Let them prove it to Durbin by sponsoring a bill. Not just voting for it but sponsoring it.

Like Lucy still wants to work with Charlie Brown and the football.

RE: "literally cannot remember a time when the entire Republican conference in either house voted against tax cuts."

Let's be clear: The GOP voted en masse to RAISE taxes.

"In fact, Republican senators I've spoken to today said, 'Don't give up on us. We still want to work with you.'"

To which the answer should be: "Great. Let's start by you offering us some concessions. What are you ready to give us?"

I can imagine the 2010 ads against Republican House members - Cue the scary music - Congressman X thinks you don't pay enough taxes!!! He/She voted against one of the biggest tax cuts in history!!!

They must have read my comment on this blog from earlier today. Good. Take back the damn tax cuts and put the contraceptives back in while you're at it.

You LOST Republicans! And YOU SUCK!!!!

In other news- Obama calls Wall St Bonuses "Shameful."

Amen and Damn Straight!

President Obama! President Obama! President Obama! I love seeing, hearing, writing and shouting that phrase! The thrill is not going away. Not after eight years Bush.

YES WE CAN!

Turning to the Senate, does the Democratic caucus have the "nuclear option" threatened by McConnell when he was majority leader? How, exactly, was the earlier 67 vote requirement changed to 60, and why can't we change it to, say, 52?

This is not immediately relevant because the Stimulus bill, perhaps with even more tax cuts, will pass without a filibuster, but it becomes very important for health care, card check, and other Obama priorities.

Does anyone know if and how the cloture rule could be modified? Does it have to be done at the beginning of session when the Senate organizes?

I've asked this question elsewhere, but got no answer. Someone must know.

In the Navy I learned a response to dubious commitments.

"The check's in the mail. I won't cum in your mouth. It'll be fixed in 30 minutes."

Lyndon Johnson famously said to GHW Bush (upon being asked by GHWB whether he should run for his current US House Rep seat, or hold out and run for the Senate): "If the Senate is chicken salad, then the House is chicken S _ _ _." - or something to that effect. GHW lost that election by the way. Anyhow - of course the GOP, and Blue Dog Southern Dems in the House are going to be idiots about everything.

can someone explain the whole contraceptive thing that was taken out? I can't believe that it was specific to contraceptive use. Was it a health care expenditure?

I like Stefan's idea @ 16:21---House Dems can---and should---barter with the GOP caucus in the Senate. What "would" they give to the stimulus package in return for the tax goodies proffered to their House counterparts? Would they, for example, give a pass to CardCheck? Universal health and a meaningful S-CHIP package? Accelerated confirmations for Cabinet posts? Contraceptives legislation?

Inter-chamber negotiations that exclude Boehner's Bombastic Blowhards would (1) provide a more substantive piece of legislation, (2) effectively cripple the right-wing's noise machine, and (3) leave the vast majority of Bushylvanianism out in the cold. If, on the other hand, the GOP's Senate wing "pulls a Boehner", that would be the perfect time to "do as they did to us"---and break out the nuclear option. Twenty-plus months of DMG (Democratic Majority Governance) open-field running would, in the end, provide a track record of accomplishments that could effectively castrate the GOP for a generation or more....

Does anyone know if and how the cloture rule could be modified? - Steve

Does this answer your question? I can't find it right now on ussenate.com, but this is wikipedia's version.

when cloture is invoked on a question of changing the rules of the Senate, two-thirds of the Senators voting (not necessarily two-thirds of all Senators) is the requisite majority.

If you view the concessions as being to the Americans who lean right but aren't actually occupying a seat in congress, i.e., 99.99% of right leaning people, it might change your perspective.

In short, maybe Obama is talking through the repubs to their constituency.

"Indeed, David Weigel noted that he 'literally cannot remember a time when the entire Republican conference in either house voted against tax cuts.'"

Applying Republican campaign logic, by voting against these tax cuts, every House Republican voted for higher taxes.

Stripping the bill of all republican concerns (and reinserting the ones they opposed) *might* get the point across that there can be no working with people who are unwilling to work, and no compromise with people unwilling to compromise.

Coral - One of Steve's posts on the contraceptive issue has be found here:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016619.php

(It's from January 27th if you'd rather scroll down.)

Coral, short version is this:
The GOP and the religious right have an issue with contraceptives and STD's (the prevention of STDs and of unwanted pregnancies). Simply put they do not mind screwing the American people but they do not want individuals doing any screwing.

Coral and Old School,

Shorter GOP: Screw impoverished and minority women. Damn sluts should just keep their legs shut. And then their husbands/boyfriends can beat them for refusing to have sex.

