Well, the Democrats sure as shit need a better media strategy. They suck at communicating and defining the debate. I mean just awful.

But whether or not it's a "Rope-A-Dope" strategy is pretty irrelevant. Obama, with a few glaring exceptions (like the odious reversal on state secrets), pretty much operates at face value. He said he wanted to include the Republicans, he did, and they still went on the attack.

I think Obama had a contingency for this. Maybe he really thought it would happen, or maybe he is really naive. I don't know. But the counterattack -- again, whether planned or not -- is potent.

It's either learning from mistakes or giving his opponents enough rope. It doesn't matter because the lines are now starkly drawn. And the people favor Obama's approach.

The Democrats, of course, are still hapless. But Obama isn't.

I think it's entirely possible that Obama is using a catty rope-a-dope like strategy to woo and cajole the wingers to his way of doing things. It is also likely, if so, that they didn't foresee the near complete wingnut withdrawal into their ideological shell. A more direct approach seems to be the adjustment we've seen lately.

Maybe I'm underestimating Obama's strategy and/or momentum; it wouldn't be the first time. But if this were an actual example of rope-a-dope, a reinvigorated Obama would be calling the shots, a chastened Republican Party would be acquiescing, and Collins, Specter, & Co. would be grudgingly accepting changes to the package that move it closer to the House version.

I don't see how that scenario could have possibly come about. The Republicans know that their best option for retaking Congress and the presidency is to oppose Obama and hope he fails, and there's nothing Obama could have realistically done to change that. And with the majority of Republicans opposing Obama, the "centrists" end up wielding a disproportionate amount of power.

Now, did Obama screw up, or was this all rope-a-dope? I don't know. All I know is that it looks like Obama is getting a stimulus package, containing an unprecedented half a trillion dollars of government spending. That's not bad.

I honestly think Obama screwed up by not understanding the fundamental nature of his enemy. The way they worked with him as a junior senator was no doubt much more businesslike than now, and probably gave him the false impression that they would be equally businesslike after he was president.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Once he became president the gloves came off almost instantly and they stood revealed as the ravenous wolves they really are and Obama was totally unprepared for the sudden switch in personas.

He's catching on now and a few stumbling blocks are not enough to defeat his ultimate purpose, but he's going to have to learn himself up real quick that these politron units can't be reasoned with, they can only be bludgeoned into submission until they're ultimately replaced. That's a hard lesson and a bitter realization, but better late than never.

It's not rope-a-dope so much as the fact that Obama manages to react to changing conditions very quickly and change the direction of the narrative when he realizes it's time.

In comparison, his predecessor was fixated on doing the same thing over and over and over again in the face of disaster.

He's not planning these things 20 moves ahead; he's simply shifting gears right when it's needed, and it just looks like he planned it all along.

I think you and Scheiber are both right: I don't think Obama deliberately set out to rope-a-dope Republicans - the White House was surprised by the extent of the Republican attacks, just as you suggest, as well as by the press's aiding and abetting. But the Republicans declared victory much too soon: Obama didn't rope-a-dope them - he used ju-jitsu. Polls showed strong support for him, none outside the Republican base for what are widely seen as churlish and uncooperative Republicans; and the stimulus package will indeed pass, probably with more money than was in the Senate bill. And the fact that Obama hasn't garnered more support from Republicans actually makes them look bad, not him. Not a bad day's work, however slow the initial response.

Jay B. has it exactly right. Both the Congressional Democrats and the Congressional Republicans are locked in politics as usual. The Congressional Republicans are masters of that game, but the people don't want that game. Congressional Democrats are chumps. The media are used to calling the inside the beltway game.

The people have a different take. They want the President who appears to operate above board and with a velvet glove. He might have a fist of iron in that velvet glove but all the public is seeing is his effort to reach out and get beyond politics as usual. The Republicans are coming off like chumps. One of these days Republicans are going to wake up to discover their strategy is failing. I hope it is later than sooner.

