Wth the Democrats wanting to save the country, and the Republicans wanting to wreck it, Obama has a responbility to be bipartisan, and split the difference.

Well, what did you expect? The ideas that he rightly trashed are also the WaPo editorial board's ideas. They know perfectly well that THEY are being called out, too. I wouldn't expect them to like it. And I don't care, either.

Now I have hope.

If the WaPo editorial board is criticizing Obama, that's a very good thing. I hope David Broder slams him next, then I'll know that the adminstration is on the right track.

A thinly veiled reference to Senate Republicans, this is a departure from his previous emphasis on bipartisanship.

Similarly, when the US entered WWII in 1941, it was a departure from FDR's previous emphasis on neutrality.....

This just in:

Sky Blue

Water Wet

Republicans Spoiled Children

Film at 11.

You know, I used to think SecularAnimist was a little over-the-top with his/her theories of media dominance by the ultra-rich corporate ruling class. Now, not so much.

weapons of mass deception.

obfuscate the obvious.

Moronica for morons!

Heil gallstone!

We have heard the song of the GOP for years now. It ain't pretty, it's shallow, shrill, dangerous, and destructive.

Look at our economy.

How is it that we listen to the voices of the very ones who led our economy over a cliff?

I say, let 'em scream, rant and rave. The louder we let them yell, the less they'll be listened to.
Just like a teacher who shouts to be heard over her ignoring (and snoring) students.

Calmer heads must prevail.

Pass the stimulus guys. Your arguments are getting stale, moldy, flaky, and downright poisonous.

i didn't realise that david broder wrote EVERYTHING at the wapo oped...where does he find the time?

I should have this stored on a macro somewhere, just type "control-a" and it appears:

If today's Washington Post editorial board had been running the paper 35 years ago, Richard Nixon would be President in Perpetuity.

The WP editorial board has been a pro-Republican propaganda arm for quite some time now.
Obama can't ever criticize, even indirectly, any Republicans now? Whatever.

A thinly veiled reference to Senate Republicans, this is a departure from his previous emphasis on bipartisanship.

Yes, it is. And when someone slaps me in the face repeatedly and I eventually get annoyed enough to punch back, it's a departure from my previous emphasis on not hitting people. Trying to be bipartisan, despite what the WaPo thinks, is not the same thing as being a patsy.

Notice the "bi"? That means it's a two-way street. Obama can't be bipartisan completely on his own if the Republicans don't want to reciprocate with cooperation.

Well no one should be surprised that the corporate media is right there in bed with the Republicans in doing everything they can to make sure that Obama fails. The only question is how much longer does Obama continue with this bipartisan charade effort? I see a lot of people writing about how he has "regained his footing" after ceding the narrative to the Republicans in the early going. But I just don't see that to be the case. This stimulus effort is rapidly spiraling into an ineffective package, which even after Obama's capitulations to GOP whining and foot stomping, will still have an extremely hard time getting 60 votes. His team has allowed the Republicans to take complete control of the information cycle on this and my fear is that this failure, in combination with the constant negative drumbeat from the media, has doomed any real positive impact that might have been hoped for in the early going. I think Obama is in trouble on this stimulus. The negative message being pounded out 24/7 by his political opponents is taking root in the public's mind. We might be very close to losing a significant amount of support from those people who were so enthusiastically behind this right out the gate. The Republican's Wurlitzer is at full crescendo right now and it is having a tangible effect on the public's mood. Obama better get his ass in gear. He is running out of time.

Steve, the WaPo editorial board needs to attack Obama to balance the rest of the paper's pro-Obama bias. And the rest of the paper needs to be biased against Obama to combat Hiatt's well-known liberal bias (wasn't he one of Forbes Top 25 liberals, along with liberal Andrew Sullivan?)

Everyone is just trying to be fair. And balanced.

Please, no more nonsense about the corporate-controled media. The media are corporations, and they are driven by profits, not ideology. So ratings and cheap productions that maximize margins are favored, hence a lot of right-wing radio shows, reality programs, etc.

And by the way, the so-called corporate world by and large supports the Democratic approach to stimulus. They would love to see infrastructure spending. It's the inept marketing of the bill by the Dems that's to blame, certainly not corporate opposition.

