C Stanley I don't know that I'd say that the Democrats are far worse, it's just that they're so hypocritical about it. The difference, to me, suggests a lack of courage to pass their own legislation and then own the results of it. The GOP certainly did act in a highly partisan manner and often shut the Democrats out when the GOP controlled Congress. And they also at times engaged in the political theater of calling the members of the minority party obstructionist for voting along party lines against the majority. But to my recollection, they never passed major legislation by pulling in a couple of centrist Democrats and claiming to have engaged in bipartisanship in doing so. What the Dems have shown with the events surrounding this stimulus bill is that they don't have the courage of their convictions to pass this bill without a fig leaf of faux bipartisan support.

Rudi666 Please folks the Demonocrats aren't nearly as bad. John Cole nails the HumanEvents BS and gives an example of Demonocrats showing bipartisanship just after W's 2000 mandate/election. http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=17076

*** Update *** Two quick things. Bush’s signature issue in 2000, a tax cut bill a bill designed to deal with the surplus from the Clinton years, was passed in 2001 with 12 Democratic votes in the Senate, 28 in the house, all in the aftermath of a very contentious election and basically written precisely as the Republicans wanted it (with a few concessions, such as sunset provisions). By comparison, on the heels of an enormous victory, with large majorities in the House and Senate, facing economic collapse, the Republicans were able to provide a whopping three (3) votes to a bill that before it even was introduced was loaded with tax cuts designed to appease Republicans, and then went through a huge revision to remove things that many republicans found offensive to their delicate sensibilities. Three. Votes. The entire Republican party, in both houses, voted overwhelmingly against tax cuts for the middle class because it was beneficial to them politically. Country first, or something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001 2001 Tax vote 40 Democrats voted for EGTRRA. 2009 A whopping 3 Republicans voted for the Messiah's SP.

ChrisWWW C Stanley, Maybe the Congressional Dems are being cowardly, but Obama is owning up: "I expect to be judged by results," [Obama] said. "You know, I'm not going to make any excuses. If stuff hasn't worked and people don't feel like I've led the country in the right direction, then you'll have a new president." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/10/politics/100days/economy/main4790189.shtml

C Stanley Apples to oranges, Rudi. Tax cuts are popular among some voters from both parties. In an environment of a budget surplus, only the most rabid big spending liberals were pushing against the tax cuts. The 40 Dems who sided with the GOP back then weren't going against their own political interests in doing so.

C Stanley Chris: Good for him, but he may well regret those words in a couple of years. As a shrewd politician, I wouldn't doubt that he realizes that Congress will have to face the music first in 2010, and we may have a replay of the 94 midterms- and then he can do a Clinton and start actually governing as a bipartisan coalition leader when he's forced to do so.

ChrisWWW Depending on the poll you read, tax cuts and spending are polling in the 40-50% range.

Rudi666 Political interests over the countries interest? It's great to see they found their fiscal restraint after the drunken binging during the W years - LOL.

C Stanley Fiscal restraint IS in the country's interests- that's the point. You gave an example of the Dems agreeing to give money back to taxpayers (a pretty easy sell politically, and not wrong for the country at that time either) and compared that to a bill that hardly anyone thinks is good for the country but somehow the GOP are expected to support it anyway?

ChrisWWW C Stanley... I think this Larison quote is a good response to your last post: Of all the times to acquire zeal for austerity, which is rarely popular in the best of times and risky even for popular majority parties, they have chosen the middle of a recession after having taken two huge electoral drubbings. This is something like discovering antiwar scruples only in the middle of an invasion.

C Stanley No, I completely disagree with Larison there. Instead, it's more like discovering a zeal to fight when you've been thrown in a foxhole. The difference is that in Larison's analogy, the change of heart would have detrimental effect but in this case the opposite is true.

ChrisWWW History seems to be on the other side (Hoover, and FDR when they tried to balance the budget).

C Stanley History is very unclear on it one way or another, Chris. And that's mainly because the fiscal policy is just one part of a much more complex situation, and fiscal policy itself is way more complex than just "do we need to seek a balanced budget or should we prime the pump with spending?"

C Stanley In addition, Chris, I'm not suggesting that there should be a push for balancing the budget at the moment- just a call for some responsibility and accountability in spending and abandoning the foolish notion that all spending is stimulatory. There has to be a reasonable assumption that each dollar spent will produce a net positive, even above the actual cost of that dollar with interest.

c3 What gets me is the sentiment that spending = stimulus. I've heard that directly or indirectly from the top (i.e. BHO) to the bottom. How does making a Washington office building more energy efficient provide a quick stimulus to the economy. I won't excuse Republican excesses and so therefore I have no compunction about berating Democratic excesses. Ultimately we have to good stewards of the money the taxpayers give to the government.

