home

Mindless "Centrism"

Ezra Klein points to conservative Ross Douthat pointing out the utter irrationality of the Senate stimulus bill's "centrism" schtick":

[W]hat Nelson, Collins, Specter and Co. have done isn't a new kind of politics. It's the definition of politics as usual. And in this particular case, there's a reasonable argument that it's actively pernicious - that if you can't shrink the stimulus package much more substantially than the centrists have done, you shouldn't shrink it at all. There's a case to be made for a stimulus that's radically different than the one we have now; there's a case to be made for a stimulus that's like the one we have now, but a great deal smaller and more targeted; and there's a case to be made for a stimulus that's absolutely gargantuan. But thanks to the centrists, we're getting the cheapskate version of the gargantuan version:

[More...]

They've done absolutely nothing to widen the terms of debate about what should go into the bill, and they've shaved off just enough money to reduce its effectiveness if Paul Krugman is right - but not nearly enough to make it fiscally prudent if the stimulus skeptics are right. This means that if the damn thing doesn't work, we won't even know whom to blame. But it wouldn't be crazy to start by blaming the centrists.

(Emphasis supplied.) If only the world worked like that. But in the world we live in now, if the stimulus does not work, President Obama and Democrats will be blamed.

Speaking for me only

< Congress Should Repeal the Adam Walsh Act | Reforming the Rockefeller Laws >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The town hall in Indiana (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by indy in sc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:07:10 PM EST
    is going well and hopefully augurs good things for tonight's speech/press conference.  Obama mentioned some of the things cut out of the senate version of the bill that he wants put back in--we'll see.

    Which things? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:22:37 PM EST
    Which things is he saying he wants put back in?

    Parent
    Spending related to education. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by indy in sc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:31:42 PM EST
    He mentioned education specifically based on the question he was asked, but he indicated there were other things he wants to see put back in to the bill.

    Parent
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:36:31 PM EST
    I hope it happens.

    Parent
    I'm willing to reserve judgment (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:37:46 PM EST
    until the entire process is complete, and also until I see what's next on the agenda.

    Parent
    That is where I am (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:33:42 PM EST
    He seemed particularly emphatic about education.  Hope he sticks to it and takes it to th people tonight.

    Parent
    That's what i don't get (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:01:45 PM EST
    What is next on the agenda? Who is he trying to persuade to do what at this point? The time to talk to the Senate was last week. Does he think the Senate is going to put stuff back in during conference? What will the House have to give them to do that - more tax cuts?

    I'll see how it turns out, but this strategy of Obama's seems like too little too late.

    Parent

    Yeah, I don't know (none / 0) (#44)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:22:21 PM EST
    if the sausage-making can continue or not. Commenter MikeDitto seemed to think it could. I hope so. Since I'm not that up on how the process works, I'll wait and see.

    Parent
    Next Step in Sausage Making Is... (none / 0) (#61)
    by santarita on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:53:50 PM EST
    the House-Senate Conferees will reconcile the House version and the Senate version.   Since the two versions are materially different, that step in itself should be interesting, perhaps the most interesting of the entire process because it will speak volumes about Obama's relationship with Congressional Dems.  The House could roll over and defer to the Senate version.  That would suggest that Obama has placed his muscle behind just getting the bill passed.  

    Parent
    I only meant that (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:20:41 PM EST
    I'd reserve judgment on the bill until we see what gets put back in (if anything) over the next few days, and what he'll fight for.

    Also, until we see what else is on the agenda in the next few days for the economy from Geithner, etc.

    If that's blind faith, OK then.

    Parent

    He was elected on blind faith (2.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:15:40 PM EST
    Well, at least by most of his supporters. The rest of his votes were cast with the "better than nothing [or a Republican]" mindset.

    The only predictions I've heard come from Obama are "things are going to get much worse". Though, perhaps during his meetings today we will hear him indicate he has a hint of optimism in his plan as he tries to sell it to the people.


    Parent

    Blind Faith, Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by daring grace on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:49:48 PM EST
    How is that different from any candidate elected for a first term?

    No one can predict how the person they vote for is going to perform once in office. At best, it's always a calculated bet.

    Polling throughout the fall indicated many more people trusted Obama to handle the economy and domestic issues better than McCain.

    Judging by McCain's performance in the senate thus far around the stimulus, I'm very happy he's not in the White House.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:14:31 PM EST
    Except when it comes to Hillary, she would have saved the day...  The cultists have dodged a bullet.

