ALORS, A QUAND UN NOUVEAU LYNCHAGE NUMERIQUE, MINABLES CONNARDS DE FLICS, ORGANISE POUR � SORTIR DE LEUR BOITE "ALORS, A QUAND UN NOUVEAU LYNCHAGE NUMERIQUE, MINABLES CONNARDS DE FLICS, ORGANISE POUR � SORTIR DE LEUR BOITE " http://www.w3.org/

I think this is the right approach. You try to be bipartisan, give them a chance and when they cross you, you hammer the s--theads into the ground. Then you try the bipartisan approach again. Soon they get the idea, you're part of the solution or you're roadkill.

ALORS, A QUAND UN NOUVEAU LYNCHAGE NUMERIQUE, MINABLES CONNARDS DE FLICS, ORGANISE POUR � SORTIR DE LEUR BOITE " http://www.w3.org/

Wow! Actual leadership qualities... it's almost too good to be true. Keep up the hope, Steve.

I can't tell you how much I fear he's going to fuck over the global economy in order to try to appear post-partisan. Fuck.

I just hope Obama remembers few facts as he negotiates with Congressional Republicans:

1) Republicans define as "wasteful spending" any taxpayer money that doesn't go to millionaires or large corporations.

2) Republicans have one standard for honesty, integrity and obeying the law that they apply to themselves, but a much more rigid standard that they apply to everyone else. In other words, assume a Republican will lie if it is to his benefit.

3) The Democratic Congressional "leaders", who still cower under their desks and soil themselves at the mere thought of having a right wing talking point aimed in their direction, will sell out the country, their president and the Constitution in order to maintain their own power.

If Obama can keep those three things in mind, then I say let him try to reach a bipartisan consensus. So far, with only a few bobbles, he's demonstrated that he's smarter than anyone on Capital Hill.

Just reading over the portion you snipped from the article, it sounds like the Republicans are asking him to agree with positions he's already taken: (1) transparency and (2) posting bills for comment/review on the internet before signing. He's been talking about 1 from the start and I'm almost certain the idea of posting bills on the internet generated from somewhere in his campaign (I certainly recall hearing about it during the general election). So what exactly does it hurt to agree with positions he's already taken? Wouldn't it be the height of spitefulness to disagree with things you profess to agree upon? I'm not sure I follow what you are trying to achieve with this post, but it doesn't raise my hackles about Obama.

For all you petty novices out there: This is what bridge-building looks like when you get down into the trenches with it, instead of hiding in your partisan glass houses and coming out only to perform your whiny little soliloquies for the cameras and blogs. And don't worry---if the Republikanner Beast tries its same-old, same-old shit, Das Obamakreig will bury it under the Potomac....

The more I think about it, the sicker I get. It is clear what needs to be done, but O won't do it, in order to appeal to Republicans. And by giving away the shop even before we start, we are dooming any realistic possibility of averting a depression.

I think KJ is right that these are positions Obama has already taken. I think this is House Republicans trying to avoid looking obstructionist while at the same time, avoid looking like they are rolling over for Obama. It makes me hopeful that they apparently sense there is a political risk associated with overt obstructionism and will settle for token obstructionism.

I think Obama has already won. The Rs might not know it, but it's over. He came out with a bill that is being reported as bi-partisan and republican friendly. He has 80% approval. Where do they think they have any leverage? I think he hopes they fight it. I think his claimed hope of 80 votes is putting the pressure on Republicans, if they come in under it it's because the Republicans aren't cooperating.

I'm with crack. It's over, the southern senator smirkers just don't know it yet.

When I read this:
GOP leaders, despite having very little leverage, complained the incoming administration wants to spend too much and cut taxes too little

I realised how clever Obama is. He has the GOP complaining about things the American people want the President to deliver - stimulous.

Republicans will find it in their best interests to at least appear willing to compromise and work with the new President with the 75% approval rating. If they are seen as blocking his efforts to fix the crisis, for their own personal gain, it will be several generations before they are trusted with any kind of power at the national level again.
They might want to ask Newt how well obstructing what the majority of the American people want works out for your career.

Obama talked the talk and now he's walking the walk. This is real bipartisanship, not phony rhetoric. I agree with those who have said he should press on. If the Republicans fall back on their slash-and-burn tactics, Obama can really stick it to them.

For me, the most interesting thing is the quote from the Republicans praising Mr. Obama's willingness to listen to them "which is something they have often felt did not take place under President Bush." Mr. Obama recognize, both from his having taught Constitutional Law and from serving in the Senate, that we have three branches in our government -- legislative, executive, and judicial. President Bush did not think the legislative branch really mattered. He approached it as a barrier to his being able to do whatever he wanted. Mr. Obama seems to be approaching it as an essential player in getting things done for the sake of the country.

If it were John Kerry, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi doing what Obama's doing, I would be concerned. Those guys are weak and might well end up negotiating against themselves, in the vain desire for some Republican love. I don't worry about that with Obama. Obama isn't a weak-kneed DC Democrat.

I think that in Obama's hands, the bi-partisan overtures are genuine but also self-consciously strategic, as others have noted above. Obama is making it impossible for the Republicans to filibuster, and in order to do that he won't agree to anything substantial that he wasn't in favor of all along. Or so I think, based on what I've seen of Obama so far.

One aspect of game theory that wild birds have been shown to operate by is, on the first instance offer cooperation. On every subsequent instance, act to them however they acted to you the previous time, either cooperate or not.

