The Obamanation

[sugarpop]

So maybe if they kept saying "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" a la John McCain, they could have averted the whole mess. :p

[classicman]

Cmon Sugah - I think you know what I mean. Thats a cheapshot, I expect more from you.

[sugarpop]

yea yea, well I thought I needed to lighten up a little.

[classicman]

I've had my concerns, but I'm beginning to wonder how much of a 's problem Pelosi is really gonna be for Obama. I think that he is genuine in his desire to do what is right, but after four appointees with tax issues, this has not been a great start. He is getting some things done and seems to be trying. Doesn't he have these appointees checked out beforehand? I mean seriously - WTF? Did these people think no one would notice or find out about prior problems? This makes him look naive.

Enter Nancy Pelosi -

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. — As whispers of tension between the White House and congressional Democrats cloud negotiations over the stimulus, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reassured her rank and file Thursday that they remain President Barack Obama's "most enthusiastic supporters."

"We have his back," Pelosi told a roomful of Democrats at the party's annual retreat at the Kingsmill Resort and Spa, according to people in the room.

The speaker also pledged "to work in a bipartisan way" before complaining that Republican ideas "take us in the wrong direction."

Her remarks won loud applause from the assembled lawmakers, according to one participant.

In her remarks to the Democratic retreat, Pelosi also promised her caucus that she would restore regular order to the House by bringing legislation through committees — something Democrats often ignored during their first two years in power."

The speaker also promised to be more fiscally responsible as Congress moves forward.

"We must not heap mountains of debt on our children and grandchildren," Pelosi told the crowd.

Well isn't that interesting, She "promised to be more fiscally responsible"
Not with this bill - doesn't this thing "heap mountains of debt on our children and grandchildren." The exact thing she said we couldn't do?

Pelosi has had to fight back reports that Obama administration officials had tacitly encouraged dissent from moderate Blue Dog Democrats. Many of these fiscally conservative Democrats have pushed back on the size and scope of the stimulus, and Obama has been open about trimming back Pelosi’s version of the bill.

From Time

On nearly every major issue — from the auto bailout and the stimulus bill to tax cuts and the delicate question of whether to investigate Bush Administration officials for crimes related to torture — Pelosi has voiced and even pushed through the House differing positions from the President, at times to the embarrassment of Democrats. Obama and Pelosi each, of course, have distinct motives, and personalities: Pelosi is a partisan warrior who must tend to her caucus, while Obama got elected as a postpartisan healer, implicitly attacking the old ways of Washington and striving to appeal to a broader national base.

"Is it your fault in some ways," pressed a reporter at Pelosi's weekly press conference last Thursday, "that Barack Obama's first vote was so partisan and not bipartisan?"

Pelosi snapped back: "I didn't come here to be partisan. I didn't come here to be bipartisan. I came here, as did my colleagues, to be nonpartisan, to work for the American people, to do what is in their interest."

Obama may have the political capital, but Pelosi has no illusions about the way things work on Capitol Hill. "What she realized with Obama coming in was that, yeah, we can go through this dance, but at the end of the day, this was going to be a tutorial for the Obama folks," a House staffer close to Pelosi told Politico. "They're all going to vote against you and then come to your cocktail party that night."

I find this very interesting - there seems to be a power struggle taking place here.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

I find this very interesting - there seems to be a power struggle taking place here.

No doubt. In the end I expect both of the Demoncrats, Pelosi and Reid, to want to "Jessie Jackson" him and want to cut his balls off over his ability to get things done. I am cautiously optimistic for him, not so much for Pelosi and Reid.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No doubt. In the end I expect both of the Demoncrats, Pelosi and Reid, to want to "Jessie Jackson" him and want to cut his balls off over his ability to get things done. I am cautiously optimistic for him, not so much for Pelosi and Reid.

I have no idea what wanting to "Jessie Jackson" him means and I really dont want to know.

I dont think the minor differences between Obama and the Congressional Democrats are all that dramatic. It comes with being the "big tent" party and having to be responsive to a diversity of views and constituents...from the blue dogs to the leftists. Its the process of feeling each other out and setting boundaries. Pelosi and Reid know who is in charge.

The so-called "power struggle" is more a creation of the right to take attention away from their own struggles in attempting to placate their base and appeal to the broader national constituency that they have lost in recent years and who want change in both tone and policy.

I was amused by a Repubican Congressman from Texas who suggested the Republicans need to understand and consider "insurgency" as a response strategy to Pelosi...and using the Taliban as a model before an aid shut him up..

Sessions: GOP Insugency "May Be Required"

That will play well with the swing voters!

[TheMercenary]

Great so why can't they get a fucking thing done! Really? The Demoncrats own this. They are in charge. If this fails it is their fault.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Great so why can't they get a fucking thing done! Really? The Democrats own this. They are in charge. If this fails it is their fault.

