I started posting on HowieinSeattle in 11/04, following progressive American politics in the spirit of Howard Dean's effort to "Take Our Country Back." I decided to follow my heart and posted on seattleforbarackobama from 2/07 to 11/08.--"Howie Martin is the Abe Linkin' of progressive Seattle."--Michael Hood.
Showing posts with label bi-partisanship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bi-partisanship. Show all posts
Retiring Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) said he plans to help push a package of small-business incentives through the Senate next week, a move that would give President Obama and congressional Democrats a key victory on the economy in the final weeks before the November midterm elections.
In an interview, Voinovich said he could no longer support Republican efforts to delay the measure in hopes of winning the right to offer additional amendments. Most of the proposed GOP amendments "didn't have anything to do with the bill" anyway, Voinovich said, and amounted merely to partisan "messaging."
"We don't have time for messaging," Voinovich said. "We don't have time anymore. This country is really hurting." MORE...
Glenn Greenwald goes to great lengths this morning to demonstrate that the American people do not crave bipartisanship. He points out that a recent New York Times poll (.pdf) indicates that the people want (by a 56%-39% margin) Obama to stick to his campaign promises rather than diluting them with Republican ideas and that they would prefer it (by a 79%-17% margin) if the Republicans would drop their priorities and work with the president on his agenda.
In other words, the people want the Republicans to act in a bipartisan manner but don't want Obama to do so if it is going to water down the Change he promised.
So far, so good. Greenwald makes an important point and fairly criticizes the national press for failing to understand and report on the mood of the country. He also takes fair shots at Democrats that sometimes behave as if they don't understand the mood of the country either. But, what bothers me is the stridency with which Greenwald attacks the concept of bipartisanship, as if the Democrats are engaging in it in some self-destructive and self-defeating way. As far as I can tell, the only evidence for this is based in the theory that the stimulus package was watered down far beyond what was necessary to gain 60 votes in the Senate. And, even if we take this theory to be true (which I don't), it ignores the possibility of any tangential or delayed benefits from setting a tone of cooperation and respect in the context of a call for unity and setting petty bickering aside.
Obama's poll ratings remain stratospheric and it should be acknowledged that one likely reason for that is that people like his tone, temperament, and style. His 'bipartisanship' is all part of that brand. And one thing we should also acknowledge is that Obama will have an easier time getting 60 votes in the Senate if he retains his popularity. The less popularity he has, the more concessions he will have to make. At the same time, we make a mistake if we use the Republicans' near-unanimous opposition to the Economic Recovery Act as the baseline for future bills. Future bills will be worked through committees that Republicans serve on, and there will be ample opportunities to peel off votes in return for input. Treating the Republicans with a certain level of respect, even if unwarranted, allows them take down their defensive shield, if they are so inclined. And it also prevents them from finding easy rallying points around which to unify and do effective message opposition.
The fear that the Democrats will needlessly water down legislation is way overblown and ignores that a concession today can obviate the need for a concession tomorrow. I understand why after years in the minority many Democrats instinctively flinch at the idea of bipartisanship (capitulation), but we really need to get over it now that we're in the majority.
President Obama has settled on Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, a key ally with a record of working across party lines, as his top choice for secretary of health and human services, advisers said Wednesday.
Should she be nominated, Ms. Sebelius would bring eight years of experience as her state’s insurance commissioner as well as six years as a governor running a state Medicaid program. But with Mr. Obama about to begin a drive to expand health coverage — an issue on which the parties have deep ideological divisions — her strongest asset in the White House view may be her record of navigating partisan politics as a Democrat in one of the country’s most Republican states.
Ms. Sebelius resolved a state budget crisis on Tuesday and plans to be in Washington from Saturday through Tuesday for a meeting of the National Governors’ Association. Asked about the cabinet job, her spokeswoman, Beth Martino, said the governor “is focused on the economic challenges currently facing Kansas, including our state budget and the impacts of the federal stimulus package.”
Mr. Obama’s first pick for the job, former Senator Tom Daschle, withdrew over his failure to pay $128,000 in taxes until nominated, provoking a storm of criticism and a presidential mea culpa.