C Stanley c3, along that same line, I've said in comments elsewhere that I wish someone would have pointed out Obama's non sequitor. All stimulus bills are spending bills. (OK, I'll give him that) This bill is a spending bill. (OK) Therefore this bill is a stimulative bill. [bzzzzzz] Sorry, wrong answer. It doesn't follow that all spending bills are stimulative, even if all stimulus bills are spending bills.

Jason, Managing Editor Basic categorical logic: Yet another area where the vast majority of the American electorate is poorly educated, ignorant, and apathetic in a critical area.

C Stanley And thus another area where the electorate can be played like a fiddle.

ChrisWWW

How does making a Washington office building more energy efficient provide a quick stimulus to the economy.

Obama explained that one pretty darn well. Not only do you hire engineers and construction workers immediately, you also save tax money going into the future. That's a huge bang for the buck.

Tully The artfullness of Obama's rhetorical tap-dancing bears no relation to the accuracy of his statements. Indeed, fiction is oft prettier than non-fiction. The market reviews of the "stimulus" plan are in, and they are uniformly negative.

ChrisWWW Tully, Looks like you just engaged in some rhetorical tap-dancing of your own. At the very least, you could have debunked something specific he said. Also, you do yourself a disservice by basing your opinion of the stimulus bill on a few days of stock market activity. This economy is going to take months or years to turn around, if it ever does and stock traders don't have any more insight into the future than we do.

C Stanley Tully didn't claim anything other than that was the market review, though, Chris. Plus, part of the rationale we've been given about having to rush all of this through was that we have to restore confidence, so the way the markets react is relevant in that sense.

c3 @ChrisWWW OK then...I suggest the following: A lot of churchs are hurting in this economy. I suggest the Federal Government grant every church in the US $50,000 for ministerial outreach to their communities. (there are about 70,000 church in the US so that works out to $3.5 billion, "chump change!") This will work because: 1) churches have a long tradition of "doing more for less" So they'll a lot of social good at a good price 2) In times like these people need reassurance that we're all "feelin' the love" and who better to do that than churches 3) clearly this will add jobs into the economy. (I can personally state that my church could create 2 jobs with that $50,000) Now some might worry that "churches" would suddenly pop up everywhere just to suck up that money but as much as I don't like that, what does it matter. It will still lead to "stimulus" to the economy. And politically!!... gosh all of those "Sarah Palin" Republicans (not to mention those church-going Blue dogs) would be bonded to the Obama admin. for now and for the foreseeable future. this works, economically AND polically. So what do you think?!

C Stanley Great proposal, c3! I have another- we should add into the stimulus some funding for NRA, and tax credits for the purchase of guns. We know that demand for guns has risen, so we need to make sure that they're available and that people have the money to purchase them. What? Gun shop owners need to stay in business too, and gun shows provide revenue for vendors and venues. All economic activity is good, right?

ChrisWWW C Stanley, Yes... giving people money to buy guns is on the same level as making federal building more energy efficient. It's this sort of logic that's cost the Republicans two straight elections. c3, If Congress wanted to give money to churches specifically for distributing food to the poor, or something along those lines, I'd be for it. But nothing denominational.

C Stanley LOL, OK, Chris, I actually don't have a problem with the energy efficiency stuff. I was just throwing that in there to address those who argue that 'all spending is stimulative' as though that short circuited any obvious ideological nose-thumbing on pet causes. But since I don't think anyone here has done that, your objection is reasonable and I withdraw the point.

C Stanley Big picture is that I think there are four categories of stuff that could have found its way into the bill: Things that are ideologically embraced by the left and really aren't stimulative (this might include some things that could still be justified for long term, but not as immediate stimulus.) Things that are ideologically embraced by the left and also ARE stimulative. Things that are ideologically embraced by the right and really aren't stimulative (again, could be long term positives) Things that are ideologically embraced by the right and also ARE stimulative. The things that I think belong in this bill would be categories #2 and #4. And the political terrain dictates that it would be weighted more to #2, but by weighting it heavily in the ideological territory instead of the pragmatic, the Democrats insured that this would become a partisan fight.

c3 "If Congress wanted to give money to churches specifically for distributing food to the poor, or something along those lines, I’d be for it. But nothing denominational" And maybe I'll be less upset with giving money to ACORN for commmunity organizing if they get out the voter registration business. See we're doing the bipartisan work that our congress has neglected and Pres Obama was looking for....right?

