Quote of the Day:
“If a woman tells you she's twenty and looks sixteen, she's twelve. If she tells you she's twenty-six and looks twenty-six, she's damn near fourty.” – Chris Rock
Today's Fun Fact:
Despite the images we’ve all seen in our grade school science books, it isn’t possible to draw a map of our solar system to scale. On a sheet of paper, with Earth reduced to about the diameter of a pea, Jupiter would be over a thousand feet away and Pluto would be a mile and a half away (and about the size of a bacterium, so you wouldn’t be able to see it anyway).
So the $819 billion stimulus bill passed the House late yesterday. It passed despite (at last count) exactly 0 Republicans voting for it. While it's not altogether unusual for a vote to line up almost exclusively along party lines, this one was notable for the fact that Obama at least made an effort to achieve bipartisanship on it. How much of an effort you think he made probably depends on your overall opinion of him. In an attempt to garner Republican support, he removed funding for planned parenthood groups and funding to renovate the national Mall (both criticized as wasteful spending by the Republicans) while adding some of the additional tax cuts the Republicans are asking for.
The question now being asked is should Obama have even bothered with his overtures? It seems that Republicans think he is somewhat cornered by his promises of bipartisanship. If he fails to make any compromises they can argue that he is shutting them out of the process and reneging on his promise to work with them, and if he fails to go far enough to meet them they can still vote it down (even though they know it will pass) so that they can criticize it when parts of it inevitably don't work. Basically, they want to morph the Obama "I never voted for this war" platform to "I never voted for this stimulus" in the 2010 elections. In essence, they are gambling that the stimulus will either not work, not work quick enough, or just be unpopular. They would say they are not "gambling", since they seem pretty sure it's not going to work.
Personally, I think the Republicans are playing a dangerous game. According to Gallup, Obama currently has an overall 64% approval rating, and 45% amongst Republicans. That's bound to decrease as the recession deepens (as almost all experts think it will). Still, if the public perceives that the Republicans are more interested in blocking the Obama agenda than they are in stimulating the economy it may end up pleasing the 16% that currently disapprove of Obama at the expense of pissing off everyone else.
So should Obama even bother trying to court Republican support if they seem so intent to rebuff it? The only real point of compromise is to give and get concessions from both sides. Why water down the bill you want in the name of appeasing a group that's still going to criticize the legislation anyway? With future legislation (starting with this stimulus bill in the Senate) I think Obama should take the tactic of sitting down with Republican leadership and saying that while he likes the bill the way it is, he is willing to make certain compromises in order to gain bipartisan support. However, if after making those compromises Republicans indicate that they still will not support it he should tell them he is getting rid of all the revisions and going with the bill as originally written. If the legislation is going to be criticized anyway, let it truly be your legislation that you take the heat for. It's true that Republicans can still fillibuster in the Senate, but that would really be a game of political chicken in this climate. Opposing a bill is one thing, but outright blocking a vote is not likely to win them any new supporters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
With the country being as partisan as it is right now, I tend to think his approval rating among conservatives is going to slide downward in the next year or so as those he won over on the campaign trail get pulled back home. On the other hand, what I still hope is possible (and I believe this President has an above-average capacity to make happen) is a slow gain among Republican voters over the next 4-8 years as he takes the tactic of engaging people who disagree with him and trying to debate the facts with them--even conceding points (gasp!) to the opponent when he's right--instead of just yelling and running away. Going with that, two things in your post I wanted to respond to:
"So should Obama even bother trying to court Republican support if they seem so intent to rebuff it?"
1. Don't you think it's a little soon to give up? Especially for him? Winners never quit, and quitters never win. Right? Maybe that's cheaters. But still.
and 2. The above line of reasoning sounds vaguely reminiscent of the quote, "If they won't help me, why should I help them?" that we bashed Limbaugh for saying just the other day. Please oh please let's not be babies about it.
Your other quote hits closer to the mark and I wanted to second it:
"I think Obama should take the tactic of sitting down with Republican leadership and saying that while he likes the bill the way it is, he is willing to make certain compromises in order to gain bipartisan support. However, if after making those compromises Republicans indicate that they still will not support it he should tell them he is getting rid of all the revisions and going with the bill as originally written."
That's the key to this all, and the only way to make any inroads into a Republican block. Communication, respect, cut-the-crap honesty. Is it possible? Sigh. Again, I hope so. I think it's our best shot.
*Also, side note and only marginally related: Note to self: Learn what they teach those hostage negotiator people when they go through training. The people they send in to talk down the gunmen? I think that would be some handy power-struggle knowledge.
Nice title by the way.
Post a Comment