With his economic recovery plan signed into law, Mr. Obama plans to turn his attention more to health care next week with a budget blueprint that will begin to advance his ideas about covering the uninsured, advisers said. He may also make health care an important theme of his prime-time address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, they said.
It remained unclear whether the White House would finish vetting Ms. Sebelius in time to finalize her nomination by next week. Advisers described her as “the leading candidate” and said there were no others to mention, although they emphasized no final decision has been made. After the troubles with Mr. Daschle and other recent nominees, the White House has intensified its vetting to make sure it thoroughly scrubs its choices before Mr. Obama gives the final signoff.
Ms. Sebelius’s family and her administration have both been notably bipartisan. Her father was a Democratic governor of Ohio and her father-in-law was a longtime Republican member of Congress in Kansas. She won her first term with a Republican businessman as her running mate and a second term with a former Republican state party chairman on her ticket.
She became an early supporter of Mr. Obama’s by endorsing him in January 2007 and was mentioned as a possible vice presidential nominee. After the election, her name was floated for a variety of possible jobs, including secretary of labor, agriculture or education.
MSNBC, video (08:08). Howie P.S.: Rick Hertzberg of The New Yorker makes some excellent points, and is mostly right. When he compares Obama to Gandhi I have to quibble, given Obama's Rahmbo-hardball "bring a gun" to the fight (if necessary) posture.
Less than a month into his presidency, Barack Obama has found that no one is really buying bipartisanship. His base hates it, as the blogs will tell you. His allies in Congress resent it, as Sen. Schumer signaled on Sunday morning. And while media outlets still prioritize a bipartisan process over actual policy substance, like this weird Washington Post editorial, even centrist pundits are souring on Obama's bipartisan bouquets. Time's Joe Klein, a fan of bipartisanship, has concluded that bipartisanship is currently impossible because there are no good faith partners in Washington:
Obama should now understand that the Republicans are not reliable partners--at least, not for the moment. Most are stuck in the contentious past, rutted in Reaganism, intent on taking a Hooverist course on the economy... The President's default position, after the stimulus fight and the Gregg fiasco, should be to appoint Democrats to significant domestic policy positions...
I don't happen to think Sen. Gregg's indecision qualifies as a fiasco, but it does add a personal flavor to the Republicans' political posture. Here's the bottom line: They're just not that into Obama.
Yes, the President can keep calling them and saying all the right things. He can woo them and invite them over, like that hyped White House "bipartisan super bowl party." He can go to their home, like his trek to Maryland for two and a half hours of lamb chops and neocons. He can even add their ideas to his legislation and their nominees to his cabinet, as The Nation's Ari Berman recounts.
If Obama is taking all those actions based on their own intrinsic value -- for healthy debate and a wide circle of advisers -- then fine. The notion that this bipartisan process will yield more GOP support, however, has been officially shredded. If it doesn't work now, with Obama's recent election mandate, booming approval ratings and a public eager for government action to address the economic crisis, it's not going to work. And anyone who thinks the G.O.P. will get more cooperative is placing a bet on politicians growing less political as the next elections draw closer.
Team Obama is already recalibrating, naturally. Rahm Emanuel recently noted that an "insatiable appetite" for bipartisanship made Obama's team "get ahead" of itself. The President, for his part, clarified that bipartisan outreach does not make him a "sap." And throughout his career, Obama has pivoted deftly from the soft touch to knockout blows. He explained this approach during a campaign interview back in 2007, in a clip which the blogger Jed Lewison recently flagged:
I don't like people trying to take advantage of that [outreach]. This is why actually if you watch my political interactions. I am always best as a counter-puncher. You know, somebody comes at me I will knock them out. If not, I will try to understand their point of view and that actually serves me well. I give people the benefit of the doubt; I try to understand their point of view -- if I perceive that they try to take advantage of that then I will crush them.
It's about that time, obviously.
Howie P.S.: To put it another way, Obama has said
"In Chicago if they come at you with a knife, we bring a gun."
