home

When Is Triangulation Not Triangulation?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 10:55:46 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

When Obama does it apparently. My friend Booman writes:

But if the bill is already as good as passed, then why are Democrats stripping elements of the bill out? The short answer is that it is politics. The Obama administration would like to get a big vote in favor of the stimulus for three reasons. They want to demonstrate the efficacy of their post-partisan rhetoric, they want to get some cover for the Democrats in case the stimulus doesn't work, and they want to splinter the GOP caucus on the first big vote of their administration. For all these reasons (tone, politics, demonstration of power), they are willing to make some generous and unnecessary concessions. We may not like or agree with these concessions, but we should try to understand the game that is being played.

Sounds pretty Bill Clinton Third Wayish to me. Of course, what is missing from that analysis is what Bill Clinton did in his first economic plan and the fact that the Third Way Bill Clinton emerged after Republicans captured the Congress. More . . .

In 1993, Bill Clinton spearheaded the passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. The substantive provisions of the bill were largely a lowering of taxes on the poorest Americans through the EITC, raising of energy taxes and the raising of the top marginal tax rates. Republicans predicted economic disaster as a result of this legislation and not a single Republican in the Congress, no Republican Congressman or Senator, voted for the legislation.

What proposals of the Republicans and the Blue Dogs did President Clinton reject?

Some alternatives to the bill included a proposal by Senator David Boren (D-OK), which among other things would have kept much of the tax increase on upper-income payers but would have eliminated all energy tax increases while also scaling back the Earned Income Tax Credit. It was endorsed by Bill Cohen (R-ME), Bennett Johnston (D-LA), and John Danforth (R-MO). Boren's proposal never passed committee.

Another proposal was offered in the House of Representatives by John Kasich (R-OH). He sponsored an amendment that would have reduced the deficit by cutting $355 billion in spending with $129 billion of the cuts coming from entitlement programs (the actual bill cut entitlement spending by only $42 billion). The amendment would have eliminated any tax increases. The amendment failed by a 138-295 vote with many Republicans voting against the amendment and only six Democrats voting in favor of the amendment.

President Clinton eschewed "triangulation" in this important economic legislation. At least symbolically, President Obama is embracing it. It may be that President Obama, at least in terms of political optics, is taking the right approach. But it does amuse me to see inveterate Clinton haters like Booman justify triangulation by Obama when they pronounce deep hatred for the Clintons, based mostly on the claim that Bill Clinton was the "Great Triangulator."

I think the apt phrase is cognitive dissonance.

Speaking for me only

< An Acid Test For Obama And The Post Partisan Unity Schtick | Wednesday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    When Is Triangulation Not Triangulation? | 163 comments (163 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Clinton wasn't a triangulator (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Salo on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:00:40 AM EST
    Until the GOP swamped the house and senate.  It was imperative to compromise after 1995 because they had enormous power.

    Just stop it with the facts kay? (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:42:26 AM EST


    Parent
    If only the GOP would demand (none / 0) (#5)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:06:55 AM EST
    that Obama not make Afghanistan into the next Iraq. There's a concession I could live with.

    Parent
    It was a little disquieting to have (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:47:21 AM EST
    defense contractor Honeywell announcing the President on CNN today and getting behind his stimulus.  I'm okay with being a military dependent but I don't like it when defense contractors get to announce the President when he's pushing his economic stimulus plan.  It's creepy!  It doesn't feel like heavenly uptopia at all!

    Parent
    Military Corporate Complex, in your face... (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:34:47 PM EST
    MT, that's pretty much getting our noses rubbed in it, isn't it.

    My gawd, the things that go on in plain view - so as to create the appearance of normalcy and legitimacy.

    Parent

    Al Gore had to (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:01:09 AM EST
    break a tie in the Senate in order to pass the '93 omnibus bill.

    MediaMatters reviews cost/benefit family planning (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 02:09:44 PM EST
    New topic: Media Matters cites a 2008 study from the Guttmacher Institute, which found:
    Nationally, for every $1 spent on the family planning program, $4.02 is saved in averted Medicaid birth [and maternity] costs.

    So, if an economic stimulus plan has a stake in saving taxpayer money, while also improving the quality of life for all, why the hell did Obama take the family planning funds out of the stimulus plan?

    *He must know that taking it out will cost taxpayers 4 times as much as keeping it in! Do we ever get to have a say in this matter, or is Obama more willing to listen to a fringe faction of the GOP?    

    Parent

    I'm confused (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by cotton candy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:02:00 AM EST
    Are you for partisanship or triangulation? You first claim that the post-partisan unity stuff by Obama is absurd and that you want him to be more partisan but yet you point us to Clinton being a triangulator and how now Obama is following in his footsteps.

    What exactly are you for? Partisanship or triangulation or just anything that Clinton has done?

    I'm personally for getting crap done and getting us out of this economic mess and whatever works I will take it but I'm not understanding what you are getting at with these posts other than trying to find a way to bash Obama before anything has happened.

    Clinton was for partisanship when it came (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:04:03 AM EST
    to the signature economic package of his Presidency.

    Parent
    And who says Obama isn't? (none / 0) (#11)
    by cotton candy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:15:18 AM EST
    I could be wrong but my interpretation -- and those that I know who also supported Obama was that his idea of postpartisanship was more of a negotiating strategy for the eyes of the general public who unlike you and me are following his presidency minute by minute.

    I personally think that the Republicans are falling into a trap which I couldn't be more happier about.  Unless Obama is really stupid which I am hard pressed to believe, what makes them think that this bill won't be completely to Obama's liking if they are going to vote against anyways?  

    Who looks post-partisan? Obama who gets a bill that has all of what he wants and dems (partisan) want but has publicly agreed to GOP concessions or a  GOP that given Obama's willing to compromise still votes against the bill?

    Like I said, I think that Obama is going about this the right way so far but I could be terribly wrong and would be wiling to admitit.

    Parent

    If this bill has all of what he wants (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:18:50 AM EST
    then we're in for a world of hurt if it's all we get.

    Parent
    Do You Think It's All We Get? (none / 0) (#83)
    by daring grace on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:56:28 PM EST
    You and a lot of other people around here (like BTD) are a LOT more astute about policy and politics than I am. But I have no sense that this is it as far what's coming.

    I mean we're on Day 8 of the Obama administration.

    Granted, Day 8 in these perilous times is a more dangerous, treacherous day than Day 8 in any administration in recent memory.

    But still, Day 8 says to me that this is the opening of the rebuilding and the start of the dismantling of Bush/Cheney.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:05:10 PM EST
    It could be argued (and many have posited) that it's not really Day 8.  Obama has been in control of the economy since at least the day after Election Day, if not before.  He was the one working the phones (but not voting in the Senate), and he was the one Wall Street reacted to.  

    So we're really like on Day 84.  When can we start holding him responsible?

    Parent

    Also, I think many (for good reason) (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by dk on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:21:29 PM EST
    here go under the assumption that a President has the most political capital to expend at the beginning of his first term.  I.e., the one-bite-at-the-apple theory.

