Whose bipartisanship is it anyway?
On the bipartisan nature of the stimulus (or lack thereof), we have first the New York Times‘ Richard W. Stevenson:
In cobbling together a plan that could get through both the House and the Senate, Mr. Obama prevailed, but not in the way he had hoped. His inability to win over more than a handful of Republicans amounted to a loss of innocence, a reminder that his high-minded calls for change in the practice of governance had been ground up in a matter of weeks by entrenched forces of partisanship and deep, principled differences between left and right.
And then there’s Peter Wehner of Commentary:
It’s not simply that Obama gained no Republican votes in the House for his plan, and got only three in the Senate. It is that Obama himself never made a serious play at bipartisan cooperation. What he did was allow Nancy Pelosi and liberal House Democrats to write the legislation. Republicans were shut out. And once the legislation emerged, Republicans were asked to come on board. They politely but emphatically declined. It turns out spending a few hours with the GOP caucus and hosting a Super Bowl party does not constitute authentic bipartisanship.
Note the differences in the two reports of the same events. The Times sees Obama as a well-intentioned naif, learning the hard way that his dreams of bipartisanship are doomed to be thwarted by the realities of Congress with its “entrenched” partisanship.
Wehner mentions what the Times carefully leaves out: Obama’s “inability to win over more than a handful of Republicans” and the death of his “high-minded calls for change in the practice of government” (both phrases from the Times article) were engineered by none other than—Barack Obama. So far, his bipartisanship exists only as a campaign slogan.
When Obama was a Senator, he talked “bipartisanship” but was in fact more partisan than most. He is playing to form.
Not to mention Obama’s vicious, deceitful frame that those Republicans who supported the bill were patriotic, and those who opposed it wanted to do nothing and were enabling an inevitable catastrophe.
I underestimated how dangerous Obama was going to be.
Oh, this is such CRAP. Obama’s bullsh*t, I mean.
It kills me that the media are such tools for him. There is no Fourth Estate any more.
Hussein blatantly shuts the Republicans out of the process (as I understand it, the Gang of Pelosi literally locked them out of the House process), and his lackeys in the press servilely report it as a disappointing failure of the Republicans to “cooperate.”
It’s not “playing together” when you insist on keeping ALL the toys. And locking your playmates out of the rec room. And then whining to your dimwit mother, “Mommy, he didn’t want to play with me!” She indulgently pats you on the head, tells you what a good boy you are, and makes your unfortunate brother go sit in the corner as punishment. You shoot your brother a triumphant smirk over her shoulder.
Got one over, again.
Here in LaLa Land, East (Gotham), the idiot City Council Speaker gave a speech about how they’re going to raise taxes to fix the recession. On the well-to-do. Who, if they’re smart, will leave the city. Which, before long, will look like effin’ Detroit, if the Dims have their way.
Meanwhile, in Albany, our clueless idiot governor is proposing raising taxes to fix the recession. On businesses and the well-to-do. Who, if they’re smart, will (keep leaving) the state.
Neither one has proposed ANY reduction, actual reduction, in SPENDING. The Dimwits’ idea of a “reduction” is a smaller increase. And they scream like scalded cats over even doing That.
Talk about GREED.
The forth branch of government is now the fifth column.
I hope everybody understands that sentence. 🙂
Barack obviously played several sides of many issues on the campaign trail.
Barack’s campaign rhetoric about “bringing us together”, closely parsed, was not about bipartisanship and middle ground so much as it was about building a powerfully large coalition which would constitute an irresistible force for advancing liberal doctrine. Barack wanted to “bring us together” by inspiring us to join up as part of one big steamrolling machine of liberal doctrine. Barack did not, as a major theme, advance bringing us together in a middle ground.
So, if Peter Wehner says Barack never made effort towards a middle ground, I reply that Barack’s campaign rhetoric, closely studied, was largely not about a middle ground. “We must come together as one” was always about the big steamrolling liberal machine.
Barack couldn’t make his desires completely plain and obvious to those he perceives as rubes, so he engaged in a kind of doublespeak in his speeches. As a children’s cartoon entertains children at one level and adults at another level, so Barack’s speeches spoke to the rubes at one level and to the enlightened true believers at another level. This had the added benefit of allowing media to cover for him, and to wax eloquent about bipartisanship, even as the enlightened true believers clearly understood the liberal steamroller Barack was referencing.
@Baklava a fifth column does need to enthusiastically go forth!