    Parent
    She would have? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by bocajeff on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:07:12 PM EST
    Based on what? Her husband's administration was the epitome of centrism and doing things the 3rd way.

    I love how all Hillary supporters assume she would always make the best decisions and do the ultimate things...

    There is no such thing as perfection, only direction...

    Parent

    I'll be happy if Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:09:45 PM EST
    tenure can be compared favorably with Clinton, rather than competing with Gray Davis' and Jimmy Carter.

    Parent
    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:15:57 PM EST
    squeaky is no HRC supporter - he just throws her name in every time when he has no good response and then calls those who criticize Obama PUMA's or GOP trolls.

    His comment was completely snark.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:34:19 PM EST
    Cultometer is on:

    If Hillary were elected POTUS, would you agree that she was also elected on Blind Faith?

     

    Parent

    It is legitimate to ask "based on what" (none / 0) (#100)
    by starsandstripes on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:18:21 PM EST
    But I don't understand why we resort to what her husband had to do. Hillary is a person with her own mind. For all you know she would have had a totally different take from Bill. Not to say that Bill's administration was bad - it was a pretty good period of time really.

    Parent
    That's entirely fair (none / 0) (#112)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:45:41 PM EST
    But I would argue that Hillary's senate record shows a legacy of centrism very similar to her husbands.

    Parent
    The question is (5.00 / 6) (#114)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:52:38 PM EST
    who in the heck brought Clinton(s) into it -- and why? who has this fixation on continually doing so -- and why?  As the topic is the centrism of the  president, the one we have now, why divert the discussion from that?

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:59:53 PM EST
    seeing the Clintons where they don't exist--a classic symptom of CDS.

    Parent
    What are all those broken promises? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:14:49 PM EST
    I disagree (none / 0) (#43)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:22:01 PM EST
    It matters a lot what he says. He should have been out there making the case for a real stimulus bill, instead of letting the Republicans control the debate.
    Not that what he does isn't also important. But if Obama had gotten the message out right away, Congress would not have been getting so many complaints from the public.

    Parent
    Has any president (none / 0) (#85)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:56:05 PM EST
    ever had a good avg in that regard? I mean he did come through on Leadbetter and the Global Gag Rule as he said he would among other things.

    Parent
    Wow, going mano a mano with Susan Collins (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    If he can't win this one, I give up.

    Parent
    Hey! (none / 0) (#18)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:04:47 PM EST
    Don't let that laconic manner of speaking fool you.  She's tough as nails.

    Parent
    I'l keep that in mind (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:56:52 PM EST
    A tough as nails centrist master compromiser.

    Parent
    Well, in her caucus (none / 0) (#80)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:35:56 PM EST
    it might take a bit of spunk to tell her leadership she's jumping ship.

    Not always, of course.  They know she's vulnerable and they don't want to lose the seat to a Democrat.  They see the handwriting on the wall and may well be giving her a pass.

    She's on TV now, threatening to bolt the agreement if it changes too much in conference.

    Parent

    Yes, I heard her this morning say the same thing (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:00:53 PM EST
    That's what I meant above - who is going to blink, her or Obama? And did you ever think you would have to speculate on such a thing with a Dem president and Dem Congress? As someone said on another blog, I think Corrente, we have our first female president, and her name is Susan Collins.

    Parent
    Oldpro (none / 0) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:11:57 PM EST
    she just won her last election quite thumpingly and she's not up for another 6 years.  Her behavior right now has zippo to do with fear of reelection prospects.


    Parent
    Several times I have heard her called (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 06:06:14 PM EST
    "bulletproof" because she won so easily this year.


    Parent
    Riiiiight...I couldn't remember (none / 0) (#119)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 05:16:32 PM EST
    if she was in the last cycle or not and too lazy to look it up...so, thanks!

    Parent
    Personally, I don't find (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:10:24 PM EST
    his town hall persona very effective. But apparently it worked in the fall. . .

    Parent
    And even if you believed ... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:15:50 PM EST
    he was "teh awesome" in Town Halls.  He's still arguing bad policy which will soon bite him in the ... ahem ... awesome.

    Parent
    He was awkward (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by indy in sc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:25:06 PM EST
    in town halls during the campaign.  That is why I was surprised at how comfortable he seemed today.  The important thing, of course, is what happens to the bill in conference, but the sales job is getting better.  It was completely lacking until a couple of days ago.

