If Obama can't get Republican votes in Congress, he'll be forced further left than he wants to--or should--go

Doug

What a surprise that you give the GOP a free ride for their political tactics. The stimulus bill that passed had moved a long way toward the GOP position (more tax cuts - the only policy the GOP can decide on regardless of circumstance). Obama has tried to get other GOP members in his cabinet only for them to feel the pressure from the GOP leadership to pull out. There is no principle behind the GOP only short term tactics aimed at elections and not solving the problems the GOP led the country in to. But according to the polls Americans have become wise to the GOP leadership as many Republicans support Obama. You may have no knowledge but Obama does have a proven record of bipartisan legislation and has proved his intent on this matter but if the GOP's only tactic is to be purely anti-Obama (as Rush Limbaugh, the party's philosophical leader, preaches) then Obama is well within his rights to use bipartisanship as a weapon against the GOP. When Bush & Co. came out of the Supreme Court claiming a democratic mandate (paltry in comparison to Obama's) the Democrats were bipartisan and offered dozens of votes for Bush's tax cut. The GOP only ever believe in bipartisanship if they can find suckers to swallow their immovable legislative agenda.

RMH

The public dont want wingnuts in power..........

TrevorsDen

Hmmm .... 'The Pope is Catholic; shock horror'.

Reg

Doug: Much better for the longer-term game plan of the GOP if they ensure Obama has 'ownership' of the leftist policies he has planned for the US. When it all goes horribly wrong (which it will - when have leftwing policies ever been successful?), the Democrats won't be able to share the blame.

Reg

James: Just how far left should he go?

Craig Strachan

The GOP seems to be dusting off the playbook from 1993/4.

Even Newt Gingrich can't see that working out for them.

Terrence

Doug: Please list out Obama's record of bipartisan achievements. He doesn't have any. He's an empty suit. McCain was infuriatingly bipartisan: Gang of 14? Against enhanced interrogation? Campaign finance reform? Mr. Obama, meanwhile, sponsored 120 bills, of which Republicans co-sponsored just 26, and on only five bills did Republicans outnumber Democrats.

From a 15 September 2008 article posted on the Washington Times web site:

"But since 2005, Mr. McCain has led as chief sponsor of 82 bills, on which he had 120 Democratic co-sponsors out of 220 total, for an average of 55 percent. He worked with Democrats on 50 of his bills, and of those, 37 times Democrats outnumber Republicans as co-sponsors.

Mr. Obama gained 522 total Democratic co-sponsors but only 75 Republicans, for an average of 13 percent of his co-sponsors."

Please try to refute this.

porkbelly

Obama's definition "bipartisanship" seems to be he's willing to accept Republican devotees into his starry-eyed flock. It most certainly does not mean he is willing to adjust his policies in any meaningful way - tax cuts, remember, were one of his campaign promises (designed to remove the "tax-and-spend Democrat" jibe from the McCain arsenal). He hasn't been able to get Republican support because, shockingly, they aren't ready to roll over and play dead just because the media tells them they must. After losing the plot in the last few years they are remembering the Reagan mantra of small government-low taxes-free enterprise. It is telling, and bodes ill for our future, that the party in power views the very existence of opposition as hateful and intolerable. It is telling that even in his inaugural address Obama felt called upon to take a cheap shot at Bush, and that his charm offensive towards the Republicans evaporated at the first hurdle. Pelosi, Reid and company are not likely to countenance any compromises with their agenda, and like Obama their agenda requires a fundamental and permanent turn to the left for the United States.

Conservative Cabbie

Doug

What a blinkered view you have of American politics. I don't know where to start.

"stimulus bill that passed had moved a long way toward the GOP position"

I'm not sure that Pelosi's rat getting protected or Harry Reid having a new train set built for him is a big push towards bipartisanship. The bill is a pork laden non-stimulative typically liberal spending bill. Why should Republicans get on board with such a disastrous bill? As for your much vaunted tax cuts, they are short term and fairly meager. Mind you, I suppose they have to be because someone is going to have to pay for all that ridiculous spending.

"Obama has tried to get other GOP members in his cabinet"

But then gives in to the pressure from his liberal pressure groups and humiliates the nominee by taking away one of the most important elements of his job. Yes, thats real bipartisanship.

