I think their alternate reality, also includes an alternate history, in which their 1933 strategy set the stage for decades of Republican dominance.

Except for the fact that their actual agenda has been to cut more taxes and spend more money, I had no doubts at all.

Was there ever any doubt that the Republican Party wants to cut more taxes and spend less money?

Based on the budgets they've passed, there's a damn lot of doubt about them wanting to spend less money. They ALWAYS want to spend more money on the military (at least the parts that go boom, rather than the soldiers who get boomed). And if you break down the "pork" and earmarks by Congressional district, I'm pretty sure you'll see lots of Republican spending.

...given his public support and theirs, it's quite a gamble.

This is the way democrats and progressives think. It is nonsense.

It really is no gamble at all. They can't let him succeed. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your mind around that? It shows that you do not understand the enemy here. And neither does he, by the way.

Was there ever any doubt that the Republican Party wants to cut more taxes and spend XXXX[won't let me do strikethrough] more money?

There, corrected it for you....

My goodness; these Republicans actually get "mojo" from mass participation in "loserism?"

Sat it with me now, kids:

"LOO-zuhr-izzum."

The next time they decide to make a remake of the remake of the Titanic movie, they can use all Republicans in the cast. It'll be extremely low-budget (no lifeboats needed; everybody dies quick and ugly; total running time about 5 minutes or so, not counting the end-credits), and the best-actor nomination would have to go to the iceberg!

Was there ever any doubt that the Republican Party wants to cut more taxes and spend less money?

Uh, yeah, for the last six years they controlled Congress, I'd say there was a lot of doubt that they seriously wanted to spend less.
Even when St. Reagan was president, he submitted budgets with more spending than what Congress sent back to him--at least on average for 8 years.

Was there ever any doubt that the Republican Party wants to cut more taxes and spend less money?

Yes, there is doubt. This claim has always been a lie. Not a single republican Congress, Senate or President has ever proposed a decrease in the budget of the Federal government. They do not want to cut spending. They want to spend it differently.

This bumper sticker rhetoric should have been completely exposed and eliminated from the public discourse after they got control over the entire government apparatus, and proceeded to spend money like drunken sailors.

Repeating this "smaller government" canard is a huge mistake. It's not so, it's never been so, and the evidence of the six years of looting the treasury should have driven a stake through the heart of this lie.

Mixing up my monsters, this is a zombie lie. They've said it so many times that people just repeat it.

Maybe the Republicans see this as their best shot at winning a majority in two years. I agree that it is a bad long term strategy but perhaps they are impatient.

Was there ever any doubt that the Republican Party wants to cut more taxes and spend less money?

Uh, yeah. It's perfectly obvious Republicans are LYING when they say they are the party of cutting taxes and spending less. Every Republican President has cut taxes on the wealthy, and spent MORE money--and that includes when they had a Republican majority in Congress!

The Republican fiscal policy as enacted since 1980 is tax cuts and massive deficit spending.

The Democratic fiscal policy, on the other hand, is to balance the budget through a mix of tax cuts for the middle class, hikes on the wealthy, and cutting some programs. (In extraordinary times, Democrats are willing to deficit spend, but ONLY as a last resort after monetary policy has failed.)

It's absolutely INSANE that anyone is suggesting that Republicans are the party of less spending and tax cuts. They're the party of more spending, tax cuts and MASSIVE deficits.

As long as they continue to do as they've done these last couple weeks, the GOP will be successful in what they're doing as the "loyal opposition" party.

Why? Constant repetition of the same things over and over and over and over made "fact" by constant reinforcement of said "facts" in the MSM. It doesn't matter whether or not it's the truth or that it's right or that you personally think they're revolting or idiots.

It's the message and controlling it so that it's hammered into the brains of the populace as "fact."

Soon, you'll find yourself thinking the GOP's been right all along. Newspeak in action.

That is, unless Obama can take control of the message (MSM, WWW, etc.) ASAP using his large database of e-mail addresses and the "political capital" gained via his election.

The last time the Republicans stood against the needs of the American people Democrats were elected for 5 straight terms. The Republicans then persuaded a wildly popular general who had been courted by both parties to run as their standard bearer. They then lost a couple of more terms until Nixon.

I don't think standing in front of a moving train is ever a very successful strategy. The Republicans need to jump or board or get out of the way. If they are successful in achieving real obstruction their party is doomed.