Pingback:Bent Notes » Blog Archive » Two takes on the same situation
Gregg withdrew his nomination to Commerce about half an hour ago. Wonder how the Dems will spin that.
Obama included in the bill, from the outset, tax cuts that most in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party felt were a mistake — they wanted a bill much more heavily oriented towards spending, not tax cuts, even for the poor and middle class. He also cut funding for family planning after some Republicans objected, and he supported cuts for a variety of programs Republicans criticized (for example, refurbishing the Washington Mall, etc.)
But it is not up to Obama to write legislation in Congress. Congress is a separate branch of government. They have their own legislative process. The bill that came out of the House was fashioned according to the processes in the House, which is heavily Democratic controlled, so obviously they added in stuff Obama didn’t ask for. What he did was, when it went to the Senate, he signalled that the Administraton would be okay with cutting some things Republicans objected to. But the initial bill itself already incorporated ideas from the Republican Party.
What didn’t get into the bill was shifting it to a strategy involving all or mostly tax cuts alone. To complain that Obama didn’t change the bill so radically as to rely only on tax cuts is hardly reasonable — Obama did win the election, and the Democrats are the majority in Congress, so they obviously have the right to fashion the broad outlines of the bill. But to say that Obama didn’t reach out to Republicans at all is clearly false.
Mitsu — I repeat:
Not to mention Obama’s vicious, deceitful frame that those Republicans who supported the bill were patriotic, and those who opposed it wanted to do nothing and were enabling an inevitable catastrophe.
And to suppose that Obama had no say over what Reid and Pelosi wrought is also ridiculous.
I agree with the writer about the “deep, principled differences,” not so much about the “loss of innocence.” And I agree with Neo about the writer’s presentation of Obama as a sweet naif. If he weren’t naive, after all, he would have known going in that “deep, principled differences” would militate against sweeping bipartisanship on an issue that would highlight those differences.
I just have a very hard time believing that Obama is that naive. Is this the New Bush Era – where instead of the President’s being both stupid and malevolently clever, he’s both stupid and “high-minded”?
The Republicans in Congress have apparently, with just those few exceptions, actually acted in a principled fashion. Hurrah. A little late, but at least they finally showed up.
A
I’m so ANGRY I don’t know what to do. It is dreadful being powerless in the face of a steamroller. I imagine republican reps feel much the same. yeah, they’re no angels, but this, THIS is unconsciousnable.
Our country is like a blinded creature. How can we KNOW anything when our organs of information shut things out completely and give others a different cast. Will it take seeing soup lines in YOUR town for you to realize the stimulus didn’t work?
Gah.
P.
Neo, you sound a little like Newsbusters.org in the way they write about the media presentation of various things.
It’s getting pretty bad, isn’t it? But the dems expect it to eventually blow over, like everything else. Let’s hope it does not not.
A young mother I see blogging about the net made an interesting statement, which I won’t even attempt to paraphrase – How long before we can expect our children to rise up and refuse to pay this debt?
Many across the blogosphere have stated how despicable this bailout is, abominable, concerning the young and not yet born. I had not considered the possibility of them standing in full revolt some day, refusing to pay this foolish monstrosity off. Actually, I’m hoping we will, so they won’t have to.
The idea of a Chicago Democrat as a naif gave me the only (small) smile of a very bad day. Thank you, Neo.
Over at RedState they’re saying no one, Democrat or Republican, can read the graft bill because the lobbyists have the only copy/ies. Until three weeks ago I’d have dismissed it as someone’s partisan attempt to color the discussion. Now it seems that any outrage is possible. I weep for my country.
Excuse me, the story of the lobbyists having the only copy/ies of the graft bill is sourced to US News.
Mitsu: Obama included in the bill, from the outset, tax cuts that most in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party felt were a mistake –
Me: Because they don’t know economics 101.
Mitsu: they wanted a bill much more heavily oriented towards spending, not tax cuts, even for the poor and middle class.
Me: Dependency vs. good for America policy
Mitsu: He also cut funding for family planning after some Republicans objected, and he supported cuts for a variety of programs Republicans criticized (for example, refurbishing the Washington Mall, etc.)
Me: Cite a reference that proves he did any of that…
Mitsu: But it is not up to Obama to write legislation in Congress. Congress is a separate branch of government. They have their own legislative process.
Me: Duh. But will u say this for 4 years or will u acknowledge that executives/presidents PROPOSE. Obama hasn’t run a hot dog stand though and smeared the executive of Alaska with lies.
