Happy Hour Roundup
* Howard Kurtz says that no amount of compromise by President Obama would have gotten Republicans to back his stimulus package. And he backs Steve Benen against Mark Halperin.
* Claire McCaskill tells The Huffington Post that she’s none too pleased with the way her fellow Dems on the House side handled the stimulus bill.
* You may be getting poorer, but members of the House and Senate are getting richer.
* Here’s the oppo research book on new RNC chair Michael Steele. Preview: The word “Nazi” makes an appearance.
* And speaking of Steele, who’s spent no shortage of time trying to reassure GOPers that he’s as conservative as they come, remember when he was trying to portray himself as a Democrat during his 2006 Maryland Senate race?
* And still more interesting stuff on Steele from Judd Legum, the indefatigable former research director for Hillary’s Presidential campaign.
* Two key Dem Senators seem to be leaning against backing the stim package.
* Obama’s commitment to reversing Bush’s expansive definition of executive power may be facing its first real test.
* And the folks at The Weekly Standard try to make the case that Obama is anti-profit.
Consider this an open thread…
“Whether it is the National Endowment of the Arts or some of the STD funding or contraceptive funding, all we did was just tee up ammunition for the other side to tear this thing down,” she said. “And I would like to think we are smarter than that. I’m hopeful on the Senate side we will be smarter than that.”
They are worthy causes that would’ve helped people that are struggling, Claire. Isn’t that what the bill is supposed to be about?
Where they ammo for the Republicans? Well, sure. It doesn’t mean that there arguments are any more correct than they ever have been. Personally, I take the inclusion of such things as a good sign for the future. Though they may not be included in the final bill it is a great sign for low income and artists (which tend to be one in the same in this economy), and for improved healthcare. Perhaps they will be included in upcoming legislation just as the family planning legislation that is supposedly in the works.
I was personally unclear on what her argument was. It seemed to be less about whether these were good ideas and more about whether they could be used effectively by the opposition.
I did like what Claire had to say about the bankers though. Heh.
I agree completely with Ms. McCaskill. The STD, contraception, and NEA funding are worthy and should be addressed soon, but NOT in the stimulus bill. The Dems simply haven’t grasp that they are in the majority for at least two years. They are trying to cram every neglected issue into this bill as if their world were ending tomorrow.
I don’t mind that the House and Senate are getting paid a little more. They’re going to have to work long hours this year.
And you have to have a bit of sympathy for the RNC, having to choose between Steele and Dawson. Not that it makes their presidential options look any better. And not that that bit of sympathy doesn’t pass with amazing speed.
I’m not all that pleased with House Dems myself. They could have gained a huge amount of good-will by leaving out the parts that were going to send Republicans in a frenzy–the contraception issue, the National Mall issue, etc. Instead, they once again underestimated the ability of Republicans to get out easily digestible talking points to the feckless media. Wake up, Dems. You screwed this up.
Maybe the point of including contraceptives and (gasp!) arts funding (of which many artists earn part of their living from grants) was to stir up the Republicans and to show how petty they really are.
If you have a problem with this being in the stimulus package- what about the myriad of items that are in the bill that will have little effect on the economy? Tax cuts? Not gonna help very much. Health care records update? Not gonna do very much in the short-term.
Arts funding? Will help artists that depend on grants for part of their income. Take a look at the projected job creation this bill is supposed to stimulate. You’ll notice in Romer and Bernstein’s report that it goes to many different private sectors of the economy- job creation that is. What’s so bad about having the arts be one of those sectors? What’s so bad about having something in their for women/mothers? Indeed more women will be able to work/keep their job with family planning and contraception.
Keep in mind the working poor often make less than a dollar a day (see poverty threshold). Condoms, on average, cost a dollar per. You do the math on that one. A job saved (by not getting pregnant) is a job earned.
If you oppose these things in the bill- I think you need to ask yourself why you do and why you don’t oppose other items that are just as questionable (at least at face value).
Oh, and that wasn’t directed at anyone specifically- just throwing that out there.
Regarding, arts funding: kudos to Target for keeping up their 5% donations to charities (including the arts) despite the economy.
See recent StarTrib article: http://www.startribune.com/local/38723132.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUr
Josephcast, those are excellent questions. I’d be happy to support the arts funding, and to reduce the bureacratic delays with respect to contraceptive funding. My exasperation has less to do with those components of the bill and far more with the Democrats inability to once again anticipate how Republicans were going to respond. They’re incompetent at handling the media. Even Tom Harkin couldn’t respond effectively to some utterly ridiculous questioning by a CNN anchor yesterday about why smoking cessation programs should be included in a stimulus bill. Uh, Tom? Here’s an answer: because when people aren’t spending $10 for a pack of smokes they’ll be spending that $10 on something else. These provisions may be wonderful support for many Americans. But thanks to the Democrats bumbling and fumbling of this (and Rahm Emmanuel’s colossal underestimation of Republican opposition), they’re going to get removed.