    Parent
    Hold Him Responsible; I Do (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by daring grace on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 02:53:39 PM EST
    As to Day 84...wow, he's been 'in control' of the economy as president in waiting that long. I suppose that could be argued, although actual Day 1 is when he got to, you know, sign orders and stuff.

    You give him a lot of credit. I think very highly of him (still) and I would never have said he was 'in control'. Ultimately responsible now that he's the chief executive of the federal gov't certainly. So, as I said above: he should be held responsible, because no matter what happens, he is.

    But I think one of the real scary things about our economic situation right now is the widely held perception that no one seems very much in control or that anyone has it under control.

    Hopefully, he and the Dems in Congress can start to change that perception in a positive way.

    Parent

    Not just me (none / 0) (#120)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 03:30:48 PM EST
    The media were calling it Obama's first major win with TARP - on January 15, 2009, and he wasn't signing any legislation then.

    Here's just a sampling of the articles / storeis:

    Link

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#122)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 03:39:18 PM EST
    It is one article from Politico..  Next you will be quoting Limburg.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 03:49:09 PM EST
    it's every local news station in the country, but thanks for playing.

    Parent
    Great (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 04:04:39 PM EST
    That you are a true believer, swallowing the MS when it suits you.

    And from your google link

    Here's just a sampling of the articles / storeis:

    Every article listed links to one source article, and that is Politico.

    Parent

    Yes it does, (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 04:33:39 PM EST
    But how many people do you think actually read Politico, outside of blogs and DC?  But lots of people watch their local news coverage and read their local papers and see that headline, so in their minds, Obama owns this.

    But you knew that and, as usual, are being deliberately obtuse.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#134)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 04:49:42 PM EST
    So you are not the only sucker that believes what the MSM pumps out. You have convinced me.

    Parent
    There won't be any rebuilding or (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by sallywally on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 04:29:11 PM EST
    dismantling if the Repubs end up getting all they want on this bill and giving in not at all, which clearly they do not intend to do.

    They are in this to break him. Same as defeating the digital change extension today.

    Obama will have spent all his political capitol for nothing, and ended up very weak for it.

    Unless he learns from it that he has to be partisan, but he should have learned that long ago.


    Parent

    Sincerely (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by daring grace on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:14:29 PM EST
    (not snark), because I am curious and perhaps am not the most learned when it comes to this stimulus package.

    DOES it give the Republicans "all they want"? Yesterday when this was being discussed in another thread here, I posted a link and excerpts from a NY Times article that summarized some of what's provided in the bill.

    If these are examples of things Republicans want--money for public housing, clean water, energy efficiency, education, expansions of health insurance, mortgage relief, etc--I guess I've been redder than I imagined all these years...!

    Parent

    Exactly. This is a point (none / 0) (#155)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:39:16 PM EST
    that I made on a previous thread and the news stations are doing all they can to help the republicans achieve their objective by not questioning them when they spew their lies. The republicans have been everywhere all over the news stations. Where are the Dems? Where is the push-back from the left?

    Parent
    You're right (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 04:36:40 PM EST
    Funding for family planning doesn't have to be in this bill.  In fact, its presence gives the Rethugs a supposedly ethical reason to vote against it, and they can claim they couldn't "vote for abortion" or some other twisted version of their excuse.  

    Better to have a stimulus package with all components directly related to job and economy stimulus.

    Can we get our money back on the bailout bill now?


    Parent

    If this bill as it stands (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:19:17 AM EST
    is actually what Obama really wants, we are in very, very deep trouble.

    If he's negotiated away what he really wants in order to look post-partisan and blame the Republicans, we are also in very, very deep trouble.

    Take your choice.

    Parent

    Is it your view (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:25:43 AM EST
    that this bill is sufficient? Is it your view that this is the best bill Obama could get?

    These are the key questions.  I think the answer to both is no.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#36)
    by cotton candy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:42:04 AM EST
    Given that Obama will not go along with the GOP on tax cuts which to me would waste dollars that could go towards job creation I'm okay with the bill. Two good friends of mine where just laid off in the last week and they have mortgages and families to feed and if taking out family planning will help to stimulate the economy to where they can find a job --then yes, the bill as presented is fine with me and I think Obama is fine with it. If Obama can get more out of the bill, the more the merrier but the number one priority imo is jobs.

    Parent
    That's truly funny (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    "Given that Obama will not go along with the GOP on tax cuts which to me would waste dollars that could go towards job creation I'm okay with the bill."

    Obama structured his proposal to "go along with the GOP" on tax cuts. the Democratic Congress pushed back and he took a lot of the tax cuts out.

    Parent

    how does that go along (none / 0) (#59)
    by lilburro on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:56:22 AM EST
    with the "now make me do it" FDR argument - asking the Left to force him left?

    Parent
    Yeah but wait (none / 0) (#157)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:46:02 PM EST
    till the bill is in the Jaws of the senate. Can you hear the theme from Jaws in the background. That's the return of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

    Parent
    Well! (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Lena on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:53:03 AM EST
    I'm so glad that your friends are comfortable with leaving family planning out of the bill, since they need economic help so much more. I'm sure the poor women who need birth control services will take comfort in knowing that they're sacrifices were necessary to help your friends get back on good financial footing.

    It's this sort of attitude that makes me want to leave the Democratic party.

    Parent

    Yeah, its all about somebody else's sacrifice. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 03:18:58 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm truly upset (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Lena on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:32:10 AM EST
    to think that Obama is getting "all of what he wants from this bill." Apparently he couldn't give a sh*t about poor women and families, because he shed the funding for family planning right off the top, without a fight, and without a threat to the passage of the bill. If "all of what he wants" includes not representing the majority of the Democratic party, women, and their families, then I see where I fall in this "post-partisan" Democratic utopia. About the same place as sodding the national mall (also negotiated out of the bill). If this bill is "completely to Obama's liking," I weep for the women of the Democratic party who believed that this guy would stand up for their causes.

    Parent
    So If Family Planning Provisions (none / 0) (#86)
    by daring grace on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    aren't in this bill, that's it? Obama and the Dems in Congress have betrayed women and families?

    Family planning provisions not being in an economic stimulus package somehow signals there will be no more family planning provisions in any other legislation, say next week, or next month?

    And even if there is, forget about it, because it's already too late?

    Parent

    Family planning (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by Lena on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:18:13 PM EST
    provisions were in this spending bill. Obama leaned/is leaning on Congress to take them out (perhaps in the spirit of post-partisan unity?) It's clear which cause is the sacrificial lamb here.

    Obama will never have the support he has now. If he can't support women now, that leaves a big question mark as to how on earth he's going to gather the courage/will to support them on more controversial issues, when his back is ACTUALLY against the wall.

    Women may just be the canary in the coal mine here. And if progressives can't stand up for them on this issue, I fear for all the important issues.

    Parent

    Obama Supports Women (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by daring grace on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 03:05:41 PM EST
    Last Friday he overturned that infamous political football policy (Clinton overturns it; Bush puts it back; Obama overturns it;) that banned U.S. funding to international family planning programs.

    With Dem majorities in both houses and the WH, it WOULD be political malpractice for Obama not to integrate family planning funding (and more women/family friendly legislation) in future bills

    Right now, as the sun starts to set on Day 8 there's no reason to imagine he won't.