There's no working with a bunch of rich white Rethug men. They're too busy throwing a tantrum about a black Democratic President to notice or care that their constituents' lives suck. As angry as I am about the stripping away of the reproductive healthcare funding, I'm hoping part of the White House ad campaign Steve alluded to earlier will spotlight it: "Republicans said that if the stimulus package included funding that helped impoverished women prevent unplanned pregnancies, they would vote no. So we took it out in a good-faith bipartisan gesture, and they voted no anwyway. Republicans don't care about preventing unplanned pregnancies, and they don't care if you, the people, their constituents, keep your jobs, your homes, your healthcare, so long as they get to oppose Democrats. Remember this when your Representatives are up for re-election next year. We sure will."

The GOP House members need to be trained.

They were offered a compromise, a generous one, I thought. They said NO WAY.

Next offer, they get half of what they were offered the first time.

Next offer, none.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

You quote: Indeed, David Weigel noted that he "literally cannot remember a time when the entire Republican conference in either house voted against tax cuts."

Please, please, please make this into a campaign commercial for 2010. Obama won, in part, because he neutralized the Repubs on the tax-cut issue. He's fulfilling a campaign promise, offering the Repubs a hand, and getting them to brand themselves as the Party that "voted against tax cuts." This guy is good. (It helps that the Repubs, as Obama said at one point in the campaign, increasingly "take pride in being ignorant.")

maybe Obama is talking through the repubs to their constituency.

Obama is letting the Republicans demonstrate their usual bad faith (they have you busy working on it here, of course, Mike).

The eight leaning constituency that depends on bad faith to validate their twisted worldview -- like you, Mike -- will applaud them for it. Obama can do without them.

The electoral majority that handed the GOP their hats in disgust will reward the Democrats yet again at the voting booth.

So you may, amazingly enough, be right, Mike -- but if so it's bad news for the GOP.

I also second Stefan -- if the Republicans want to play ball, let them show their good faith by offering concessions in advance. Fat chance.

"The man who says he is willing to meet you halfway is usually a poor judge of distance."
-- Laurence J. Peter

"In fact, Republican senators I've spoken to today said, 'Don't give up on us. We still want to work with you.'"
Yup. We will try again and again to be bipartisan - as long as you do what WE decide we want you to do. Uhumm.

It makes sense to leave the tax cuts in the bill until we see how the
Senate Republicans act. Then, if necessary, they can be removed during the process of negotiation between the House and Senate. However, if the Senate Republicans show more maturity than their House brethren, then we would have to leave the concessions in the bill to show that we have good faith.

Tossing all the concession, in my opinion, would nicely illustrate that the original bill was in fact a generous compromise. Removing these (and then in fact passing the concession free bill) shows how just how much Democrats value bipartisanship and compromise, and that republicans rejected bipartisanship and compromise when offered.

I usually don't resort to name calling but there's nothing more to it: The Republicans are cowards. They're so afraid of becoming irrelevant through a successful Obama/Dems stimulus package they're willing to sink the country.

Fucking cowards.

One approach to political ads, mentioned here, is to shine light on how the Republicans acted en mass to obstruct. But another response to this stimulus vote could take the tactic of culling each Republican representative out of the herd. Run by-name ads in each (R) rep's district that call out their rep for voting against a long list of tax cuts, "Tax cuts that even nearly every Democrat voted for." Such ads would get the rep's local base riled, and build up the Democratic party image in their minds at the same time.

The healthy way to get tax breaks is to stop spending profligately, which is why many of us consider Goldwater the last conservative.

If Pelosi yanks the Predator Republican tax-cuts from the economic stimulus bill then all the Blue Dog Democrats will shift their support to the Predator Republicans, to vote down the bill.

These are the same Blue Dog DINO Democrats who sided with the Predator Republicans in negotiations, getting the family planning center funds removed.

These are the same Blue Dog DINO Democrats who sided with Predator Republicans before Paulson's $700 bail-out bill was passed last September, allowing Paulson to throw money at the Predator Republicans in the Corporate Class, no questions asked, no strings attached.

These are the same Blue Dog DINO Democrats who sided with the Predator Republicans in Congress last year to extend retroactive immunity to telecom companies so as to derail lawsuits pending in court, keeping their illegal warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens from being revealed during discovery.

This is, at present, the dynamic in Congress that President Barack Obama faces, with the corrupt and conniving Blue Dog DINO Democrats running interference for the equally corrupt and conniving Predator Republicans.

Our nation is toast.

The healthy way to get tax breaks is to stop spending profligately, which is why many of us consider Goldwater the last conservative.

And why many of us consider the modern Republican party a bunch of dangerous fools.