Honeymoon Politics
| Tue Jan. 27, 2009 8:32 AM PST
HONEYMOON POLITICS....Matt Yglesias comments on the likelihood that Democrats are going to drop contraceptive funding from the stimulus bill:
As with a lot of Democratic concessions on the bill thus far, what seems to be missing is the "pro quo." Where are the members of the House saying "yesterday I was inclined to vote 'no' on this, but thanks to this change I'm voting 'yes.'" Bargaining is smart. I even think magnanimity on the part of a new majority is smart. But when you bargain, you get something.
And I don't see what Obama's gotten for his business tax cuts nor do I see what he's getting for selling out low-income women's access to contraceptives.
I guess there's no telling on this. Maybe Obama will surprise us and get his 80 votes in the Senate after all. Or maybe the "concessions" Democrats have made so far have been things they didn't really care much about in the first place. And I guess there could also be some political benefit in making a bunch of compromises, getting no Republican support, and then being able to sell a story to the media about how the GOP caucus is still just a bunch of Rove-era dinosaurs hopelessly stuck in the hyperpartisan past. We did everything we could, but they just wouldn't budge. Very sad.
At least, I hope one or more of these things is true, since it would mean there's at least some thinking going on about this stuff. My real guess, though, is that Obama and the Dems are still living in a fantasy world. "How long do you think Obama's honeymoon will last?" Marian asked me last night. "Honeymoon?" I shook my head. "I don't think he ever had one." At least, that's pretty much how it looks to me.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Optimistic speculation? Obama is one smart political operator. He knows the angles and the bank shots.
If it becomes clear (and I have no hope that yabbos like David Gregory would ever report it clearly) that the Rethugs are just being obstructionist and not negotiating in good faith, Obama can, without risking any political capital, simply go back on the TV and tell the American people "Screw them - we bent over backwards to accommodate their concerns and look what we got."
It's becoming quite obvious that the Rethugs have adopted the Limbaugh strategy. They just want Obama to fail, and to hell with the country.
Agree with Brad. I think the contraceptive legislation is a good idea, but trying to stick it in the stimulus plan just fed into peoples fears that rather then putting things that will be good for the short-term economy, the bill was being turned into a grab-bag of liberal wish list spending. Let it pass on its own merits in a later bill. Keeping it off the stimulus bill is a good idea not because it pleases the GOP, but because it will appease some of the public's suspicions of the bill.
Democratic presidents don't get a honeymoon; the GOP is set up to demagogue, lie, cheat and oppose at 100% from the starting line on. They have nothing whatsoever positive to offer, and will do everything they can to make the current administration fail, no matter what the consequences to the nation. They still have important allies in the MSM, not to mention their own wholly-owned media outlets like FOX. And the dems have spent so long getting rolled that they habitually let it happen, even now when they have a strong majority.
Obama is too smart not to realize this. If I can figure it out, so can he.
I still have yet to hear an argument why taxpayers should pay for contraceptives in the name of economic stimulus. If it's good policy, fine, but pass it on it's own.
STFU Brad, you've heard them here and on Steven Benen's blog and you are a liar in saying you didn't. They are by the way, quite good arguments, as you apparently know, since you never refute them.
His honeymoon occurred during the primary and the election itself.
But I am not sure what any analysis of honeymoon has to do with the contraception spending. As even Yglesias says,
Unlike some, I'm not per se outraged by the idea of dropping a family planning provision from the stimulus bill in response to conservative objections. I'm all for the provision, but it's genuinely tangential to the point of the bill, so if this is really what's standing between us and a universe in which a substantial number of conservative get on the stimulus train so be it.
Apart from a lot of argument from authority, I haven't seen too many people with a good argument on why the contraception spending is a good thing in a short term stimulus bill. Condoms and pills are largely machine made. Ordering more of them (from China?) won't stimulate the economy in the short term much. Reducing paperwork on states is good, and good that it makes them more efficient, but like buying shares in banks, there is no direct connection between that and the claim the states will thus spend more money. $200M, 50 states, the states are far more busted than that.