The media are corporations, and they are driven by profits, not ideology.

Profits and ideology are not necessarily inconsistent.

Obama has made mistakes, but I don't think they've been driven by the Broderites. I don't think Obama will be much affected by the Post's nonsense, and I doubt much of the public is really moved by Broderism. So who gives a fuck?

i didn't realise that david broder wrote EVERYTHING at the wapo oped...where does he find the time?

Have we ever seen Fred Hiatt and him in a room at the same time?

I've been talking to a few friends about what an extreme grouch I am lately, trying pull myself back from Snarlytown where I've apparently bought myself a big old McMansion (foreclosed upon, natch).

But stuff like this just wears me out.

See, no profanity. That's progress.

Profits and ideology are not necessarily inconsistent.

Who are you, Yoda? Is that a koan?

It may be a stretch to say that truth has a liberal bias, but an awful lot of liars have a conservative one.

Bipartisanship requires that both sides work in good faith toward a common goal. Republicans are not operating in good faith and their goal is to derail the agenda of the Democratic majority. It's time to admit you can't build a building with a wrecking ball. Republicans don't know how to solve problems, they only create them.

One can only wonder, pondering over the reasoning behind the Washington Post's unambiguous desire to portray itself as the wicked stepchild of the Washington Times....

This is just so foolish

It wouldn't appear on the Post's editorial page otherwise.

they are driven by profits, not ideology.

But an ideology that favors funneling profits to media-owning corporate behemoths is tres magnifique.

Stefan, just a bit of a quibble - Lend Lease passed on March 11, 1941. Don't recall any convoys to Bremerhaven, but, more than a few to England.

Current state of bipartisanship in the US government, broken down to its base level:

Obama: Guys, we got a lot of work to do...

GOP: F*** you, Barack...

Obama: Hah hah, I get it, you've gotta put up a front that we'll never agree on anything, but seriously, the country's on the road to major Depression.

GOP: F*** you, Barack...

Obama: Guys, we don't have time, the American people are counting on us to do our jobs and right the country, now, my side put a lot of ideas on the table, I KNOW you want tax cuts for the wealthy, where's the middle ground to make this work?

GOP: F*** YOU, BARACK! F*** OFF AND DIE, BARACK! DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE! F*** YOU F*** YOU F*** YOU!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH! FUUUUUUUCK YOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUU!

Obama: ...well...f*** you, too.

GOP: OH, REAL MUH-CHURE, BARACK! We can't work with you if you're gonna be all like that.

In a lot of ways, it reminds me of a group of fat well-connected white guys circling around a single black guy, taunting him and threatening him until he lashes out, then huh-yucking about how all them n*****s really are savages, ya see the way he took a swing at ol' Clem, here?

Wth the Democrats wanting to save the country, and the Republicans wanting to wreck it, Obama has a responbility to be bipartisan, and split the difference.
I'd be willing to allow any states that voted Republican to opt out of any benefits from the stimulus bill.

Can't say I agree with this bi-partisanship, but, at least it is better than the menage a trois among Shrub, Cheney and the Saudis.

Bipartisan continues to mean "the majority Democrats must ignore popular public opinion and support and implement stale, failed policies of the Republican minority"

(all credit to Glenn Greenwald)

The only question is how much longer does Obama continue with this bipartisan charade effort?

Speeches, interviews, Op-Eds, radio messages are all TACTICS. Tactics don't work unless the underlying strategy is sound. Obama's isn't, and he needs to change it fast.

Pardon me, but I don't see in any of his or his team's recent reaction an admission that the strategy has failed. Or a recognition that he is suffering from overexposure, and that his words -- regardless of the venue -- mean less and less.

Everyone knows he is getting rolled.

Accepting a badly compromised stimulus -- with virtually no republican support -- will make him look weak. On the other hand, forcing a stimulus of his own choice -- even as part of the budget process as has been suggested often on this blog -- with virtually no republican support would make him look strong.

There is a widespread misconception among dems that popularity translates into strength. It does not. It is not even a necessary condition for strength and getting things done. Perhaps Obama's biggest conceit and oversight is that his popularity would guarantee success. It won't. And, once it doesn't, the popularity will disappear as well.

