« 2/9: Nice Job, Centrists! | Main | 2/11: Geithner Strikes Out »

February 10, 2009

2/10: Stimulate This

Several conservative bloggers blasted moderate GOPers Arlen Specter (R-PA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME) for voting to close debate on the economic stimulus bill, calling them "the Turncoat Caucus" and accusing them of having "sold out America". However, the reaction in the righty blogosphere was generally subdued. Most conservative bloggers believe that three GOP votes does not translate into "bipartisan support," and they're convinced that Dems "own" the stimulus bill and will be responsible for its "bad consequences".

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers continue to criticize the coalition of centrist senators for stripping the bill of spending provisions such as state fiscal aid, which they consider "one of its least-controversial and most highly-stimulative provisions." Lefty bloggers are also buzzing about a new Gallup poll indicating that 67% of Americans approve of Pres. Obama's handling of the economic stimulus negotiations, whereas only 31% approve of the conduct of congressional GOPers. Josh Marshall sees these numbers as evidence of "the continuing disconnect between the mood of the capital and that of the country."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

STIMULUS: The Turncoat Caucus?

Several conservative bloggers blasted Specter, Snowe, and Collins for voting to close debate on the economic stimulus bill:

Meanwhile, AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein has a question: "Since the Senate bill, despite being larger, eliminates a chunk of spending from the House bill, what do the centrists do if negotiations lead to a final bill that's larger than both current versions?"

Other conservative bloggers aren't particularly upset by yesterday's vote, as they believe that Dems will pay a political price for passing this bill:

  • RedState's Moe Lane: "Congratulations, Democrats. [...] The Democratic Party now owns an 800 billion dollar debt plan. They're welcome to it, in fact. So can we get to the final vote and the signing, already? We have midterm elections to plan for."
  • Power Line's John Hinderaker: "[I]t seems obvious to me that the Dems' bill will have bad consequences. Not only that, bad consequences for which the Dems will be blamed."
  • Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "[T]he Democratic Party is sowing the seeds of their electoral destruction."

STIMULUS II: Centrists Under Fire

Liberal bloggers continue to criticize the centrist senators who stripped about $100B in spending provisions (including $40B in aid to state governments) from the economic stimulus bill:

  • Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "I'm so relieved that we have Sens. Claire McCaskill and Ben Nelson in our party protecting us from the tyranny of building and renovating schools. Oh, and life-saving medical care."
  • digby: "It's quite interesting that these 'centrists' never seemed to manifest themselves to mitigate the excesses of the Bush administration, even when the Senate was split right down the middle. In fact, if I recall correctly, the last time the 'centrists' flexed their muscles it was to stop the Democrats from filibustering the extremist Federalist Society pets, [John] Roberts and [Samuel] Alito."
  • TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "[The Dem aide I spoke to] was unable to provide a specific economic justification for why the centrists cut all of the flexible state fiscal aid and reduced school construction funding, rural broadband, public health provisions, etc., many of which are considered by economists to be the most effective tools for stimulating aggregate demand. [...] I'd like to see at least a pro forma attempt to justify the decisions in the centrists' amendment."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "On MSNBC earlier this morning, Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) was asked to explain his perverse decision to cut state aid money from the stimulus package and explained, 'they're not cuts. These are adjustments downward.' But whatever you call them, the point remains that Nelson and Susan Collins (R-Maine) took a look at a huge bill, and zeroed-in with laser-like efficiency on one of its least-controversial and most highly-stimulative provisions, deciding that that was a good place for 'adjustments downward.' And while doing this, Nelson and Collins left in place the least-stimulative elements of the House package and added new non-stimulative stuff like an AMT patch extension and a tax break for people who buy homes. Consequently, as CAP's Will Straw explains, the Senate 'centrists' managed to come up with a bill that creates fewer jobs while increasing the deficit by a greater amount."

STIMULUS III: See? Obama Has The Public On His Side!