To continue the boxing metaphor- I think he's more of a counter puncher. There was no way President Barack could come out and steam roll the rethugs at the start. Instead he had to wait and let them throw their best punches and then he punches where there's an opening. Same thing he did against Mcsame and even Hillary. His opponents punch 1st and then he wins the boxing match.

Jay B wrote: "Well, the Democrats sure as shit need a better media strategy."

There are two aspects to that problem.

The first is that, as others have documented, the corporate-owned mass media from which most Americans get most of their information overwhelmingly favors Republicans over Democrats. Democrats are simply not able to get on the air as often as the Republicans. And it isn't clear that the Democrats can do anything about that, since it is a deliberate choice by the corporate-owned media to hammer the American people with the corporate-sponsored propaganda that the Republicans are regurgitating.

The second aspect is what the Democrats have to say when they do have an opportunity to get on the air, and in this respect it seems fair to say that they have not used their air time very effectively.

I tend to think that part of the problem is that most Congressional Democrats don't want to openly call their Republican colleagues the liars that they are, and they also don't particularly want to openly challenge the corporate-owned media for its own blatant, deliberate dishonesty.

A Democratic politician who goes on the air to say to an interview, "Well, John, the fact is that the Republicans are lying to the American people and trying to pervert the stimulus into a giant tax giveaway to their ultra-rich financial backers, at the expense of everyone else, and you are helping them to get away with it" probably won't get on the air again.

I'm far to cynical to think this intentional. He was caught off guard (though he should not have been) by the tax issues plaguing several of his nominees.

The Republicans took advantage of this and did what they do best (with the help of their friends in the media), and took control of the message.

Now Obama is playing catch-up and if he's trying to rope-a-dope, he's going to find out very quickly there's too many dopes and not enough rope.

But the centrists CAN walk now, and it has no consequences. The conference report cannot be filibustered (sp?), so we only need 50 voes to pass it. Screw 'em.

I'm with you, Steve. And Obama knows he fucked up -- said so re: not putting tax cuts in at first.

I've gotten conflicting claims on whether the conference report can be filibustered or not, or whether it needs 60 votes for a different reason: a rule about bills that increase the deficit. I'd appreciate an authoritative explanation of this.

I'm not sure I go with the Rope-a-Dope description, for one because it sounds like a lot of calculating on everyone's part, not just Obama.

Obama is doing the same thing he was during the campaign: he lets everyone have their say, and then he gets the last word.

Why? Because it isn't clear at the beginning of any of these big attack-recover events which ones will actually be big. Whose argument will get the most traction.

While his critics are looking for the right argument to do him or his program in, all he has to do is wait just a little bit too long, that extra day he always waited during the campaign, a few weeks for the stimulus.

Besides allowing everyone the time to make clear their arguments, it also allows everyone to complain about how Obama isn't doing anything, allowing him to lower expectations. But then he steps up and hits a home run when everyone who supported him just was hoping to draw a walk, or maybe get hit by a pitch.

I'd like to believe that Obama is playing the rope-a-dope game, because the only other possibility is that he screwed up and is trying to adjust his strategy on the fly. Better to have given up on some crucial stimulus for some future gain rather than because he actually let those America-hating yahoos in the GOP get the upper hand.

But if that *is* what he's doing, then he is still being extremely irresponsible. Playing out this kind of fight when the battle-field is something as important as this stimulus plan is just out-right stupid. The country *needs* this stimulus, but the bill is no longer as good as it could have been because he engaged in this silly political wrangling.

As I've said before, Mr. Obama, and I use the formal with respect, is a Master. He knows what he is doing and operates at a very high level of consciousness. That is why most people do not recognize his mastery; they have never seen it before. I watched the news conference last night and am very impressed with his ability to listen and respond to a wide array of questions, with respect and civility, to use his words. I do not agree with how he answered all the questions, but I trust him and trust his vision for all of us, not just those who elected him or agree with him. He comes with a personal support system in his wife and children and his closest associates. It is time we allowed him to unfold his plan, with only gentle criticism, for now. Should he prove to be less than he appears to me, there will be time to elevate the debate. For now, Mr. Obama is in control and it is up to us to get on board and support his efforts on our behalf. He cannot and will not do this alone. He is first and foremost a community organizer, and we are his community. He knows what he is doing. Be part of the solution.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

It will take actual threats Obama can enforce to get the "centrists" off their power high. Maybe giving out Susan Collins' home address to the unemployed in Maine would help.