CT Voter
We share a frustration regarding what has been a fairly long-standing set of deficiencies in Dem public relations, though I think there are a lot of reasons to consider that this is changing.
Where I disagree with you here is in your apparent assumption that had the Dems omitted those specific items you mention that the opposition would have behaved any differently at all or been less well armed in their derogation goals.
For example, even if we imagine that the Dems had included large Bush-style tax cuts primarily to the very wealthy then I think we could predict that the opposition would charge 1) that the Dems were just shoving squillions of taxpayer dollars into the coffers of George Soros and other big money suporters of the Dem party who want to increase abortion on demand and make guns illegal and 2) that all of this proves that Obama is a typical far left liberal who doesn’t care about everyday Americans, that he lied in all his campaign promises, and that he is corruption personified or too weak of character and too shy in experience to stand up against the pork-gobbling eastern liberal elites who have always hated America. Likely, they’d charge ALL of these things quite regardless of the logical inconsistencies.
Addendum to the above:
I just looked in at Limbaugh’s site. Two headlines out of the ten or so up top…
“The Deficit and the Porkulus”
“Obama/Soros Radio Attack Ads…”
Tod Lindberg, writing in the Weekly Standard, offers up advice on how the Republicans might triangulate for political advantage. Nothing really new here. It’s what we’ve already witnessed and discussed. I suppose we could applaud the transparency but, to my way of thinking, transparency is a treat only when what’s underneath is agreeable to look at.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/084yzkqi.asp
Bernie: if you and I can figure out that Republicans are going to settle for cheap shots at whatever Democrats offer, why can’t Democrats anticipate that and respond accordingly? If they want to include aid for the National Mall, then come up with an easy statement that makes it abundantly clear why it counts as a “stimulus”.
I’ve gotta agree with you both, bernie and ct voter. The Congressional Dems really need to start bringing their A-game. They’ve been DOA since the inaugural. Pelosi explaining the family planning on Meet the Press? Seriously, I could have done a better job.
I will say this for McCaskill, at least she sees a problem.
The problem with McCaskill is she only sees a problem. I don’t mind that she doesn’t like parts of the House bill, but OFFER A SOLUTION. The Republicans don’t need help with the obstruction part.
CT Voter and josephcast
First, there’s this polling data which suggest that the Obama crowd is getting most things right, at least presently: http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-obama.php
Aside from that, I guess I’d try to make the argument that there’s simply no way to devise a defensive PR strategy which will neuter all possible coming attacks.
Take the national mall as an example. Had the stimulus bill NOT included provisions for renovation, the opposition would have (had they seen the opening) indicted Obama’s bill for lack of patriotic fervor. Anything can be spun to an attack (as with the spin on all Republicans voting against the bill and then claiming that this vote represented their superior desire/attempt to act in a bipartisan manner). “Cheap shots” constitute such a substantial portion of their ammunition not merely because they might be deficient in sophisticated policy alternatives but because they’ve learned to appeal to emotive or non-rational propensities in their human audience. And they’ve learned it usually works.
There’s another consideration I have in here too. As much as I want the Obama team to master the PR game, I’d be uncomfortable if they operated in the manner of the Bush White House (as we know from Dilulio) where PR activities and goals gained priority over all else. That would be my consideration in any circumstance but with present crises demanding the degree of care and attention they do deserve, I’m even more concerned that they get the gears of things right first of all.
Though I may of course have it wrong, I do think they are playing this PR game with real smarts and with their eyes wide open. The propaganda machine they are up against is very broad and deep and has proven extremely effective in the past, regardless of the ethics of its operation (I’m sure you guys have read Lewis Lapham’s essay “Tentacles of Rage”).
Does that make OK sense?
Oh, I think Obama’s game has been good. He’s doing what he should.
Congress needs some work. Why are only Republicans on the TV for the most part? As CT indicated in their comment- if obstruction is to be expected, why aren’t the Dems doing a better job of, in the very least, responding to these attacks with some kind of rebuttal. Especially, in the case of the capital mall- I think most people would get that one- but for now it seems as if there is only one response out there- the Republican one.
I understand by responding to stupid arguments you sometimes legitimize them- but to me it seems the Dems, in general, could be doing a better job explaining things to the American people.
I mean today it was John Kerry vs. what? 4 or 5 Republicans (and yes, I’m including Gregory)?
Seriously wonderful football game, that one.
josephcast… I didn’t watch any of the talk shows today and if the Dems were outnumbered, that wouldn’t surprise me. Media Matters has kept track of this for quite a while and there’s an organizational deficiency here, no question.
Still, that pollster graph I pointed to earlier seems to suggest that though the opposition has been loud and assertive, their efforts look to be ineffective or even counter-productive (the caveat being some data Greg noted several days ago re independents).
We’ll see. I suppose the only point I’d underline is that there isn’t a necessary correlation between Republicans yelling and people believing what’s yelled.