    Parent

    oh yes, the famous Friday news dump (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by jes on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 04:34:46 PM EST
    in which he signed the order quietly out of sight of any of the fanfare with which he proudly signed the other executive orders.

    He is loud, he is proud, he should be on the cover of Ms!

    Parent

    Your Response (none / 0) (#143)
    by daring grace on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:26:38 PM EST
    which is echoed by many around here is one I'm just not quite getting.

    So it's not enough if Obama produces the results we want. He must do it in a prescribed manner or...what? It's as if he didn't produce anything at all?

    Yep, I guess we disagree then.

    I'm THRILLED he changed a cruel and unconscionable policy that diminishes (and, indeed, threatens) the lives of women, children and families around the world, esp. in developing areas which desperately need this kind of aid.

    And just 4 days in...

    Parent

    on the sly (none / 0) (#151)
    by jes on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:52:18 PM EST
    and then turns around and nixes family planning from StimPak. Pattern?

    Parent
    So Much For Third World Women and Children (none / 0) (#153)
    by daring grace on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:10:57 PM EST
    then?

    Because he yanked the family planning money from the stimulus?

    I wish he hadn't--and yeah, it seems clearly a bone (unproductively) tossed to the Repubs.

    But I've no doubt it will come back soon in legislation which will be successfully passed.

    Likewise, I've no doubt when it does, he'll neglect to frame it or time it in some way that proves yet again he is against women and their health issues.

    (yes, snark).

    Parent

    He was on the cover as Ms Mag (none / 0) (#156)
    by jes on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:39:44 PM EST
    as an out proud feminist. He isn't. But, I'll hope you are right, but dollars to donuts tis not so. If he backed off that quickly on a sure fire pass bill - how the eff is he going to the mat later?

    Stand for what you want. Don't back down and don't back down for later gater daring - DARING - meh.

    Parent

    Ms Magazine Ceased Being Relevant to Me (none / 0) (#163)
    by daring grace on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:02:44 AM EST
    as the end all and be all of what (or who) feminism is back in the early '70s so that they placed him on the cover that way means nothing to me at all in either direction.

    In fact, I couldn't care less if Obama 'really' is a feminist or not. All I care about is whether or not he uses his power to produce laws, policy and funding that support the things I believe in: like so called women's issues (I think that term limits them: they're really human issues).

    So far, he's doing that just fine. I'd rather he hadn't yanked the family planning funding but that's more than outweighed by my deep satisfaction that the international family planning funding was restored, and by the Lily Ledbetter law signing this AM.

    Parent

    As staunch a defender of women's (none / 0) (#154)
    by hairspray on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:36:49 PM EST
    reproductive rights, I don't see this issue in job creation. It takes a lot of deep thinking to see all of the system connections for help in family planning, but it also looks ridiculously out of place in a stimulus package. There are other items that look a bit tangential as well.  The more directed to the needs the more the public will be convinced of its effectiveness and the less they will listen to the wailing of the GOP.

    Parent
    I think the fact (none / 0) (#158)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 08:04:46 PM EST
    that he took it out so quickly may point to the fact that it was put in there to be taken out as a form of political strategy... to say, see, I'm being post-partisan. Now what will you republicans concede to for your part. I don't think it was ever intended to be a part of this particular bill. But that doesn't mean that it will never appear in another bill.

    A lot of what is going on right now is political theater... jockeying for position. The republicans and their press enablers are trying to push for republican control in spite of their fewer numbers.

    Mike Pence said "The American people were outraged" about the family planning provisions which forced the hand of the Dems. This is the way they frame their lies and Chris Matthews knew that his role was to sit there and say nothing.    

    Parent

    I can not help it (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:07:53 AM EST
    if you do not understand my posts.

    On the issue of politics of contrast, my many writings on the subject are there for all to see.

    I understand now that your real objection is to any criticism of President Obama.

    The funny thing is my criticism in THIS POST is directed at Booman's cognitive dissonance.

    I like intellectual consistency. I strive for it and ask for it from others.

    Parent

    A lot of Obama supporters (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Salo on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:20:04 AM EST
    Have no real political memory.  Clinton is a cartoon to these sorts of commentators. Hopefully Obama will not be a centrist bipartisan on healthcare policy though. My poor dear heart couldn't take it. I'd love it if biden was forced to do tie breaker on an nhs type bill.

    Parent
    Most are just too ... (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:29:42 AM EST
    young to remember.  And not just the Clinton administration, but the twelve years that preceded it.

    Obama comes in after the Dems lost two close presidential elections.  Clinton came in after three presidential elections in which the Dems had been beaten badly.

    That difference is a critical fact in understanding Clinton's political philosophy and actions.

    It's also the reason why Obama can and should act more progressively.

    Parent

    'Too Young' Naaah! (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by daring grace on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:50:27 PM EST
    Okay, let's put the meme to bed that only youthful supporters voted for Obama.

    In fact, he won every age group except the 65 and older group--and them he lost by a scant ten percentage points.

    I agree with you that many (most?) Americans in general have a poor memory/understanding of previous administrations (and especially of the minutiae of their policies and strategies with Congress. But that has less to do with age and much more to do with the fact that few tune in to the whole political process at all except as people sometimes  see it relating to their particular situation.

    Parent

    Straw man (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:59:30 PM EST
    He didn't say "only youthful supporters voted for Obama."


    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#118)
    by daring grace on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 03:09:53 PM EST
    He said "Most are just too young to remember"

    Not, based on the numbers, accurate.

    Parent

    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by cotton candy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:37:29 AM EST
    Given that I have quite a clear political memory of the Clinton years I find your assessment comical.  Clinton did a lot of good things but that is not to say that Obama can't also do a lot of good things but his way.  I think that the problem that folks in some quarters have is that they think that because Obama isn't exactly following Clinton or shouting from the rooftops that he is following Clinton, that he can't and won't be successful which is a bit unfair given that he has only been in office for a week.

    As for health care, and one who has shaky health coverage right now, I too hope that Obama follows through on his campaign promise of healthc are reform but only time will tell.

    Parent

    Who are these folks? (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:41:00 AM EST
    I think that the problem that folks in some quarters have is that they think that because Obama isn't exactly following Clinton or shouting from the rooftops that he is following Clinton, that he can't and won't be successful which is a bit unfair given that he has only been in office for a week.

    Nobody I know here

    Parent

    Men of straw (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:42:18 AM EST


    Parent
    Lot of them (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:00:21 PM EST
    going around today for some reason.


    Parent
    then you won't like what Clyburn had to say (none / 0) (#159)
    by suzieg on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 06:18:49 AM EST
    about it.

    www.thehill.com/leading-the-news/citing1994-clyburn-embraces-incremental-health-reform-2009-01-25.ht ml

    ...and don't forget Obama's very own words that he would not do health care for adults in his first term and would only do so in his second if it worked for the kids.

    Plus Kerry told us that universal health care was off the table for the first term.

    Parent

    Salo, I just don't agree with (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:28:08 PM EST
    you on this one. A lot of Obama supporters were older, educated, and politically experienced.
    The fell for Obama like he was their last chance before death in venice.