I'd be willing to allow any states that voted Republican to opt out of any benefits from the stimulus bill.

That's brings up a pretty fascinating insight into the Republican behavior here. If the bill were a fait accompli without Republican votes and all the money was going to New York and California, then you could bet that states like Alabama and Oklahoma would cry foul and be screaming for their share.

But since it's not and Republicans can hold up the bill, they're playing the game that if they can't get exactly what they want - then nobody gets anything.

They're essentially tipping the board. Except that the stakes are prolonged human misery. Which rarely even registers with them, being members of a party built on and around ideologies of disdain for the less fortunate and fealty to monied interests.

The stumbling block in this whole endeavor is that it requires an enormous group of people and their representatives to admit the impossible, that both their governing and fiscal philosophy has been proven ineffective. In their minds it would be better that we all suffer and never know the truth than they be singled out for having invested so much of their identity in falsehoods.

Better dead than Red, right?

Some, not all, of this wrangling in the Senate is theater to figure out if there is some way for these people to save face on this issue and still help revive the economy in a timely fashion. The political question is whether that's possible. The moral question is whether that's worth it.

Stefan, just a bit of a quibble - Lend Lease passed on March 11, 1941. Don't recall any convoys to Bremerhaven, but, more than a few to England.

And WWII started on September 1, 1939, more than a year and a half before Lend Lease. And despite Lend Lease, for over two years the US was officially a neutral non-combatant.

I am just asking questions because I really don't know.

I assume that this bill was actually written by Democratic congressional staffers by assembling already existing spending proposals into one bill. Am I right on that?

It's not like every line in this bill has been personally considered by President Obama. There's nothing sacred about the bill as now written, is there?

Is a lot of this 'debate' really just Congress people negotiating over where the money is going to be spent and how? Everyone wants their share and only by threatening to be against the bill, do you have any leverage. Your stuff is pork and my stuff is will save the country.

Isn't it becoming clear that some GOP and Blue Dogs are negotiating in good faith (they will vote for a bill that is modified in ways that they like) but most GOP have revealed themselves as being irrevocably opposed. Are the real negotiating partners being revealed?

In AL, it's the same with conservatives at the Main Street level. They are absolutely crowing with delight at the stances of their elected Congressional leaders who are going against Obama, and I quote "Now Obama is going to get a taste of real Washington politics." Republicans want so bad to say, "I told you so" they are leaping at anything.

Conservatives are in this to fight. Their war mentality is not limited to overseas. They are leveling that same ideology not only abroad but at home, at street level and at the Washington level. Using media guns and Tokyo Rose propaganda, conservatives are fighting to ensure this country stays on its knees under liberal leadership, thus "proving" to America that liberals couldn't run this country either.

Too bad real people are influenced by these selfish inane antics, because the show would really be funny otherwise. Nothing pulls a nation together like laughter, nothing shreds national cohesion like a conservative.

An earlier poster said that, if the Dems are trying to save the country + the GOP's trying to destroy it, then Obama needs to compromise.

What, precisely, would be a compromise between saving + destroying the country? Damaging it moderately? Doing nothing?

Neither of those is an option. As Obama has said, in print, in person, and on TV, urgent action is required to get us out of the mess bequeathed to us by the GWB administration. If the GOP can do nothing besides obstruct, then forget compromise w/them, as there is no possible way to compromise w/obstruction.

As I've said in other contexts, the only way to negotiate or compromise about something is when you agree on what is the final goal. For the GOP, the wreckage of the GWB administration IS THE FINAL GOAL. How the heck do you negotiate w/the very people who like the mess to get them to clean it up?

-Z

Steve Benen: "This is just so foolish."

There is nothing "foolish" about the corporate-owned media working in close collaboration with the corporate-owned Republican Party to advance the interests and agenda of the ultra-rich corporate oligarchy, and to undermine and thwart a popular, populist, liberal Democratic president -- right down to the Washington Post editorial board and Republican politicians spouting the exact same, word-for-word, boilerplate, scripted, focus-group-tested talking points.

They know exactly what they are doing, and they are doing it very well, and very effectively.