Mitsu: The bill that came out of the House was fashioned according to the processes in the House, which is heavily Democratic controlled, so obviously they added in stuff Obama didn’t ask for. [[what did Obama ask for??]] What he did was, when it went to the Senate, he signalled that the Administraton would be okay with cutting some things Republicans objected to. But the initial bill itself already incorporated ideas from the Republican Party.
Me: Nope. Fiction.
Mitsu: What didn’t get into the bill was shifting it to a strategy involving all or mostly tax cuts alone.
Me: Even Rush proposed a 50/50 compromise. Do you love strawmen?
Mitsu: To complain that Obama didn’t change the bill so radically as to rely only on tax cuts is hardly reasonable – Obama did win the election, and the Democrats are the majority in Congress, so they obviously have the right to fashion the broad outlines of the bill. But to say that Obama didn’t reach out to Republicans at all is clearly false.
Me: Dems do not understand economics 101. We have the right to speak and propose what we think is best for America. Republicans won more than 40 seats in the Senate. The public will turn against u with that ATTITUDE. 🙂
Portia, like you I am apprehensive about where all this must lead.
I have hopes that this fever will burn itself out before too much damage is done. After all, the fumbling and overreaching are becoming visible to everyone. Senator Gregg cited irreconcilable differences of White House attempts to manage the Census as one reason to decline his nomination as Commerce Secretary.
Mitsu, don’t be dense. The question is not whether there were any bipartisan gestures. The question is whether the gestures made were more than cosmetic and whether they were acceptable under the circumstances. People can and will disagree about the answer, but that is the question.
3.27 trillion plan
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/12/true-cost-of-stimulus-327-trillion/
spending is the problem
I am really getting tired of the lies.Pelosi was just a-grinning about the bi-partisan agreement and did Gregg really ask for the Commerce job? He says ,”no”.But Gibbs said that he did.
These are easy lies to refute.
You are all so mean. Obama very graciously offered to let everyone in Congress vote for his program and they SNUBBED him.
Rush 50/50
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/12/kondracke-hey-guess-who-was-the-real-bipartisan/
Dependency
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/12/video-michelle-salutes-the-entitlement-cult-of-o/
rafinlay,
I very graciously offer to teach Obama economics 101 so that ALL of America can benefit. 🙂
Mitsu, don’t be dense.
Mitsu isn’t dense. Like his fellow Harvard alumnus, Obama, Mitsu is a smart guy, and also like Obama he is clever, but no, he is not honest.
Neither of them are honest. But dishonesty works and that is all either of them care about.
Love this article about Maine’s Senator Olympia Snowe
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123440436240475615.html
Principles?
Loyalties?
What?
A poster on the Belmont Club left this:
My liberal friends see America as the major malefactor in world history. The most liberal among them displayed their enlightenment after 9/11 by asking “What did we do to make them so mad at us?”
As much as they loathe America, the apparently see America as invulnerable. We’re not only the source of all evil, but if only we stopped being so evil, all of our enemies would suddenly love us, because all of our enemies are so much better than us, you see.
And of course, if our enemies, do hate us, it’s because we have given them such good reason. In Iran, for example, we overthrew their government in 1953, so it’s only right and just that they hate us today. It goes on forever like this.
Here is where the web might save us. Unlike in FDR’s day, when the NYT and FDR’s Brain Trust could paint the USSR as a workingman’s paradise, and the common American would have no way of knowing the truth, in today’s world, the truth seeps out through a billion porous screens.
Here’s hoping he’s right….
What you said.
>dishonest
This is really a ridiculous slur, huxley, and totally uncalled for.
>Mitsu: He also cut funding for family planning after some
>Republicans objected, and he supported cuts for a variety of
>programs Republicans criticized (for example, refurbishing
>the Washington Mall, etc.)
>Me: Cite a reference that proves he did any of that…
Lord, do you read the news at all?
http://pantagraph.com/articles/2009/01/28/news/doc497f3426b7148668830890.txt
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/28/obama-im-confident-stimul_n_161654.html
He asked the House to cut family planning services from the bill, and also asked them to insert some business tax cuts favored by Republicans. He later said that some cuts the Senate made were acceptable to him. This has been all over the news for days.
>Economics 101
Indeed, many of you really should study Economics 101. As I said before, deficit spending during a recession makes perfect sense, it’s massive deficit spending during flush times that makes no sense (yet that’s what you Republicans have done over the last eight years).