    Parent
    a creepy molesting vibe explains (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Salo on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:55:46 PM EST
    A few things to be sure

    Parent
    short memory (none / 0) (#149)
    by Salo on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:43:20 PM EST
    Lack of recall and accurate info on the why's and wherefores

    Parent
    That's funny (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by cotton candy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:32:12 AM EST
    because I don't recall knowing you.

    I have no problem criticizing the President but what I'm trying to understand is what the hell is your point in these posts?  

    You blast Obama for the post-partisan unity thing but yet you embrace what Clinton did which was to triangulate (read: post partisan). I thought the purpose of progressive (which I'm not even sure you are) pressure (which you claim to be aiming for) was to get Obama to not only embrace our principles but to get them enacted.  If the post partisan unity thing which I personally think is more of a negotiating tactic more than anything else gets what is needed to get the economy rolling what is the problem?   Is the problem that Obama and his supporters have not explicitly said that he is following Bill Clinton's model that irks you?  It just seems that you are more focused on proving those that you consider "Clinton haters" wrong than actually working towards the goal of putting reasonable pressure on Obama to get us out of a ditch.

    Parent

    Maybe it is just (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:43:30 AM EST
    the sanctimonious hypocrisy that went along with some with they posted their utter disgust with Clinton triangulation and that is why they felt betrayed.

    Hillary had lunch with someone from the right and she was evil incarnate.  Barack meets with someone from the right and it is reaching out.  

    For some the hypocrisy was so evident then and it is now.  Personally, I think the tactics of post partisan unity, or triangulation, are sometimes needed, sometimes now.  They are tactics. I get that.  Always did.  But for some, those things only have become tactics now when President Obama is using them.  Before that, for some, they were evidence of evil incarnate.  Surely you can understand how, for some of us, it is all very Orewellian.

    For me, it has nothing to do with President Obama. I hope he is using the tactics to the advantage of the democratic ideas that need to be put into play.  But there is a part of me that remembers that some of the same comment writers who are now heaping praise on the president for such tactics, not long ago were condemning the Clintons for "triangulating."  Sometimes it's just human nature to remind some of the hypocrisy.

    Parent

    Fine (none / 0) (#46)
    by cotton candy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:46:55 AM EST
    let's remind them and move on. We are in too big of a rut to spend our time trying point out others hypocrisy when 1000s are losing their jobs every day.  Let's work together to get things done.

    Parent
    Your moving on (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:47:57 AM EST
    would not be objected to by me.

    I will write what I want when I want.

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#52)
    by cotton candy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:51:06 AM EST
    Did I say that you can't write anything that you want? Isn't that the point of you blogging? I just pointed out that I am rather confused as to what your point was given your previous statements as they seemed contradictory. Are questions not allowed? If so, then you should have a disclaimer.

    Parent
    My response is to your suggestion (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:57:50 AM EST
    the we "move on."

    I suggest that you move on.

    You can reject my suggestion of course.

    As I will reject yours.

    What part of that did you not understand?

    Parent

    Cotton, (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by WS on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    I think you're just upset of the criticism leveled at President Obama. All I have to say is that it comes with the territory of being President.  This isn't the campaign anymore when we had to protect the candidate to win the election.  We've won and we need to push for progressive reforms that Obama did not do in this case when he needlessly dropped family planning from the stimulus bill.  I need to say needlessly again.  

    Parent
    Cotton, (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by WS on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:15:20 PM EST
    I think you're just upset of the criticism leveled at President Obama. All I have to say is that it comes with the territory of being President.  This isn't the campaign anymore when we had to protect the candidate to win the election.  We've won and we need to push for progressive reforms that Obama did not do in this case when he needlessly dropped family planning from the stimulus bill.  I need to say needlessly again.  

    Parent
    I couldn't agree with you more (none / 0) (#76)
    by cotton candy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:29:56 PM EST
    I already have some issues with Obama starting with the Treasury department. I do not think Geithner is right for the job but am willing to be proven wrong.

    I completely agree with you that we need to push Obama on progressive reforms and there are ways to do it.  Right now though, I wan to see the most efficient plan to getting our economy back on track that will benefit everyone and not just the rich and powerful.

    Parent

    Family Planning (none / 0) (#91)
    by WS on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:21:57 PM EST
    is a stimulus as it helps a woman plan when she wants to have a child.  In this economy, it's understandable that people and families will want to hold off on having children to a more economically secure time, and the stimulus money will also provide direct spending and hiring for much needed family planning services to communities.  

     

    Parent

    Alas (none / 0) (#115)
    by sj on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 03:00:14 PM EST
    This bill is not it.  

    The most efficient plan, that is.

    Parent

    To repeat: (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by otherlisa on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 02:28:53 PM EST
    1. Clinton did not "triangulate" to pass his 1993 economic package. He did it without the vote of a single Republican Senator, and he didn't over-compromise its contents.

    2. Clinton began "triangulating" when Democrats lost control of Congress.

    3. Obama has majorities in the House and the Senate. His political capital is as high as it will ever be. Thus he has no need to "triangulate" in order to get the best package possible.

    4. So, the questions: is this the best package possible? Does Obama believe that it is? Why did he compromise before negotiations even begun?


    Parent
    If the Repubs get all they want (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by sallywally on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 04:37:38 PM EST
    on this bill, it will not work, since the right-wing policies they are insisting on have put us in this crisis to begin with.

    And it won't be post-partisan if the highly partisan Repubs get to shape the whole bill. It will be post-democratic (and I mean that in the lower-case "d" sense).

    Parent

    Just one cotton pickin' moment here! (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by DFLer on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:49:52 PM EST
    the difference is that President Obama has a majority in both houses, which President Clinton did not have when he tri-angled.

    Simple as that.

    There is no double standard in criticizing one and embracing the other.. Apples and oranges.

    Parent

    BTW (4.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:47:13 AM EST
    I also detect some CDS in you. You wrote "You blast Obama for the post-partisan unity thing but yet you embrace what Clinton did which was to triangulate (read: post partisan)."

    I defy you to point out where I "embraced" clinton triangulation in this post, or anywhere for that matter.

    I discussed the 1993 economics bill, which, if you paid attention to my post, you would know was passe on strict partisan lines.

    Please, I have had enough of the silly Obama bots to last a lifetime.

    Your thoughts are not original nor are they interesting. I have read them all for 4 years now.

    Parent

    Excuse me, knowing you? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:44:07 AM EST
    I only know what you wrote. To wit "but I'm not understanding what you are getting at with these posts other than trying to find a way to bash Obama before anything has happened."

    You think you are the first Obama Bot to write those words to me?


    Parent

    bot? (none / 0) (#60)
    by cotton candy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:56:28 AM EST
    Isn't that a little offensive? bashing is another term for criticizing is it not? Am I not allowed to point out and question your criticism of Obama. There have been many times that I have read your posts and have been in full agreement with you but now is not one of those times.

    I'm all for listening to other people's arguments towards a common good and I thought that was one of the purposes of Talkleft. I simply commented on what I perceived as your confusing posts based on your previous statements as to what you hope to accomplish in your writings about President Obama.

