I keep seeing stories like this:
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was unable to sway a group of House Republicans to vote for President Obama’s stimulus package despite inviting them to the White House Tuesday night.
In fact, no Republicans voted for the $819 billion package, which GOP leaders have described as too big and containing too much spending that will not stimulate the economy or create jobs.
In an effort to sway some Republicans, Emanuel invited GOP Reps. Jim Gerlach (Pa.), Charlie Dent (Pa.), Fred Upton (Mich.), Steven LaTourette (Ohio), Mike Castle (Del.), Candice Miller (Mich.), Vernon Ehlers (Mich.), Jo Ann Emerson (Mo.), Leonard Lance (N.J.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) and Tom Petri (Wis.) to the White House.
The invitation was part of a full-court press the new president and his staff employed as they tried to get at least some bipartisan support for the bill.
Obama invited GOP and Democratic leaders to the White House last week to listen to their ideas, but Republicans emerged from that meeting skeptical of the size and spending in the package.
And while there is no doubt some truth to the fact that Obama may have wanted some Republican support for the bill (or maybe not, maybe he wants them unified in opposition as he is portrayed as making attempts), I honestly think this is part of Obama’s larger strategy. Since taking office, he has visited Capitol Hill, seems very open to Congress and giving them access and lines of communication that they never had under Bush, and seems intent on changing the relationship between the White House and Congress. The Republicans seem to appreciate the effort, despite not providing any votes.
To put it in more crude terms, I don’t think Obama went into things thinking he was going to ply Congress with a few drinks and score on the first date. I think this is a long term strategy that may or may not pay off on other issues, and now that Katherine Harris is no longer in DC, I don’t believe anyone expected an invitation to the White House would sway any votes.
All the media reports seem to portray this as simply Obama chucking a few Manhattans at congresscritters and expecting them to vote his way. There is more to it than that.
Tony J
Whatever happens, the MSM already know deep inside that it’s "Bad for Obama", they just can’t quite fashion an explaination as to why.
KCinDC
Well, Michele Bachmann did claim that her groupieism could be transferred to Obama if he became president.
Quaker in a Basement
You mean like "acting like a responsible leader instead of team captain in a game of Red Rover"?
Radical.
Gwendy
I agree with you that the Obama outreach to the GOP is a long term strategy. On the recovery plan, he’ll get just enough votes out of the Senate and he doesn’t need them in the House.
At the same time, there are indications that he’s willing and able to beat them about the head and shoulders for this No vote. Ben Smith, quoting Mike Allen, actually has a what I think is a good take on how this goes forward.
Kirk Spencer
I agree, John.
The stimulus was pretty much guaranteed to pass. Thus the Republicans got to show that "Unless we get almost everything we want, you can’t have our vote. And we’re united." Very solid short-term gain. Bad long-term.
First, they demonstrated that the president doesn’t need them UNLESS a bill is bad enough he’s got to balance Democrats who oppose it. Congratulations, you demonstrated you don’t matter.
Second, they demonstrated an inability to compromise. There was a LOT of public show about how Obama attempted to meet the Republicans half-way. A counter-response would have been for at least some of the Republicans – the ones who made specific objections that were then used to adjust the plan in particular – to vote for the bill. Nope, 100% "no". No compromise – our way or the highway. This would actually work, except… see point one. Oh – and it’s obvious to the PUBLIC as well. Any whining in the future about unwillingness to compromise is going to be with this as a background. Now that won’t stop the whining, nor will it stop some people from believing the whining and ignoring the background. But for the majority of people – some 72% give or take – it’ll matter.
Long-term, then, Obama has demonstrated his opponents are selfish, greedy idealogues, and that they don’t matter in the overall scheme of things.
Lavocat
Obama seems to have the tactical genius of a Roman general. He’s laying the trap and the Republitards are all too eager to walk right into it.
I’m taking out stock in popcorn companies. This is gonna be fun to watch.
flounder
I can’t think the media overload helped Republicans on this either. Now the thing I noticed about the Republican full press was it was mostly cranky looking white guys with fake tans and Southern Drawls (no big surprise, the Republican party is a regional party at this point). According to researchers like Dennis R. Preston, most Americans equate southern accents with rural and uneducated.
This even applies to Southerners! I’m not defending this, but it is what it is…the lingual equivalent of passing by a black man on a dark street.