The netroots are buzzing about a new Gallup poll indicating that 67% of Americans approve of Obama's handling of the economic stimulus negotiations, whereas only 31% approve of the conduct of congressional GOPers. Lefty bloggers see this poll as evidence that Obama is winning the stimulus debate, contrary to the arguments of conservatives:

  • AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The talking heads in D.C. are all agog over the Hill Republicans these days, summed up by a front page story in today's Washington Post noting 'the glimmers of rebirth' seen by the Hill Republicans because of their insurgent tactics and the continued domination of Republican members of Congress on cable news. Just shows how far out of touch the corporate political media is, because the American people don't see it that way. Not even close."
  • Atrios: "The Villagers, unsurprisingly, have decided that the Republicans have won and Obama has lost the argument. The fact that the American public do not agree matters little."
  • TPM's Marshall: "What's most striking about these numbers is the continuing disconnect between the mood of the capital and that of the country. For me, a lot of that is a product of how Washington continues to be wired for Republican control."
  • The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I'm a little surprised by these results. Not only have conservative Republicans been dominating the discourse, but the critics' talking points have been largely internalized by journalists covering the debate."
  • Moulitsas: "The Administration can't rip cable news enough for being out of touch with America. There is certainly a huge disconnect between this and this."
  • MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Do I believe that these numbers are sufficient, in and of themselves, for President Obama to be able to move forward his agenda? Not likely. Instead, the President will have to campaign for his legislation, which he is indeed doing. But anyone who tells you that the Republicans are winning the public relations battle at present -- regardless of the speed (or lack thereof) with which the stimulus bill is moving through Congress -- simply do not know what they're talking about."

Yglesias thinks the GOP's near-universal opposition to the stimulus bill makes little sense in light of this poll: "It seems that conservative legislators are really excited about their efforts to block efforts at an economic recovery package, [but] the public is less entranced by this behavior. [...] I'm not surprised to see most Republican legislators acting this way. But I really am surprised by how many have been following the [Rush] Limbaugh Line. Barack Obama won the election pretty handily and he's quite popular, meaning that even with Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008 there are still a bunch of GOP legislators representing states or districts where Obama is well-liked. I would have expected more 'running scared' behavior from that sub-set of the GOP."

Ezra Klein disagrees: "[I]f I were a Republican, I wouldn't change my behavior one bit. The question is not whether the stimulus -- or, for that matter, Barack Obama -- is popular now. It's whether it's popular in October of 2010. If it's not, then you want a clear record of opposition. (Message: We told you so.) If it is, then you're screwed no matter how you voted. And that strategy, of course, has proven a far better predictor of Republican behavior than the popularity of the bill."

OBAMA PRESS CONFERENCE: Weak Sauce, Mr. President

Conservative bloggers were not impressed by Obama's performance at yesterday's press conference:

  • RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "What we saw tonight in President Obama was a man who, flailing about for words and faiing to form cohesive sentences and responses, turned in a stumbling, meandering performance worthy of the most extreme caricature of George W. Bush."
  • Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "President Obama's press conference had to be an enormous disappointment to anyone who had really believed his hype about bringing 'hope' and 'change' to Washington. [...] Part of the President's job is to calm fears, not stir them up. If there are real dangers to be confronted, of course it's his job to point them out. But the idea that 'catastrophe' will ensue without immediate passage of a bill that even some Democrats deem a failure is, well, just a joke. And a sad one."
  • NRO's Mark Hemingway: "As good as he is delivering a speech, Obama is not a good extemporaneous speaker. [...] The conference was, frankly, boring and long-winded."