If it works, what the hey? The proof will emerge down the line as continuing bad economic news necessitates more dramatic action. Systemic reform will become inevitable and Obama will need very strong support from the people to get thugs and blue dogs to accept changes that they cannot possibly tolerate. If the economy doesn't bounce quickly(and how can it when it has survived on debt, indefensible bubbles, the kindness of strangers, dumb luck, fraud, military adventurism, and reckless speculation for decades), we are facing a fight over the essence of what America should be.

It's not rope-a-dope so much as the fact that Obama manages to react to changing conditions very quickly and change the direction of the narrative when he realizes it's time.

I think this is about right. We're not watching a master plan unfold, but we probably are seeing a master at shifting to Plan B and reseizing the reins. This is not dissimilar to what we saw happen at a couple of big trouble points in Obama's campaign.

But if this were an actual example of rope-a-dope, a reinvigorated Obama would be calling the shots, a chastened Republican Party would be acquiescing, and Collins, Specter, & Co. would be grudgingly accepting changes to the package that move it closer to the House version.

That's kind of a weird definition, Steve. On what planet and under what circumstances could this happen? Not ours and not a Congress peopled by this Republican party. The object is to get this stimulus passed in an environment in which half our legislators deny their party's culpability in making this mess and resolutely refuse to change course to avert further disaster. In that goal it appears we will succeed.

[...] the only other possibility is that he screwed up and is trying to adjust his strategy on the fly. -- Shade Tail, @ 17:50

I think he screwed up; maybe bought into his own mantra of hope and change. OTOH, I'd much sooner have *Obama* adjusting his strategy on the fly than McCain; if anyone's intellectually fit to reassess a situation quickly and trim his strategy accordingly, it's Obama.

Steve Benen

Here is how you know you have been punked by President Obama.

Right now we are all pissed because he "only" got an $830 billion dollar bill.

Let that sink in for a moment.

I know you want to say "bbbut bbbut bbbut we coulda got more"

If I had told you in December that President Obama would get a bill with over $450 billion dollars worth of spending after only one vote in the Senate and after the TARP debacle you would have thought I was nuts.

President Obama isn't perfect and he will make mistakes but the guy's approval ratings are still high, the country trusts HIM to handle the economy by almost 3 to 1 and he has gotten everything he asked for so far. It is what it is.

Yeah, I don't see the shrewd rope-a-dope in any of this. The Democrats screwed up.

Wouldn't it have been nice if Obama had gotten together with Reid and Pelosi from the start, even before the inauguration, and worked out the kind of provisions that needed to be in the bill--and agreed to avoid the kind that should not be in it--and then pitched a consistent set of talking points to the media? That way, the bill wouldn't have been so larded up with non-stimulative junk that made the Republicans look good for a while. And the Democrats should then have posted a summary of each provision of the bill on the Web, without shame. Obama would have proven he believes his own rhetoric of openness, and the Democrats would have avoided dirtying themselves up during this process. They would have had a stronger bargaining position when warding off all those economically pointless tax cuts too.

Instead, they screwed up and used the stimulus bill as a big bag of generalized liberal priorities. I like all those priorities, but a lot of them aren't stimulative. They belong in some other bill. By losing the high ground in the negotiations, the Democrats gave in too much. Several key provisions were cut from the bill, and it has too many tax cuts.

So now Obama is off trying to sell a mediocre bill to the general public. If it had been a good bill, drafted according to principle, this would be much easier. Instead, he's asking people to trust in the bill as an outgrowth of their trust in his personally. He's lucky: This works now, because he's no new. It will not work in a year or two. Unless, of course, he decides to start actually listening to his own rhetoric and changing the way Washington works.