Honestly, what brings out a more visceral gut reaction of loathing than seeing the Boehner on your TV. Except seeing him twice with Mitch McConnell in between?
jnfr
Obama is very smart, and politically savvy. Much more so than the Republicans. At this point, I tend to trust his instincts (while reserving the right to disagree with his policies when I do).
Tom Hilton
Agree that he’s playing a longer game than anyone is giving him credit for. I also think the Republicans are buying themselves a whole lot more grief than they realize by blowing him off. Either Obama neuters the Republicans by getting a few of them on board, or he lets them further marginalize themselves; either way, he wins.
The other thing to keep in mind is that unlike Clinton and Bush, Obama doesn’t play for the news cycle. I’d guess the Republicans in Congress are thinking they’ve won this thing because they’re winning the news cycle–and I’d guess Obama is perfectly willing to let them think that.
R. Porrofatto
I don’t know why Dems don’t constantly bring up the 1993 deficit reduction that every single Republican voted against. The result, years of prosperity, millions of jobs created not lost, and going from a whopping deficit to a huge budget surplus which the Republicans proceeded to give away to the rich once Bush was in power. So there’s precedent for the failure of their "me first, country second" tantrums.
dmsilev
@Tom Hilton:
You’d think that anybody who was paying attention during the campaign would understand that this is Obama’s modus operandi. The McCain campaign, and the Clintonians before that, were very good at "winning the day", spinning the press, getting their attack ads aired for free by the cable news shows, etc. Obama and his team had a long-range strategy.
Guess who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?
-dms
Ash Can
The media types are going about their jobs the same way they did under Bush. It hasn’t dawned on them that the football game ended last week, and now they’re covering a hockey game.
JasonF
Anyone who has paid attention to President Obama’s career understands exactly why he went to Congress and why he had the Republicans over for dinner. There’s nothing Machiavellian about it, and there’s no secret long-term plan. It’s simply his idea of good governance.
Back when President Obama was still Illinois State Senator Obama, Illinois had a big problem with police interrogations. The police had developed a reputation — a not entirely undeserved reputation — for coercing false confessions. State Senator Obama decided a good way to solve this problem was to require taping of all interrogations. So he proposed a bill that would require just that.
This was not a popular bill. The police opposed it. The Republicans in the legislature opposed it. Many Democrats in the legislature opposed it. The governor opposed it.
So State Senator Obama proceeded to sit down with the people who opposed his bill and discuss their concerns. Where he could address their concerns without undermining the purpose of his bill, he tried to do so. Where addressing their concerns would defeat the point of his bill, he explained why that was so and why he couldn’t compromise. In the end, his bill was passed and signed into law with overwhelming bi-partisan support, including the support of the police.
That’s exactly what we saw play out with the stimulus package. President Obama saw a problem. He came up with a solution. He then proceeded to sit down to talk to people who had concerns with his proposed solution. Where he could accomodate their concerns without undermining the central purpose of his bill, he did so (for example, by eliminating the family planning money). Where accomodating the concerns would defeat the purpose of his bill, he held the line (for example, on refundable tax credits).
I expect President Obama to continue this strategy, at least in the short run. He will identify what he wants to do, and then he will try to work with his opponents to refine that basic idea so that as many people as possible are happy with it, but never at the expense of his basic idea. The interesting thing is what he will do if the Republicans never rise to the occasion and play along. If they continue to pout and refuse to meet him halfway, will he eventually give up on trying to accomodate their concerns? That’s what I am waiting to see.
John S.
Good, because the cable news cycle is only as long as your average person’s attention span – 24 hours.
O/T It’s good to see Sully getting back in touch with his conservative roots by screaming ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS! every other post. I guess now that Sarah Palin’s pregnancy isn’t fun anymore, he’s found a new toy to chew on.
comrade rawshark
I think that he’s showing them that they have an opportunity with him as president to do their jobs and get out from under the influence of the nuts. By forcing Rush into their lives he’s allowing them to make that break. Maybe.
Media Browski
The strategy becomes more clear. I do love watchign this roll out:
–washingtonmonthly
Napoleon
LaTourette my congressperson. I have been surprised that in the last 2 cycles they have not made a real strong push to knock him off. I really think him voting against the stimulis could be something they could beat him to death with.
Athenae
Why would he be out of bounds in expecting it to work? All Bush had to do with House Democrats was bat his eyelashes and they fell all over themselves to please him. At least Obama’s giving the Republicans booze.
A.