    Parent
    Not necessarily (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:23:32 PM EST
    Don't forget McCain was pulling ahead when the banks collapsed. After that Obama had it in the bag.

    Parent
    Some people need ... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:12:21 PM EST
    to be reminded how this works.

    The President owns the economy.  End. Of. Story.

    This is an inviolate political fact!


    I think he just meant (none / 0) (#16)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:39:18 PM EST
    the real world we actually live in, not the fantasy world that pundits have made up inside their heads.

    Parent
    He certainly owns it politically (none / 0) (#51)
    by Salo on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:43:42 PM EST
    Does he have any guts to take care o' what needs to be taken care of though?  Or is he going to get buggered by Uncle Sam the same way Nixon done in Coover's Public Burning...

    "uncle Sam I... love you!"

    Parent

    Shouldn't it be the "so-called... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by santarita on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    Centrists"?  Calling them Centrists suggest that they represent a political philosophy rather than a negotiating strategy.  But the quote is accurate - there are two opposed schools of thought on the stimulus - one is that cutting taxes and reducing spending is the way to go and the other is that targeted massive spending is the way to go.  The first way doesn't have the support of the majority of the creditable economists, while the second way does.  The so-called Centrists are doing nothing more than splitting the baby.  It's not principled, philosophical or intelligent.  But it is expedient.  

    Meanwhile ... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:21:53 PM EST
    over in Orangeland we're being told once again about the "master of 11 dimensional chess."

    How succumbing to Republican whims is "laying a trap for Republicans" I'll never understand.

    But what do I know?  I still suck at Checkers.

    ;)  

    dkos is now a fitness site (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by coigue on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:43:43 PM EST
    specializing in advanced yoga.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:04:51 PM EST
    Here's a MyDD diary along the same lines.  You'd almost think it was parody.

    Parent
    They really think he's Spock? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:12:08 PM EST
    Oy.

    Parent
    I can't wait till ... (4.20 / 5) (#49)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:32:06 PM EST
    I get to read the diaries about how letting the country slip into depression was all part of his shrewd plan.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:42:57 PM EST
    God help me, I can already imagine what they will say.

    Parent
    Using the Vulcan Death Grip? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:45:49 PM EST
    I suppose... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Salo on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:47:32 PM EST
    ...it could turn into a Bolshie revolution.  

    Parent
    Thanks Rush (none / 0) (#86)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:58:42 PM EST
    Root for that failure! "I can't wait for Depression" What the hell kind of attitude is that wanting the country to fail just so that you'll be right?

    Parent
    What that diarist is engaging in... (none / 0) (#23)
    by santarita on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:21:42 PM EST
    is called wishful thinking.  If the Senate bill is what is signed into law, this first foray of post-partisanship will look very much like a defeat or maybe a Pyrrhic victory for Obama.  That narrative is already being written by the MSM.  The first round may be a loss but hopefully Obama can learn from the mistakes and come out better the next time.

    Parent
    Perhaps ... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:24:11 PM EST
    but 11 dimensional chess it is not.

    Parent
    Chess-boxing is where its at, man. (none / 0) (#88)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:02:29 PM EST
    That's a lot more like politics than any chess variant.


    Parent
    I thought (none / 0) (#102)
    by Nasarius on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:21:34 PM EST
    When I first heard about chess boxing, from a girl in Berlin who said she does it for fun, that she was possibly joking or slightly crazy. Or that I was somehow misunderstanding her.

    But no, so says Wikipedia: used to be fictional, now it's real. Unbelievably awesome.

    Parent

    I first heard about it during the Olympics. (none / 0) (#107)
    by tigercourse on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:34:12 PM EST
    And yes, awesome.

    Parent
    Yes. Obama and the Democrats (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:17:12 PM EST
    will be blamed as well they should be.

    What happened to "have a bill on my desk that I can sign on day one?"

    The urgency message of a stimulus has been lost with all the dillydallying, cocktail parties and visits to the Hill to curry favor with Republicans.

    Scurrying around the country now to gin up support when he had it three weeks ago borders on comic...theatre of the absurd.  Back to that comfortable campaign mode, so familiar and reassuring to the candidate.  Not to me.

    Stay 'home.'  Tend to business.  Get a replacement for Daschle.

    Jeez.  Too much time on Air Force One.