That does not sound like Ghandhi to me. I keep reminding people that Obama's bi-partisanship has not been a total failure. It has been downsized to three Republican senators who gave him a filibuster-proof majority. No small feat.
For all the teeth-gnashing and whining of the past couple weeks about this bill, the process worked to create all those expenditures where none of them existed beforehand.
Were there versions of the bill that spent more on education and other vital needs? Yes. But there were also versions of the bill aimed at rescuing the failed nuclear industry, the coal industry, and other boondoggles that didn't make it into the final version.
All in all, I find it astounding that some still point the finger at the President's "bipartisan" tone as somehow having been a bad thing. To the contrary, it was key to bring along the few Republican votes necessary in the Senate to go for this massive public works program.
Howie P.S.: I have no idea what Al had in mind with the graphic he placed atop this post, do you?
Washington Post editorial page offers up an excellent example of the highly ideological nature of Beltway pragmatism and centrism:
The gang of 20 or so moderate Democrats and Republicans, led by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), heeded the president’s call for bipartisanship and hunkered down to produce the bill announced Friday night. Though the details of the package still need to be examined, the senators’ effort was an admirable one — one that aimed at providing the quick and large injection of funds into the economy experts say is necessary, while modifying or removing parts of the bill that were too long-range or complex for an emergency bill, or which blatantly served special interests.
As we see here, the cart of bipartisanship is straightforwardly put ahead of the horse of policy merits. They say the details of the package need to be examined, but don’t actually examine them before deciding that the effort deserves praise. But there’s no indication that the Collins-Nelson modifications actually do these things. Elements of the package such as special tax breaks for homebuyers or new car purchases that are ineffective stimulus but likely to benefit the prosperous and special interests were left in, while highly effective stimulative measures like fiscal aid to state governments and an expanded child tax credit were taken out.
When it comes to Nate Silver's analysis of the numbers of politics, if the gods ever made a more astute human they must have done it in an age when that person had far less data available at his fingertips. I'm usually reduced to saying "me too" when Silver speaks, but today I think he's offered a counsel that is more human than it is divinely providenced.
Nate finds "lessons for Obama" in "declining approval ratings" and notes: "Whereas Obama had been averaging approval ratings of about 70 percent in the immediate aftermath of his inauguration, his approval ratings have since declined by approximately 6 points, with his disapproval scores increasing by about the same margin."
Kos, citing the Research 2000 tracking poll he commissions, notes that "everybody lost" some popularity this week, and not just the President: the House, the Senate, their Democrats, their Republicans, and the leaders of both chambers became less popular, too.
Obama lost a little bit more because, in my view, last week's 75 percent favorable to 22 percent negative rating was artificially high. (Even now at 69 to 26, the President enjoys a staggering level of popularity at +43 percent, but I think we have to be realistic and expect it will not remain as high as time goes on, and should not freak out or try to find too much evidence when it does other than the simple fact that "governing is ugly.")
DKos front-pager DemFromCT has the more plausible analysis. "you could argue there's no drop at all, just the end of an inaugural bounce."
There it is. The inaugural bounce was to be expected. Just as Silver, last August, forecasted that presidential candidate John McCain would get an bounce in poll numbers from the Republican National Convention - 538 even tracked convention bounces from prior years to predict how high it could go and how many days it would likely last, an analysis that proved prescient - unless and until Nate or somebody can offer up a differing analysis of past "inaugural bounces" for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, I don't think much of anything can be read into this week's slight descent in Obama's faves-to-negs.
Also helpful would be to track the weeks and months of presidential popularity after previous inaugurations in the age of polling - perhaps laying them over each other on a chart graph to get a reasonable sense of where Obama's fave-to-neg ratings will likely go (as they will certainly narrow over time) - so that observers can have reasonable expectations and won't "over analyze" the natural forces of gravity on public opinion by assigning the blame self-servingly to specific events.
