NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, this is NOT about the stimulus, but rather about the politics behind it. Please take debate regarding if it will work to one of the existing threads on the subject.

What I wanted to discuss was this tidbit from CNN.com:

In the CBS News poll, eight out of 10 believe the economic recovery bill should be a bipartisan effort, with only 13 percent saying it would be all right for the legislation to pass with support only from the Democrats who control Congress. Eighty-one percent told CBS interviewers that they think Obama is generally reaching out to congressional Republicans in an attempt at bipartisanship. But only four in 10 think that congressional Republicans are returning the favor, compared with 49 percent who believe that congressional Democrats are attempting to be bipartisan.


So, let's look at that, 80% of the country thinks the stimulus bills hould be a bipartisan effort. 80% of the country thinks Obama is doing an OK job being bipartisan.

But only 40% think that republicans are making the effort.

So what's that suggest? To me, it suggests that the overwhelming majority of americans think this SHOULD be a bipartisan effort, but a majority don't think that republicans are doing their part to make it so.

What political ramifications do you think this will have, should the stimulus package succeed and the economy improves in the next 12-18 months?

If the package does actually manage to make some headway towards getting us out of this recession, then I absolutely agree -- Obama and the Democrats are going to look great, and the Republicans are going to look terrible, especially because they're already crying foul and accusing the Dems of tossing in all kinds of extra pork. I was actually having a discussion about this earlier today: Obama might be doing this a little more quickly than is absolutely necessary, but if he doesn't get stuff done by the summer, this is quickly going to go from Bush's recession to Obama's recession.

They're banking on exagerrated expectations in the same way they're handling everything else, like they try to characterize Obama supporters as diefying him when it reality it's just the contrast between liking a candidate and feeling, "Eh, he'll do, I guess." They're hoping to create the expectation, or the idea that even the administration and its 'followers' believe that the package will be a magic wand.

They know that even if it does work, it will be a slow, long, barely perceptible haul. And in fact no matter what, things might get worse before they get better. And by 2010, they'll be able to milk that, "See? If they had only listened to us, you'd be paying less taxes and we'd have gotten this economy rolling instead of building pet projects when we couldn't afford it. He promised a laying on of hands and didn't deliver!" The sound bite will be easier to swallow than the more complicated and nuanced truth, and they then might be able to stop the bleeding in congressional seats.

The danger is if the package has discernible effects, if things get better in a way that's easy to see. The problem, and this is what they're hoping for, is that that is really hard to do even if it is working. But if it does, they're sunk. But ultimately it's easier to sell the plan you should have done instead of the one you did because you get to make up what would have happened instead of deal with what really did.

They're appealing to a certain base.

It's fairly standard for Republicans in recent years, you pander hard, to a minority - and they'll stick by you even if you run an ape as your candidate (which, some say, has happened twice in the last decade).

If Republicans object in harsh enough terms, and phrase it right - it doesn't matter if there are the proverbial rainbow-farting unicorns, there'll be a section of the populace that bitches about how much it cost them, and how it could have/would have/should have been better if... x.

People already see the Republicans as "deviders". People already see them as having a "my way or the highway" attitude. Its not suprising that they see the Republicans as not returning Obama's bipartisan olive branch.

It will probably hurt them in the long run. Their base will be happy because they stood up to "big government", "liberal spending", and "pork". But most Americans wont be happy about their childish antics. It seems the current Republican establishment did not learn the lesson from the November elections: You cant win with just your base and no one else backing you.

As an aside, this could actually end up hurting the dems in congress if the Republicans are shrewd (they wont be). 80% say it should be a bipartisan effort. If the Republicans can turn that 40% into a...say...60%, they can spin it at not a bipartisan effort but the Democrats using muscle to get their 'liberal agenda' passed.

Probably wont happen, but they could try.

OK, this is NOT about the stimulus, but rather about the politics behind it. Please take debate regarding if it will work to one of the existing threads on the subject.

What I wanted to discuss was this tidbit from CNN.com:



So, let's look at that, 80% of the country thinks the stimulus bills hould be a bipartisan effort. 80% of the country thinks Obama is doing an OK job being bipartisan.

But only 40% think that republicans are making the effort.

So what's that suggest? To me, it suggests that the overwhelming majority of americans think this SHOULD be a bipartisan effort, but a majority don't think that republicans are doing their part to make it so.