ChrisWWW CStanley, There is room for arguments about what is better stimulus, or what you think should be in a stimulus package from an ideological viewpoint. However, it's simply wrong to say that those things you don't like are not stimulus at all. Which is the argument Republicans and their backers were making these last few weeks.

ChrisWWW c3, You're barking up the wrong tree if you think I care about bipartisanship, or Obama's promises of seeking it. In my opinion - and I think the empirical evidence backs this up - the Republicans have offered little but garbage in terms of policy for at least a decade. Not only that, but Republicans have offered no olive branch of their own, instead choosing to attack and lie about Obama and the Democrats as if they got us into this mess in the first place. Under those circumstances, dealing with Republicans makes no sense.

C Stanley However, it’s simply wrong to say that those things you don’t like are not stimulus at all. Which is the argument Republicans and their backers were making these last few weeks. Right, the people who do that are disingenuous- but it's not all Republicans doing that. Many have pointed out that the CBO calculations show a less than stellar effect on stimulus from the current bill, and you can find any number of economists who don't have a political stake here who think it's a lousy bill. And even those who are making that phony argument are just the flip side of the Dems who claim that any spending is stimulative.

ChrisWWW I think the flip side would be Dems claiming that tax cuts they don't like can't be stimulative... but whatevs. I would prefer a Krugmanized bill personally. But like I said before, most Dems seemed more concerned with fighting Republicans rather than pushing their politicians toward the best bill. It didn't help that those same politicians were fishing for Republican votes and moving the bill further away from that Krugman ideal :-)

c3 "In my opinion - and I think the empirical evidence backs this up - the Republicans have offered little but garbage in terms of policy for at least a decade. Not only that, but Republicans have offered no olive branch of their own, instead choosing to attack and lie about Obama and the Democrats as if they got us into this mess in the first place. Under those circumstances, dealing with Republicans makes no sense." Yup, that's a conversation stopper. Yet me know when we're "even" and can maybe start the dialog again.

c3 "the Republicans have offered little but garbage in terms of policy for at least a decade" Not to pick a fight or be snarky (I would never do that!) so I can assume the administration and congress will undo the Medicare drug benefit, the Depart of Homeland Security, the Director of Intelligience Services office, No Child Left Behind, the African AIDS intiative, pull the troops from Afganistan, shut down the worker Card check program (to confirm citizenship), cancel any recent free trade agreements, fire Secr. Gates, decommission Gen Petreus, .......

C Stanley c3...you're still in time out, so hush up.

ChrisWWW c3, You're proving my point if that's the best you can come up with to counter crises like Iraq, torture, banking deregulation, backward moves on the environment. Lets go through your list anyways: 1) Medicare drug benefit <- I would like to dismantle this program or at least rework it from the ground up. The government overpays for drugs and the administrative costs are insanely high. 2) The Depart of Homeland Security <- You do remember that Bush opposed this right? In this case he might have been right, DHS seems to have added an unnecessary level of bureaucracy (see: Katrina) 3) No Child Left Behind <- Who actually thinks this has worked or was a good idea without the proper funding? 4) African AIDS intiative <- Okay... 1 out of 4 so far... 5) Afghanistan <- Going in there to root out Al Qaeda was a good idea, but since then this war/occupation has been a disaster, although not on the level of Iraq 6) Worker Card check program <- 2 out of 6! 7) Recent free trade agreements <- Which one of these has been a good idea? I'm not saying there haven't been any, I just think you made this one up to pad your list. 8) Secr. Gates and Gen. Petraeus <- Conservatives are going to take credit for career military and intelligence personnel now? :-) I know McCain more or less made Petraeus his unofficial running mate (right behind Joe the Plumber) but it didn't really make any sense.

C Stanley Scary- I'm almost completely in agreement with your response to that list, Chris. It is Friday the 13th, I guess. But then there are a host of other policies that I did agree with Bush on, which I'm sure you'd disagree so we'd be back to normalcy.

ChrisWWW CStanley, Positively frightening :-)

c3 Christine; I anticipated that. I know conservative dislike the expense of Medicare drug benefit, the bureaucratic growth of Homeland Security, the federal reach into state and local responsibility as regards education. My snarky point is that if a Republican president proposes something that at least conceptually matches a Democratic goal it will, by definition, be a failure. "On no, don't you try and address education, that's our issue, you'll just f**k it up" But what did I expect with "the Republicans have offered little but garbage in terms of policy for at least a decade. " I get more timeout for this rant, don't I?