"First, we've known the Republican agenda on taxes and spending for several generations now. Was there ever any doubt that the Republican Party wants to cut more taxes and spend less money?"

What everybody else said.

Hey, you know what they say: If at first you don't succeed and all your instincts backfire and both expert and popular opinion say you're wrong, try and try again.

After all, Congressional Republicans have a MUCH more "coherent" voice than they did when all those non-Southern moderates were mucking up their message control in 2006. I wish them luck in their struggle against rogue Republicans who don't tote the party line.

econobuzz said:

"It really is no gamble at all. They can't let him succeed. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your mind around that? It shows that you do not understand the enemy here. And neither does he, by the way."

response the econobuzz

even if Barak succeeds Republicans can win if they present a message that is in line with voters, but they way Republicans are acting in congress is too fringe and they may be setting themselves up to fail for the long term regardless if Barack succeeds or fails.

Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Repeating this "smaller government" canard is a huge mistake. It's not so, it's never been so, and the evidence of the six years of looting the treasury should have driven a stake through the heart of this lie.

This is off topic, but this sentence made me think of this.

Has anyone ever done a study on why the American West has turned at least "purple?" In my estimation, besides those loopy Mormons who love them some GOP because of the social issues, the support of the GOP in the past had much more of a libertarian bent in the Mountain West than their support elsewhere in the country.

The Dems, by just taking the gun issue of the table altogether by making it a "state's rights" issue defused one of their major strikes against them. Then enough people saw through the lie that the GOP represents small government to turn the tide in these states. I have never seen research to back this up, however.

In Carpetbagger's defense, I'd say that Republicans WANT to cut more taxes and spend less money, in the same way that many of us WANT to eat less and exercise more. Unfortunately, the will to do so isn't always there.

And the point is that this has been their message for decades and this vote wasn't required to send a message on the subject. Of course, we all know that Republicans don't really want to cut spending. But all the same, for Republicans to act like their idiotic opposition to the stimulus was somehow necessary to send this message was just silly. It'd be like if a group of obese people went on a pie-only diet in order to establish the principle that they like pie. Sure, they made their point; but it didn't need to be made and only hurt themselves.

Dbaker, I think the West is also slowly changing due to in-migration, and the subsequent greater care for the environment, as well as resentment of extractive industries even by some long time Westerners.

It's a mix.

Econobuzz, you're right, that Obama guy is not as smart about politics as you and the other experts commenting on threads. He doesn't get the game. He got lucky with that campaign, that's for sure!

Not to say he won't make mistakes, but comments like this one are laughable.

"Tiger Woods really blows his iron shots. He needs to turn his right hand over much earlier in the swing."

Well, as the old saying goes, those who forget the past... are Republicans.

Steve, that thing about coherence wasn't said for our benefit, but for David Broder's, and for that of a thousand political analysts eager to tell the story, "GOP on comeback trail!"

Of course, it'd help if our Democratic President, Democratic House, and Democratic Senate would stop going along with it, practically and rhetorically.

It really is no gamble at all. They can't let him succeed. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your mind around that?

Uhh, because it's WRONG econobuzz. First off, they can't STOP HIM from succeeding. Obama didn't need to compromise with Republicans. Nor did he need their support. But what he needed was to prove that he was willing to do so. And if they supported him, great. But if they reject him, he passes the bill anyway and demonstrates how irrelevant they are. By giving them every opportunity to join in, they sidelined themselves. That was a necessary political move. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your brain around?

Beyond that, if the economy improves, Republicans will claim that it's proof that the economy wasn't so bad to begin with and was being hyped by a liberal media to help Obama. And they'll say this whether or not they voted for the bill. But...if they had voted for it, they could claim that it's their taxcuts that really helped the economy and that things would be even better if Obama hadn't larded it up with spending. And they would also claim that they made his bad bill better, which saved the day. But now, they CAN'T claim that, because they all voted against it. And if the economy DOESN'T improve, they could have said that it would have been worse if not for their fighting.

And of course, we'll be saying the opposite of this. We'll say that an improved economy was done in spite of Republican attempts at sabotage, and if things don't improve, that it was Republicans fault for sabotaging it. And this is exactly what we'd say no matter what happens. And hey, maybe we'd be right. But now, if things improve Republicans get NO claim to success and if it fails, we can still blame them for allowing partisan hatred to get in the way. And I assure you these are the arguments we'll be making.

