January 28, 2009

1/28: Bipartisanship Is Overrated

The blogosphere consensus that we described on Monday remains true today: liberal bloggers and conservative bloggers both want Dems in Congress to pass the stimulus bill themselves, with little support from GOPers. As soon as Politico reported yesterday that House Min. Leader John Boehner was urging his caucus to vote against the stimulus bill, lefty bloggers began chastising Barack Obama for thinking that he could win GOP votes in the first place. "I am just shocked to discover that Republicans will vote against the bill which has been made shittier to please them," one liberal blogger wrote sarcastically. Another asked: "Can we stop trying to appease bad-faith Republicans now...please?"

The netroots believe that GOPers were never going to vote for Obama's stimulus bill, because (a.) the idea that gov't spending can lift the country out of a recession is antithetical to their economic philosophy, and (b.) it's not in their political interest to support the bill. Markos Moulitsas summarizes the latter argument thusly: "Worst case scenario for Republicans, the stimulus works and they're toast in 2010 anyway. Best case, the stimulus does little to help the nation's economic recovery, and they can play the 'change' card next election." In the meantime, liberal bloggers are urging Dems to stop "watering down the stimulus bill" in order to attract GOP support and instead "pass the best bill they can".

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are urging GOPers in Congress to oppose the bill, which they're calling a "porkapalooza" and "The Pelosi-Reid-Obama Debt Plan". Conservative bloggers are convinced that the legislation will fail to stimulate the economy, and they believe that there's no reason for GOPers to give Obama "bipartisan cover for a bad bill".

STIMULUS: Have You Learned Your Lesson Yet, Obama?

Now that GOP leaders have reportedly made up their minds to oppose Obama's stimulus bill, liberal bloggers are urging Obama to stop trying to win GOP support and instead pass "the best possible bill" (which the netroots have been preaching all along):

• Atrios: "I am just shocked to discover that Republicans will vote against the bill which has been made shittier to please them. Just shocked."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Can we stop trying to appease bad-faith Republicans now...please? [...] Boy, good thing we made sure to strip out the contraceptive funding that got Republicans so worked up yesterday!"
• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "So Democrats have bent over backwards watering down the stimulus bill and even stripping out such 'objectionable' material to Republicans as family planning funds for the low-income, all in the name of 'bipartisanship'. And how do Republicans repay those efforts?"
• Sadly, No!'s Brad: "Look, Obamee, I know you made a bunch of Broderesque promises to be all nice to people in the Republican Party, but you're clearly getting rolled here. [...] It's time to tell the GOP to suck on it. Scrap all the provisions they suggested, put in whatever you think will be the best policy for economic recovery. While compromise is all well and good, you don't actually need to compromise to achieve your goals here. Plus, in order to have a genuine compromise, you need to be working with people who are debating with you in good faith. Methinks most of the GOP is actually taking the Michelle Malkin approach. [...] Dude, they want you to fail. They're not going to do anything to help you. So just put the best policy you can out there and let that be that. If it works well then you'll be rewarded for it. If not, then you'll be punished. That's politics."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Of course [Boehner] opposes the proposed rescue package. It's antithetical to all of his beliefs about government and the economy -- beliefs that, incidentally, helped create the crisis in the first place. That Obama was willing to engage them directly and honestly was gracious, and evidence of a leader sincere about changing the way business is done, but his efforts were bound to be in vain. Once again, the relationship between Lucy and Charlie Brown keeps coming to mind."

Benen continues: "[S]ince the House GOP isn't interested in passing the bill any more, can Democrats make it even better now? The White House has been willing to make all kinds of concessions to win over Republican support, but it's not enough. Since the GOP is going to vote 'no' anyway, why not make the bill as effective and progressive as possible? If there's no point in the majority party offering unwelcome enticements to those who'll remain obstinate anyway, then pull the enticements and let the majority party do the right thing."

TAPPED's Scott Lemieux agrees: "[S]ince at this point it's obvious that there's essentially no chance that the Republicans will vote for the bill, and it will make no difference to any future election how many Republicans vote for it (voters will give Democrats the credit or blame irrespective of the final vote), the Dems might as well pass the best bill they can."

STIMULUS II: Face It, Obama, The GOP Will Never Support This

Liberal bloggers believe that GOPers will never support Obama's stimulus bill because it's not in their political interest to support it:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I hear a lot of talk about whether Obama's governing approach can be 'bipartisan' if a good number of Republicans don't vote for his Stimulus Bill. But that dubious point seems to be obscuring a more obvious and telling reality: the Republican leadership in both houses has decided that it's in their political interest to oppose the Stimulus Bill no matter what. In the most cynical of evaluations, it's not clear to me that they're incorrect. If the stimulus is judged a success, their political gain from adding more votes to what will be seen as Obama's bill will not be that great. So they're figuring that only failure will work for them politically; and they judge that they want Obama to own it entirely. One can pick apart the political ethics of their stand, but the reality of it is clear. They want to criticize as many provisions of the bill as possible, push for as many non-stimulus inducing tax cuts as possible at the expense of spending on infrastructure, and then vote against the final bill en masse."
• Moulitsas: "Of course Republicans will oppose this. Anyone who doesn't have their head stuck up David Broder's ass knows that there is no margin for Republicans in supporting the stimulus package. It will bust the budget beyond the busted-up bloody pulp it already is, it will include all sorts of stupid funding decisions that will provide fantastic attack ad fodder, and it might not even work. And as I wrote earlier, if it succeeds, Republicans won't even get the credit (which will go to Obama and his Congressional allies). [...] Worst case scenario for Republicans, the stimulus works and they're toast in 2010 anyway. Best case, the stimulus does little to help the nation's economic recovery, and they can play the 'change' card next election."