What's "foolish" is "sensible liberal" bloggers who seem to expect something other than corporate propaganda from the corporate media.

Zorro wrote: "What, precisely, would be a compromise between saving + destroying the country? Damaging it moderately? Doing nothing?"

In this case, Democrats and liberals should take a tip from Ayn Rand, who wrote that in any compromise between food and poison, poison wins.

"The media are corporations, and they are driven by profits, not ideology."

Some media corporations are just corporations, and some are part of bigger corporations, and even if profit is the only motive, which you don't really know, you also don't know how much ideology plays a role in their calculations of future profits.

I think Obama is playing it right. The bill will be passed and if some minor provisions get dropped that's ok. The Republicans are quibbling about very small percentages of the bill after all...so to turn the argument on its head those provisions can't have that much impact if they're dropped. The Senators that are going to vote no, will, regardless of the final bill. Same with the Senators that are going to vote yes. It's the "maybes" you concentrate on to get legislation passed and that's why he's talking to senators like Susan Collins.

Boronx--

I work for corporate media. Believe me, it's all about profit, circulation, ad revenue. Sure, no one wants to piss off a big ad buyer, but if you have a juicy story, you run it.

Really, its something to remember next time Obama pussyfoots around and doesn't mention the republicans *by name* every time he calls them out. There's an old e xpression: as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. If they are going to call you, as they called Nancy Pelosi, a "trash talker" and "unbipartisan" for merely observing that there's a different between your position and your opponents position then you might as well stick the fucking knife in publicly and shout the differences from the rooftops. Its time for obama to go on national tv and say "since we are in the third week of my failed presidency its time for me to acknowledge that my hopes for a change in the tone here have not been borne out. Republicans don't want a bipartisan solution to our problems--they want to pretend they didn't lose the election adn they want to make sure the country adn the economy crumbles around us so they can get back into power later with the pathetic cry "see, we weren't so bad after all!" So, I'll take them at their word and deed. Bipartisanship is dead in Washington until the republican leadership comes to the democrats on bended knee and agrees to do what is best for the country instead of waht is best for their failing party." They are all but accusing him of making that speech anyway. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain. He should go for it.

aimai

@ aimai: Perfect.

Once again, this proves that Obama “screwed the pooch” when he left the crafting of the “stimulus” to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Something to remember the next time someone complains about the Washington Post's liberal bias.

Like repeated noting the years' worth of neoconservative pro-war editorials and the conservative tilt of their Op-Ed columnists has dented their faith in that particular delusion...

Here is the headline I would like - "Senators Nelson and Collins make plans to make more people unemployed". Lets face it that is what will happen. Unfortunately ***holes like the WaPo editorial board who do not have to worry about losing their jobs - even if they were to lose one job they would quickly be re-employed.

Posted by: Zli on February 5, 2009 at 11:51 AM
"Using media guns and Tokyo Rose propaganda..."

I'm thinking:
Tokyo Rose = Rush Limbaugh

Obama has a phrase referring to the WaPo's bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship.

He calls it "a bad habit" that we need to break out of.

There may indeed be a problem with bipartisanship.

Republicans are almost tyo teh man conservatives.
Conservatives want low taxes and profess a desire to reduce spending (except defense which they want to increase as much as possible)

A stimulus package that is anything more than tax cuts is diametrically opposed to conservatism.

If they refuse to acknowledge the tax breaks Obama has included as evidence of its bipartisan nature, only elimination of spending might alter that perception. Perhaps defense spenidng can replace infrastructure and all other government spending at which point it would ALSO be partisan because not a lick of Democratic influence would remain.

Tough to negotiate with a one trick pony like the GOP.

Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.

Anything else is partisan and liberal.

I wonder if Obama is manuevering the GOP teh way Congress did. Let them have their way to allow the poublic to realize they have no clue how to run a war and now total discrediting on teh economy.

Obama will let it ride a little while longer so the 10% unemployment rate can make this deep-recession into a dep-ression.

With tax cuts having proven inadequate to reverse teh economy's course, partisanship m,ight be better tolerated by the media that will no doubt feeol the pinch as businesses can no longer afford to advertise? (Assuming teh role of media outlets is still profit rather than as subsidized PR machines owned by corporate America.)