What political ramifications do you think this will have, should the stimulus package succeed and the economy improves in the next 12-18 months?

It's pretty clear that Pelosi never had any intention of making the effort, and people see that as well.

It's pretty clear that Pelosi never had any intention of making the effort,

We get it. You hate Pelosi. We dont care. Anything relevent to add?

and people see that as well.

Do they? You have some sort of source that shows the American people think Pelosi isnt being bipartisan? Or are you just trying to tar her with the same feelings the people have towards your precious Republicans.

It's pretty clear that Pelosi never had any intention of making the effort, and people see that as well.

When an emission source of electromagnetic radiation moves away, relative to the observer - the resultant increase in wavelength is called 'redshift'. Conversely, when the relative distance decreases, the wavelength drops. This is known as 'blueshift'.


It's completely irrelevent to the topic, obviously - but at least mine was interesting.

When an emission source of electromagnetic radiation moves away, relative to the observer - the resultant increase in wavelength is called 'redshift'. Conversely, when the relative distance decreases, the wavelength drops. This is known as 'blueshift'.


It's completely irrelevent to the topic, obviously - but at least mine was interesting.

No, his little rant is relevent to the topic, it is the topic really. For them, for the barking horde that HotWife is part of this is the point, it is the topic. The point is 2010. This has fuck all to do with the country, the economy, what they think will work or make things better. This is about 2010, this is about the scoreboard. This is the game. Because the fact is that Pelosi and Obama have bent over backwards, made comprimise after compramise. What have the Republican's offered? A mirror image of the bill pushing the same economic policy we just had a public referendum on and they lost. Ask a Republican last month how they lost the election, it was the economy. This month it might be a different story because they have to pretend that they have the upper hand when it comes to the economy, that they aren't peddling an already rejected idea.

So no matter how much Obama reaches out, no matter how much "Pelosi" (as the embodiment of the congressional evil-they don't think they're going to be able to run against Obama in 2010 like the Democrats ran against Bush in 2006, but they're pretty sure they can run against Pelosi) strips from the bill in order to get the support they're going to withhold anyway, they have to paint it as our parrot-like friend does. And all they have to do is get the talk radio crowd to repeat it, the 'pundits' brought in as guests on commentary shows on tv, they just have to say it enough times in the hopes that it becomes true. And since so much of peoples news comes from commentary instead of news, it might work like it has worked for the last eight years.

So what he said is relevant. Wrong, but relevant.

No, his little rant is relevent to the topic, it is the topic really. For them, for the barking horde that HotWife is part of this is the point, it is the topic. The point is 2010. This has fuck all to do with the country, the economy, what they think will work or make things better. This is about 2010, this is about the scoreboard. This is the game. Because the fact is that Pelosi and Obama have bent over backwards, made comprimise after compramise. What have the Republican's offered? A mirror image of the bill pushing the same economic policy we just had a public referendum on and they lost. Ask a Republican last month how they lost the election, it was the economy. This month it might be a different story because they have to pretend that they have the upper hand when it comes to the economy, that they aren't peddling an already rejected idea.

So no matter how much Obama reaches out, no matter how much "Pelosi" (as the embodiment of the congressional evil-they don't think they're going to be able to run against Obama in 2010 like the Democrats ran against Bush in 2006, but they're pretty sure they can run against Pelosi) strips from the bill in order to get the support they're going to withhold anyway, they have to paint it as our parrot-like friend does. And all they have to do is get the talk radio crowd to repeat it, the 'pundits' brought in as guests on commentary shows on tv, they just have to say it enough times in the hopes that it becomes true. And since so much of peoples news comes from commentary instead of news, it might work like it has worked for the last eight years.

So what he said is relevant. Wrong, but relevant.

It does warm my heart those that 60% of Americans see how much Pelosi and Obama are willing to comprimise with the Republicans, but that the reverse isnt true.

It does warm my heart those that 60% of Americans see how much Pelosi and Obama are willing to comprimise with the Republicans, but that the reverse isnt true.
If the broth isn't flavored to taste, mix in a dose of "OMG! Libural media!" simmer until your ideas start to sell.

The fact is that after the last 12 years between (taking into account the hostile relationship between congress and Clinton as well) the amount of outreach from the executive to the legislative is Man Bites Dog, it's going to be reported on and noted, and it's going to undercut the snake oil salesmanship, so now you have to add some poison to that well in order to sell Opposite Land to the populace.