Moulitsas continues: "Therefore, if Republicans won't play, why should Democrats water down the stimulus to the point of ineffectiveness and cave to ridiculous ideological demands (like the family planning stuff) when they won't get their cherished 'bipartisanship' anyway? They should craft the best solution possible to the nation's woes, and if those solutions work, people will know exactly who to credit. And if they fail, they'll know exactly who to blame. There's a reason Democrats won massively the last two cycles, and it wasn't because people were desperate for 'bipartisanship'."

Balloon Juice's DougJ agrees: "Obviously, Republicans hope that the economy is deep, deep in the shitter in 2010. That's the only way they get back into power. They can't stop the stimulus, all they can do is fuck around and try to score a few political points about contraceptives or 'Federal Performance Art grant or some such nonsense' and then hope that the thing fails. At this point, they're actively rooting for millions of Americans to be out of work. They're barely even pretending not to."

STIMULUS III: Keep Your Hands Clean, GOPers!

Conservative bloggers are strongly urging their GOP congressmen to vote against the economic stimulus bill, as they expect that it will do nothing to improve the economy:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "If Republicans ever hope to regain the mantle of fiscal conservatism, it is vital that this bill not be seen as a 'bi-partisan' effort -- which would make both Republicans and Democrats responsible when it predictably fails..."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "For Republicans, there's no need to strengthen Obama's hand by giving him bipartisan cover for a bad bill that will balloon the deficit without helping the economy."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Giving Democrats control over hundreds of billions of dollars in new pork spending is isn't just an invitation to corruption, it is corruption per se. Republicans should propose their own stimulus bill, based on defensible economics, and take a firm stand against the Democrats' carnival of pork."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The Wall Street Journal calls it the '40-year Wish List'. Michelle [Malkin] calls it the 'Generational Theft Act'. Others have started calling it the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Debt Act. Whatever name one gives it, the least likely is stimulus. The WSJ calculates that no more than 12 cents on the dollar in the trillion-dollar whale goes to actual economic stimulus, and that the rest go to Democratic wish lists for electoral advantage."
• RedState's Francis Cianfrocca: "Republicans have no need to support a wasteful fiscal stimulus package that plays not only to an orthodox economic theory that's been disproved by decades of experience, but also to the worst instincts of Democratic populists. American consumers don't need a fresh coat of paint on their government buildings. They need more savings in their bank accounts. Even if the measured effects on GDP would be smaller in the near term, an extensive and radical tax holiday will do more lasting good for the economy than the stimulus, as currently proposed."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "If the bill had serious relief for the housing sector, or a serious push on energy such as a broad and sustained drive for nuclear power, I could understand some Republicans holding their noses and voting for it. But there is just not nearly enough to justify the massive expenditure that makes it porkapalooza. [...] Not a single Republican should vote for this bill."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "Last I checked, the Democrats held the White House and had nearly 60 votes and over 250 in the House -- more than enough to pass and sign this $800B monstrosity of a pork-barrel giveaway they call a 'stimulus' (as well as every other pet project they want to put into law). So why don't they shut up and do it already? Why are they wasting time trying to bring some Republican votes on board...? From where I sit, the answer to that question is pretty obvious: the Democrats know exactly what a terrible bill this is, and want some GOP votes to give them 'bipartisan' cover (and someone else to point the finger of blame at when this behemoth utterly fails to fulfill its supposed purpose of stimulating the economy and creating jobs). What the GOP should do here is obvious: every single Republican in the House and Senate should vote NO on this bill. Every. Single. One."

Malkin urges her readers to call members of Congress and tell them to vote against the bill: "Dissent is patriotic. Light up the phones today."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Savvy One?

Philip Klein:

"Though I've given my fair share of criticism to President Obama and remain opposed to the stimulus package, I have to say that he has made a lot of smart political moves so far. His visit to the Capitol to meet with Congressional Republicans was a masterstroke, because he came off as gracious -- even though his statement that he wants to take politics out of the stimulus was a riot given that the bill is a massive collection of Democratic pet projects. But it's a win-win situation for him. If he peels off some Republicans, he can claim bipartisan support, and if he doesn't he can still pass the bill he wants and portray Republicans as being trapped in the old ways of Washington, where petty partisan games got in the way of doing the people's business. Also, he was smart to lobby to have the family planning money removed, a case where Democrats were sticking their thumbs in the eyes of Republicans. Democrats followed up by stripping the $200 million of funding to spruce up the National Mall. In both cases, Democrats are depriving Republicans of an easy line of attack and making it seem that Republicans will oppose any piece of legislation, despite their overtures."

LEST WE FORGET: Blagojevich Claims Behavior Was Just Elaborate Plan To Surprise Patrick Fitzgerald With Senate Nomination On His Birthday

From The Onion:

"SPRINGFIELD, IL -- As his impeachment trial began Monday, Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich kicked off a national media tour to explain that his alleged senatorial pay-to-play scheme was merely an elaborate plot to surprise U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald with a Senate seat on his birthday. 'You try to do something nice for someone, and look what happens,' the embattled governor told reporters at a press conference during which he unveiled a birthday cake for Fitzgerald. 'People get wind of it, so you try to cover up the big party you planned, then things get out of hand and the story ends up involving a children's hospital, threats to the Tribune, and a half-million-dollar bribe. Next thing you know, you're getting investigated by the very person you wanted to do something nice for! Pat, I'm sorry your birthday surprise was spoiled.' Before taking questions, Blagojevich changed into a plumber's outfit and attempted to sneak out of the room, saying in a thick Italian accent that the toilet was backed up and he had to fix it right away."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at January 28, 2009 12:30 PM