January 26, 2009

1/26: Let's Agree To Disagree

Lefty bloggers and righty bloggers rarely agree on anything, but when it comes to Barack Obama's economic stimulus package, it appears that liberals and conservatives are on the same page. That is, they both believe that Congress should pass the stimulus bill on a party-line vote, with Dems voting in favor of the legislation and GOPers opposing it.

As we've noted before, liberal bloggers strongly believe that Dems should pass "the best bill possible", even if GOPers vote against it out of a belief that it contains too much spending and not enough tax cuts. In the eyes of the netroots, the most important consideration is whether the bill actually succeeds in improving the economy, not whether the bill has bipartisan support. Ian Welsh explains:

"The best politics is always good policy. Turn the economy around and no one will care how many Republicans voted for Obama's bills. Fail to turn the economy around and, well, no one will care how many Republicans voted for Obama's bills."

Conservative bloggers agree with their liberal counterparts. Most of them believe that Obama's stimulus bill, as presently constructed, "will not work" and that voters will eventually punish Dems at the polls for failing to turn the economy around. Consequently, righty bloggers believe that it's in the GOP's interest to oppose the legislation. John Hinderaker asserts: "As long as the Republicans in Congress stick to their principles and oppose the Democrats' pork-fest, they should be well positioned for a comeback in 2010 and 2012."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Bowers, Drum, Atrios) are delighted that Obama reportedly reminded GOP cong. leaders "I won" after listening to their concerns about the stimulus package. Conservative bloggers (Faughnan, Yousefzadeh, Mirengoff) are responding to Obama's statement with a defiant message of their own.
• Most liberal bloggers (Hamsher, Moulitsas, Bowers) are willing to give Sen-designate Kirsten Gillibrand a chance to move to the left now that she'll be representing the entire state of NY instead of her conservative-leaning CD.

STIMULUS: What Counts Is Results, Not Process

Liberal bloggers are urging Obama and cong. Dems to pass the most effective stimulus bill possible, even if it doesn't receive many GOP votes:

• Firedoglake's Welsh: "The best politics is always good policy. Turn the economy around and no one will care how many Republicans voted for Obama's bills. Fail to turn the economy around and, well, no one will care how many Republicans voted for Obama's bills."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "[T]he only politics of the stimulus President Obama and his team should concern themselves with is making sure that the bill does all it can to actually improve the economy. Short-term bi-partisan posturing, whether for political cover or arising from actual beliefs, is utterly insignificant compared the real-world impact of the bill itself. [...] People don't care how many Democrats and how many Republicans vote for this bill. People don't care how much Obama appeared to be seeking Republican input or not. The only thing they care about is whether this helps turn the economy around."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[T]he first, second, third, fourth, fifth, six, seventh, eight, ninth, tenth, and only priority in terms of the stimulus [should be] to write the best bill possible and pass it with the minimum number of votes necessary. Stimulus is a great idea in theory, but in practice the results of the congressional process may well get ugly. A bill that works substantively will be good enough politically, and worrying too much about the short-term politics just opens up the door for the bill to get more screwed up. If a giant stimulus passes and the economy stays in a funk, nobody's going to care how many Republicans voted for the bill years in the past."
• Atrios: "I actually hope every Republican votes against the stimulus package, and I hope that instead of trying to please them the Obama team comes up with what they think the right package will be. The Republicans should lay out a competing vision, which won't pass because they aren't in charge. Then, 2 and 4 years from now voters can judge the results and if they aren't pretty they'll know who to blame and decide that the competing vision would have been a better one. [...] Democrats have the presidency and big majorities. Instead of hiding behind the spread-the-blame-around tactic, they should announce their vision and run with it."

STIMULUS II: Don't Vote For This Crap Sandwich, GOPers

Just as liberal bloggers believe that it is in Dems' interest to not try to win GOP support for the stimulus bill, conservative bloggers believe that it is in the GOP's interest to let Dems' pass the stimulus bill themselves:

• Power Line's Hinderaker: "Notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Democrats' over-the-top 'stimulus' plan, most Americans are skeptical. Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that 'Congress and President Obama will increase government spending too much in the next year or two.' Conversely, only 17% worry that they will cut taxes too much. [...] This suggests that the seeds of the Republicans' resurgence have already been sown. Congress will indeed spend far too much money, increasing the federal deficit to ridiculous levels. Before long, the monetary and fiscal policies now emerging will lead to wealth-destroying and income-eroding levels of inflation. As long as the Republicans in Congress stick to their principles and oppose the Democrats' pork-fest, they should be well positioned for a comeback in 2010 and 2012."
• RedState's Brian Faughnan: "[F]or the Left, the message is don't do us any favors. You think Obama has 'disarmed' us by demonstrating that he knows he's in a position of strength. That's fine; we're disarmed. You think he needs to remember that the American public is with him? Cool. Knock yourself out. You have plenty of votes to muscle this through the House and Senate without a single Republican. Feel free to do so. We'll risk the backlash. That's because we recognize that Obama is not negotiating with us because he wants to do us a favor. He's doing it because he wants us all on the same hook together. The likelihood is that this 'stimulus' plan will not work and that the people will recognize it. And once Obama has gotten his stimulus, has nationalized banks and car companies, has 'fixed' health care, and has increased the debt by $3 or $4 trillion, the voters will be ready for change again in 2010. And as long as Obama and the Democrats dictate terms and expect us to like it, we'll be happy to bite the hand that feeds."

OBAMA: Elections Matter

Liberal bloggers are delighted that Obama reportedly reminded GOP cong. leaders "I won" after listening to their concerns about his economic stimulus package:

• Bowers: "Good. This is the sort of language that disarms Republicans, and there won't ever be a better time to adopt it. I would prefer if he talked like this in the open, but President Obama still deserves credit for this. Here's to hoping that this signals the end of watering down the stimulus in order to appease Republicans for aesthetic purposes, and the start to a new era where we just don't give a damn what Republican leaders think."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Good. Obama's efforts to maintain good relationships across the aisle may mean that he's wiser than me in these matters, but I still don't think it's going to work and I hope he doesn't waste too much energy on it. This is the right response for something that's already been hashed out a hundred times before."
• Atrios: "'I won.' Yes, it's good to remind people of that. It's amazing how fast Republicans -- and our media -- seem to forget it."
• The American Prospect's Robert Kuttner: "[Obama] will face ideological qualms from the fiscal conservatives within his own party, as well as from most Republicans. So the bipartisan honeymoon is unlikely to last, and I'd say, good riddance. Obama's real challenge is to mobilize public opinion -- not just to win general approval ratings but to make it very hard politically for anyone in either party to oppose his recovery program or to demand crippling budget cuts down the line as the quid pro quo. That's what leadership is all about. [...] Call me out of date and ideological, but it's reassuring when President Obama reminds himself and his opponents that 'I won.'"

OBAMA II: So Much For Bipartisanship

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama for telling GOP cong. leaders "I won":

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Vintage O: Always willing to hear the other side out, never willing to actually vote with them."
• Faughnan: "Obama's 'I Won' seems likely to be a defining moment -- at least in the early part of his presidency. Elected as a bipartisan -- or post-partisan, or whatever -- he and his supporters seem to think Republicans should be happy that they even pretended to care what we think. Now that they made a show of listening to us, we should dutifully back their craptastic bill and big government agenda (because he won, you see). But that's not what they did when the roles were reversed. There's no reason for Republicans to do it now. And sticking to our guns is far more likely to help us politically than to hurt us."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "First of all, Obama won about 53% of the popular vote; hardly 'overwhelming' in anyone's book. Secondly, remember that when [ex-VP] Dick Cheney said this kind of stuff with regard to not paying attention to the polls, he was excoriated for being anti-democratic. Thirdly, remember as well that for eight years, we heard about how George W. Bush had the chance to unify the nation post-9/11 by reaching out to Democrats, but that instead, he chose to be 'divisive,' and 'polarizing,' and 'partisan.'"
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "[Obama] noted, correctly, that elections have consequences. But passing bad legislation also has consequences, not just for the country but also for the party responsibile for the legislation. To the extent that Obama blows off their concerns, Republicans must make sure that they have no responsibility for the stimulus legislation. The politics here are not difficult to calculate. If the stimulus package is seen as a success, the Democrats will be the winners regardless of whether the Republicans 'buy in.' If the package is seen as a failure, the Democrats will be the losers regardless of the position Republicans took. But if the package is seen as a corrupt failure -- one loaded up with gifts for special interests that had little or no connection with promoting economic recovery -- then it will generate fury at anyone who supported it."