Here's a few indisputable facts about Obama:

He is intelligent
He has a history of successful organizing
He listens to EVERYONE and reads voraciously (meaning: everyone within earshot and everything in sight)
He is persistent
He is either incredibly sincere and honest about his goals and worldview, or he is the Anti-Christ perpetrating a global hallucination (okay, that one is just for fun)

So, maybe there is not much magical about his actions. Maybe he is simply a relatively sincere, clear-headed guy who has our best interests in his pragmatic heart. On top of that, he has taken office at a time when everyone on the planet (except for the Idiot Wing of the GOP) is begging him to lead us out of this World-o'-Crap that we find ourselves in, and everyone understands with crystal clarity upon whose watch we arrived here. Obama's not perfect or prescient, so it's quite likely that he has to abandon or adjust some of the things he does as he energetically forges ahead...

..and he's damn good at it.

Josh

What was in the House bill that wasn't stimulative?

I meant to say:

"He is either incredibly sincere and honest about his goals and worldview, or he is the Anti-Christ perpetrating a global hallucination pursuant to the Apocalypse (okay, that one is just for fun)"

Obama is dealing with some difficult math: 58+0 does not equal 60.

Gallup has ratified his strategy of letting the GOP swing away until they reached a 58% disapproval level, but the strategy may not have been a strategy at all so much as blind, dumb luck.

Which is fine with me. It's better to be lucky than smart.

What sgwhiteinfla said.

...and Robert Kuttner in Obama's Challenge.

There does seem to be a respectable level of accomplishment, and it does seem to follow a sensible agenda, given that Obama can't just wave his hands and get Utopia.

I just hope that we don't continue to do the secret rendition thing.

One reason Obama doesn't care about what "exactly" is in the bill is because he just destroyed the corrupt earmark system.

State and local officials will now have to work with the Obama Administration on which projects to build. Everyone will be able to find and track projects online. Guess who isn't going to get credit or campaign contributions for these projects?

Of course, the House and Senate members could help out and advocate for a project, but it will then be pretty hard for Republicans to participate since they would need to sell their project as creating or saving jobs. They'll have to admit that the program is working.

The rope a dope scenario is plausible. Right now everything is going in Obama's direction for the long run. Ideally the Republicans wanted to be in a position to blame Obama's stiumulus package if the economy goes south this year -- which it will -- and then come out swinging in early 2010 claiming that the Dems had screwed things up too much to be trusted with another 2 years in charge. But what do they have now? They own any failure that comes down the road because either they obstructed the bill from the gitgo or they forced Obama to strip it of the most important programs and substitute useless tax cuts instead. People who are out of a job or about to be out of a job really have more important things to worry about than getting a break on their non-existent taxes.

If the economy shows any kind of an up-tick in 2010, the Republicans won't be able to credibly take any credit whatsoever since they basically all voted against the bill. The Dems will beat them over the head with their 2009 votes in 2010 the same way the Republicans beat the Dems over the head with their PATRIOT Act and DHS votes in 2002. And the Dems didn't even have to load the legislation up with poison pills the way the Repubs did in 2001 and 2002. The Repubs seem to have shot themselves in the foot.

Did Obama engineer all this? Who knows -- who cares. The GOP is going to lose ground in three straight elections. Couldn't happen to more deserving group of clowns.

To sgwhiteinfla -

From what I've read, the House stimulus bill was, overall, strong on stimulative provisions, but it included a fair amount of money for things custom-designed to make Republicans apoplectic. These included aid for "contraceptive services" to help fight the spread of STDs in America, grants to the NEA, and a subsidy to Hollywood producers to help them buy film, among others. None of it bothers me, personally. But the right way to handle this bill was to keep it clean and simple, and justify it all to the budget-conscious uncommitted voting public with clear arguments the whole way through, and then put it all on the Web. Instead, by shoving it through the standard legislative meat grinder, Democrats allowed Republicans to sow a seed of neo-Herbert Hoover skepticism that would not have been there otherwise. At this point, only Obama's fresh face and the still-freshly dire economic situation are keeping this bill afloat.

I can envision a very different political environment a few years from now, if the economy has not picked up, when voters will reject bills that add hundred of billions to the deficit and will refer back to this one as a regrettable partisan exercise. Which it didn't need to be.

Great comments above--agree with many of them including who cares really? Obama amped it up because he HAD to! He himself admitted a goof in
offering up tax cuts from the onset.

I question the questioner, the author here--how does this help anyone to try to second guess Obama in this way?

It doesn't. It's just another lame attempt to paint him as being conniving --which in turn pegs anyone who agrees with the Stimulus package a sucker of sorts, taken in--it's all an attempt to control and undermine.

The GOP will NEVER be happy--and they clearly grow nastier in accordance with Obama's serious (and effective) tone and tenor.

You write: "Maybe I'm underestimating Obama's strategy and/or momentum."

No, you're correct. He's toast. No way a black guy from Illinois could ever win Virginia, North Carolina, or Florida. Especially Florida, where Republican Governor Charlie Crist is so popular. Indiana? In his dreams. Moreover, working class whites in Ohio and Pennsylvania will definitely tip those states to McCain, especially since Palin has so much appeal to both PUMAs and plumbers.

What's that you say? Really. Guess I missed something.

And what did you just say about Crist?

> None of it bothers me, personally. But the
> right way to handle this bill was to keep
> it clean and simple, and justify it...

The Radical Right and its noise machine would find "uncleanliness" in a bar of Ivory soap.

Cranky

Josh

Thats what I thought. Stop reading Republican soundbites. The "money for contraceptives" was actually aid to states so that they could save money in their own budgets which have to be balanced every year. The provision in the bill would have saved, by CBO estimates, over 700 million dollars for the states over the next 10 years but more importantly by not having to use money they had set aside for the medicaid waivers which cover the contraceptives, they could use that money NOW to save public sector jobs.

The "hollywood" provision again saves jobs in places like California which is facing one of the biggest budget shortfalls in the country. The more people working in California, even on "oh my gosh" movie and TV sets the fewer unemployment claims they have to pay the more likely they don't have to furlough or fire public sector employees.

What it boils down to is this, the Republicans are masters of the 10 second sound bite and the MSM are masters of replaying it over and over. There wasn't a damn thing in the house bill that was "lard" or "pork" or that wasn't stimulative. But we are all 3 year olds now that react when we hear "condoms" or "hollywood".

Next time before you decide to "blame the libruls" you might actually want to get the facts. Especially since you claim you empathize with liberals.

Strategic suggestions for the Dems going forward:

It was easier to define our priorities in reaction to George W Bush than it will be when we're in charge. We need to maintain as clear a set of priorities going forward as we did when we were fighting the nutso right-wingers who were in power. That takes a different kind of strategy and a different kind of discipline.

The White House needs to work much more systematically with Democratic Congressional leaders. The goal must be to expand and solidify the Congressional majorities in 2010 so that in future years, it will be politically toxic for Republicans or Blue Dogs to oppose Obama. He can then really get something done on the larger agenda of change--health care, foreign policy, campaign reform, education, transportation, the works.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are desperately trying to win back seats in 2010 and hopefully take back one or both houses of Congress in 2012. To do this, they are coordinating their message and appearing principled, while quietly sabotaging the stimulus bill's effectiveness. If the stimulus fails, and Obama gets blamed, the GOP then appears principled and wins back seats.

This is why it's so important for Democrats in Washington to work very tightly together, stay on message, and stay ahead of the Republicans. These are the reasons why it was such a grievous mistake for there to be non-stimulative provisions in the House bill. If a Democratic spokesperson like Obama, Reid or Pelosi can't stand before the skeptical but scared American people and confidently justify each provision, then the GOP will tar the liberals as phony and not true to their ideals. Obama should set a goal: from now on, every bill goes onto the Web. If there's any provision that's embarrassing, toss it.

I acknowledge that this is a lot more openness and honesty that we're used to, and it's never been done before. Reid and Pelosi will fight it at first. It will require a change of behavior on their part and in Washington in general. But hey--it's "change we can believe in." And it will help our cause in the political fights ahead. If we fail, we might lose a lot.

The "hollywood" provision again saves jobs in places like California which is facing one of the biggest budget shortfalls in the country.

California is biggest in absolute terms, in part because its the biggest state budget in absolute terms. Nevada's is the worst in relative terms (37.6% of the budget for FY 2010, compared to California's fourth-worst at 22.3% [New York and Arizona are also worse off, relatively, than California by current projections].)

source: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/fiscal/StateBudgetUpdate0109.htm

But if this were an actual example of rope-a-dope, a reinvigorated Obama would be calling the shots, a chastened Republican Party would be acquiescing, and Collins, Specter, & Co. would be grudgingly accepting changes to the package that move it closer to the House version.

I think this is correct.

We do BO no favors when we attribute magical powers to him rather than admit mistakes that have been made. He clearly thought many republicans would want him to succeed in fixing the economy. That was wrong.

He negotiated with himself upfront on tax cuts because he thought it would win republican support. That was wrong, and he as much admitted it. He allowed republicans to dominate the debate and depress approval of the stimulus package. That was wrong and his staff pretty much admitted it. He is now in a position where ONE vote could spell disaster. He has as much as stated that wasn't his expectation or intention.

What is nuts about this is that many of his supporters continue to insist that he's planned all this out like a chess master, while he and his staff are telling us that they didn't. It sort of reminds me of Bush's supporters who continued to believe there was a link between Iraq and 9/11, even after Bush insisted there wasn't.

Crazy.

This tells you most everything you need to know about what Obama's thinking with regard to dealing with the GOP. Be sure to note the date:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_theory_of_change_primary

The stimulus hasn't stimulated anything yet. A little early to crow.

Although I think the idea that Obama has orchestrated the entire dynamic of the fight over the stimulus bill according to some brilliant master plan is a bit far-fetched, I do beleive that now that the Republicans have read the polls and given him the three votes he needed, we will see some hardball in conference committee.

The Republicans aren't as stupid as they pretend. they know what would happen if they blocked the stimulus bill and the economy collapsed. They know that a bill needs to be passed and will provide exactly the votes necessary to pass it, but not a single vote more than that.

By threatening to kill it, they managed to extract concessions unavailable to them had Obama been able to count on 80 votes in the Senate. So the bill passed with a minimum of Republican votes ensuring that they can't be blamed for blocking an essential bill, nor can will they be blamed should it fail to achieve anything beyond inflating the deficit. (House Republicans voted against the bill unanimously because they could without actually running the risk of killing it just as the fact that it would never actually pass allowed Senate Republicans to vote almost unanimously for an amendment to strip all spending from the bill).

In conference committee, the Dems will be able to call the Republican bluff and restore much of what was cut in the Senate version.

He's not planning these things 20 moves ahead; he's simply shifting gears right when it's needed, and it just looks like he planned it all along.

I think this is what it is. It's confusing to us because, as shortstop said, Obama appears to have actually had a Plan B for what to do if the first plan didn't work. After the last 8 years of "if it didn't work the first 6 times, do it exactly the same way again," I don't think we recognize someone who can take an action, look at new data, and change direction, who probably even had a contingency plan if the first one failed. (I know -- it still feels crazy to talk as though our President is rational, isn't it?)

That tour he's doing right now to support the plan in states like Florida can't be thrown together in 24 or 48 hours -- somebody thought ahead to what the next steps would be if the Republicans decided to be assholes.

in a time of national crisis, the country usually rallies 'round the president. In this time of national crisis, Obama so far has managed an erosion of otherwise slam dunk stimulus legislation, and has rendered relevance to an otherwise completely defeated and neutered republican party and in so doing Obama has managed to become the savior of the republicans.

I hope he has a magic hat to pull a rabbit out of, but so far I'm not seeing it.

Yes, that would certainly explain the 67% approval rating...