    According to Huff Post, (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:07:34 PM EST
    President bumped his head entering Air Force One.  Maybe that explains something?

    Parent
    Marine One (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:28:45 PM EST
    But I laughed when I read that too (I know, I shouldn't, but hey, it's funny).

    Parent
    They had the film on it (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:07:49 PM EST
    It was when he turned to do the gratuitous wave to the press as he entered the chopper. It was hard not to chuckle...I would have laughed no matter who it was, though.

    Parent
    SNL will have to bring back Chevy Chase (none / 0) (#90)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:04:24 PM EST
    if that keeps up.

    Parent
    I doubt the sincerity of this gang (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by nellre on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:51:36 PM EST
    I doubt the sincerity of this gang of "centrists"
    It's political maneuvering and posturing.
    I wish we could file malpractice suits against members of congress.

    Seems Obama and team (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by SOS on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:19:00 PM EST
    has learned in two weeks that the systems are absolutely tanking, that the previous way of life that everybody was so set on not apologizing for has reached the end of the line. Especially the part that allowed people to buy stuff with no money.

    And maybe even ... (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:22:53 PM EST
    WITH money.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by SOS on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:25:18 PM EST
    that too.

    Parent
    I'm going re-ask this question (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:46:26 PM EST
    from downstairs in the open thread (it's not entirely OT b/c it's stimulus related) and it's really bothering me now:  

    if the idea behind picking Biden (over HRC) was his experience in the Senate and that Obama said, specifically, that Biden's main job as VP was going to be his liaison to Congress--then why the h*ll is Biden in Europe (doing the SOS job, no less!?!) while the Obama administration is trying to pass its legacy legislation?

    And better question, why hasn't anyone else asked this yet?  

    Anyone want to indulge me?

    Fantastic question (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:02:57 PM EST
    Wish I had an answer.

    Parent
    Maybe Obama's afraid Biden (none / 0) (#91)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:07:05 PM EST
    will say something stupid.

    Maybe Rahm nixed it.

    Who the heck knows?  Nothing really makes sense to me.

    Parent

    Biden already did, again (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:55:53 PM EST
    according to CNN.  Biden said about the stimulus bill that there's a 30 percent chance that it won't work.  The stimulus bill that Obama is pushing today on the road and on primetime national tv tonight.

    Is there any leftover duct tape in the Homeland Security office to send along with Biden -- for his mouth?  (As for any leftover clear plastic, no, I don't want to see Biden wrapped in that.)

    Parent

    well technically (none / 0) (#98)
    by Nasarius on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:15:17 PM EST
    At least at the Munich Security Conference, he's doing the job previously done by the SecDef.

    Nah, you can't really blame this on anyone but Obama. It's an utter failure of leadership from the top. Where's the clear message? The goal? The plan? All we have is a mishmash of insufficient investment, wasteful tax cuts, and a President saying that's just fine.

    Parent

    Competence----> priceless. (none / 0) (#122)
    by robert72 on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 05:47:43 PM EST
    Is nothing better than current bill? (none / 0) (#3)
    by magster on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:12:08 PM EST
    I don't know, but it seems like if the plan in its current version isn't enough, why jack up the debt by another trillion now? Is it better to try again later when a better bill is more likely to pass (e.g. attached to Iraq supplemental or when Franken and Kennedy can vote)?

    The House bill is better than nothing (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    I'm not sure about the Senate bill.

    Neither is nearly enough.

    Parent

    Obama at the town hall (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by dk on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:40:36 PM EST
    said:

    "You know, look, it's not perfect," the president conceded. "But it is the right size, it is the right scope. Broadly speaking, it has the right priorities to create jobs that will jump-start our economy and transform the economy for the 21st century."

    If that's what he really thinks, that is not good.

    Parent

    The right size?. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    Does any self-respecting economist really believe it's the right size?

    That seems like the completely wrong argument to make about this package.

    Parent

    Well, it wouldn't be the (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by dk on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:10:04 PM EST
    wrong argument from Obama's perspective if he believes it.

    Parent
    But it's a bad ... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:14:42 PM EST
    argument politically.  One of the main criticisms of this package is it's too small.

    So if you're admitting it's "not perfect," why, in the same breath, say it's the right size?

    Parent

    Think of it this way: (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:39:21 PM EST
    it's winter and you don't have a winter coat, and you can't afford to buy one.  Someone takes pity on you, and gives you the most hideous coat you have ever seen - orange, pink and black super-size plaid, with faux zebra collar and cuffs.  But, surprise!  It's exactly your size.