Why can't they get a fucking thing done? Perhaps, because they have been debating the stimulus package for all of two weeks. Damn, why are you in such a fucking hurry to declare "no change" or "failure" before even giving them a chance...perhaps because that is what you want to see?

I would prefer that they make the package as good as possible rather than do it as quickly as possible within a reasonably expeditious time frame.

The one significant difference in what we are seeing with the Democrats controlling both the Congress and the White House....no quick rubber stamp of the administration's wishes by the Congress on what is likely to be the most significant action of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress over the next four years.

Would the country have been better off if there had been more debate and less rush to rubber-stamping by the Republican majority at the time (and yes, a minority of Democrats as well) of Bush's wishes on his most significant "achievements" (ie, $multi-billion tax cuts targeted to the top taxpayers, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War)? I think so.

In the end, as I said, I think those differences between Obama and the Congressional leaders are not that significant. Obama will get most of what he wants, much of the Congressional pork will be removed, bi-partisan provisions (ie more targeted tax cuts) will be added in an attempt to respond to the Republican wishes..... and those Congressional Republicans can choose to join or oppose.

And as you say, and I agree, if it fails, the Democrats will be responsible and the voters will decide in a few years if they want want to continue down that road.

And if they succeed, they will also be responsible and it will cement their approval by the public and perhaps even result in a larger majority in Congress for an even longer period of time than a typical party cycle change....something that has the Republicans shitting in their pants.

[sugarpop]

They can't get anything done, because they need at least two republican votes. But republicans want to water down the spending (which HELLO! that's exactly what we NEED!) and load it down with tax cuts, which is exactly what we DON'T need. Look at what Paul Krugman had to say this morning...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/op...06krugman.html

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

They can't get anything done, because they need at least two republican votes.

I wish they'd let the Republicans actually filibuster, instead of pretending that a bill needs 60 votes to pass.

[glatt]

Yeah, it's weird. A filibuster will be wildly unpopular with the country, and the Republicans would back down almost immediately and cave. I guess the Democrats are trying the bipartisan approach first before giving the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves. I'm not sure if they are being nice, or stupid.

[classicman]

I still think this situation has a lot to do with Obama and his wanting to be bipartisan and put an end to "business as usual in DC" versus Pelosi trying to flex her muscles. The R's, depending on your perspective, seem to be either trying to get what they think will work into this while cutting the pork or are just dickin around trying to play the spoilers.
It seems to me that if the pork got removed as well as the nice stuff that doesn't belong in a stimulus bill, this would pass in an instant. Thats the fault of both sides.

Originally Posted by classicman

I still think this situation has a lot to do with Obama and his wanting to be bipartisan and put an end to "business as usual in DC" versus Pelosi trying to flex her muscles. The R's, depending on your perspective, seem to be either trying to get what they think will work into this while cutting the pork or are just dickin around trying to play the spoilers.
It seems to me that if the pork got removed as well as the nice stuff that doesn't belong in a stimulus bill, this would pass in an instant. Thats the fault of both sides.

That appears to be what is happening.

Politicians of both parties are creatures of habit. Its not easy for them to change how they act.

In the House, they are, and have always been, highly partisan. In the Senate, they like to talk alot and debate for days, then find some level of consensus that wont please all, but would often ensure passage of legislation.

Much of the House inserted pork and popular non-stimulus related programs are being removed in the Senate (with Obama's support) to the tune of $!00 billion less then they started with.

It should pass by next week, but with little bi-partisan support, perhaps a handful of Republicans. Most Rs will dig in their heals and not support a bill that, in their ideological belief, contains too much spending and not enough tax cuts.

That works for me!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

I still think this situation has a lot to do with Obama and his wanting to be bipartisan and put an end to "business as usual in DC" versus Pelosi trying to flex her muscles. The R's, depending on your perspective, seem to be either trying to get what they think will work into this while cutting the pork or are just dickin around trying to play the spoilers.
It seems to me that if the pork got removed as well as the nice stuff that doesn't belong in a stimulus bill, this would pass in an instant. Thats the fault of both sides.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Well done.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I wish they'd let the Republicans actually filibuster, instead of pretending that a bill needs 60 votes to pass.

I think they should let them fillibuster too.

McCain wrote a bill that was almost completely tax cuts. Every republican voted for it. WTF are they THINKING? TAX CUTS are not going to help this situation. Getting a tax break will do NOTHING for people who are out of work. Buncha fucking wankers. We are losing jobs at an enormous rate. The longer we put this off, the worse it will get, the longer it will last, and it will be much more difficult to dig ourselves out of it. What the fuck don't they get about that? (sorry for the potty mouth, but I'm PISSED OFF.