All they had to do was denounce the bill but say that they'd vote for it for the good of the country, and then they'd look like good guys without losing their ability to attack Obama for it later. But now, they've lost that because they refused to have any part of it? This has been explained repeatedly by many people. What is so hard about understanding it? Yes, we understand that the Republicans are stubborn fools. But their instincts continue to betray them. Why should we assume that they're being smart now?

Benen wrote, "Was there ever any doubt that the Republican Party wants to cut more taxes and spend less money?"

Yes. We should never confuse their rhetoric with the reality. Despite their assertions to the contrary, the proof is in, and Republicans are not for less taxes and less spending.

They don't want to cut taxes at all. They want to shift the burden of taxes to the middle/lower classes (e.g. FairTax) and to future generations. That's not the same as cutting taxes.

With regard to less spending, they quadrupled earmarks, doubled the national debt, spent billions on a misbegotten war and silly/outdated weapons programs (e.g. StarWars), agricultural subsidies a poorly designed prescription drug program, and on and on.

They're snake oil salesmen, and the lower taxes/less spending mantra is the snake oil.

as well as resentment of extractive industries even by some long time Westerners.

This hits on my thoughts, once the Bushies came to power, they became the "big government" that they spent the past 8 years railing against.

I'm having a little trouble wrapping my head around this. Republicans got their mojo back by agreeing to reject the popular agenda of a popular president in a time of international crisis.
Just what makes you think this waste of the people's money is popular?

Steve, that thing about coherence wasn't said for our benefit, but for David Broder's, and for that of a thousand political analysts eager to tell the story, "GOP on comeback trail!"

Chris, perhaps you're right. But so what? For as much as you act like Obama and the Dems will allow this to happen, you're completely forgetting recent history. Republicans keep pushing these "comeback" stories and they all fall flat. We were told repeatedly that McCain was making a comeback last year, but it never materialized. And the Bush comeback stories are legendary for how badly they were wrong. One little bump within the margin of error and Broder was assuring us that Bush was back...only to see him tank a little more.

So why are you pretending as if this works or that Obama is to blame for allowing them to work? Sure, Broder might use this to believe that Republicans are coming back, but so what? I honestly believe that Broder has less influence than Atrios, or even Benen. Broder doesn't create DC conventional wisdom, he's an outlet for it. And all the same, DC conventional wisdom is wrong far more often than it's right. If they predict that the GOP is on the comeback, then I feel better than ever.

Econobuzz, you're right, that Obama guy is not as smart about politics as you and the other experts commenting on threads. He doesn't get the game.

So you're one of those who think BO knew all along he would get no republican votes in the House and face the threat of a filibuster in the Senate? In other words, his bipartisan approach was designed all along to trigger hyper-partisanship so that bipartisanship could flourish down the road? And I suppose he knew all along that Petraeus and Gates would stab him in the back, and oppose his withdrawal of troups? And I suppose part of the plan is also that he knows that Gregg will ultimately turn on him? And that Gregg's replacement will vote with him less often than Gregg did? That, as a popular president, he would be met with a FULL-COURT partisan press?

You're right, I didn't and still don't get it.

Once again, folks, he is new to this. We can't just define everything he does as part of some masterplan. Everyone needs his/her feet held to the fire -- especially when thing look like they're going south.

Change was not supposed to mean replacing realism and critical thinking with blind faith.

I think econobuzz is right. The Dems are bending over backwards to let the Rethugs put what they want into legislation and take out what they don't with a few exceptional sacred cows. Ultimately, they will pass a bill, with Rethuglican "help" that is not what is best for the country. Only Dems behave this way when they could ram through what is needed (what they were voted in for!). First they voted to enable Bush and now they are enabling the disgraced Rethugs. The true test will be what we will end up with and when. Obama sounds the alarm that things need to move quickly and yet we're dicking around with pleasing the opposition that already had its chance to destroy the country. I know were supposed to think of Obama as some kind of strategic genius because he won the election from a currently despised party--but winning and getting your agenda through are two different things. I hope I'm wrong to worry--Rachel Madow and I both need a talking down on this--but blind faith in these times are not wise. Dems are weak and we need to demand that we get what we voted for.

"Beyond that, if the economy improves, Republicans will claim that it's proof that the economy wasn't so bad to begin with and was being hyped by a liberal media to help Obama. "

I think that we're past that even being an option, considering how many thousands of people are being laid off every day. It will be a tough sell, unless they conspiracy goes further and these companies are just doing this to make the economy look worse than it really is, all for the same of Obama.