So if the contraception portion of the bill has little to do with stimulus, in what way does anyone including the press focusing on it say anything itself about Obama's honeymoon?
If stimulus spending could be pareto optimized Kevin for best (economic) bang per buck, where on the list of all things they are buying, and things they are not buying would you really think the contraception spending would be?
STFU Brad, you've heard them here and on Steven Benen's blog and you are a liar in saying you didn't. They are by the way, quite good arguments, as you apparently know, since you never refute them.
Wow.
Interesting the things the stupid bureaucratic mods will let through, and the things they will take down.
David in NY, what was that besides your verbal vomit? It sure added nothing (which is why our mod friends could appreciate it so.)
Long term, decreasing the population among low income people is GOOD ECONOMICS because, by preventing unwanted pregnancies through easily available contraceptives, we not only cut down on mouths to feed, but we keep women who want to work from having to get caught in the welfare nightmare in which it is almost better for them to work part time and receive a qualifying low income than to work full time and try to single-handedly manage the child care costs associated with that. One good reason. There are others.
Honeymoon?
Obama still has the confidence and support of the America people, by large margins.
Obama does not have and never had the confidence and support of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. -- a.k.a. "the top one percent", a.k.a. "Bush's base". They view him as a dangerous radical who might go so far as to raise their taxes back to what they were under Ronald Reagan. Oh, the horror!
That's why the so-called "mainstream" media -- which is nothing but the wholly-owned propaganda arm of the corporate-feudalist oligarchy -- is working overtime to undermine the American people's confidence in and support for Obama and bring an end to his "honeymoon" as quickly as possible.
David in NY makes a point, that the stimulus value in supplying economic relief to the states in the form of contraceptive funding has been explained multiple times. Whether it is a good or bad form of stimulus might make a good discussion, but Brad just repeats the same "I can't hear you" argument.
Jesus! Come on!
nor do I see what he's getting for selling out low-income women's access to contraceptives.
Why in the hell should Dems be rewarded for putting this loser in a stimulus bill. For f*ck sakes, regardless of the absolute value of such a program, most of us live in a real world where we could guess how this lead balloon would fly.
This type of tin ear is what killed Dems in the 80's. I bet there are already campaign adds for 2010 being drawn up on this issue. Matt Y. may have gone to Harvard, but I know Houston Community College grads who have a better grip.
Paul: I agree that assisting low-income folks with contraception is a good economic idea over the long term. But that's sort of the point, the stimulus bill is being sold to the public as something that will pump a lot of the money into the economy over the next 2-3 years to help get over the current recession. Packing in a bunch of longer term projects just makes the thing look like a cover for letting Dems sneak in a bunch of personal projects. Obama is right to pull the provision out.
Again, I think the contraception provision is a good idea and that it will easily pass on its own merits. It's not worth handicapping support for the stimulus to try and attach it.
It's time to slap the GOP down.
Last night I was one of those who said that while I agreed with the idea of free contraception, I didn't think it belonged in a stimulus bill.
But I've changed my mind. The GOP is negotiating in such bad faith that it has to be taught a lesson. Keep the contraception in and take the tax cuts out. Make it a pure Dem bill and tell the GOP to go screw themselves.
And I'm not worried about the GOP demagoguing this to moderate voters. Obama has more credibility.
I agree with that point, Simplicio, and wasn't arguing for the clause's inclusion in this bill, per se, as much as arguing that it has economic merit overall. It may have been placed there as a negotiating chip to give the GOP something to squawk at so that other parts could move through. I hope, however, that it does get revisited with strong and thoughtful support at a sooner rather than later date.
I choose this one:
I guess there could also be some political benefit in making a bunch of compromises, getting no Republican support, and then being able to sell a story to the media about how the GOP caucus is still just a bunch of Rove-era dinosaurs hopelessly stuck in the hyperpartisan past.
And I would like to hear it from Mr. Obama's mouth.
"They wanted more tax cuts, I gave them more tax cuts. They wanted to cut money for family planning, I cut it. And still they voted--as a bloc--against doing anything for our economy and your family's well-being.
"We're moving on without them."