    If you want to call me an "obamabot" which is childish because you don't like that I am questioning you and asking for clarification then so be it.

    Parent

    The shoe fits (2.33 / 3) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:01:51 PM EST
    based on your comments.

    As I said to you before, I have been reading comments like yours for 4 years now.

    You bring nothing new.

    I repeat my suggestion that you move on.

    Parent

    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#67)
    by cotton candy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:11:41 PM EST
    but I speak for myself. I cannot speak for all of those that you have encountered in the last four years nor will I even try to.  

    As you say: speaking for me only. If I'm not allowed to speak for myself here and express an opinion even if you may not agree with it which I thought was the point of having the comments section, then you do what you feel is necessary.

    I would also appreciate that you lay off the personal attacks  such as referring to me as an Obamabot which implies that I am a mindless robot as I would never think to refer to someone I didn't know as a "robot."

    Parent

    I did not say you were speaking for (3.66 / 3) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:15:48 PM EST
    anyone else.

    I said that what you are saying is EXACTLY, virtually word for word, what Obama bots have been writing for many years.

    I did not say you were the elected representative of Obama Botdom.

    I said that your commenting is perfectly representative of Obama Botdom.

    Parent

    You done (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by cotton candy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:26:09 PM EST
    with the personal attacks on people you don't know?  It is offensive and doesn't do anything for the sense of community that I'm sure the TalkLeft founder envisioned.

    If you don't like my opinions just say that you disagree with me or even down rate my comments to show disapproval. I'm sure that you having the comments section open means that you are more than willing to be tolerant of those that don't always agree with you. I do not think it is necessary nor mature for you to refer to me as an Obamabot or one of Obamabotdom which I am not.

    This will be my last post on this particular topic and I hope that in the future you will refrain from the personal attacks.

    Parent

    Thank you for moving on (2.33 / 3) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:36:06 PM EST
    I am suure the founder of the site will appreciate your presence in her threads.

    I do not.

    Parent

    Would you talk to someone like that in the real (3.66 / 3) (#94)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:34:14 PM EST
    World?  

    Parent
    Of course I would (3.25 / 4) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:46:29 PM EST
    I suggest you stay out of this.


    Parent
    Our country is falling apart (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:45:18 PM EST
    Largely because the tone of discourse on all sides  has become very angry and not polite.  In my view the lack of civil discussion is one of the reasons this country is in such a bad situation.  The fact that here comments can be deleted because they are rude, speaks towards the goal of trying to create a polite, but intellectually engaging conversation.  That is something we should all strive to create.

    Parent
    Your view is absurd (1.50 / 2) (#139)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:53:19 PM EST
    And I would tell you that to your face. The incivility directed at me is utterly not my concern and I notice not yours either.

    I do not want Obama bots in my threads. They can comment in Jeralyn's.

    It is that simple and HAS BEEN that simple for a year.

    I am not going to change and you either accept it or move on.

    The blogosphere is a big place.

    I want INTELLIGENT discussion, not utter BS.

    Parent

    For example (none / 0) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:16:49 PM EST
    the person rating my comment called me a racist.

    and yet, you were silent on that Sam.

    I find it hard to take civility concerns seriously when that happens.

    Parent

    What say you Sam (none / 0) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:18:55 PM EST
    Was this the type of discourse you like to see?

    "by bluegal on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:38:02 PM EST
    Because I'm black?

    The masses were right about you being a racist. I noticed you didn't ban a longtime racist poster from yesterday when several folks downgraded his/her comments.

    Racism is obviously tolerated here but not dissent."

    Should I tolerate that? Where is your concern about that?

    Parent

    No you should not tolerate that (none / 0) (#144)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:31:40 PM EST
    However, I was not speaking about that comment (which doesn't make a lot of sense).  I did not see that comment.  But that doesn't change the fact that I believe polite dialogue is the only way to lead to understanding and progress.   I thought the tone of your words (this afternoon when I initially commented) was becoming needlessly mean, regardless if they were right.

    Parent
    Arguing against politness and respect does not (none / 0) (#145)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:33:11 PM EST
    make any sense.

    Parent
    No one argues against it (none / 0) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:36:15 PM EST
    I argue against deifying it over substance.

    My responses were about the lack of relevant substantive responses which is the exact words I used and would use to the person's face.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#146)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:34:43 PM EST
    I think they were appropriate.

    Now what?

    Parent

    Nothing since blogging (none / 0) (#148)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:42:05 PM EST
    Is a nameless, faceless expression of words and opinions (that I very much enjoy).  

    Parent
    no, it's because, as you conveniently forget, (none / 0) (#160)
    by suzieg on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 06:31:02 AM EST
    Obama ran his primary contest AGAINST the Clinton's presidency a la repugnant republican style. Remember his little pamphlets accusing Clinton of passing NAFTA therefore losing their jobs in Penn, Ohio, etc. and the health care ones? We haven't forgotten!

    He ran as a purist against the Clinton era but he now embraces everything Clinton as if he never uttered a word against them. That's called ABJECT HYPOCRISY!

     

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 02:01:03 PM EST
    Do you also think that it is abject hypocrisy for Hillary to be working for someone who she thought would sleep through a 3AM call regarding national security?

    Someone who she claimed was unquaified to be CIC no less president?

    The point of running any campaign is to convince voters that the other candidates are horribly unsuitable to hold office. Embracing your opponent with praise only helps if your point is to lose.

    Parent

    His point, which you missed entirely (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Trickster on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:58:40 AM EST
    was that Clinton did NOT triangulate until he was boxed in by Republican majorities.  This is even though his first-term "majority" was an in-name-only majority that rested on the backs of numerous House and Senate Blue Dogs (e.g., one of Clinton's Senate "supporters" was hard-line right-winger Richard Shelby, then a "Democrat" although he voted a GOP party line).

    Parent
    The problem (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by hairspray on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:05:17 PM EST
    as I see it, is that Clinton triangulated when he had no choice as in the loss of the house in 1994.  Obama has no such constraints.  Look at his majorities and see if you can imagine the differences.

    Parent
    What everybody seemed to have forgotten (none / 0) (#161)
    by suzieg on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 06:35:22 AM EST
    is how plagued the Democrats were with scandals after scandals, from Fowley's shaky book deal to the guy whom I cannot spell his name who stole stamps and had his staff work on his summer home to the idiot from Ohio who was running his congressional office from jail. Just like the republicans, the democrats were insufferable and the American people got rid of them which they both deserved

    Parent
    Word prisons (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 03:08:00 PM EST
    "Triangulation" is an interesting word.It can mean a lot of things; but, I would argue, we should not get trapped by a word into an "either-or" dynamic. Whether it is "triangulation' or "compromise" or "making nice" (to get some other unspecified return later) the concept and this human practice has been around for centuries...or probably longer. There are all kinds of analogies and considerations in long vs short-term strategies.  We all know that. Even wars are usually settled via treaty or other detente (exceptions being such as WWII wherein unconditional surrender was essential in view of the Nazi aggression and atrocities.) Or, more down home, my sportsmanlike dad typically advised against the eventual folly of running up the score too much against the opposition. Yesterday, I also noticed Craig Crawford's reference to Sophocles sentiment that "You win the victory when you yield." In the case of current economic stimulus legislation, it will take a bit of time before it all plays out. Appearance and maneuvering as prelude are clearly important for the view offered to the citizenry from the media. As reported by the networks, President Obama is "reaching out" etc. <in the spirit of bipartisanship that most Americans indicate they prefer> while Republicans appear to resist for the sake of saying "no." If thats the case, I suspect that the President will eventually get passage of and credit for a fairly strong billthru this public "flies & honey" approach. So...it may be something called triangulation or it may be political common sense. Let's not box ourselves in.

