In an ideal world I'd hire a chef to fix that meal of tire rims and anthrax. Then I'd insist my date eat her meal first and tell me how she liked it.

scarborough seems to commit a freudian slip as well, when he asks krugman why he thinks "Democrats" are trying to destroy the economy

That is the most bizarre understanding of the 1990's that I have ever heard. As I recall, the Republicans yelled bloody murder about Clinton raising taxes -- he forced the raises through, and we had the best eight years in a long time. Scarborough lies -- and you can tell it because he won't let his guest talk.

Saw an interesting thing on CNN this morning.

Mitt Romney was on giving his standard tax-cut praddle. Afterwards, the anchors were talking and the business correspondent, Ali Velshi, said since no one was spending, he didn't think tax cuts made much sense. He basically negated everything Romney said. I consider that progress.

It is obvious at this juncture the Republicans have circled the wagons and want a fight, (much to the misery of the American people)!

Best advice to President Obama: Ride on past the circled wagons, build a majority the best you can, bi-partisanship be damned, and help our nation recover economically, build back the lost respect of America accomplished so well by the past administration and end a lied-into war of choice in Iraq. Anything less and the Republibans will make a mockery of any of your future efforts. -Kevo

What do you expect from Republicans. They have gone from taking their marching orders from an alcoholic to now bowing to the wishes of a drug addict.

Former Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-Fla.) argued this morning that policymakers should adopt a "mixed" approach to an economic recovery package, and not just go "all left or all right in these times of crises."

That's pretty good. After 8 years of steering to the right, we find ourselves plunging into a Depression. A left turn might be in order.

I agree that Republican attitudes make bipartisanship impossible, but I still think it was important of Obama to try to make it work. Not because there was any chance of Republican cooperation, but because it was important for him to be seen to be trying.

Unfortunately, due to media idiocy and/or poor press outreach by Democrats, there is danger that the Republicans are the ones that are going to look reasonable.

So now Obama and his spokespeople need to be very outspoken in showing how hard he tried to work with the Republicans and how the Republicans are responsible for any failure of bipartisanship.

The guys who elected Rush Limbaugh king of the republican party and keep him throned on his mighy tush must not like progressives, liberals or middle of the road democrats. Vote them out! Oh, wait... it wasn't an open and fair election.

Simply politics is broken here in the US.

We have become a dysfunctional state.

Learn to grow food, hoard your cash, get to know your neighbors. Hard times are here and they are going to get much worse and be with us for a long long time.

Krugman said to Scarborough: "So, how much bipartisan outreach can you have when 36 out of 41 Republican Senators take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh?"

Let's not kid ourselves. The Republican Senators and Rush Limbaugh are both taking marching orders from their owners, America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc.

Joe Scarborough is "Stunningly shallow" and proves this daily.

Why is anyone surprised? I never cared for that "post-partisan unity" nonsense anyway. It was a good campaign tactic because it sounds all "sunshine and rainbows," but the reality is that partisanship is part of our system and always has been.

Forget the damn Republicans. Quit expecting to peel off Republicans so you can get cover on the right. They're not going to do it, and trying to get them to looks weak.

The Democrats are never going to have a better opportunity to govern as Democrats. They, including our president, should be partisan. They should push for Democratic proposals.

"Republican Senators take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh?"

Why do we have to put up with this drooling demagogue, and why do you stupidly retail his smears?

It would be just as legitimate to find some issue upon which Obama and Ayres agree and to then accuse Obama of taking his marching orders from Bill Ayres.

What would Steve have to say about that?

Scarborough's re-write of the 1990s is bunk. Republicans didn't force massive spending cuts. What happened was tax revenues increased slightly faster than the economy grew thanks to the 1993 budget deal, and spending increased slightly slower than the economy grew thanks mostly to the "peace dividend" - which Republicans weren't particularly enthused about. And voi-là! - a balanced budget that was promptly blown away by Bush.

But, hey, lying works. Joe got his lie in and Krugman in the interest of time left it uncontested. Another fine moment brought to you by Your Liberal Media.

I agree with the poster Tanstaafl who said:

"Unfortunately, due to media idiocy and/or poor press outreach by Democrats, there is danger that the Republicans are the ones that are going to look reasonable."

You are spot on. In my opinion, a lot of the current stimulus problems, are partially the Democrats own fault in not properly framing the stimulus and allowing the Republicans to hold nearly complete sway in the media the past two weeks. Where exactly were the Democrats? Why was misinformation and outright falsehoods not countered by President Obama and Democrats?
I'm glad President Obama is now coming out swinging, and maybe he and his allegdly "best and brightest" staff around him are now humbled some what in their naivete in dealing with Republicans.

Thing I'm not sure about, how do the Dem's get anything done if they don't find some way to peel off a few of the Republicans and keep all of their own?

Sure there are ways to mitigate the results of obstructionism, but there's no actual way to move beyond post-partisanship. Reminds me a truism of war, that it doesn't end when the winner says so, but when the loser decides it is over.

You write: It's painful to think about... The opposition party, when it's not blatantly lying about the recovery plan, is offering ideas that are a) nonsensical; b) dangerous; or c) nonsensical and dangerous. It makes the prospect of "bipartisanship" kind of silly."

Agreed.

And this is becoming more and more clear precisely because Obama reached out to the Repubs and offered them a chance to be bipartisan. I think this was a win-win strategy: either they could join in under his leadership as the bill passes by a large margin, or they could show their asses as the bill passes by a small margin. They've chosen to show their asses, starting with Rush Limpball's incredibly large one with its gaping hole and ugly cyst -- and they are exposing themselves in the full glare of the spotlight Obama focused upon them. Every hour of every day now, the Repubs look more and more idiotic, callous, hypocritical, ignorant, and idiotic (did I already say that?).