Ash Can
Oh my. (h/t GOS)
(emphasis mine)
That’s a nice House seat you have there, Representative. Be a shame if anything were to, uh, happen to it…
ETA: Media Browski beat me to it up there, but I’m more than happy to add an underscore to this turn of events.
kay
@Athenae:
House Republicans would have been out in force claiming Democrats were voting against extending unemployment benefits, and the Democrats would have fallen in line.
In other words, Republicans would have chosen one theme and stuck with it. No one can explain to me why House Democrats won’t defend their own plan. It’s ridiculous that Obama spends a good part of every day doing Reid and Pelosi’s job. We’re now in the ridiculous position of having Emanuel and Biden also doing Pelosi and Reid’s job. Christ. It’s not "all hands on deck". It’s two people standing around while three others do the work.
How about this? The Republicans managed a 100% vote in opposition. Pelosi couldn’t get every Dem. We have Congress. We have a talented and popular President. What we don’t have are congressional leaders. It’s past time to admit that.
Media Browski
@Ash Can: the blossoming of "the strategy" definitely needs underscoring for the chicken littles.
Roger Moore
@Ash Can:
No. What hasn’t dawned on them is that the hockey game ended last week and they’re now covering a chess match. The Republicans- and the pundits- are looking only at the immediate impact of the most recent move and crowing about having captured Obama’s pawn. They just don’t realize that sacrificing the pawn is a gambit that’s given Obama control of the center of the board.
Josh Hueco
@John S.:
I’ve noticed that too. Note to GOP: Please let this guy be your other poster child–"I’ve got my $$$$$$$ AIDS drugs but you poor elderly and sick folk can just go ahead and Choke On It."
Zifnab
Pelosi rallied 244 votes to Boehner’s 188. At a certain point, there’s just not a lot of reason to whip up 11 votes you don’t need.
By contrast, Boehner has – once again – exposed himself as the petulant 8-year-old Minority Leader that he is. He hasn’t swayed public opinion, he hasn’t presented an alternative plan, and his attempt to spite Obama’s bipartisan rhetoric hasn’t helped the country in the least. Oh, and he lost.
So he can proudly go back to his constituencies and proclaim how he’s triumphed over the Democrats by… what? He’s screwing himself out of bargaining power.
When this passes the Senate – and it will – who will come to John Boehner to lobby for legislation? You’d be better off in Mitch McConnell’s office if you want to talk to a Republican with even a shred of influence.
cleek
they never do. they never defend any of their plans. or, if they do, the media doesn’t care.
Reid and Pelosi really are worse than useless. they’re a drag on their own agenda.
and, as far as this thing passing the Senate… i’ll believe it when i see it.
Dave
I think that there is more to this than just "post-partisanship." I think it is also a case of giving the wingnuts enough rope to hang themselves with.
More than one House GOP member said there was always another chance to vote for the bill. And they’re right; the Senate version will likely be different and then the two get reconciled in conference before the final version is voted on.
What is to stop Obama from talking to Reid and getting some of that infrastructure spending and other spending that the House GOPers didn’t like back into the Senate’s bill? And then having that spending in the final version of the bill? Then the House GOPers are in the uncomfortable position of either once again opposing the bill 100% (ceding all control over the economic recovery to the Democrats and looking like obstructionist tools) or voting for a bill they voted against the first time that has more stuff they didn’t like (making them look like moronic tools).
The continual underestimation of Barack Obama by the Republicans is baffling to me. The guy survived politics in Chicago. Once you do that, everything else is easy.
comrade rawshark
Did Palin really say this in the debate?
Oversight? And republicans swooned? Do they even have spines?
Robin G.
Count me as one of the ones that think Obama’s winning the chess match, here. I even think he’s got a pretty decent handle on the news cycle. Here’s the headline on Yahoo! right now:
GOP defying Obama overtures of bipartisanship
"Defying" is a word with some connotations of strength, but that’s the only silver lining in what I think is overall a pretty bad headline for the Republicans.
Greenwald has expressed some concerns about polling that suggests Obama isn’t winning hearts and minds as much as we think he is — but the polling was half conducted before the vote even took place, and entirely conducted before the implications of the vote sank in. I’m curious to see how the numbers will look, say, tomorrow. My guess is that support for the bill will go up somewhat, particularly among independents, and that approval ratings for the Republicans will take a pretty serious hit (again, particularly among independents).
Part of me wishes that the Dems had just yanked all the concessions before the vote, but frankly, the political cost would have been very serious. All the Republicans would have had to do would be to stand up and say, "The bill didn’t have one single thing we wanted." Now they don’t have a leg to stand on.
kay
@Zifnab:
When this passes the Senate – and it will – who will come to John Boehner to lobby for legislation? You’d be better off in Mitch McConnell’s office if you want to talk to a Republican with even a shred of influence.