    Parent
    Short answer (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:08:33 AM EST
    Triangulation = bad when a Clinton does it.

    Triangulation = good when Obama does it.

    I think the question is this (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:13:54 AM EST
    when is triangulation NECESSARY?

    I submit that not now is it necessary.

    Now, if Obama can provide some political theater at no policy cost, then fine. If he thinks that reaps benefits, so much the better. In a way, it can be a way to define Republicanism as extreme and the Democrats as the Center, which is, in the end, the essential struggle of politics - making YOUR IDEAS the Center.

    I'll wait to see how it all turns out.

    Parent

    BTD, surely you must consider (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:19:26 AM EST
    the explanation that Obama is triangulating now because his core values are not actually Democratic/Progresssive ones, at least on the economy.  Post-Partisan Unity shtick may just be his excuse for doing the Republican things he truly wants to do.

    Parent
    LOL yes when he's bi or partisan. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Salo on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:22:56 AM EST
    If he finds a radical leftiness when it comes to healthcare he can be as center right as his heart desires.

    Parent
    Oh, (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:32:49 AM EST
    Healthcare is dead for 2009 (and since this is the best chance we're going to have, as this is when the Dems and Obama's approval rating are at their highest and the Republicans are at their weakest, it's pretty much dead).

    Parent
    It was dead in September (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Pacific John on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:33:27 PM EST
    It's kind of hard to compromise if you've already renounced your own side. FTR, the BHO website still has this language. It wasn't just a campaign rhetoric.

    The economic compromises are a lot more interesting since we don't quite know what Obama is willing to fight for, and how close to his Chicago School advisers he actually is, but there's no mystery on universal health care. It was dead once the nomination was locked up.

    Parent

    I have accepted that as an option (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:23:39 AM EST
    I wrote so in my previous post.

    Parent
    Well, let's take it one step (none / 0) (#29)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:33:33 AM EST
    further. Suppose Obama is hiding his political preferences on some issues by invoking the PPUS: how will you be able to tell? PPUS could be a very effective smokescreen.

    Parent
    Honestly (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:42:58 AM EST
    My critique of him, and all pols for that matter, has little to do with "what they really think." I only care about "what the really DO."

    Parent
    oh, I agree with you, but (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:46:02 AM EST
    motives do matter. If Obama really wants to gut SS, for instance, that makes a huge difference. Or going back to 2000, savvy observers (myself not included) knew with certainty that Bush wanted to wage war on Iraq. Obama has a lot of political power right now. I think it's worth knowing ahead of time how he would prefer to use it.

    Parent
    What's disturbing is that we have gotten this far (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by esmense on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:55:30 PM EST
    without much clarity on what Obama hopes to DO.

    I don't believe any politician in my lifetime has been so opaque in terms of his economic views. The Obama camp's response to that observation would most likely be that Obama is pragmatic rather than ideological -- he will do what "works." But, that leads us to the important question posed by BTD -- is it pragmatism about what works for him politically, or pragmatism in terms of what works best in response to the economic crisis? The answer to that question is something we will be living with for a long time to come.  

    Parent

    Amen, and 10 points for that (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    You are so, so right.


    Parent
    "Will do what works" (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by sj on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 02:59:46 PM EST
    Exactly.  What are the metrics for deciding if something works?  Obama's metrics may not be the same as someone who is looking for a job.

    Parent
    How well said! (none / 0) (#162)
    by suzieg on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 06:37:44 AM EST


    Parent
    And this part is frightening in a way (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:32:16 AM EST
    I submit that not now is it necessary

    Poor leadership, we already know where preemptive acting out gets us.  

    Parent

    Why is it not necessary? (none / 0) (#93)
    by me only on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:30:00 PM EST
    Because Obama theoretically has the votes without the Republicans?

    I propose that Obama is not convinced that the economy is going to be repaired by the mid-term elections.  If the "stimulus" goes straight party line, 2010 could be a repeat of 1994 and Obama is trying to get enough Republicans behind it that he negates the issue.

    Parent

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:40:45 PM EST
    He wanted 80 votes in the Senate because if it works, he can say "my plan worked", and if it doesn't, he can say "hey, they supported it too."

    If it's approved with just Dem votes, it is much clearer that the Dems own this.

    Parent

    Will 65 Senate votes suffice? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 02:10:04 PM EST
    No? Then what's the point?

    Parent
    Hey (none / 0) (#110)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 02:36:20 PM EST
    Obama was the one saying he wanted 80 votes in the Senate - I'm just repeating.  He wants cover.

    Link

    Parent

    So I guess you are predicting a wipeout in 2010 (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:45:30 PM EST
    cuz the GOP ain't voting for it.

    Now what?

    Parent

    I am predicting (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by me only on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 02:00:48 PM EST
    the Democrats losing 85 seats in the Senate and 320 in the House in March 2010.

    Back to the point.  Obama is probably aware of the 1930's.  The contraction in '37-'38 is particularly concerning.  By getting Republicans to vote for this measure, then he might have the "in for a penny, in for a pound" mentality.

    I think Obama is more concerned than H.W. was about being a 1 term president.  (And yes, I loved the SNL skits in the '92 campaign cycle.)

    Ultimately I am not sure Obama understands that the Republicans might actually act as an "opposition party."  Look around, there are tons of Obama lovers out there.  Does Obama understand that there are people out there who he cannot convince, no matter how much he compromises?

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 02:09:23 PM EST
    " By getting Republicans to vote for this measure" -- what part of ZERO GOP votes do you not understand?

    Parent
    By trying to get them (none / 0) (#107)
    by me only on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 02:20:51 PM EST
    I don't think Obama realizes that he isn't going to them.  I am fully aware of the fact that the Republican leadership is going to ask all Republicans to vote against it.

    Are you predicting that Snowe will vote against it and that all House Republicans will vote against it?

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 02:30:02 PM EST
    I am predicting zero votes in the House and 6 GOP votes in the Senate.

    you think the GOP will share the "blame" there? I do not.

    Parent

    For once, you and I agree (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by me only on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 04:01:16 PM EST
    the GOP will not "share the blame."

    Now, can you convince Obama that no matter what he concedes that he isn't going to get 10+ votes in the Senate and 50+ votes in the House?

    (My answer is, you have no chance.  Why are you wasting your time?  If you see the parallel to Obama wasting his time, maybe you see my point.)

    Parent

    Clinton triangulation leads to HELL (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:15:59 AM EST
    and Satan will roast you slowly over a spit if you can't grasp the concept of this deadly sin my child. Obama triangulation leads to heavenly utopia :)  It's very simple.  Don't tick off the bots either or they might not let you into heavenly utopia :)

    Parent
    This is petty and (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:09:23 AM EST
    I am admitting it up front.