"but if the GOP's only tactic is to be purely anti-Obama"

And the evidence for that is one vote? Come on, a single instance does not a pattern make. If he'd been sensible and got behind the crafting of a sensible stimulative package, he'd have had GOP support.

"the Democrats were bipartisan and offered dozens of votes for Bush's tax cut."

So in that instance it was the Democrats that were bipartisan and not Bush. In this instance, it would have been Obama being bipartisan. Hmmm, I can see a pattern emerging.

If you think that fancy rhetoric and a coffee morning are evidence of bipartisanship, you're very easily pleased. Personally, I think that some substance is more relevant evidence, and that has been sadly lacking in this process.

rmh

CC - the Pelosi rat thing is utter BS

Shame on you for falling for it.

Some GOP quotes about the stimulus....

They will remember who let loose this deadly virus into our economic bloodstream.

I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.

Do you know what? This is your package. We will come back here next year and try to help you when this puts the economy in the gutter...

This plan will not work. If it was to work, then I'd have to become a Democrat...
The problem with our economy is that there is too little employment and too little growth. This plan will do nothing to improve that condition and will actually make it worse.

This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy.

This bill is a disaster waiting to happen.

will stifle economic growth, destroy jobs, reduce revenues, and increase the deficit.

a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster.

well they are quotes about the 93 clinton plan, the nasty one that left W with an ugly surplus, created jobs and grew the economy.....

Conservative Cabbie

RMH

"well they are quotes about the 93 clinton plan, the nasty one"

Oh good, are we going to play political tag, where we compare political records of our prospective parties and then use isolated incidents which demonstrate how the other side got it wrong? That'll be fun.

Because of course using an example from 1993 on a completely unrelated piece of legislation tells us absolutely nothing about this bill. I'd agree that on that occasion, the GOP got it wrong. The Spendocrats have never got anything wrong?

The question is, is $789 billion the right sum to spend on stimulating the economy and is the way this bill is constructed the right way to do that? If the answer is no, then a politician is duty bound to oppose it because of it's legacy of perpetual national debt. Just because the GOP don't buy into the cultish view that we should all obey Obama doesn't mean they are being tactical. It's perfectly okay to disagree with something on principle.

However, I will admit to be wrong about the rat. Shame, putting 'Pelosi' in the same sentence as 'rat' is quite fun.

Craig Strachan

Conservative Cabbie: "The question is, is $789 billion the right sum to spend on stimulating the economy and is the way this bill is constructed the right way to do that? If the answer is no, then a politician is duty bound to oppose it because of it's legacy of perpetual national debt."

I suppose I'd have more sympathy with the Republicans on this if they hadn't just presided over a massive increase in government spending and debt: the war in Iraq alone cost more than the Obama stimulus!

Conservative Cabbie

Craig

"the war in Iraq alone cost more than the Obama stimulus!"

That's debatable. There are many different numbers online about that, but consensus seems to be falling between $500 billion and a trillion. Adding the interest costs to the stimulus takes it over the trillion so the Iraq war is either less than the stimulus or about the same. So in other words, Obama has spent more on this package in less than one month than the Iraq war cost over six years. Not a good comparison.

"I suppose I'd have more sympathy with the Republicans on this if they hadn't just presided over a massive increase in government spending and debt:"

As a conservative, I'd argue that government spending is bad regardless of who does it.

Craig Strachan

Conservative Cabbie:

"Adding the interest costs to the stimulus takes it over the trillion so the Iraq war is either less than the stimulus or about the same"

Ok, so the Republicans are willing to lavish that much on a foreign country, but not on the United States. (And what did we get in return for the between $500bn and $1trn spent on the Iraq war?)

"As a conservative, I'd argue that government spending is bad regardless of who does it."

As a libertarian, so would I. I also laugh when I hear these Republicans talk about reining in spending, because I have watched them spend like drunken sailors for years.

But, as a conservative, do you consider government spending bad when the spending is on the military?

Conservative Cabbie

RMH

"well they are quotes about the 93 clinton plan"

Two can play at that game. How about this for a quote:

`We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I say, after 8 years of the administration,''... "we have just as much unemployment as when we started, and an enormous debt to boot.''

Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury.

Big spending didn't work then, why will it work now?

Conservative Cabbie

Craig

"But, as a conservative, do you consider government spending bad when the spending is on the military?"