I think it will pass the Senate, because the Senate bill will include tax provisions that Republicans can’t vote against.
My problem with your analysis is this: it’s dependent on Republican failure. I don’t have any objection to Republicans failing, but I would like Congressional Democrats to set out to succeed, rather than hoping and praying for a stupid move from the opposition.
I’m reading this morning that the White House and liberal interest groups are going to defend the plan. Again, where are the Congressional Democrats? I think it is amazing that some of the liberal Democrats are complaining that Obama didn’t sell their plan, or seek their counsel. When is he supposed to be doing this? Why aren’t they doing it?
KCinDC
The Republicans don’t have an equivalent of the Blue Dogs, a group in their own party waiting for chances to side with the other party to undermine the leadership. Maybe they did at one point, but those people have all been defeated and replaced by Democrats now. When your caucus has been whittled down to mainly the ones from the wingnuttiest districts, it’s a lot easier to keep your remaining small band of extremists together.
Tsulagi
Yep, this seems to be a guy who not only can spell and pronounce “strategy,” but also have a clue as to its definition and implementation.
I think it’ll also be an education for Obama. That no matter how often he tries to extend a hand and seek to negotiate advance bipartisan agreement on legislation, these are still the guys who voted against mom in a Mother’s Day resolution just for giggles and to fuck with the Dems. While they are always properly festooned with their lapel pins, they answer to a higher power: An oxycontin brain addled sex tourist and his adoring silly putty brigades. Just ask Congressman Mike Pence.
Seems all the stories on this House stimulus package vote are all about how the Rs voted as a block. Some proclaiming it a “hollow victory” for Obama and other bullshit. The biggest takeaway for me on the vote is that the Dems held together. How often do you see that? And if I were Obama, I’d take those 244-188 victories every freaking day and let the other guys call them hollow if that helps them get through the day.
Oh yeah, Rush Limbaugh is fat.
kay
@KCinDC:
It’s a good point, and accurate, I think. The Democratic ideology range is broader, in the House.
I’ll stop ranting momentarily. I’ll be back at it in a week, though. I’m not happy with them. That may be unfair, but there it is. If I could fire them, I would.
Conservatively Liberal
Agreed. Pelosi and Reid are absolutely worthless. They have dry powder though! It’s just that spineless, quivering lumps of boneless flesh can’t strike a match to that dry powder. Get those two worthless lumps out of the way and get people in there who will get the job done.
Cause those two sure as hell aren’t doing anything.
John S.
Unfortunately, the conservative establishment have decided that Andrew Sullivan is really a liberal (just like George W. Bush!), so he doesn’t qualify.
kay
@Conservatively Liberal:
I thought Obama was assembling a de facto Congressional leadership team in the White House, with Emanuel and Biden. I know I’m called to object to this, on democratic principle, but I guess I’m not really a stickler, because I was thinking "clever. thank god. just get someone in there. appoint around them if you must."
I can’t even watch Pelosi anymore and I never could stomach Reid. What the hell is wrong with them? Why can’t they talk?
Legalize
Agreed. Evidently neither the GOP, nor the media that falls all over itself to enable the GOP, is familiar with the way Obama rolls. Barack doesn’t care what they think or say today or the next day because next week he’s going to bury you.
Deborah
The Republicans seem to appreciate the effort, despite not providing any votes.
I think this is good long-term strategy on Obama’s part. He doesn’t need them now, but has managed to look approachable and concerned. Let their anticipated 2010 opponents loudly proclaim how so and so even voted against the stimulus bill which has 40+ point margin in public support, and nearly every one of them is vulnerable on voting for all Bush’s extravagance with no thought of the morrow….Some will be more willing to work with Obama in the future. I think. Especially as the national party seems to be devolving into a caricature of itself.
And I’ll join Tsulagi in taking those 244-188 victories.
Zifnab
@kay:
It HR 1 already has substantial tax cuts and business credits. That’s one of the reasons the House GOP bloc vote was somewhat stunning.
Early Cole posts (and posts elsewhere) have highlighted how Democrats "succeed" or "fail" at the success or failure of the economy. All the GOP votes in the world aren’t going to make the Dems look better in 2010 or 2012 if the economy only gets worse.