Conservative bloggers were particularly incensed by what they perceived to be Obama's mischaracterization of GOP opposition to the stimulus bill:

  • Hinderaker: "Obama repeatedly characterized his opponents (the Republicans) as people who want to do nothing about the current economic crisis. [...] This is not just disingenuous; frankly, it's an outright lie. The question is whether it's an effective one. Don't most people who would bother to watch a televised press conference know that the Republicans have made all kinds of alternative proposals? One would think."
  • Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "[W]hen he distorted the GOP opposition as wanting to do nothing he lost the game. The American people are tuned into this debate and know very well that the GOP is committed to a large but balanced stimulus plan that puts tax relief and immediate infrastructure spending to work to immediately surge the economy. They have listened closely to the arguments made on the Senate floor and know that the president's bald mischaracterization of those positions is just false."
  • Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "President Obama's press conference tonight was characterized by the glib dishonesty that is coming to define his presidency. The biggest howller, as John [Hinderaker] notes, was Obama's claim that Republicans want to do nothing to stimulate the economy. Perhaps Obama was thinking of the claim that doing nothing would be better for the economy than adopting the stimulus program he is pushing. But (1) this was the finding of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, not congressional Republicans and (2) the fact that the Democratic proposal might well be worse than doing nothing does not mean that we should do nothing; it just means we should reject what the Dems have served up."
  • Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Republicans in both the House and Senate have offered at least two alternative stimulus packages. None of them demanded that Obama 'do nothing'."

OBAMA PRESS CONFERENCE II: A Refreshing Change

Not surprisingly, liberal bloggers had a more positive impression of Obama's performance:

  • Marshall: "You watch this performance and you can see that every day Republicans keep this guy off TV is a win for them. Like every great pol, Obama's a great communicator. And he's making the argument."
  • digby: "Can I just say how refreshing it is to have a president who not only speaks the English language and doesn't filibuster with repetitive nonsense, but one who actually understands what he's talking about?"
  • Sudbay: "Wow. Barack Obama is smart. Okay, not like I didn't know it, but to watch him in action, answering questions in a smart, sophisticated manner was impressive."

OBAMA: What Happened To Transparency?

Liberal bloggers were surprised and disappointed when the Obama admin. "backed the Bush administration's arguments in a lawsuit involving the practice of seizing terror suspects abroad and sending them to third countries for questioning":

  • Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "What makes this particularly appalling and inexcusable is that Senate Democrats had long vehemently opposed the use of the 'state secrets' privilege in exactly the way that the Bush administration used it in this case, even sponsoring legislation to limits its use and scope. Yet here is Obama, the very first chance he gets, invoking exactly this doctrine in its most expansive and abusive form to prevent torture victims even from having their day in court, on the ground that national security will be jeopardized if courts examine the Bush administration's rendition and torture programs -- even though (a) the rendition and torture programs have been written about extensively in the public record; (b) numerous other countries have investigated exactly these allegations; and (c) other countries have provided judicial forums in which these same victims could obtain relief."
  • Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "So Obama is adopting the same expansive interpretation of the privilege as the Bush/Cheney administration, and using it in order to cover up American involvement in torture and rendition programs that have been in the public record already for years and can hardly even be said to be secrets, let alone state secrets that are vital to U.S. national security. This is decidedly not change we can believe in."
  • TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "Obviously there are strong international pressures affecting the decision, but it's an ill omen for people expecting Obama to be open to bringing some of the Bush administration's abuses into the sunlight."
  • Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "Obama administration: you screwed this one up in a major, major way. Stop it. Stop it now. Work your hearts out to get the State Secrets Protection Act reintroduced in Congress and passed into law. Try to do right by people like the plaintiffs in this case. Don't just say: it would be a problem for us to let people we shipped off to be tortured have their day in court. Try to make it right. You have it in your power to make me proud of my government again. But this is really, really, really not a very good start."
  • digby: "This is really disappointing. And it makes me wonder if I was punk'd after all. [...] For the administration that has made its most fundamental pitch for change on the basis of transparency, this is really quite a blow."
  • BooMan: "The Obama administration cannot allow itself to become complicit in the Bush administration's crimes."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "The Obama administration will continue the cover-up of the alleged torture of the British resident [Binyam Mohamed]. The argument is that revealing the extent of the man's torture and abuse would reveal state secrets. No shit. This is a depressing sign that the Obama administration will protect the Bush-Cheney torture regime from the light of day. And with each decision to cover for their predecessors, the Obamaites become retroactively complicit in them."

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are experiencing some schadenfreude.

GEITHNER: A Wall Street Stooge?

Liberal bloggers are upset that Geithner reportedly succeeded in dissuading the Obama admin. from imposing tougher conditions on banks participating in the TARP bailout:

  • Marshall: "[This is] bad news."
  • Open Left's Chris Bowers: "If the story is correct, it appears the corporatists in the Obama administration have prevailed over the populists/leftists in the administration on most areas of bailout strategy. This includes, most importantly, placing minimum to no conditions on how bailout recipients spend money, and a decision for the government to not take operational control of any banks. The story is also a classic case of exactly why cabinet appointments make a huge difference in determining policy. Rather than all appointees simply following orders from President Obama, they take part in a vigorous debate on policy. In this case, corporatist Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner appears to have won on virtually all counts, even over senior administration advisors such as David Axelrod."
  • Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "In other words, taxpayer money will be used to prop up banks. The same executives who caused the problems will be allowed to continue paying themselves huge bonuses for destroying the economy and bankrupting their banks and they won't be forced to use the money to lend to actual consumers. Nor will shareholders be replaced so that taxpayers investing hundreds of billions and taking on trillions in risk can have all the upside instead of all the upside (yes, they'll probably get some shares. They should get 100% ownership. You should get 100% ownership.It's your money Geithner's spending)."

Open Left's David Sirota: "Interestingly, the divide inside the administration seems to hearken back to a divide discussed very early on in the formation of the administration -- the one whereby progressives were put in strictly political positions, and zombie conservatives were put in the policymaking positions. In this case, more progressive politicos like Axelrod was overruled by corporate cronies like Geithner."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Defining The Stimulus

Ezra Klein:

"No one understands what the stimulus is. In part, that's because it's not any one thing: It's a vast collection of programs connected by nothing but the fact that they all cost money. Maybe for that reason, the Obama team has preferred to define the stimulus in terms of what it will achieve. We've heard a lot about the three million jobs it will create but much less about the nature and composition of the package. The message has been simple. Stimulus: Just do it.

The Republicans, sensibly, stepped into the void and began aggressively defining the package. Suddenly it was pork and STD prevention and mob museums and amusement parks. Rather than the sum of its parts they explained the eccentricities of its margins. But they were essentially alone in giving memorable examples of what exactly the stimulus looked like in practice.

They're still largely alone in that pursuit. But rather than [House GOP Whip] Eric Cantor and [House Min. Leader] John Boehner picking the examples, [PA Sen.] Arlen Specter and [ME Sen.] Susan Collins have taken up the task. Their cuts have elevated another concrete set of the stimulus's component parts. But this time, it's not mob museums and contraceptive funding. Cutting a hundred billion dollars required digging into the meat of the program. And so attention has suddenly focused on a whole other set of stimulus priorities: School construction, education funding, and aid to states. These are, to put it mildly, rather more popular. The [C-SPAN] callers this morning were outraged that these priorities would be cut. Why wouldn't you fast track school construction right now? And if those provisions were considered the bill's least necessary, then presumably the rest of the bill is arguably even worthier. This would seem a great gift to the Democrats who can now campaign for schools and state services -- potholes! -- rather than some $900 billion expenditure hazily-defined as stimulus. The question, I guess, is whether they take advantage of it."

LEST WE FORGET: Ex-Girlfriend Making Huge Mistake

From The Onion:

"CLEVELAND -- Tracy Anderton is making a tremendous mistake by thinking she can find happiness with a successful trial lawyer, ex-boyfriend Jack Colgrave reported Tuesday. 'Since we broke up, Tracy has exhibited some really self-destructive behavior, from losing a dramatic amount of weight, to discarding several old photo albums, to now becoming involved with people who are clearly wrong for her,' Colgrave said. 'If this doesn't stop soon, I worry she'll end up doing something really drastic -- like moving in with this new guy, or worse, not answering any more of my telephone calls.' As of press time, Anderton has continued to ignore pleas to stop and think for a second, look at what she's doing for Christ's sake, and not throw everything away because of some stupid other woman."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at February 10, 2009 12:49 PM



Copyright 2007 by National Journal Group Inc.
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.