Why in the hell should Dems be rewarded for putting this loser in a stimulus bill.
You are making the mistake of taking the Republicans' objection at face value. They don't care about contraception. They want the bill to fail (because if it passes and succeeds they will be out of power for a generation), so they are picking anything they can demagogue (and in this case it a tiny part of a very large bill). If this were not in there they would pick something else.
The whole idea is to roll the dems and weaken the bill. They don't have the numbers to make this stick. The dems should tell them to go pound sand.
I agree with jimBOB on that last line. Dems need to act with the power their wins have given them and not be screwed by the right. In two years, it could go south again and they will have lost opportunities to make things better for us and make a stronger case for progressive values.
You are making the mistake....
JimBOB, I see your point, yet for me the issue is a bit (dare I say) nuanced.
I feel that B*ner knows that the bill is a done deal. He knows that this bill will pass in one similar form or another. This is all about setting up a "narrative" for 2010. And the narrative will be, "There they go again ."
I would suggest that while POTUS's numbers are great, those of the Dem led Congress are still problematic and the GOP gets no benefit from seeing those numbers rise.
Wrong or right is not the issue. The issue is creating a cache of negative issues/images re. the Dem Congress. If it were left to me, any family planning or pre-natal care (including termination) would be as easily accessible as possible. This is an essential fight that we can win. I do not think it is valuable to graft this onto a bill (that has a boat load of other problems) so it can be so easily mischaracterized by evil-doers.
I now live in the South. So many of my neighbors are good (and getting better) people, but their knees still jerk. I just think that this a bit of silly theater that is somewhat disruptive and rather avoidable.
And I guess there could also be some political benefit in making a bunch of compromises, getting no Republican support, and then being able to sell a story to the media about how the GOP caucus is still just a bunch of Rove-era dinosaurs hopelessly stuck in the hyperpartisan past.
If this is the hope, I'm really worried. Making a "bunch of compromises, getting no Republican support," and hoping the MSM will go along as you try to pin the blame on "Rove-era dinosaurs" is not leadership.
In a crisis, leadership is figuring out up front what the nation needs, selling it to the voters, persuading as many folks on the Hill as possible to get on board, and then getting it enacted -- over whatever dead bodies stand in your way.
The elephant in the room here is why, in the first place, would BO and the Dems want the republicans to be able to take any credit for the stimulus? It makes no economic or political sense whatsoever. BO made virtually all of his campaign promises BEFORE the bottom fell out of the economy. ALL of his promises should take a back seat to fixing the economic mess we're in -- tax cuts, etc.
Voters are not demanding a bipartisan solution to prevent a slide into depression. They are demanding a solution.
As humans, we all have potentially fatal flaws. Bill Clinton, one of the most gifted politicians of our time, is a good case in point. This need that BO has -- to forge agreement with folks for whom agreement is out of the question, even fatal -- may be his.
It is a bug in his approach, not a feature, when obsession with bipartisanship stands in the way of saving the country.
You write: "At least, I hope one or more of these things is true, since it would mean there's at least some thinking going on about this stuff. My real guess, though, is that Obama and the Dems are still living in a fantasy world."
Right. No way that Obama can defeat the Clinton machine. Just pretty words. Not ready for 3 A.M. phone call. Just a celebrity. PUMAs. Palin. Etc.
That's right. No real evidence in anything that's happened over the past year that Obama had actually thought about anything or that he lived in anything but a fantasy world
I'd like to comment on Kevin's last point:
"How long do you think Obama's honeymoon will last?" Marian asked me last night. "Honeymoon?" I shook my head. "I don't think he ever had one." At least, that's pretty much how it looks to me."
You seem to think that a political "honeymoon" is a period of good feelings between the new president and the opposition party. I would argue that that is almost never the case. The "honeymoon", if there is one, is usually between the public (and, perhaps more importantly, the press) and the new president. To say that Obama isn't enjoying one seems preposterous to me. (68% approval rating?) Maybe I'm not old enough, or maybe I'm just forgetting about some more harmonious era, but can anyone else here remember a time when an incoming president had a lot of cooperation from the oppostion party?
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