    WHY did President Obama used the "democrat" adjective the way rethugs do in this little get together this morning?   He said "It does not matter if it is a republican plan or a democrat plan?"    It is, to me, adopting that little snark insult of the right.....
    It should have been "democratic"....no?

    It just has always bugged me because it has become an automatic talking point of all the rethugs to get in the little "democrat" dig whenever....

    I don't think it is petty at all (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:26:42 PM EST
    I remarked on it in the open thread. Does he really have to use their talking points? I don't think it is too much to ask for him to stop using their insults. If it was a slip of the tongue, OK, but I hope that formulation has not seeped into his brain.

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 04:13:57 PM EST
    I was beginning to wonder if I imagined it.  It is one of those things that I pick up on because it really ticks me off.  I hear it too much and even some of the so called "journalists (not from FOX)" have done it.  

    Good to know someone else heard it.

    Parent

    Booman attempts to create a lot of cognitive (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:11:11 AM EST
    dissonance on so many big picture in real life issues.  One man's evil triangulation is the same man's goody for all of us and let me help you understand how the game is played. I think he's the only one who doesn't see the blatant incongruencies in his punderings :)

    "punderings" (none / 0) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:20:50 AM EST
    Great new word, MT!  That's just what he does, too.


    Parent
    I have that in common with Dubya (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:38:51 AM EST
    I've always liked creating my own language :)  It's an egomaniac thing.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:21:30 AM EST
    I wouldn't have a problem with Booman's Third Way line of reasoning if we could be confident that (1) all these concessions will, in fact, result in a significant number of Republican votes on our side, and (2) co-opting those Republicans now will make it easier for us to get more stuff passed down the road.

    However, I'm not particularly confident in either half of that argument, so my belief remains that good policy is what will make good politics.  Fix the economy and none of this other stuff will matter.

    That said, I'm a believer in letting politicians try out the ideas they campaigned on.  President Obama has a theory of change that I have trouble believing in, but it's taken him this far, so I'm willing to let him try it out since it may be that he turns out to be savvier than me about this stuff.  He may turn out to be wrong in the end, but I'm pretty much past the point of believing that he's simply naive about the way Republicans do business.

    1 is not a good reason (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:26:37 AM EST
    for concessions imo, unless you need their votes.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#30)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:35:48 AM EST
    it needs to be both, hence my use of the conjunctive!

    Parent
    Meh (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:41:40 AM EST
    "Down the road" they might give you a pony.

    Parent
    If You Believe That... (none / 0) (#35)
    by santarita on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:41:57 AM EST
    confidence in the government and in its ability to deal with an economic crisis is important to economic recovery and if you believe that having at least some bipartisan support is essential to obtaining that confidence, then you might consider leaving some progressive projects out of this bill with the hope of reintroducing them at a later date when bipartisan support is not such a goal in itself.

    Do you believe that everything proposed in the Stimulus Bill is essential to stimulating the economy?  Or that everything in the bill has to be adopted right now as opposed to later in the year?

    Parent

    I believe that (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:51:45 AM EST
    "confidence in the government and in its ability to deal with an economic crisis is important to economic recovery."

    I do not believe that "having at least some bipartisan support is essential to obtaining that confidence."

    Thus, I see no need to "consider leaving some progressive projects out of this bill with the hope of reintroducing them at a later date."

    Parent

    My Belief Is... (none / 0) (#64)
    by santarita on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:04:53 PM EST
    that the current bill is far from ideal.  But I'm not going to criticize Obama too much at this early stage.  I look at this as just the first of several stimulus actions.

    Parent
    Obama;s political strength (5.00 / 8) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:08:12 PM EST
    only goes down from here.

    Parent
    Well, unless he hits the trifecta. (none / 0) (#68)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:14:48 PM EST


    Parent
    I believe (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:43:54 PM EST
    that confidence in the government derives from the belief that they are actually doing something to try and solve the problem.

    Some of FDR's programs worked great, some didn't work at all, but the people supported him because it was clear he was proposing Big Ideas that were on a scale proportionate to the challenges being addressed.

    I'm not seeing so much of the Big Idea in the current stimulus bill.  I think to most people it has the feel of "throwing money at the problem," with the concern being that if it doesn't work (and of course the economy won't be fixed overnight) it's a lot harder to summon up the political capital for Big Ideas later.

    Parent

    FDR took office at a very different time (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by esmense on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 02:15:32 PM EST
    When, for instance, Keynes ideas were relatively new and mostly untried -- in fact, long before Keynes had some of his most important insights about capitalism and the inherent factors that, without intervention, lead inevitably to the conditions that brought us the Great Depression and the kind of crisis we face today. In that environment, many of his New Deal perscriptions were much more revolutionary and politically risky than they would be today, and FDR's reversion, after responding to the initial emergency, to a more conservative, and traditional, approach to the economy (which led to recession) is understandable -- in terms of both politics and ideology. Seven decades later we have much more and different economic experience to draw on in determining a corrective course of action. So why continue to lend legitimacy to flawed economic ideas from early in the last century? Especially when they have brought us to such a dismal state?

    We shouldn't underestimate how much vision and courage it took for FDR to do what he did (in terms of progressive policies) in the context of his times. Nor should we use the compromises and hesitations of a vastly different era to justify Obama's timidity today.

    Parent

    Jobs (none / 0) (#100)
    by Coral on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:49:58 PM EST
    Jobs are being slashed and much of the pain hasn't really hit us yet. If they don't pump some spending & job creation programs into the system fast, people are in for a big shock.

    States are close to slashing funds for all kinds of things, CA is already bankrupt.

    So far Obama looks better on foreign policy than he does domestically. The strongest thing to do would be to act assertively and quickly to get jobs spending through. Why he is playing footsie with the GOP I can't understand.

    Parent

    the Republicans (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by lilburro on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:28:03 AM EST
    have been so f*cking annoying, already, about this bill, that I fail to see where people like Booman are deriving their hope for a "big vote."
    Bottom line: how many times... (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:44:55 AM EST
    ...does the right have to PROVE it has no interest in leaning even remotely in the progressive direction before Obama learns.  It's not like there isn't a long and obvious history.  Time to go bang my head off the wall some more.  At least it's drywall and not plaster.

    oh come on.. they're interested (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:47:30 AM EST
    in "New Progressivism", which acknowledges that SS, Welfare and Medicaid were huge obstacles to the progressive movement in America.

    Parent
    Prove? Not to Obama (none / 0) (#99)
    by po on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:48:01 PM EST
    The proving here is for the masses.  If the GOP gives nothing - no votes whatsoever -- despite Obama and Congressional Democrats giving before the any vote on any piece of major legislation is passed -- the "left" looks reasonable and the "right" like the petulant children they are.

    Whatever is being said about the stimulus, it's not that Obama ain't trying to get Congress to work together.  If the vote is party line, with the GOP voting no, but not putting forth any better ideas that tax breaks for those that brought us here, Obama ain't going to get the blame. And the reward for biting a hand trying to feed you typically is no more food.  All the really good bills are still in the wings.  