    So, you have the right-sized coat, but it's far from perfect.

    Now, I think from all I have read from those whose opinions and knowledge I trust on this, that the stimulus isn't even the right size.  This particular "coat" has sleeves that don't come down far enough, and it's too short to protect me from the rain, snow and wind, and I can't get it buttoned all the way (hmmm...maybe it's not that the coat is the wrong size, but that I am too big to fit into it).

    The sick feeling I get is that Obama doesn't know the issue well enough to give a credible opinion about, or make the case for, any plan; I get the feeling that whatever shape and size the plan was, he would be arguing that it was the right thing to do.

    I am trying very, very hard not to think about how Hillary would know this inside and out, and would not have to resort to simple scare tactics and talking points in order to sell it, but, I am failing miserably.


    Parent

    I have a feeling ... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:52:48 PM EST
    that it's not even a winter coat.

    Parent
    That may be our main (none / 0) (#40)
    by dk on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    criticism, but it is not the main criticism in the maintsream.

    Parent
    I guess Nobel Prize winning ... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:50:30 PM EST
    economists aren't mainstream.

    Sadly, that may be true.  But ...

    Parent

    Using scare tactics (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:13:00 PM EST
    He also said:

    ELKHART, Ind. -- Making his case in the most dire terms, President Barack Obama said that if Congress does not quickly pass an economic stimulus package, the nation will slip into a crisis so deep that "we may be unable to reverse" it.

    "We can't afford to wait. We can't wait to see and hope for the best," Obama said in Elkhart, Ind., a community reeling in job losses during the recession that has defined his young presidency. "We can't posture and bicker and resort to the same failed ideas that got us in into this mess in the first place."

    Now, that really bothers me. There is rarely ever only ONE solution to any problem. I would like to see some of that HOPE coming from the man who sold it to the people. Why in the world would we ever be in a position where we wouldn't be able to reverse direction of anything if we put our capable minds to it?

    Parent

    NPR sd. unemployment is 16% (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 06:49:52 PM EST
    in Elkhart at present.

    P.S.  This is the town which used to make instruments for school bands.  

    Parent

    Meanwhile, a columnist (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:08:04 PM EST
    at Huff Post compares Obama to Gray Davis.  Ouch.

    Unfair. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by coigue on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:42:35 PM EST
    My lights are still on.

    Parent
    Today. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:09:48 PM EST
    I should say..they still would be on (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by coigue on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:12:14 PM EST
    had I paid the bill.

    Parent
    Actually, might be quite fair (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Lori J on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:19:26 PM EST
    Nice comeback, but there just might be something to the comparison.   Davis' milquetoast response to the train wreck set in motion by his Republican predecessor was a huge factor in his political demise.   All of his genuflection to the corporatists got him nothing except recalled.  Sure he lobbied FERC and called for consumers to reduce their energy use, but always politely couched within the political rules of those who control the status quo.  One prime-time speech announcing to Californians that he was using his emergency powers to take over the in-state operations of even one of those criminally-culpable operators would have made him a hero and kept Schwarzenegger forever in Hollywood.  

    Parent
    Daviss was "gamed." (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:22:39 PM EST
    true...by ENRON (none / 0) (#56)
    by coigue on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:49:23 PM EST
    He had no back up from the local party... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Salo on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:45:49 PM EST
    ...or from congress.  He also had a wildly hostile President and Veep to deal with.  Those days were the nadir of the party. On a nation scale.

    Obama can within reason do whatever the f*** he likes. There's no-one around to reign him in for at least a year.

    Parent

    Looking for support in wrong places (none / 0) (#78)
    by Lori J on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:26:11 PM EST
    I do completely agree with your point about Obama.

    The CA situation is much more complex than I indicated but the broader point about the need to act boldly and the lessons one might learn from the Davis situation still apply.  Namely, a bold Davis might have staved off a backlash, turned the people's anger toward the criminals who were gaming the system and stopped a recall before it ever got off the ground.

    (BTW: It first became apparent in CA that things were seriously off the rails in 2000, while Clinton was still president. FERC (with Clinton appointees) was involved directly from at least 2000 as well. Of course, you're correct about the wildly hostile President and Veep beginning Jan 01.)

