Pulling Defeat Out of Victory
Feb 12th, 2010 | 16 responses
Nothing like sending a message of toughness in one breath and then undercutting it in the other:
The administration scored a big victory last night, or at least it thinks it did. After President Obama finally threatened to make recess appointments if Senate Republicans didn’t let some of its nominees through the confirmation process, the Republicans allowed the Senate to confirm 29 of them last night. As if to thank them, the White House promptly shot itself in the foot.”On Tuesday,” the president said in a statement released last night, “I told Senator McConnell that if Republican senators did not release these holds, I would exercise my authority to fill critically-needed positions in the federal government temporarily through the use of recess appointments. This is a rare but not unprecedented step that many other presidents have taken.”
At this point in his presidency, George W. Bush had made 10 recess appointments. Over the course of his presidency, he would make almost 200. Bill Clinton made about 150. In describing recess appointments as “a rare but not unprecedented step,” Obama made it harder to actually make any, because he’s defined the procedure — which, unlike the hold, is a defined constitutional power of the president rather than a courtesy observed in the Senate — as an extraordinary last-resort. He also promised, later in the statement, that he wouldn’t make any appointments this recess.
And there’s the jobs bill mess: Harry Reid signaled support for a bipartisan GOP-friendly jobs bill, written by Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley (a conservative Democrat and a Republican) that almost everyone agreed would do nothing to create jobs — only to suddenly reverse himself when progressive Democrats pointed out that the bill would harm Democratic incumbents because it did nothing to create jobs.
Reid came up with a new bill that doesn’t sound much better. But the most damaging thing about all this, of course, is the “one hand doesn’t know what the other hand is doing” problem. Nate Silver tackles that one:
It seems obvious that the Democratic leadership is confused and perhaps even a bit shellshocked after the Masspocalypse. Everyone agrees that, whatever becomes of the health care bill, most of the focus in 2010 ought to be on popular programs that focus more directly on righting the economy and reforming the financial sector. But — how exactly to do it? Is it more important to reach out to Republicans — or to let them take their lumps and cast some unpopular votes, at the risk of triggering some process stories about trying to “muscle” legislation through? Why is the public angry — because you haven’t accomplished very much, or because they don’t like the things that you’ve tried to accomplish? Is the public upset about the substance of the legislation you’ve tried to advance — or more by the process?
Nobody, certainly including the White House, seems to be in any agreement on these points, and yet having some opinion on them is essential to forging the way forward. And honestly, it may not be as important to come up with the right answer as simply to have an answer, so that you can have some sort of coherent messaging strategy going forward.
16 Responses to “Pulling Defeat Out of Victory”
Baucus isn't “conservative”. A conservative is mainly more cautious in the face of change. Baucus doesn't have a philosophy, he just has different creditors. Stop stripping words of their meaning, and stop sullying the concept of conservatism by associating it with people like Baucus.
For example, the concept of hurting yourself and the people who expect you to defend their interests is now called “bipartisanship”, as long as it's democrats who are intended to meet the definition. Why? Because the word was stripped by meaning so it could be waved around by idiots and manipulative power-hungry right-wingers.
The changes the republicans demanded were not bipartisan. Voting for it just in order to pass would not have been bipartisan. Bending over for Baucus and Grassley would not have been bipartisan. Stop insulting my intelligence (none of that was directed at you, Kathy).
Well, the word “bipartisan” has been warped, twisted, and contorted so much that we should probably stop using it. Either that or just redefine it. I suggest “group lie” or “strategic wool pulling” or maybe “dead parties walking”. Any of those are closer to the reality than traditional definitions.
Ah the shakey breaking voice of the adolescent. One minute it's deep, the next it's falsetto. The important thing is that the jewels have descended and begun to grow..lol..
(none of that was directed at you, Kathy)
Thanks for letting me know.
An inexperienced liberal president making enemies will bode well for conservatives.
So will saddling said president with the biggest financial mess since the Great Depression. And Harry Reid isn't helping much either.
Reid came up with a new bill that doesn’t sound much better.
It actually sounds pretty useless and it's hard to believe it would cost even 15 billion. The fiscal conservative in me is happy they cut the size of the bill (although they probably will eventually pass most of the spending in the Baucus/Grassley version), but it's hard to see how they can portray this as much of a jobs bill.
“Why is the public angry — because you haven’t accomplished very much, or because they don’t like the things that you’ve tried to accomplish?”
Why doesn't he know?
It's much too small to be of much use, no matter what's in it.
DLS. Do you know what a rhetorical question is? Can you recognize one when you see it?
You can do better, Kathy.
(In case you didn't understand: So can Silver.)
“but it's hard to see how they can portray this as much of a jobs bill”
This may be part of a strategy of watering stuff down to the point where it turns off the public less and is election-safe, or actually appeals to them, and then it re-casts the Republicans more sharply as the professional opposition.
“The idea is to make Republicans either vote for a series of more modest bills identified as popular with the public or explain to constituents this fall why they opposed them. “
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar…
They probably know they'll still have the support of most Dem voters; it's the fringists who will be very upset, and they've already been unhappy, with the undiluted stuff this past year, considering it insufficiently “progressive.” They aren't about to vote Republican in large numbers this November. (A risk of this strategy is that the farther-left voters will be angry and boycott the elections in their tizzy.)
” But the most damaging thing about all this, of course, is the “one hand doesn’t know what the other hand is doing” problem. ” The most frustrating part of the Obama administration is that he is unable to do the one thing he purported to be his long suit – organization. The winning Democratic party doesn't know what to do with its victory. Most moderates whom I know have been open to Obama's leadership. That is not the same as being open to the fragmented leadership of Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer or Frank. The sum of which offers little hope for directional leadership. Obama doesn't need Washington leadership experience. He needs skill that can be developed with a good mind's study of political process. Richard Nixon was the best politically prepared president in modern history. Bill Clinton on the other hand had all the experience Arkansas could afford and he made a superb president because he understood the functional and intellectual dimensions of process politics. Your topic points to the most critical issue of the Obama/Democratic leadership. America is waiting.
This may be part of a strategy of watering stuff down to the point where it turns off the public less and is election-safe, or actually appeals to them, and then it re-casts the Republicans more sharply as the professional opposition.
That seems like a pretty convoluted plan after the emphasis Obama has placed on jobs. I think there is information that we are missing here.
“That seems like a pretty convoluted plan after the emphasis Obama has placed on jobs.”
[grin] Another, likely, explanation is that they're still inept and working aimlessly.
Hmm Kathy you seem to have forgotten the pressure from Bluedogs which you are aware of, to ditch the Stimulas II which many moderates Conservatives condemned as well.
Honestly I don't know why anyone cares what the farthest left things, its not like they have any power to speak of. They don't have the votes to pass anything at all. Only when they can appeal enough to moderates within their own party will they be able to get any part of their agenda passed, but every time they do reach some of their own moderates, the furthest left falls off. The centrist and Bluedogs need to make alliance with moderate Republicans and disregard the far left entirely, and their identical twin the far right as well.
But if they don't I'd be more than happy to see new RINO senators pop up in the most progressive of States in November.