Otherwise, we're in for a spring season of chirping by the "Obama must do what I say" commentators repeating, like scratched LPs on a turntable, that his popularity came down to earth because he didn't do what they recommended. Those "I told you so" prounouncements will come identically from the National Review, Rush Limbaugh and right-wing commentators as it will from the panic room nostalgists in the Netroots: It will be like a Mad Libs quiz where each will fill in different nouns but will use the same verbs, i.e.: "Obama's favorability fell because he did _________________ and because he did not do ____________________." In many cases the blanks filled in will make exact opposite points. Reality-based observers will know that neither will be correct.
Nate offers three points of analysis, the first two that I generally concur with: that Congressional Republicans are desperate with "nothing to lose" and therefore should be dealt with much like an animal control team would handle a rabid raccoon (thick gloves and long sticks!), and also that Obama shouldn't leave the heavy lifting to unpopular Congressional Democrats.
I don't concur with his third point, though: that "bipartisanship" somehow hasn't worked for Obama and his agenda.
I'm not sure that Silver fully believes his third counsel because he then sharpens the pencil and finds a different point: "the public seems to be seeking strong leadership from Obama; they don't want him to be deferential to either Congressional Democrats or Congressional Republicans." I agree with that, but point out that it has nothing to do with partisanship vs. bipartisanship. More to the pencil point, it recommends a bipartisan "tough love" strategy to deal with both parties in Congress. And that requires bipartisan carrots as well as bipartisan sticks.
The tough love strategy won't solve anything for those nostalgic for the political dysfunctions of the last 16 years, or who seek symbolic justice in Obama doing to Republicans what Bush did to Democrats (ignoring that what Bush did to Democrats was to inadvertently position them for the 2006 and 2008 electoral turnabouts in which they took back all three houses: House, Senate and White, and a shot at a possible generation of dominance).
Bipartisanship isn't just unicorns and kisses. It can be flowers, yes... but it can also be whips and chains: the point is to apply the dominatrix tools in measured parity to Congressional Republicans and to Congressional Democrats. If so, the beatings would still be doled out on a bipartisan basis.
I think when many people argue against "bipartisanship" what they're really saying is they want more blood on the floor. Well, they're going to get that, but they may see it likewise apply to Democrats at the US Capitol, whose dysfunctions and power trips are legion and, if the ship of State were left only in their hands, they'd make a big ol' mess of things, too.
Had Obama come out swinging at Republicans - as some have recommended - from Day One, his favorable-to-negative numbers would have still sagged at least as much, likely more so, as the inaugural bounce subsided. There would have been a greater chance that he would not have been able to bring three Republican senators - Specter, Snowe and Collins - along on the Stimulus, which is absolutely necessary to make the sixty vote cloture threshold.
More consequentially for the long run, he would have lost the moral authority to do what the next few days will bring: the jump-start of Organizing for America (300 of 3,200 house meetings nationwide begin today), a Monday trip to "fire up" the crowds in Indiana, a Tuesday visit to make public opinion "ready to go" in Florida (and a national media narrative set through both events), all leading up to Tuesday's Senate vote on the Stimulus Bill and the subsequent House-Senate conference committee machinations. What the Obama camp knows - it proved this time and time again in 2008 - is that to exercise maximum force at the moment of decision means taking care to not peak too soon.
So if you attend a house meeting today or in the days to come, please do report back here, in the comments section of The Field, and share with us what you saw, heard and learned. Organizing for America is apparently confident in the attendance (many of the meetings listed on its website are already filled to capacity via reservations and can't shoehorn more organizers in), so confident that it's now made public the 13-minute video that will be watched as part of those house meetings, narrated by DNC chair Tim Kaine answering the base's questions about the Stimulus Bill:
What we'll witness in the next four days is the first 2009 roll out of the organizational muscle.
And if anybody thinks that the timing of this was not plotted weeks ago, they haven't learned much from the experience of 2008. I'm looking forward to looking at, learning and studying how it is done all over again, this time in the context of how grassroots organizing can be applied in an epoch of governance.
“Bi-partisanship” has now been downsized to getting a handful of “moderate” Repulicans to vote for the stimulus bill in order to get the 60 votes needed to defeat a possible filibuster.
WaPo:
Barack Obama