    Parent

    OT: Obama maintains Bush position on rendition (none / 0) (#47)
    by Andreas on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:26:52 PM EST
    ACLU statement (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Andreas on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    While I never shared the optimism that Obama would be different here is the ACLU statement:

    The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

    "Eric Holder's Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same. Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama's Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again."

    The following can be attributed to Ben Wizner, a staff attorney with the ACLU, who argued the case for the plaintiffs:

    "We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration's practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course. Now we must hope that the court will assert its independence by rejecting the government's false claims of state secrets and allowing the victims of torture and rendition their day in court."

    Justice Department Stands Behind Bush Secrecy In Extraordinary Rendition Case (2/9/2009)

    Parent

    Andreas (none / 0) (#66)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:09:40 PM EST
    Can I asked you a serious question ?

    Do you subscribe to the school of thought that President Obama has had a bad  3 weeks

    Parent

    Except for the stimulus bill, (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:25:00 PM EST
    Obama has had a good 3 weeks. The stuff about his cabinet nominees is very minor.


    Parent
    "Except for the stimulus plan" ... (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:28:37 PM EST
    is a little like, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

    Parent
    I think you could ask Obama (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:48:52 PM EST
    himself how he liked the play, or the musical, or the ballet---right?

    Parent
    That's too funny !!! (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:18:23 PM EST
    Eventhough you are a bit too negative at times porter

    you're above comment is very very funny

    Parent

    Thanks That one (none / 0) (#104)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:22:55 PM EST
    But where did Obama actually go wrong?

    Was it him allowing the co-equal branch of government to introduce its own legislation with executive structure suggestions?

    If that's the case then is that a bad thing?

    And if you were in the whitehouse how would you have gone about it?

    thanks for your earlier reply

    Parent

    Here's three. (none / 0) (#124)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 06:40:34 PM EST
    1. He didn't ask for enough money to start with
    2. He made a point to invite Republican input, saying that Republicans have good ideas. That may be so, but not in the are of the economy, and not now.
    3. He had Rahm work to get MORE GOP-friendly tax cuts in the Senate version.


    Parent
    Good points That one (none / 0) (#130)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 07:25:37 PM EST
    1. But didn't Paul krugman also increase his recommendations for how big the stim pkg should have been as the crisis changed nearly everyday?  

    2. Did Obama introduced the bill or did a congress person from our co equal branch of govenment?

    3. As progressives do we want a clear line between each branch of government or do we want that only when were in the minority party?

    4. And if the co equal branch introduced the bill  isn't their fault for not introducing a larger bill?

    5. And if that's the case then wouldn't the pressure actually fall on the congress person district?

    Now true we can fault Obama for not using his bully pulpit earlier. I will concede that point.

    I have a question for you but i also asked dr. molly the same question so i don't want to be too redundant

    Do we think Obama likes tax cuts-- or were they used as a tool to get the 3 republican votes he needed?

    Which is better a moderately progressive bill or none at all?

    Thanks for taking out your time to respond to my posts.

    thanks

    Parent

    Let's just wait and see. (none / 0) (#132)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 09:13:30 PM EST
    I don't see any point in a long argument about a bill that isn't final yet.

    Parent
    Andreas (none / 0) (#120)
    by CDN Ctzn on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 05:32:59 PM EST
    seems we're too busy playing the "something shiney over here" game to pay attention to the crap that's continuing behind the scenes. Not that the economy isn't a big deal but we're so ADD that's it's impossible to focus on two issues at once. That's what the politicians count on. Just a little misdirection here while we continue with the crimes of the past.
    Thanks for trying to bring this important issue to the forefront where it belongs!

    Parent
    Seamless Transition of Change. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Salo on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:46:36 PM EST
    The old adage--the more things change the more they stay the same.

    Parent
    I think the Obama ... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:58:01 PM EST
    administration has just become "post-change."

    They've moved beyond the tired rhetoric of change for a good old-fashioned dose of sameness.

    I'm sure someone will tell me how shrewd this all is.

    ;)

    Parent

    The change concept was so last year. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:14:17 PM EST
    Same is ... (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:18:01 PM EST
    the new change.

    Parent
    Brilliant! (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:20:31 PM EST
    It is all part of the master post-plan.

    Parent
    Dr Molly (none / 0) (#72)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:20:23 PM EST
    Can i asked you a some serious questions?

     Are you always negative towards Obama?

    What has Pres Obama done while in office?

    How many of them do you disagree with?