In that sense, I’m disappointed in Democrats for throwing the GOP any bones at all with regard to tax cuts or other conservative interests. Dems have the votes to pass their bill, so they might as well pass the best bill they can write rather than pandering to minority interests.
But the GOP success or failure isn’t tied to the economy. It’s tied to their image. Either people start seeing the GOP reclaim the mantle of fiscal responsibility and moral values or they continue to view them as reckless violent morons. This vote was Boehner’s attempt to reform the GOP image. In that case, the Dems and GOPs are working at completely different goals, and they can both succeed or fail independently of one another.
The Republicans can make as many smart moves as they want and they still won’t impact the economy. Their votes don’t really matter at this point. All that matters is the philosophy and statesmanship they espouse.
gwangung
Oh, I think Obama knows this quite well. He doesn’t need an education on this; he’s already incorporated this into his larger strategy and is working on THAT.
Legalize
True to an extent. I’ve thought all along that Emanuel’s pick might serve to push in new Dem leadership. On the other hand, the Dem votes Pelosi didn’t get might be Reps. who needed to vote "no," i.e. Dems from districts where the bill might not have been too popular.
Conservatively Liberal
Someone at Kos referred to Rush as the head of the SRP (Southern Regional Party). My first thought was ‘yes, he is in the drivers seat but someone needs to point out to him that he is driving a nearly empty clown car’.
kay
@Zifnab:
You’re lowering my blood pressure, so thank you. The Senate bill includes a provision to "fix" the AMT, right? That’s what jacks it up to 900 billion. That’s what I think will be politically risky to vote against.
I read that Biden was corralling votes. Again, I think it’s great that Biden is working, and despite his media reputation, I now think Biden is effective at nearly everything he does. I think it’s amusing that media think he’s some kind of buffoon. He’s not.
What I would like to see is some evidence that Harry Reid is working. Because that’s his job.
kay
@Legalize:
I was ranting, so missed the fact that there are conservative Democrats, but no liberal Republicans. That’s a hurdle for Pelosi, and I didn’t factor it in.
John S.
Sadly, no.
Rush can count on at least 25% – 30% of the population to be riding shotgun in his clown car. The dead-enders are proud to be clowns and happily put on their clown shoes every day.
John S.
Wow, I think I hit moderation for gratuitous usage of the word ‘clown’.
gwangung
Yeah? And if we keep pointing out the bankruptcy of ideas, there’s every chance that number will shrink.
And even if that doesn’t happen, if we keep pointing it out, IT AIN’T GONNA GROW.
Tom Hilton
True, but everybody else is increasingly sick of them. And the more they put on their clown shoes, the sicker everyone else gets, and the closer they drift toward 20%.
shep
I think Obama’s long-term strategy is also his short-term strategy: to be constantly portrayed in the media as "reaching out". That makes those "conservatives" who oppose him "partisan" and "obstructionist". That’s how he plans to continue to move his agenda, by avoiding the labels "partisan" and (worse) "liberal" that Republicans and Blue Dogs would attempt to use against him and his policies and the only thing worth $26 billion in giveaway, non-stimulative business tax cuts.
Zifnab
@kay:
People have been talking about a revision to the AMT for some time. It really just needs to be indexed for inflation like everything else and this won’t be a problem. But even then, the big joke was Republicans who kept going on and on about people making $200k+ / year being in the middle class.
This isn’t the ideal time to change it. But it needs to be changed sooner or later. And if it’ll get the GOoPers on board, it’s not a terrible idea.
I’m not a big fan of Harry Reid either. That said, because I’m not a big fan of Harry Reid, I’m not entirely disappointed watching Biden corral votes. At least they’ll be AmTrak votes.
comrade rawshark
It’s odd but none of my wingnut friends will admit to listening to him. He’s like the porn industry, they take in billions but no one watches porn.
John S.
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing everyone that he didn’t exist…
Which actually is NOT from The Usual Suspects, but rather, from the short story The Generous Gambler by Charles Baudelaire.
Shygetz
I think Obama never expected to get many, if any, Republican votes. I think Obama preferred not to get any Republican votes. I think the fact that the efforts at bipartisanship took the form of very public, very open meetings with Republicans as opposed to closed-door horse trading sessions is an illustration that the point here was to project an image of bipartisanship, and then tell the Republicans to either hop on the train or lie down in front of it. The Republicans made their choice, and they won’t have many chances to get up off the track before the Obama train runs ’em over.
grandpajohn
Yeah the media is not noted for self awareness . the next time one of them mentions buffoons someone should hand them a mirror
grandpajohn
watching these lame idiots trying to engage Obama in a war of wits and strategy is akin to the amusement one would get from watching a one legged man participate in an ass kicking contest.
kay
@grandpajohn:
Only 5 Republicans in the Senate voted for the pay equity act, four of them women.