That depends on the circumstance. Ronald Reagan's increased military spending in the eighties helped bring about an end to the cold war, FDR's military spending in the 1940's brought about an end to the Great Depression (although the New Deal didn't). Both increased the deficit but they had the added advantage of saving the world. A government's first duty is to protect it's people and military spending is part of that. Wasteful military spending however is not good.

"As a libertarian, so would I. I also laugh when I hear these Republicans talk about reining in spending, because I have watched them spend like drunken sailors for years."

As a libertarian, you should be congratulating them for finally seeing the light and opposing wasteful spending. This is not just about the GOP being obstructionist for the sake of political opportunity, this is about a heavily defeated party going back to it's conservative basics and re-establishing it's core principle. As a libertarian, surely you cannot support a pork laden stimulus package that empowers government and sacrifices the people to a bureaucratic behemoth.

rmh

FDR's plan worked, cleared up the mess the gop left in the great depression......

Also - why can't the gop go left?

Seeing as the country is?

rmh

CC - "As a libertarian, so would I. I also laugh when I hear these Republicans talk about reining in spending, because I have watched them spend like drunken sailors for years."

Yes, but saying one thing and doing another is what they have been doing/saying for years now.

Proven liars time after time.

over 1 trillion surplus into over 5 trillion defecit, in 8 years is some going, even for the clueless muppets in power.

Ian C

“The headline number of $787 billion is often described as equivalent to as much as 5½% of 2009 GDP. However, the $787 billion refers to the estimated total cost over the eleven fiscal years to 2019. …[T]he boost to activity in any one year will much be smaller than the headlines suggest.”
Second: The pieces of the plan. “The compromise [package] is a dog’s breakfast of populist measures and pet projects with little evidence of any coherent strategy. … Our worry therefore is that the lack of an obvious focus to the plan will act to dilute its impact, especially on [consumer] confidence.”
Third: Other boosts haven’t righted the ship. “[I]t is worth stressing that the U.S. economy had already benefited last year from two major stimuli – the fiscal package under the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, worth around $150 billion, and the boost to real incomes from the fall in gasoline prices, which was worth at least the same again.”

This is from Capital Economics. So the GOP has considerable intellectual 'cover' for its stand in Congress. The accusation of playing politics does not even come close as a criticism if this sort of argument is honestly the held opinion of politicians of any party – and we know some Democrats were uncomfortable pushing it through.

Craig Strachan

Conservative Cabbie: "A government's first duty is to protect it's people and military spending is part of that. Wasteful military spending however is not good."

(Indeed not, and the U.S. doesn't need an imperial-sized military to protect the homeland. )

"As a libertarian, surely you cannot support a pork laden stimulus package that empowers government and sacrifices the people to a bureaucratic behemoth."

Certainly not. But I don't find the big spending, big government Republicans (with the honorable exception of Rep. Ron Raul) at all credible as critics of the package.

Conservative Cabbie

Craig

"(Indeed not, and the U.S. doesn't need an imperial-sized military to protect the homeland. )"

I don't know, with military power houses like Mexico and Canada on the border,,, Seriously, it's a little naive to think that just sitting back waiting for an invasion is the only form of defensive strategy. America's role in WWII and the Cold War proves that. While I still support the war in Iraq, I can understand why people may have been opposed (although their implied support through inaction for the Saddam regime needs some explanation) but the Afghan war could easily be described as defensive.

Conservative Cabbie

rmh
"FDR's plan worked, cleared up the mess the gop left in the great depression......"
How exactly did it work? Unemployment stayed above 20% until WWII and Wall Street didn't recover to pre-depression levels until the 1950's. You may also want to remember that the three most prosperous periods in American history were during periods of GOP domination (mainly in the Whitehouse).
"Also - why can't the gop go left?"
Because that's the way to hell. A hellish world of socialised medicine, high taxes, stealth taxes, foreign policy appeasement, erosion of civil liberties, benefit slavery and many other horrors. A bit like today's Britain really.

ms V Pollard

Conservative Cabbie,

Your last comment about being a bit like todays Britain was way out of line!

While I type away at my keyboard, in my council provided flat while my 17 kids (all under the age of 2) run around wearing next to nothing while being able to watch "In the Night Garden" on my new 52 inch plasma, while my other half who the government doesnt know about smokes while waiting for the pub to open by playing on the PS3 his sickness benefit paid for, I cant help but feel you are completely misinformed about Britain today!