    Parent

    My answers: (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:25:40 PM EST
    Sure.

    No.

    He's done a lot of good things that I like (ledbetter act, picking good science advisors, overturning gag rule, is saying he will reverse stem cell research ban,and several other things). And he's disappointed me a bit too - Salazar, Gregg, some other things.

    He's disappointing me right now with the economic stimulus plan because I think he has a progressive mandate and is not taking full advantage of it. But I'll wait a few days on that one. I do not think he'll be a Jimmy Carter, nor do I think he'll be a FDR. But I hope he'll be more like the latter than the former.

    Parent

    Thanks for your feedback (none / 0) (#97)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:13:06 PM EST
     I'm sorry i took so long to respond-- i had to pick my daughter up from school.

    Thank you for taking time to reply to my interview questions-- lol

    But how can the Pres get congress to pass a stim pkg where he needs 60 votes to prevent cloture?

    If the republicans all sticked together-- We can't get it done.

    Where can we get the additional votes?

    Obama nor does Reid have 3 magical fairy surprise votes

    So why can't we aim our heat at repubs instead of eachother?

    Some might say well let's just make them filibuster-- but we have already concluded the repubs don't care about the economic welfare of this country

    So do you rather have a moderately econ bill passed none at all?

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#105)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:28:33 PM EST
    that you underestimate the power that Obama has, if he were willing to really be bold and capitalize on the momentum of the election. That's why I say he's no FDR (but I also doubt he'll be a Carter). In fact, if I had to wager right now, I'd say he be about like a Clinton. And that's a wasted opportunity at this moment in time, IMO, with democratic majorities in both houses.

    (BTW, what is with your blog name? I hope it is not meant to diss BTD.)

    Parent

    Thanks again for your reply (none / 0) (#111)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:44:42 PM EST
    No no i love BTD- its more of a sign of respect opposed to a diss. I figure if i can show respect for BTD then if i ever disagree with him -- he would respect my viewpoint more.  Thus, allowing me to have more influence in blog discussions.

    Nope, you gotta pay respect to the top dogs Jeralyn, BTD and Tchris. It is not wise to pick fights with people you write by the pixels or HTML code.

    Again, Dr. Molly i respect your view point. But how can anyone put political pressure on Collins- Specter or Snowe when they say if you do x i am not going to vote for this pkg?

    How do you negotiate with people who don't want to?

    Where do we get the votes?  Now if there was some procedural process where we can get around the 60th vote-- then i completely agree with you that would be a loss.

    Parent

    The matter of 60 votes or not, (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 05:06:02 PM EST
    and how to get them has been hashed around here for days in previous posts.

    Lastly, Bush and Rove did not seem to have a problem putting political pressure on plenty of democrats and succeeding in getting them to vote for his (extreme) policies. Let's hope Obama and Rahmbo can measure up in that regard.

    Parent

    i apologize for not reading the previous posts (none / 0) (#121)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 05:35:53 PM EST
    But Dr. Molly people say it all the time

    Some Dems are weak-- and spineless.

    So its no wonder why we caved to Bush.

    The republicans for the most held firm  we caved sometimes and Bush got some of his bills passed.
    That's simple to understand

    But our situation is different, all of are guys are voting together-- the problem is so are the repub's. Their too firm.

    So are we disappointed at Obama for the repub's holding firm?

    Is that Obama's fault?  Or should we figure out a way to break up the repubs? divide and conquer

    Obama is using bi-partianship talk and concessions in the stim pkg-- to break them up?

    It seems like it worked

    Do we suggest steam rolling them? Will that back fire and make them more firm?

    Bill Clinton one of the toughest and politically savvy Presidents-- with all his might couldn't get his stim bill passed perfectly the way he wanted.

    Pls Dr. Molly will you agree with me that our dissappointment is misplaced?

    We should be dissappointed in the stupidity of the repubs instead of Obama.

    Parent

    Oh please!!! (none / 0) (#62)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:57:01 PM EST
    ok here are the guidelines for criticizing OBAMA

    Criticizing Obama When he has done wrong-- GOOD-- what we should do as citizens.

    Criticizing Obama: Based on speculation ------------is Bad

    Criticizing Obama: Before he has made the decision but is seriously considering it based on his own words in context--- good

    Criticizing Obama: Based off of a article that cites some unnamed white house aide is bad.

    Dr. Reality is calling will you pick up?