If anything, the stimulus bill is too small, not too large — as Paul Krugman points out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/opinion/13krugman.html
“We’re probably facing the worst slump since the Great Depression. The Congressional Budget Office, not usually given to hyperbole, predicts that over the next three years there will be a $2.9 trillion gap between what the economy could produce and what it will actually produce. And $800 billion, while it sounds like a lot of money, isn’t nearly enough to bridge that chasm.”
You guys really do live in a bubble if you don’t think Obama has reached out to the other side on this much-needed and even probably too small stimulus bill.
Obama is quickly beginning to look like no more than the average individual commenter in somebody’s blog anywhere on the net. And about as powerful. He may as well be voting “present”. But he’s a “hottie” and he brings the female voting block hope.
Pelosi and Reid are no more than competing megalomaniacs. One of them will will rise, or explode.
All my “hope” lies in 2010.
Mitsu is correct to say that deficit spending to increase aggregate demand is a conventional Keynesian prescription to mitigate the effects of recession.
The issue at hand is whether the actual spending included in the “stimulus bill” will do any stimulating and if so, will it do so in the near term or only in the out years. There are plenty of reasonable and well-informed people who have doubts about whether subsidies for “community organizing” or increasing health care spending are really well targeted. The handouts to the states will mainly act to save STATE government jobs, for example in California. We could think of this as federalizing a portion of the state deficits. A lot of the construction work cannot begin sooner than 2010 in most cases and 2011 in others.
Now to the politics. “Family planning” was dropped because it had become a political liability for the Democrats.
Now to information sources. People who cite HuffPo as an information source shouldn’t accuse other people of living in a bubble.
Mitsu, I believe huxley was refering to intellectual honesty, a type of courage, rather than deceitfulness. Your defenses of Barack on this matter are not so much founded on any obvious untruth as they are refusing to see the obvious. Obama went to the mat identifying himself with this bill, so how it was crafted was irrelevant, even if he didn’t have a single finger in it (and of course, no one doubts that he was involved in its creation anyway). To fall back to the observation, however true, that it is the legislative branch that is officially responsible for its creation is evasive. Obama didn’t have to have parented this bill – he married it.
As to bipartisan overtures, I don’t doubt that Obama made what he thought were generous, respectful offers to his political opponents, and that many partisan Democrats agree with him. The trouble is that perception. The offers were cosmetic, plus a few targetted to specific Republicans who might be swayed, not the party as a whole. Similarly to my observation above, I would not accuse you of lying about that, but of a different type of dishonesty: a refusal to see uncomfortable realities. It is admittedly hard to see outside one’s tribe, and you are far from the worst example I have encountered. But you have been repeatedly challenged to consider the base claims of the more conservative as put forth by the better exponents of the cause, and I have yet to see you attempt that.
I readily admit you may have done so at a place that I missed.
Just a small observation here. I’ve known mitsu online for decades and, regardless of anything else, I have always found him to be honest.
Parsing honesty to mean “intellectual honesty” doesn’t erase the slur.
All of which is not to say that mitsu is not a bull-goose looney who is best confined to an institution for his own safety since his hobby is lighting his hair on fire and running around the room with a glass full of tequila screaming “I GOT THE FEAR!”
Mitsu: As I said before, deficit spending during a recession makes perfect sense, it’s massive deficit spending during flush times that makes no sense (yet that’s what you Republicans have done over the last eight years).
Me: Congress spent too much and you want to play identity politics. Conservatives railed against Congress for 8 years (2 of which were Democrat led and most of the 6 were barely called a Republican majority. It was RUN BY LEFTISTS Mitsu. Leftists are the problem. They spent too much during good economic times.
Me again: Defecit spending during a recession is fine. What percentage of this bill doles out benefits to people (DEPENDENCY) vs. creates jobs building infrastructure? And in the year 2009?
Do you want the private sector to grow Mitsu?
Doesn’t seem like it and this is why we KNOW you don’t understand economics
Mitsu says: “You guys really do live in a bubble if you don’t think Obama has reached out to the other side on this much-needed and even probably too small stimulus bill.”
Gateway Pundit on what the CBO really said:
“Sunday, February 08, 2009
CBO Predicts Recession Will End in 2009 Without Stimulus
The Congressional Budget Office predicted that the current economic recession will end in the second half of 2009 without the trillion dollar stimulus.