Elaborating on what KJ said, it is possible that Obama might have borrowed some ideas from the Republicans, or at least specific Republicans. The party's ideology may be a complete failure, but every now and then, one of them might get a decent idea. I don't see anything wrong with more transparency/accountability (in fact, this is probably my biggest pet peeve with the TARP bill) or posting bills on the Internet one week prior to the vote. If Obama starts coming out with a series of watered-down incrementalist policies, I'm willing to jump on him and say that he is doing the wrong thing, but so far, he seems to be making more of the right signals than the wrong signals. I think that hoping for more partisanship is short-sighted and born more of a desire for revenge than anything else. After all, things need to be managed from a PR point of view to keep the political capital high so that the long laundry list of items can be accomplished.

divide and conquer

Say it ain't so, Steve! Usually when I get to the end of a Political Animal story and think "wow, that was some poor reasoning backed up with no evidence," I scroll up and yep, I've read a Hilzoy piece that's outside her area of expertise.

But, Steve, you've done it here. You say that Obama's efforts "come with considerable risk", and then pass off some vagary about the past 15 years and "routinely punished." By who? When? Let's see some actual evidence if you're going to claim that good-faith efforts are not only likely to fail but are actually likely to be counter-productive.

Give even one plausible scenario or parallel from the past that indicates that Obama, and the country, would be better off not even making the attempt. Heck, there may well be examples and it may be a reasonable argument... but the vague stuff doesn't count.

Me, I think people, even Republicans, tend to live up or down to your expectations, and I think Obama's doing the right thing here. He is demonstrating that he genuinely cares about their positions and that he is going to insist on legitimate governance while being willing to share credit.

And skipping the noble crap, he's also offering a shrewd political bargain: if Republicans will buy in, he's willing to give them some input and credit in an honestly designed package. The political math is obvious: if they believe the package will succeed, they're much better off supporting than opposing. And if they have intelligent and legitimate concerns, they need to not only be on the record now with what the problem is, they have to be unpersuasive enough to both be right *and* be ignored.

It's a fine move that has the potential upside of making Washington more productive and the potential downside of having the right shoot themselves in the foot. At least, that's how I'm going to see it until someone shows me how the Republicans are likely to "punish" Obama for approaching this like an adult.

I see the mindless Obamabots are still out in force. Though I am happy to see that Steve is starting to see (and become alarmed) at this post partisan Kumbaya BS. This was the primary reason I stuck with Clinton in the primary season--I may have problems with her positions (though outside of Iraq, they were generally mildly to the left of Mr. Kumbaya), but she has no illusions about the wingnuts and would never run from a political fight. Obama is a smart guy, but if he really thinks he can negotiate in good faith with the Rethugs (and I am inclined to believe that he really does) this is a stunning, and tragic foolishness that can only come from equal parts naievte, arrogance, and a willful blindness to the political history of the last twenty-five years. If Obama wants a stimulus plan that might work (and this pretty much goes for the rest of his policy iniatives as well), he has to design one based on his best policy choices and without input from neo-Hooverites who have a vested interest in its failure. Then pass it in the House with Democratic votes and use his political power (contrary to Mr. Kumbaya, ain''t nothing inherently wrong with politics) to intimidate one or two "moderate" Republicans to go along (i.e., make them fear a Democratic backlash against them in their next election more than they fear a Club for Growth primary or peer pressure in the cloakroom. As I (and the ever presient Krugman) noted in the spring, if Obama truly believes his post partisan claptrap, it's going to turn around and bite him.

but she has no illusions about the wingnuts and would never run from a political fight.

LOL. Like when she voted for the Iraq war? Yeah, great instincts, and such a profile in courage standing up to the Republicans when it mattered--NOT.
Nothing more pathetic than a bitter, de-clawed PUMA.

I expect any attempt to obtain reasonable compromise from Republicans will be an utter failure -- but doesn't that have to be given a chance before changing to a new strategy? Having given it a try, and finding it a failure, gains some credibility in moving on. It is better to be able to say "we did try" (and back it up) than simply to assert that "it will never work." It is only unfortunate how much time will necessarily be wasted in the process.

Some very good comments and some expected paranoia -- I'm glad the number of people that couldn't get out of 'attack mode' -- which was what the whole 'Left blogosphere' was built on -- is smaller than I feared.

The point I was going to make is made more important because of the hilarious 'defense of the Clintons' that Marlowe makes. It was, after all, the Clintons who embodied the approach Steve describes. "For the last 15 years or so, Democratic efforts to work with Republicans in good faith have been routinely punished."

The difference in the two approaches -- and the reason why I not only voted for Obama in the primaries, but voted FOR him - rather than just AGAINST McCain-Palin -- is simple.

The Clintons started with the idea "Okay, we disagree, so to start negotiations, I'm willing to meet you halfway -- even if it means compromising my original position." From there, they would give up another 25% in the negotiations, maybe get a deal, maybe not. Then the Republicans would bash them for their original position -- that they'd already compromised away.

Obama, on the other hand -- and he's always done this, see the negotiations over taping police interrogations in the Illinois Senate, see the bill he produced with Tom Coburn -- says "Here's my initial poition. I'm not changing that. But if you have suggestions for improving it, I'll be glad to talk -- and even give you credit for the changes."

(I wonder if Obama has or will develop a variant of something some writers I knew used as a way of dealing with a certain editor. He always needed to find something to 'improve' in any story he bought. So they caught on and began deliberately inserting a few clunkers in the story. "That way, Horace would get to make changes and not mess with the important parts of the story.")

Certainly these changes were improvements, and -- as Obama said -- were things he'd already considered -- since they are in line with the original Obama-Coburn bill.

but I'm not sure where this confidence comes from.

He's probably examined the office of the Presidency and found a power or two he can use as leverage.

I will run, not walk, to the election board and change my Party affiliation to Independent if the Dems cave to the republicans one more time. I've had it. I don't want to be associated with these people who are so brainwashed and traumatized by their years in the wilderness that they can't stand up for what they believe - or worse yet, don't believe it any more.