring. Chances are 2010 will see Democratic gains in the Senate and even if we suffer net losses in the House, we'll still have a majority (and Pelosi has already shown she's better at playing hardball than Reid, so she'll be fine).

The thing is also is that unless you're a Republican partisan, the GOP minority leadership has just been looking like a bunch of douchebags. When you keep on talking "tax cuts for the rich" after Bush, nobody is buying your shtick. They're pretty much a bunch of Southern white guys who don't appeal to anyone else but other Southern white guys. They're acting like they think they're still in charge when everyone hates them and all that does is make them look like delusional, entitled jerks. When Obama reaches out and their all white male Congressional leadership slap his outstetched hand, they look like jerks. Meanwhile, Obama will be working closely and respectfully with Pelosi, will be shown working respectfully with women in Congress in general, has pictures like the Ledbetter signing circulating around, etc. One guy looks like a leader working with a variety of people respectfully. The other guys look like Bush with even less charm.

Obama is a mastermind. Dude knows that at this moment, it's not all that important to be a republican.. but it is important to appear like you care what Republicans think--even if you--no, especially if you then do what you've always believed in.

Republican intransigence here makes them look like cry-babies.. not team players.. and Americans like teams rather than spoiled brats..