Has anyone ever done a study on why the American West has turned at least "purple?"

I do think the attitude of some of the recently elected Democrats is very instructive. Jon Tester beat a Republican incumbent after vocally opposing the Patriot Act and raising the specter of the federal government investigating individual gun purchases. Some of the quotes I read at the time sounded like they were ghost-written by Ron Paul.

But Tester's economic views are pretty mainstream center-left, as far as I know. This is also a good thing; despite the desperate attempts of the conservative movement to tar Democratic policies as "socialism", most sensible people recognize the difference between big-government neoliberalism and true socialism. Bill Clinton obviously contributed a lot to the popular perception of the Democratic party as more capitalism-friendly than the right-wing stereotypes imply. This allows them to pursue the "socially liberal/fiscally conservative" swing voters, which I suspect make up a large part of the electorate, especially younger Americans.

It also helps that the GW Bush administration and the recent Republican Congress wasn't even remotely libertarian, unless you're one of those people who thinks libertarianism only means cutting taxes and throwing out regulations. If we're going to be stuck with a massive federal government no matter who's in charge, why not vote for people who at least seem committed to running it responsibly?

Was there ever any doubt that the Republican Party wants to cut more taxes and spend less money?

Uh, yes. There's quite a bit of doubt. While Republicans generally want to cut more taxes, based on their spending record when in office there's no evidence they really want to spend less money -- quite the opposite, they want to spend it like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

Or, in other words, while they always want to take in less money, they always want to spend more -- an, uh, interesting, if not exactly viable strategy in the long term. They're the Borrow and Spend party.

Further proof that there were only ever two good Republican presidents: Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt - neither of whom would stand a chance of election by today's Unteconstructed White Boy's Southern Treason Party.

Was there ever any doubt that the Republican Party wants to cut more taxes and spend less money?

Was there ever any doubt that the Reverend Ted Haggard condemns meth-fueled gay sex with male prostitutes?

I mean, sure, he did engage in it. But his public statements were always firmly condemnatory, and we all know that you should watch what people say, not what they do.

It's also interesting to note what else was in the Republicans' 1933 strategy of opposing FDR - the Business Plot. From Wikipedia:

The Business Plot (also the Plot Against FDR and the White House Putsch) was, according to a committee report of the United States Congress, a political conspiracy in 1933 wherein wealthy businessmen and corporations plotted a coup d’état to overthrow President of the United States Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1934, the Business Plot was publicly revealed by retired United States Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, testifying to the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional Committee. In his testimony, Butler claimed that a group of men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a military coup. One of the alleged plotters, Gerald MacGuire, vehemently denied any such plot. In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations of the existence of the plot, but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten.

During the McCormack-Dickstein Committee hearings, Butler testified that through MacGuire and Bill Doyle, who was then the department commander of the American Legion in Massachusetts, the conspirators attempted to recruit him to lead a coup, promising him an army of 500,000 men for a march on Washington, D.C., $30 million in financial backing, and generous media spin control.

Portions of Gen. Butler's story were corroborated by:

Veterans of Foreign Wars commander James E. Van Zandt. "Less than two months" after General Butler warned him, he said, "he had been approached by ‘agents of Wall Street’ to lead a Fascist dictatorship in the United States under the guise of a ‘Veterans Organization’ ".

Captain Samuel Glazier — testifying under oath about plans of a plot to install a dictatorship in the United States.

Reporter Paul Comly French, reporter for the Philadelphia Record and the New York Evening Post.

Was there ever any doubt that the Republican Party wants to cut more taxes and spend less money?

Absofuckinglutely! Cut taxes, yes -- but with a Republican President and Congress, spending -- and resulting deficits -- went nowhere but up. Bush never came close to proposing a balanced budget. And why not? Eventually fiscally responsible Democrats will step in to clean up the mess.

Spending less money is a nice slogan, but there's no evidence whatever that the Repukes are serious about it. Even their objections to the stimulus are piddling around the margins. If the GOP achieves a 1% reduction by its obstructionism, color me unimpressed.

..given his public support and theirs, it's quite a gamble

The republicans have no down side to this because the republican owned media will give then plenty of cover. As we're seeing there are 2 or 3 republicans to every democrat on the cable and network shows. That's how Bush was able to get away with his outrageous crimes. Isn't it time to do something about the media? Or do we want to just keep hearing this BS day asfter day.