    Parent

    May we inquire who sent you? (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 06:54:42 PM EST
    hey sure (none / 0) (#127)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 07:05:19 PM EST
    what do you want to know?

    I wasn't sent by anyone

    but i will admit you make me feel like a special person by asking if i was sent by anyone.

    Also Oculus i have read your posts for nearly 4-5 months now. I am truly honored to have a question from you.

    So pls feel free to ask me any question you see fit.

    Thanks

    Parent

    Why did you use all caps (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 07:08:04 PM EST
    for your user name?

    Parent
    Your' re pretty funny oculus (none / 0) (#131)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 07:29:21 PM EST
    You know that's a good question-- and i am glad you brought it up because i wanted to change it

    but i am new to blog publishing--

    blog reading- i am ok with -- lol

    Parent

    Shouldn't it say (none / 0) (#94)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:10:15 PM EST
    Obama maintains Bush-Clinton postion- I mean the policy was established by executive order in the Clinton admin.

    Parent
    Archie Bunker on Democrats (none / 0) (#60)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:52:58 PM EST
    But on all pols obviously.  Classic, hilarious, spot on, and, unfortunately, timeless.

    Link

    Congressional Budget Office (none / 0) (#95)
    by bocajeff on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:11:24 PM EST
    Says we'll be out of the recession by the end of this year without any type of stimulus package, without the debts we'll incur, without the interest we'll have to pay back for eons...Any thougths?

    I don't understand how that can be when we're being told that the world will end if this bill doesn't pass????

    Technical definition of recession (none / 0) (#103)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:22:25 PM EST
    The technical definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of falling GDP.  The CBO has projected that GDP will begin to grow again (moderately) in 2010, so the recession is techncially over when that happens.  That does not mean that employment and GDP snap back up to where they were before and all is hunky-dory.  The CBO report says:

    The economy is currently enduring a recession that started more than a year ago. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that, in the absence of any changes in fiscal policy, economic activity will contract more sharply in 2009 than it did in 2008 and the economy will grow at only a moderate pace in 2010. Under that projection, the shortfall in the nation's output relative to its potential would be the largest--in
    terms of both length and depth--since the depression of the 1930s. Lost output would represent nearly 7 percent of the estimated potential output in both 2009 and 2010--amounting to about $1 trillion in each year--and almost 5 percent of the potential in 2011. Payroll employment declined by 2-1/2 million jobs last year, and CBO projects that, without further policy actions, even more jobs will be lost this year. The unemployment rate increased by more than 2 percentage points last year, reaching 7.2 percent, and is projected to peak at above 9 percent early next year.

    Go look at Figure 1 in the CBO report. It is not pretty.

    Parent

    I did read the report... (none / 0) (#110)
    by bocajeff on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:40:03 PM EST
    My point is that if we do nothing the economy will begin to snap back at the end of this year. That's if we do nothing....

    Some have argued that putting $800 billion in the system is what we need...some say $2 trillion.

    Some of the bill is to take effect in over 2 years....

    Now, what is the best way to move forward from an economic rather than political manner? That is the question...

    Also, as argued before this is a recession caused by overborrowing and a freeze in the capital markets. Anything that doesn't address those two issues isn't going to stop what is happening. It may alleviate the pain, it may help some at the expense of others, but it will prolong the deep problem caused by the credit markets...

    Parent

    The CBO report makes clear (none / 0) (#115)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:54:58 PM EST
    that nothing is snapping back very quickly. A prolonged recession followed by a slow recovery leads to permanent losses in output.

    I agree that you want to look at the tradeoff of the long-term costs and benefits of doing something versus the long-term costs and benefits of doing nothing. Economists that I know and respect think that it is imperative to have short-term fiscal stimulus while also addressing the long-term credit problem.

    Parent

    if not  why would they release this today before the vote ?

    Parent
    Huh? Are you replying to me? (none / 0) (#109)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:36:08 PM EST
    The CBO link is to Congressional testimony given on January 27.

    Parent
    Oooppps (none / 0) (#113)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:51:14 PM EST
     I thought the cbo was releasing a Brand new report to effect the senate votes today

    Parent
    Public Opinion (none / 0) (#128)
    by wickedlittledoll on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 07:05:22 PM EST
    And you wonder why people view Congress as only slightly more appealing than a root canal without anesthesia.


    http://democralypsenow.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-more-popular-than-stimulus-bill.html