C Stanley Yeah, after I commented I thought about it and realized which issues you'd chosen (the ones that actually should have had bipartisan support, because they certainly aren't examples of Bush acting as a conservative.) I'd add in the Millenium Challenge Act, which I think was a good idea. In that case, instead of the usual backlash that you described, the left just basically ignored the policy. I'll leave it to Chris to prescribe your punishment. ;)

C Stanley And before I go to MY timeout chair, I'll add a few things. I also think that Bush's attempt to deal with immigration was a principled act which he deserves great credit for even though it ultimately failed due to obstinate Republicans. I don't remember how the votes broke down among the Dems, but I do feel there's been a resounding silence from them on that issue. And that's absurd- it's clearly something we have to deal with, and soon. The Democrats are acting in a partisan manner when they refuse to give credit where it's due to Bush and McCain, who tried to buck their own party on an important issue. It's politically more important to them to ignore it. And then I just went back and saw this part of Chris' comment: that’s the best you can come up with to counter crises like Iraq, torture, banking deregulation, backward moves on the environment. I'll take a stab at giving some counter arguments. Iraq: Bush actually acted according to traditional left wing rationale in this case. He went back on a campaign promise to 'not do nation building' and then embarked on the largest nation building project ever. The tension between those two viewpoints is actually largely what mucked things up (the Rumsfeld view of going in and out quickly, vs. what eventually evolved, left us with insufficient manpower and resources to perform the mission.) But my point is that Bush didn't leave the left behind on that, they left him. Torture: I won't defend torture, but I will say that the left deludes themselves to think that certain rights have always existed for military detainees and then were taken away by Bush. The discussions on this issue should focus on how to balance the need for moral highground with the security needs, period- and acknowledge that throughout history, no one has actually ever found a way to do that with anything close to a perfect record. banking deregulation: I could easily be snarky here and give a two word response: Barney Frank. But a less flippant response would simply point out that the Bush administration actually oversaw the largest increase in business regulation in history, Sarbannes-Oxley (which is a disaster, by the way), so they were hardly anti-regulation. Both parties erred over several decades in how they applied regulation (it's not as simple as 'regulate or not regulate, but a complex consideration of where to apply regulation and how to enforce it), and yes, the Democrats were largely a part of the call for deregulation in the lending industry. I realize that the proponents of CRA didn't foresee all of the unintended consequences, but the Bush administration (and a few GOP in Congress like Richard Baker, whose efforts were nothing short of heroic IMO) did begin calling for regulation and were completely rebuffed by the Democrats in Congress. Environment: Here's a balanced view of Bush's environmental record. I think there's much room for criticism, but it's not all bad as his detractor's would claim.

c3 "I also think that Bush’s attempt to deal with immigration was a principled act which he deserves great credit for even though it ultimately failed due to obstinate Republicans. I don’t remember how the votes broke down among the Dems, but I do feel there’s been a resounding silence from them on that issue. And that’s absurd- it’s clearly something we have to deal with, and soon. The Democrats are acting in a partisan manner when they refuse to give credit where it’s due to Bush and McCain, who tried to buck their own party on an important issue. It’s politically more important to them to ignore it." Amen to that sentiment. I can only assume that Dems remain inactive on immigration because its such a useful political tool: simply say "immigration reform" and a firestorm of right wing rants about security, crime and culture overwhelm anything else. And the Dems can quietly turn to the hispanic populace and say "See what I mean." Plus I'm not convinced how strong the immigration reform sentiment is within the Democratic Party. PS I p.o my fellow Republicans by being so liberal on immigration.

C Stanley PS I p.o my fellow Republicans by being so liberal on immigration. Same here, c3, and I in turn get p.o.'ed at those who want to round up all illegal immigrants and deport them, as though that's even possible and as though the path to legalization has actually been a reasonable one that lawfully minded people could follow if they wanted to.

C Stanley Plus I’m not convinced how strong the immigration reform sentiment is within the Democratic Party. Yeah, I think it's a lie that's been repeated so often that many rank and file Democrats have come to believe it. The lie being that this isn't a real issue, except to xenophobic conservatives. Much like Social Security/entitlement reform, in that many Democrats actually have believed that it's not been urgent to deal with it and the Republicans have just been demagoguing on these issues.