From The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019 (pdf):
CBO anticipates that the current recession, which started in December 2007, will last until the second half of 2009, making it the longest recession since World War II. (The longest such recessions otherwise, the 1973—1974 and 1981—1982 recessions, both lasted 16 months. If the current recession were to continue beyond midyear, it would last at least 19 months.) It could also be the deepest recession during the postwar period: By CBO’s estimates, economic output over the next two years will average 6.8 percent below its potential–that is, the level of output that would be produced if the economy’s resources were fully employed (see Figure 1). This ecession, however, may not result in the highest unemployment rate. That rate, in CBO’s forecast, rises to 9.2 percent by early 2010 (up from a low of 4.4 percent at the end of 2006) but is still below the 10.8 percent rate seen near the end of the 1981—1982 recession.
The Congressional Budget Office even says the Obama Stimulus will actually hurt, not help, the economy.”
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/cbo-predicts-recession-will-end-in-2009.html
No, Mitsu, it is you who live in a bubble, a classical left-wing bubble. For example, we all know that five years after Roosevelt took over from Hoover things were worse than ever…
On the topic of Econ 101, I’ll look any day to Thomas Sowell, not Paul Krugman, and almost anybody at Town Hall rather than the drivel from HuffPo. This “stimulus” is just part of the demagogue Democrats insidious redistribution scam, just like Rhambo said: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”
Mitsu, please review Econ 101:
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Obama vs. Economics 101
by Armstrong Williams
http://townhall.com/columnists/ArmstrongWilliams/2008/10/14/obama_vs_economics_101
mitsu’s a Leftist Harvard man defending other Leftist Harvard men. God rot Harvard men, who have done much to bring this nation into the hazzard. Their view of the world is quite alien to us. And they look down on us, since Leftist Harvard men consider us their inferiors.
Mitsu,
If some of us studied economics 101 would we agree with your views that seem to mirror Krugman and Keynes? There are just as many economists who do not agree with those particular theories. Since so many parallels seem to be being drawn between now and the “Great Depression” and Obama and Roosevelt possibly the most relevant thing I can think of is Henry J. Morgenthau, Jr. ‘s observation seven years into the New deal spending (and paraphrasing here) “We’ve spent all this money – more than ever before – and it hasn’t worked”
Why does anyone think it will work this time.
To me all the bailouts and stimuli are just enabling the addicts.
It’s interesting to me that President Obama, sensing a lack of support for his stimulus plan (and yes, he refers to it as his), has essentially hit the campaign trail.
This doesn’t surprise me; campaigning for public office is, in a real sense, what he does best, and what he’s spent most of his professional career doing.
It does make me wonder, though: will he learn to lead, instead of campaigning? And if he doesn’t, how long will it take the American people to tire of a President who campaigns for the job instead of doing the job?
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
“… will he learn to lead, instead of campaigning?”
Not true at all, he’s doing a great job of leading right out of the gate, but it’s the lemmings over the cliff, from “redistribution” to “engaging” (aiding and abetting) the enemy (ie. Syria) with hollow diplomacy, while getting set up to betray Israel, he is indeed no less than the Manchurian Candidate, a muslim communist posing as a Christian Democrat; With his comrades in the now way too far left-wing Dem Party, they are about to foist a massive transition of our government and culture into an imitation of european socialism, bordering on a communist state…
And that’s no exaggeration… I’m out of here for the rest of the day friends…
>All of which is not to say that mitsu is not a bull-goose
>looney who is best confined to an institution for his own
>safety since his hobby is lighting his hair on fire and running
>around the room with a glass full of tequila screaming “I
>GOT THE FEAR!”
Well, at least you admit I’m not dishonest, Gerard. 🙂
>Congressional Budget Office
Well, let’s just say I think the CBO is wrong, if that’s what they are saying. The problem with economics, of course, is that you can always find economists on every side of nearly every question. However, let’s just say I put more faith in the predictions of economists who foresaw the current debacle than those who did not; Nouriel Roubini, for example. He predicted this disaster. In his view, a massive stimulus package is needed. I believe he is correct, you can feel free to disagree.