Good moves, Obama. The young man plans ahead -- and reacts quickly.

If the Republicans are against the spending portions of the economic stimulus legislation, why not cut out the aid that would have gone to their states and districts, letting their constituents rely solely on the GOP proposed tax cuts and loans. At least one of their governors said he was willing to forgo such aid to his state.

It seems the sort of obvious bipartisan compromise that everyone claims they desire and a way to move legislation forward at a time when another half million American workers lost their jobs. Lets see if the Republicans aren't just grandstanding for the cameras and are willing to put their policy proposals to the test with their constituents.
Maybe by 2010 the American voters will have a clear idea which party's policies worked and which ones did not.

DecidedFenceSitter above asks: "Thing I'm not sure about, how do the Dem's get anything done if they don't find some way to peel off a few of the Republicans and keep all of their own?"

I've thought about this as well. I think this is part of the Obama strategy to which I referred. Much of what he has undertaken has been done in order to get the 2,3,4, or 5 Republican votes he needs. The talk of 80 votes, the trips to the Capitol, and so on have been a way of providing cover to that handful of moderates he needs not just for this issue, but for upcoming votes on health care and energy. Maybe -- dare I say it? -- he even hopes to prompt a party switch or two from Senators in states he carried. In fact, he may just have engineered a delayed one in New Hampshire. Does anyone doubt he's thinking that far ahead?

It would be just as legitimate to find some issue upon which Obama and Ayres agree and to then accuse Obama of taking his marching orders from Bill Ayres . . . What would Steve have to say about that?

Probably nothing, as it would be a ludricously false metaphor.

The Republican party--and hence their electoral base--has been ruthlessly pared of anyone outside the narrow base of hard-core snarling conservative extremists. There are a good number of people out there who still vote Republican, out of old habit and their lack of common ideological ground with Democrats, but they are not the audience the Congressional Republicans are playing to. Instead of a reasoned debate, we are getting the constant snarling, resentful barrage of simplistic accusations, exaggerations, witless lies, and personal smears that are the daily diet of Dittoheads and millions of others in the right-wing radio audience.

Feel free to listen to couple hours of Rush, take notes, then take similar notes on a few hours of Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham talking points. Its a pretty close match.

It would be just as legitimate to find some issue upon which Obama and Ayres agree and to then accuse Obama of taking his marching orders from Bill Ayres.

IF Obama had made a statement in the Congressional record, and Ayres had broadcast a repudiation of its content or intent to his millions of listeners, and then Obama had hurriedly made a public announcement that he agrees completely with Ayres and he's a big fan ...
Then, you might have a point.
He didn't, and the point you were trying to make is so insignificant as to be completely meaningless.

If this week accomplishes nothing else, and it may not, it should at least cure Obama and Senators like Chris Dodd of any illusions of "bipartisanship." In order to accomplish that, you need a better opposition party.

In their dealing with the new President Republicans are acting according to form by saying that what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable. Republicans have decided they want no part of real bi-partisanship. But they do think they can turn Obama's genuine desire for a new style of politics against him. Thus, they intend to accuse Obama of hypocrisy and bad faith whenever he fails to cravenly cave in to the entire GOP agenda. You can tell that by the 0 173 in the House against the stimulus and the fact that 36 of 41 Republican Senators voted for the McCain alternative that would eliminate every dime of Democratic stimulus spending and replace it with 100% tax cuts. That's not even a serious proposal, and what was funny is that they tried to sell it as a retaliation to Obama's supposed lack of bi-partisan dealings. The public gets it even if Republicans in their right wing bubbles and echo chambers don't.

Every hour of every day now, the Repubs look more and more idiotic, callous, hypocritical, ignorant, and idiotic (did I already say that?).

But I also believe that he half an eye on 2010 too, and will take all the ammunition he's given to solidify a D majority at that time.
The Rs are taking as much rope as they can carry, and he's letting them.
I am frankly not convinced it's all for the best, being committed to democratic principles and believing that competition can(can, not necessarily will) lead to more progress, but you go to bipartisanship with the opposition party you have, and if they're a bunch of fucking callous and detached lunatics, sometimes the lemonade has to be made without any lemons at all.

It would be just as legitimate to find some issue upon which Obama and Ayres agree and to then accuse Obama of taking his marching orders from Bill Ayres.

Another example of Republican a) stupidity b) detachment from reality or c) mendacity. It doesn't really matter which it is, but more of a study of their broken psychology.

Do honest adults (assuming the poster is over 16) really try and rationalize like this? Is this a good faith analogy that has some basic and obvious fallacies? Or is it just another round of shit-flinging bullshit from a conservative who doesn't understand basic rules of logic?

Ayers in no way is the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. He doesn't have a daily radio show that reaches 20 million listeners a day, including influential politicians who go on his show to talk about their agendas. He didn't claim to be one of the movers behind the Contract with America. He isn't an acknowledged party leader -- Rush is, BY REPUBLICANS. And he isn't identified as an opinion-maker by many people outside of education circles.

But other than audience, influence and persona, the examples are exactly the same.

What happened to the GOP? They were always a bunch of assholes, but they weren't all idiots.

In the news, Obama's problem is with "congress." Usually the headline is, "Obama wrangles with congress over stimulus." It's a bad headline. Should be "Obama wrangles with Republicans."

The American public needs to know where to put the responsibility.

We're facing the kind of crisis that will likely and tragically finally help me really understand what my late parents endured.

Can't wait.

here's a relatively new independent political advert on bipartisanship in washington:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IXCf-y2mWg

The Armbruster link had nothing of consequence beyond your won, Mr. Benen.

You sold yourself short and wasted my time sending me there.

Your coverage almost completely encompassed his.