Opposing anything Obama puts up is beginning to look like the strategy.
pseudonymous in nc
That’s partly because of the herding-cats thing, and partly a consequence of the last two House elections. Moderate GOPpers are mostly gone, replaced by mainstream Dems. Some wingnuts are gone, replaced by Blue Dogs. The House GOP conference is now much more homogeneous than the Dem caucus, and they’ve decided to hang together.
The biggest problem that Obama faces is that the theatricals of the GOP are cablenews crack, the equivalent of live high-speed chases from the local feeds.
itsbenj
ugh. yeah, there’s more to it, but the ‘more’ in question is stupid. he better learn this lesson but quick – do not bother with these bloated, amoral bastards! do not bother trying to garner their favor, do not bother trying to convince them of jack shit! just mow them over. propose things that make their heads explode, and then vote ‘yes’ on them, and then point, laugh, and make exaggerated faces!
if Obama thinks the people of this country are going to sit around waiting for assistance while he tries to make nice with the people who 1) brought us to where we are now, a crisis, 2) hate him because he is black, 3) have no intention of working fairly to achieve good results in the first place, he’s got another thing coming. there may be ‘more’ to his ‘plan’, but its a terrible plan, and I don’t give a crap if Obama has to give up on how nice it would feel to make everyone get along. we need results! there is not one single thing to be gained by cozying up to these people.
itsbenj
Wow, it really is depressing to see people putting Obama on a Bush-like pedestal and saying he can do no wrong. Really, its pathetic, the guy is human. Every time he sneezes it is not necessarily a masterstroke of genius designed to disarm his opponents 2.8 days after leaving his nose!
burnspbesq
@John S.:
I don’t think that’s entirely fair to Andrew. I don’t have any sense that he is using "entitlement reform" as a code word for "f**k all the brown people." Rather, I think he is genuinely concerned – as all sentient beings should be – that there is an unsustainable long-term gap between the cost of the entitlement programs we claim to want and what we can raise using our current tax structure.
That’s a conversation that we need to have, and sooner would be better than later.
burnspbesq
@kay:
Bingo. There’s a reason why Biden used to be called "the Senator from MBNA."
Tom Hilton
@burnspbesq: the thing is, what all sentient people also know is that a) the problem is Medicare, not Social Security; b) the Medicare problem is driven by increasing healthcare costs in general (in fact, Medicare has done slightly better than the industry in general at holding down costs); so c) it makes no sense to talk about ‘entitlement reform’, and all the sense in the world to talk about reform of the healthcare system (which has to include cost containment).
Tom Hilton
This is an example of something I see a lot in the liberal blogosphere: the fetishization of ‘toughness’ (against Republicans) in a way that exactly parallels the right-wing fetishization of ‘toughness’ (against everybody else in the world), with neither group giving much of any consideration to whether there might be other more effect approaches to any given problem. It’s more understandable among lefties because the Democrats really have been 90-lb. weaklings in a lot of ways for a very long time, but still–it should be understood not as strategic or even tactical thinking but as rationalization of a primal urge.
John S.
Except closing the tax loopholes and making sure that the top 1% have to pay into the system is likely a conversation Andrew Sullivan does NOT want to have.
And what Tom Hilton said. Also.
Mnemosyne
I was watching the Biography Channel the other night and they had a really fascinating piece about Carole Lombard, and she said something that I can’t even imagine hearing a celebrity say today:
“Every cent anybody pays in tax is spent to benefit him. There’s no better place to spend it. I enjoy this country and I really think I get my money’s worth."
She said that right at the beginning of WWII when she was in the 85% tax bracket.
Imagine anyone, on the right or left, saying that today. We’ve been so conditioned to think "taxes=bad" for the past 30 years that I was shocked to hear someone say she thought taxes were a good thing.
BenA
I love how the local PA Repubs who are decidedly more liberal than their southern counterparts play it.
Jim Gerlach claims it was because there wasn’t enough money spent on infrastructure…. and the money wouldn’t be spent fast enough.
The party line for less conservative Republicans (yes, there are like six of them) is that the money wouldn’t be spent until the recession is over… they all think if they close there eyes, click their heels three times, and wait the economy will magically get better.