NY SEN: Giving Gillibrand A Chance

Jane Hamsher and Markos Moulitsas are standing by their criticism of Caroline Kennedy's ill-fated Senate bid in light of the Gillibrand appointment, which has proven somewhat controversial in certain quarters of the liberal blogosphere:

• Firedoglake's Hamsher: "[Gillibrand]'s a strong campaigner whose toughness is already earning her the ever-so-imaginative 'Tracy Flick' comparisons, and as Julia notes she's got good prospects to hold the seat in 2010 against a Republican onslaught (as opposed to Kennedy, whose public meltdown was all the more embarrassing due to the fact that there was no competition in sight). Still, she's hardly an ideal choice. Her position on immigration is horrible, and it needs to change. But as Markos notes, she's under pressure from the left, and her new found support for gay marriage is a sign that she's willing to move in that direction. [...] Taking part in an organized, coherent effort to urge Gillibrand in a progressive direction would probably be more politically efficient than continuing to throw one's panties at the Kennedy stage."
• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "[W]e're now stuck with a Blue Dog in the Senate. To me, this is a win-win situation. There are two alternatives: (1.) Gillibrand was voting her districts, and will now tack hard to the left as she represents a much more liberal New York, or (2.) She gets primaried and a more progressive Democrats -- one chosen by the voters! -- gets in. Heck, it could even be Caroline Kennedy, assuming she isn't afraid to face real voters! Gillibrand is an accomplished politician who won in a brutally difficult House seat. But what made her successful in that district won't make her successful statewide. So she either adapts, or she dies. And in the end, it'll be the voters making that call. As it should be."

BooMan doesn't buy Moulitsas's argument: "I'm not particularly impressed by Kos's defense of his anti-Caroline jihad. While I acknowledge that he doesn't bear any responsibility for the selection of Kirsten Gillibrand and that he doesn't have any special influence over Governor [David] Paterson or New York state politics, the vehement opposition to the liberal Caroline Kennedy from the progressive blogosphere effectively cut off an important bloc of support for her candidacy. [...] Kos defends his decision to wage jihad by saying that there is no harm done. Either Gillibrand will lurch to the left and we'll have nothing to worry about, he says, or she'll get beaten in a competitive primary. This is disingenuous. Gillibrand just won reelection in the most expensive House race in the country. She is an incredible fundraiser and has support from the Establishment (political and financial). It will be very difficult to defeat Gillibrand in a primary. And this is true whether or not she lurches to the left as a U.S. Senator."

Meanwhile, Bowers is impressed by Gillibrand's opposition to the TARP bailout: "I am going to write something that might sound a little bit off character: I am willing to give Bush Dog, and apparently soon to be New York Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand a chance during her time in the Senate. In practice, what this means is that while I will be interested in looking at primary challenges she receives in 2010, and while I am wary of her past performance, the defeat of the working conservative majority and the newly arrived Democratic trifecta does appear to have altered the congressional playing field. It now seems likely new alliances can be formed for progressives, and no approach to passing progressive legislation, or stopping bad legislation, should be dismissed out of hand. Case in point: the Wall Street bailout, otherwise known as TARP. Gillibrand voted against it back in October, then she voted in favor of the auto bailout in December, then voted in favor of [MA Rep.] Barney Frank's oversight bill on Wednesday, and then voted against the release of the second half of the funds yesterday. This makes Gillibrand one of about only 26 House Democrats who would have voted the same way I would have voted across all four of those bills."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Thoughts On Revolutionaries

The American Conservative's Daniel Larison:

"[Abraham] Lincoln, [Woodrow] Wilson and FDR -- each of them was responsible for far more deaths and far more destruction than Che Guevara or any of a number of Arab nationalist figures ever was, but two important things separate them in the eyes of the general public: they did not personally kill anyone, and the causes for which their armies killed and destroyed are widely considered to be the just and right ones. That is to say, the exact same moralizing, or rather anti-moralizing, that the ends justify the means that Che used in rationalizing revolutionary violence is employed to praise and sanctify approved figures who authorized much larger slaughters for the 'right reasons.' Not only have sympathetic, shoulder-shrugging, anti-moralizing stories been told about these men, but we have built large physical monuments to them (or at least to two of the three mentioned above), which is rather more troubling in its way than silly people who wear T-shirts or directors who minimize the moral failings of their main characters."

LEST WE FORGET: Man Always Attempts To Intercept Tossed Things

From The Onion:

"FLAGSTAFF, AZ -- According to sources at McNamara Advertising Inc., junior account executive Matthew Burns, 28, will attempt to catch or deflect any airborne item that enters his general vicinity and has an intended destination or recipient other than himself. 'It doesn't matter what it is. I even saw him grab a used tissue out of the air before he realized what he had done,' said office manager Karen Dunham, referring to Burns' habit of either batting away, snatching, or 'alley-oop' slam-dunking pieces of garbage that have been tossed toward trash receptacles. 'And he yells "my house!" really loudly every time he does it. It's kind of getting out of hand.' Burns was not available for comment, as he is recovering from an injury sustained after attempting to intercept an in-flight dart at a local bar."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at January 26, 2009 12:53 PM