>it is you who live in a bubble
The topic is whether or not Obama attempted to reach out to the other side. Of course there’s room for debate on the stimulus package itself, but at least one of you claimed he didn’t try to modify the package *at all* in response to Republican criticisms; I am saying he clearly did. It’s reasonable to object that you don’t think the modifications were significant enough, but it’s not reasonable to say he made no effort whatsoever. I certainly agree he didn’t change the package from 65/35 spending/tax cuts to 40/60 spending/tax cuts as one of the Republican plans suggested, but I don’t agree that he didn’t make a sincere effort; efforts which have been heavily criticized by liberal Democrats. He has been lambasted for including so many tax cuts:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/08/democrats-criticize-obama_n_156466.html
He has been criticized for cutting the family planning provision:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/01/27/stimulus-finalized-without-medicaid-family-planning-expansion
He’s been attacked for the plan being too small (Krugman link, above, plus:)
http://www.kcci.com/money/18602222/detail.html
Now, as to whether the package is stimulative: Some Republicans have criticized the plan for having too many long-term investments and not enough short-term boosts like infrastructure spending. However, one of the lessons to be learned from the Japanese “lost decade” is that ignoring a fiscal crisis for too long can lead to long-term stagnation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/business/economy/13yen.html?ref=business
which suggests that the Obama administration is, in fact, not doing enough, not that they’re doing too much.
Simply spending money on infrastructure is also a poor way to spend money — yes, some infrastructure spending is fine, but if you don’t also shore up long-term competitiveness, you’re going to end up with a lot more waste. Japan also dumped billions into infrastructure and the net result was … lots of bridges to nowhere and roads to nowhere. Yes, it helped prevent Japan from sliding into a massive economic black hole, but it didn’t create a basis for an economic resurgence.
The US has had a trade deficit for decades; we have lost competitiveness in every area except high tech. If we’re going to regain our position as the leader of the free world economically, we shouldn’t just dump money into roads and bridges — we should also try to tamp down the cost of health care, build schools, build mass transit, etc. All of these efforts also dump money into the economy and are thus stimulative, but they also help rebuild our competitiveness.
I’m not saying the stimulus plan is perfect but I think many of the criticisms are off base.
The Executive Branch is certainly distinct from the Legislative Branch, but …
Obama is the head of government, the head of state, and the head of the Democratic Party, which controls both Houses of Congress. Would it be too much to ask a little…uh…leadership of him?
If not, what the hell use is he? Is he just there to sign whatever Congress puts in front of him? Who calls the shots – Obama or Reid/Pelosi?
>dishonest
This is really a ridiculous slur, huxley, and totally uncalled for.
Mitsu — It’s stronger tea than I usually serve, but I say it out of respect for your intelligence.
To waltz in and
* slur those of us here as having “perceptual filters” because we see the mistakes and missteps Obama is making,
* assert that Obama is doing extremely well and is joy to watch,
* assert that “Of course, it’s hard to do much worse than the last 8 years” slurring Bush and those of us who supported him
* that Obama had no say in the stimulus bill because “it is not up to Obama to write legislation in Congress”
etc.
These are all silly overreaches or slurs. Since I believe you understand what you are saying, I assume you are being intellectually dishonest.
If you pull back on your rhetoric, I’ll do so with mine.
I think it’s legitimate to make that case that Obama is not doing as poorly as some on the center-right and right say.
But after losing four, now five cabinet appointments, launching the most immense spending bill in history and getting only three Republican votes in the two house while championing bipartisanship during his campaign and inauguaration, backpedaling and rationalizing much of his shredding the Constitution rhetoric, and so forth, I don’t see how Obama’s start can be said to be particularly good.
I have my bias to be sure, but objectively speaking I would argue that we haven’t seen a president fumble and stumble this much in the first three weeks in the past fifty years or more.
If the stimulus bill, Obama’s signature legislation for the forseeable future, gets about 40% support and Obama, himself, gets 60% support – does that mean 20% of the country plus Andrew Sullivan wants to bed The One?
Wait a minute…
If anything, the stimulus bill is too small, not too large – as Paul Krugman points out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/opinion/13krugman.html
“We’re probably facing the worst slump since the Great Depression. The Congressional Budget Office, not usually given to hyperbole, predicts that over the next three years there will be a $2.9 trillion gap between what the economy could produce and what it will actually produce. And $800 billion, while it sounds like a lot of money, isn’t nearly enough to bridge that chasm.”
So you give us a link which quotes the CBO, whose conclusion you agree with. Then when it’s noted the CBO states the stimulus may actually hurt the economy, we get:
>Congressional Budget Office
Well, let’s just say I think the CBO is wrong, if that’s what they are saying.
So, guess we need some clarification, Mitsu. Do you think the CBO is claiming we’re not spending enough and spending too much at the same time? Or, as usual, are you simply talking out of both sides of your mouth, the right side not knowing what the left side is saying?