OK, this is NOT about the stimulus, but rather about the politics behind it. Please take debate regarding if it will work to one of the existing threads on the subject.

What I wanted to discuss was this tidbit from CNN.com:



So, let's look at that, 80% of the country thinks the stimulus bills hould be a bipartisan effort. 80% of the country thinks Obama is doing an OK job being bipartisan.

But only 40% think that republicans are making the effort.

So what's that suggest? To me, it suggests that the overwhelming majority of americans think this SHOULD be a bipartisan effort, but a majority don't think that republicans are doing their part to make it so.

What political ramifications do you think this will have, should the stimulus package succeed and the economy improves in the next 12-18 months?

I would argue that it might not hurt republicans. In fact, it might help them.

First off, I'm assuming that that this (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/stimulus.polls/index.html) is the article you quoted.

Second, I'm echoing your assumption that the stimulus package does in fact work.

The crux of the matter is this: WTF will the bill end up looking like? Is it going to have increased tax cuts relative to the increased governmental spending? That's (basically) the source of the bipartisan bickering. And it's one thing to support/oppose the 'theory of bipartisanship', it's another thing entirely to support actual details when it comes to a bill/candidate/whatever.

From the article (that I assume) you quoted:

The CBS News poll suggests that Americans may be agreeing with Republican arguments on the stimulus when it comes to a choice between tax cuts or increased government spending. Fifty-nine percent of those questioned say tax cuts for business are the best way to end the recession, with 22 percent feeling that more government spending is the way to go.

If such a high % of americans agree that the Repubs are being partisan, BUT they agree as to WHY they're being partisan (and the Repubs would have to communicate this), I'm not convinced that it would hurt them. It could very well help them.

Will it backfire?

Thank you Senator Feinstein - you've now removed the possibility that it's all just "mean Republicans".

She is now reserving the right to vote against the stimulus, and apparently caught the White House by complete surprise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8baEqvE3l8&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/06/video-white-house-flummoxed-by-feinstein-threat/&feature=player_embedded

Will it backfire?

Thank you Senator Feinstein - you've now removed the possibility that it's all just "mean Republicans".

She is now reserving the right to vote against the stimulus, and apparently caught the White House by complete surprise.


And simultaneously weakened the argument that Democrats are 'ganging up' to push through a partisan agenda.

I think some Republicans in Congress are still a little bruised over how all their beliefs have been so overwhelming rejected by the electorate, and are at the moment reacting mainly to that upset as opposed to Obama's plan.

As has been said before, if the plan is a success they've made themselves look terrible, but if they block it until Bush's recession becomes Obama's recession they could have just given their party a deccent chance in 2010/2012. Perhaps that is their long term gameplan... That said, I think they reckon without Obama's ability to express and denounce this kind of politics - its partly that skill that got him elected - and reckon without how the American people are tired of partisan politics. So yes, I think (and hope...) that it'll backfire.

I think some Republicans in Congress are still a little bruised over how all their beliefs have been so overwhelming rejected by the electorate, and are at the moment reacting mainly to that upset as opposed to Obama's plan.

As has been said before, if the plan is a success they've made themselves look terrible, but if they block it until Bush's recession becomes Obama's recession they could have just given their party a deccent chance in 2010/2012. Perhaps that is their long term gameplan... That said, I think they reckon without Obama's ability to express and denounce this kind of politics - its partly that skill that got him elected - and reckon without how the American people are tired of partisan politics. So yes, I think (and hope...) that it'll backfire.
There is no way that anyone will forget that on Obama's 17th day in office (2/6/09), the report came out that 2.5 million jobs were lost in January while Bush was president, and more than 3 million jobs were lost since December, 2007 when the recession was officially declared (it started long before that).

Nope, this economy is forever Bush's baby, the Republicans can't change that and they also can't change the fact that they started with a (200-plus billion) surplus handed to them by Clinton. Fiscal managers and economic whizzes they are not and I don't think this country will ever vote for them on these issues again--their ideas are as bankrupt as the companies they deregulated.

Republican Congressmen = butthurt Rush Limbaugh mini mes.

Republican Congressmen = butthurt Rush Limbaugh mini mes.
Especially that Sen. Lindsey Graham, who appears to have been living quite high on the hog since I last saw him on tv! My how he has grown, and I don't mean intellectually!

There is no way that anyone will forget that on Obama's 17th day in office (2/6/09), the report came out that 2.5 million jobs were lost in January while Bush was president, and more than 3 million jobs were lost since December, 2007 when the recession was officially declared (it started long before that).

Nope, this economy is forever Bush's baby, the Republicans can't change that and they also can't change the fact that they started with a (200-plus billion) surplus handed to them by Clinton. Fiscal managers and economic whizzes they are not and I don't think this country will ever vote for them on these issues again--their ideas are as bankrupt as the companies they deregulated.

It's a looooooong way to November 2010, and you vastly overestimate the average intelligence of voters. People will forget who lost the jobs, but they'll know whether they have jobs or not, and who's in power now.

It's a looooooong way to November 2010, and you vastly overestimate the average intelligence of voters. People will forget who lost the jobs, but they'll know whether they have jobs or not, and who's in power now.

I don't think so, people simplify and blame leaders instead of circumstance when it comes to the economy (not that circumstance is always the cause) but they tend to keep when they went into the recession/depression straight. I'm thinking the oil problems of the 80s and The Great Depression. People may ignore cause and effect but I think that both Bush and Obama will be memorable enough to leave an impression of what happened when.

I don't think so, people simplify and blame leaders instead of circumstance when it comes to the economy (not that circumstance is always the cause) but they tend to keep when they went into the recession/depression straight. I'm thinking the oil problems of the 80s and The Great Depression. People may ignore cause and effect but I think that both Bush and Obama will be memorable enough to leave an impression of what happened when.

For our sake, let's hope you're right. Although that moght be tough news for congress, as they went blue in 2006, not 2008.

No, his little rant is relevent to the topic, it is the topic really. For them, for the barking horde that HotWife is part of this is the point, it is the topic. The point is 2010. This has fuck all to do with the country, the economy, what they think will work or make things better. This is about 2010, this is about the scoreboard. This is the game. Because the fact is that Pelosi and Obama have bent over backwards, made comprimise after compramise. What have the Republican's offered? A mirror image of the bill pushing the same economic policy we just had a public referendum on and they lost. Ask a Republican last month how they lost the election, it was the economy. This month it might be a different story because they have to pretend that they have the upper hand when it comes to the economy, that they aren't peddling an already rejected idea.

So no matter how much Obama reaches out, no matter how much "Pelosi" (as the embodiment of the congressional evil-they don't think they're going to be able to run against Obama in 2010 like the Democrats ran against Bush in 2006, but they're pretty sure they can run against Pelosi) strips from the bill in order to get the support they're going to withhold anyway, they have to paint it as our parrot-like friend does. And all they have to do is get the talk radio crowd to repeat it, the 'pundits' brought in as guests on commentary shows on tv, they just have to say it enough times in the hopes that it becomes true. And since so much of peoples news comes from commentary instead of news, it might work like it has worked for the last eight years.

So what he said is relevant. Wrong, but relevant.
This. ^^

And while they fiddle, Rome burns. I'm starting to wonder how much it will take to get Americans to start rioting. Or at least marching.

I think if the republicans continuie to chant that they want tax cuts and more bailouts for the rich and corporations, we will get to "riot-time" again.

The great economic divide has people quite angry. Just 2 days ago, Mayor Bloomberg showed up to speak, after stating NYC depends on wall street bonuses and he needed to slash more middle/lower class jobs, and he had a virtual riot on his hands. I think you are going to see more and more of that across the country.

History shows that very rarely do the people getting all the benefits in a society understand the temper limits of the masses ("let them eat cake") and this, I think, is one of those historical times.

For our sake, let's hope you're right. Although that moght be tough news for congress, as they went blue in 2006, not 2008.
Actually, only the House went "blue"--in the Senate in 2006, it was 49-49. The Democrats then got Joe Lieberman (he is an independent and campaigned for McCain, remember?), and Bernie Sanders, another independent, to "caucus" with them. As a result, there was never any Democratic Majority in the Senate and, of course, the President was a Republican. You are correct only about the House but, of course, one still needs the Senate majority and the President to be setting the Democratic policy, doesn't one? That did not occur until 1/20/09.

The republican "revisionism" will never work.