    This is only round one.  Box them in their corner of malcontents and the Rush Limbaugh noise machine gets further marginalized.  

    In short, wait and see what is DONE rather than complaining about how he's getting there.

    Parent

    Show me an ounce of compromise... (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 02:50:35 PM EST
    ...from the repubs that approaches the capitulation of the dems.  time and time again.  you are banking on a very convoluted bit of logic.  this is only round one?  when you are already backpedaling on several important things, when the package as presented is SO pitifully lacking, what are you expecting me to be optmisitic about.  right now, logic indicates that whatever passes will be an inadequate and watered down sliver of pie.  hoping to win a popularity index postgame is no match for simply fighting hard and passionately for what you know is right and needed, and taking that message every day, twice a day, three times, directly to the American people.  

    Parent
    Excuse me (none / 0) (#124)
    by po on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 03:52:24 PM EST
    This is only the first of many bills that will contain government spending on programs large and small.  The term capitulation suggests they are giving it up forever.  That's not necessarily the case. There will be other bills.  There will be other chances.  There will be other ways to get this or that passed.  This is one bill and one bill only - a big one, but still. Y'all need to just chill and see what the first 100 days brings.  You might actually be surprised.  That, or he'll be as bad you think he is and can tell us all you told us so.

    Parent
    i don't think he'll be good or bad (none / 0) (#165)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 02:06:01 PM EST
    i have no idea how to predict the future of political popularity.  i am merely making a judgement about what he is actually "accomplishing" in the present.  and i am frustrated as hell he is being so timid.  i repeat, he should be hammering this in the court of public opinion and calling out Republicans to show the American people just what THEIR plans are.  They have no plans, and would be exposed as such.  My opinion, of course, and they are worth less than a cup of coffee, but history seems to be on my side of the argument.  In this kind of crisis, coming off an election at least steeped in the RHETORIC of change, this president should be bold and fast, and he sould be worrying about the American people, and playing to them first and foremost.  This endless Democratic kow-tow to Republicans, when they NEVER reciprocate, ever, in any kind of even half-meaningful manner, is just foolish and naive.  Paint me extremely skeptical.  I'm not to the point of cynicism yet.  Thankfully.

    Parent
    "The proving here is for the masses." (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by sj on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 02:58:07 PM EST
    the "left" looks reasonable and the "right" like the petulant children they are.

    Those who haven't noticed this are still not going to notice unless it is spelled out specifically and screamed from the tree tops.  

    As for waiting until it's done?  I don't understand why so many people are advocating waiting until it's too late before raising red flags.

    Parent

    Obama may need to be bipartisan, but we don't. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    He may be setting up Repubs in Congress for later criticism if they vote No on the stimulus package, or he may be waffling to get something passed and giving away the house, so to speak.  The question is, are we going to take on the task he's essentially offered us, or will moderates and right wingers step into the void instead?

    We need a one-stop shop for progressives who want to influence this new post-partisan president and Congress.  We're all scattered, hoping for the best, waiting to see what Obama's going to do. We know what we want in terms of policy change, and we got some of that from Obama this past week.  But there's a void in organizational leadership right now.  We have the power of millions of Obama supporters who are on his side (and on our side if we take the reins), but none of our progressive organizations are jumping in to the fray.  If we wait, we're going to lose the chance in a lifetime to control our government.  

    Any ideas from folks here?

    The metaphor "politics as a game" ... (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by lambert on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:24:14 PM EST
    ... is pernicious.

    There are people who will die if the Dems sell out out on health care. Some game

    Whats missing (none / 0) (#44)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:46:48 AM EST
    Of course, what is missing from that analysis is what Bill Clinton did in his first economic plan and the fact that the Third Way Bill Clinton emerged after Republicans captured the Congress.

    Whats missing is any acknowledgement that his early policies and Hillary Care were a big part of why the Republicans captured the Congress.  Obama would be smart to avoid that disaster.

    You miss the point (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:53:13 AM EST
    It took the loss of Congress to get Clinton to learn what he really had to do -- fight harder on progressive principles you won't compromise on.  Obama would be well advised not to repeat THAT error and start fight hard and progressively now.

    Parent
    fightING hard and progressively now (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:53:50 AM EST


    Parent
    his economic stimulus package (5.00 / 10) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:55:00 AM EST
    was not in any way a cause of the 1994 debacle.

    The two major causes were - Democrats in the South were not representative of their constituencies and the work done by Republicans and Dems like Moynihan sabotaged health care reform thanks to a plaint and incompetent Media.

    One of the major culprits was Andrew Sullivan, who published a false piece on health care by Betsy McCaughey. Of course Sullivan went on to publish excerpts and defenses of The bell Curve.

    Parent

    unfortunately what I saw yesterday... (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 03:31:02 PM EST
    ...was Obama giving the Republicans the path back to power. And it aint the Clinton path. It disgusted me to see Republican reps all over the cable show praising Obama and bashing the Dem Congress and misrepresenting the legislation. And then watching Obama give legitimacy to their claims that the things that the Repugs objected to were bad parts of the bill. What I saw was the Republicans finding a clever way to take cover behind Obama's "popularity" while bashing the Dems in Congress. It wouldn't surprise me to see them running in 2010 as the "real" supporters of Obama, while trashing the Dems for being partisan and too liberal.

    Parent
    I wish Obama would give us ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:46:50 AM EST
    a better sense of the rest of his economic plan.

    It might help explain what he's doing now.

    Is he watering this bill down, because he thinks this is the only part of his economic plan that has any chance of bipartisan support?

    Or is he going to do this with all the stools of recovery agenda?

    None of that would make sense (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:55:54 AM EST
    to me.

    Obama is at the height of his political power right now. It is only downhill from here.

    Parent

    I hate to say this, but (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:45:30 PM EST
    "the stools of recovery agenda" sounds like a euphemism for a load of cr@p.

    Really, he and the Democratic leadership needed to get out in front and tell the people how they were going to fix this, and if it is a ten-point plan with timelines and benchmarks, we should know what they are.

    If I go to the doctor because I am not feeling well, I don't want the doc to just tell me "something's terribly wrong," and then load me up with 54 different ideas about what to do, hem and haw over what he thinks is the best way to go, and make me think that whatever he decides on at that moment is the thing that is going to cure me.

    People don't understand that this stimulus bill is not the cure-all, and when they figure it out, Obama's approval ratings are going to go the same way the stock market did, because the message out there is that we need to see a turn-around within a year, and I don't think that's going to happen.  

    And I think what that means for us is the most ineffective administration since Carter, and a pretty rapid return to GOP rule.

    Parent

    I agree with ... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:58:57 PM EST
    everything you say.

    I'm just gonna give Obama more than a week to outline his plan.

    Parent

    Bluegal is banned from my threads. (none / 0) (#136)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:16:17 PM EST
    Anyone else want to go?

    Blue Gal has asked to be banned from the site (none / 0) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:23:20 PM EST
    I have forwarded her request to Jeralyn.

    Parent
    When Is Triangulation Not Triangulation? | 163 comments (163 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment