Old School, New School

Posted on 01/29/2009 at 11:33 am by JumpyPants

Greenwald makes a smart but off-the-mark case against the president’s tactics versus the Republicans:

Some Obama supporters will claim that the whole post-partisan song is nothing more than a political game, a super-shrewd, exotic political tactic Obama is employing in order to cast the GOP as obstructionists. But if so, that’s a Beltway tactic almost as old as Obama himself.

It’s not. It’s a whole new bag.

Hilzoy, on the other hand, makes a smart and totally spot-on case in favor of the president’s tactics against the Republicans:

The House Republicans, by contrast, looked silly. They were carping about tiny bits of the stimulus (the capitol mall?!). They changed the bits they objected to from one day to the next, and looked for all the world like what I take them to be: people who were determined to oppose the stimulus bill from the outset.

I basically wrote the same thing in my Huffington Post column yesterday. This president is absolutely not a Harry Reid Democratic Capitulation Machine. And I see nothing in the president’s style that indicates he’ll allow himself to be rolled by this typical, off-the-shelf display of Republican political hackery.

Getting back to Greenwald’s “Beltway tactic” argument, I think what’s getting lost in the mix here is that the Republicans are acting like they’re the majority party in Congress, and the cable news people are treating them as such. They’re not. So while there might be a concession here or there and while there might be civil dialogue coming from the president (for now), this doesn’t mean he’s falling into the Reid capitulation pit of despair.

This entry was posted in Economy and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://hedonistperspective.typepad.com Alex Rose

    In my mind, it’s only capitulation if you don’t really have the ability to do anything about it.I think Harry Reid in some ways suffers from battered Democrat syndrome. For six years he was steamrolled over and over again (as was Congress in general) and when he finally was in a position of strength he didn’t know what to do with himself.Frankly, if one looks at the broad picture, the concessions Obama made were minimal at best and I suspect Republicans know that. The National Mall thing and the family planning can be added to any number of bills that won’t nearly get as much coverage. Really, the only thing he added was tax cuts but he talked about that during the campaign anyway.Moreover, he can afford to be the nice guy because as he put it… he won. Not only that but they really don’t have the numbers to stop him. So all of them voted no in the House… so what? The bill still passed easily and that’s with 11 Democrat votes.So why not play nice? I just think because the past eight years, some liberals want Obama to wave his power in the opposition’s face like George did and that’s not the kind of person he his nor is it the kind of person he needs to be.

  • GItheScholar

    Let me try and some up a few things that the GOP is a little behind on:Majority in the House and Senate(circa 2006)Political capital on spending(circa 2003)Political capital on the economy(circa 1981)Political capital pro-life movement(circa 2001)Mullets are in style(1988)Race bating/ Fearmongering work in elections(circa 2008)Please feel free to add to the list. I left out The Jesus in the bipartisan tone my President has set.

  • http://unrelatedcontent.com Travis D

    “a concession here or there”

    Mr. Geithner declined to provide any specific details or to address rising calls for the creation of a government institution to buy or guarantee the declining assets at several of the nation’s largest banks. He discouraged speculation that the plan would include the nationalization of some banks.”We have a financial system that is run by private shareholders, managed by private institutions, and we’d like to do our best to preserve that system,” he said.

    Power to the people, right?

  • Zanath

    Travis, the plan never had or was going to have, as far as I know, nationalization of banks. So how is that a concession?

  • http://hedonistperspective.typepad.com Alex Rose

    Yeah, nationalization was never on the table as far as I know and I’m not sure if we’ll ever move towards that side of the capitalism-socialism spectrum.

  • http://unrelatedcontent.com Travis D

    It’s all giveaways to monied interests. If you read the linked article it outlines how all of this stimulus is really just propping up wealthy shareholders. I feel like a grade A sucker because I thought for a second this wasn’t going to be the second coming of the Clinton administration.But lo and behold, Democrats with a firm majority are folding on contraception and protecting consumers from predatory lenders.Greenwald is right, there is no secret liberal agenda, Obama’s cards are all out on the table- and every one of them is an Amex.

  • http://unrelatedcontent.com Travis D

    oops I see forgot my linkhttp://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11211

  • Zanath

    So I guess the only thing left to do is wallow in our own misery.

  • http://www.politicalpartypooper.wordpress.com/ politicalpartypooper

    Bob,I’ve been watching a fellow by the name of Paul Ryan, from my state. You might want to check out what he had to say about the bill, before you paint every Republican with the same brush.You can watch his statement on the Floor of the House here: http://www.house.gov/ryan/video_clips/12709floorHR1.htmIncidentally, Paul Ryan will be the candidate in either 2012 or 2016. Too bad he’s not an independent. Oh well, there’s still two and a half years for him to change.My point is, even though he disagrees with the bill as it stands, you cannot make the statement that he is not willing to work with Democrats. The evidence is loud that he did in fact offer alternatives.The Democrats do not have to compromise, that is true. The thing is, Bob, I don’t know if you noticed, but Americans don’t seem all that upset that not a single Republican voted for this bill. I said yesterday it is my belief that fewer than forty percent of Americans will view this bill favorably. What do you think?

  • http://unrelatedcontent.com Travis D

    The troll was subtle…

  • AC

    If it goes to the Senate and gets changed to something more to the House Repub’s liking, they still may not vote for it, but it will pass.If it comes back even worse for the Repubs, they will surely not vote for it. Again, it will pass. But maybe in future they’ll think twice about getting completely shut out of the process by getting nothing.Also, if you have a choice between a policy that works and happens to be bipartisan, and a policy that works that happens to be totally partisan, isn’t the bipartisan one better? Isn’t the best possible outcome something that WORKS (very important bit) and is also bipartisan? Not just for crass political CYA purposes, but as an example of the value of cooperation?I agree with Greenwald that it’s not likely given the GOP platform and their cast of characters…

  • http://www.broadwaycarl.blogspot.com Broadway Carl

    P3 – I watched the video and didn’t see anything new. He complained about money for the NEA (as if those people aren’t in need of work). He complained about $10-$20 per week tax breaks – sounds eerily similar to the $300 rebate checks Bush was touting for those who were eligibile to receive them.

    We could do a lot better, but again, I didn’t hear one new idea from Boehner or McConnell or Cantor or anyone standing in front of those podiums except bitching and whining about how much this was going to cost. What was their response? More tax cuts. Give them that, they complain about family planning. Take that out and they moan about the National Mall. Strike that too and they decide that they’re going to vote against the bill an hour before meeting the president for a THRID time to hash it out.

    So yeah, until I hear something different, I’m going to paint every Republican with the same brush, because apparently they onty have one mind between them.

  • MatthewN

    I went and read the Greenwald post, and found this Atrios quote that I liked quite a bit.”If I were advising the Republicans I would’ve told them to vote against the stimulus package. I would tell them to make the point clearly that if they were in charge, the bill would be a different bill. They’re a competing political party and they need to, you know, highlight the fact that their vision for America is actually different. I appreciate that members of both parties don’t always toe the line completely, but on a bill as big as this it makes perfect sense for it to play out as it did.Of course the flip side is that Dems should’ve pushed the best plan that could pass the Senate instead of pushing some pointless fantasy about bipartisanship.”

  • sammy1

    Giving O the benefit of the huge doubt that I have been experiencing of late regarding the whole bipartisan theme thing, I’m thinking his strategy perhaps may extend over a longer run than we’re used to.This is my latest thinking.Learning from what happened to Clinton at his mid-term elections (getting creamed by the rethugs, losing both the house and ), O may have his eyes fixed there.The economy will more than likely still be in the dumper in 2 years. Other than laying a foundation for recovery, not many think all that much is going to change in that time period.O, realizing the public’s low short term expectations,may be attempting to hold onto the moderates/swing voters by allowing the whole country to see what a petulent, small thinking, obstructionist group that the rethugs really are.If that happens, the mid terms should give us an even larger majority in the house as well as a solid vetoe proof majority in the senate.For the really big changes that are needed, O will need that. And if he plays his cards right, which he has so far, he’ll have every thing he needs in just two years time.So I guess I’m telling myself, as you have been counselling, just chill the F out, “he’s got this.I just need to learn to be more patient… damn, that was along 8 years!