Biggest mistake Obama made coming out of the gate is letting Nancy Pelosi and gang of low teens approval ratings write the stimulus bill. When people who you don't like write a bill, odds are you are going to get a bill you don't like. Yet now Obama has to defend it.

The stimulus hasn't stimulated anything yet. -- Luther, @21:53

Try Viagra; some people find it helpful and some insurance plans cover it.

While I don't think Rope-a-dope is the right term. I think it might be closer to acting like an adult, the GOP and the Pundits were acting like hysterical teenage girls. And the public saw through that, without the president or congress aggressively pushing their agenda. Now the president can go on the offensive a bit. Don't be surprised to see the next poll show 80% approval.

Does anybody think any republican could pull off a town hall meeting in his/her state district without getting ripped a new one?

John B. @ 9:21: Thanks for a great read. That does more to explain what Obama's up to than any amount of speculation by various commenters.

I'll go along with Mnemosyne @ 9:58 and agree that his road trip this week didn't get thrown together at the last minute. I don't think that means one has to believe that Obama is some sort of master chess player thinking twenty moves ahead. But maybe some one anticipated that the GOP might act like...Republicans!

John B.'s link to the article in The American Prospect does indeed seem to accurately portray Obama's thinking on how to achieve social change. What worries me is, there's very little substance to it.

(Here's the link again: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_theory_of_change_primary )

From my reading, there's only a 2-sentence passage in the article actually describing this new technique. It's in the middle of the 12th paragraph:

"One way to deal with that kind of bad-faith opposition is to draw the person in, treat them as if they were operating in good faith, and draw them into a conversation about how they actually would solve the problem. If they have nothing, it shows."

Do you folks really think this is a "theory of change?" I'll just say, flatly, I think it's not. It sounds to me like a nice tactic that will work sometimes, but probably not very often. I don't even think it's responsible for Obama's victory over Hillary Clinton.

In this case, I don't think Obama deliberately employed a rope-a-dope strategy (though I think he did do in the primaries and the general election). I really do think he wasn't prepared for the level of bad faith of the Congressional Republicans.

Instead, Obama is now counterpunching. His stimulus plan's a bit battered, but the Reptiles have telegraphed their vulnerabilities as well, and Obama will, hopefully, hit them where it hurts.

Which is all good -- if so, it would prove that unlike Bush, Obama is adaptable and can employ more than one strategy to achieve his goals. With Bush, if petulant arrogance didn't work, he'd just double down on petulant arrogance.

Kind of like our trolls, really.

Red State mike once again demonstrate his cluelessness: Biggest mistake Obama made coming out of the gate is letting Nancy Pelosi and gang of low teens approval ratings write the stimulus bill.

No, the biggest mistake -- though given the Senate rules I doubt it was avoidable -- was letting so-called "centrists" in the Senate rewrite the bill, removing some of the most genuinely stimulative provisions from the House bill and added in more useless tax cuts.

The House bill is much better than the Senate version, and it's clear that Obama prefers the house version and will advocate the final version from the conference committee favoring it. How is that a "mistake"?

There was no chance that Rush -- who understands full well that a Democratic rescue of the economy puts another nail in the GOP coffin by demonstrating that Democratic preferences are more effective and that GOP preferences don't work -- wouldn't find something to kvetch about, loudly and dishonestly on either bill and no chance dishonest and ignorant conservatives like you wouldn't parrot those talking points.

The unbroken track record of Republican dishonesty and failure, which you cluelessly defend in these threads, means that the GOP congresscritters have an even lower approval rating than the Democrats. And worse for you, the Democrats' low approval ratings that you cite is based in large part on not being effective enough in resisting the GOP agenda of mendacity and failure; the GOP's low approval ratings is for its agenda of fail.

Shame on you, Mike.

I think redstate mike should check the more recent polls also. You see Congress may have a low approval rating, but its not necessarily because of the Democrats.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114202/Obama-Upper-Hand-Stimulus-Fight.aspx

The Dems have a 48 percent approval on the stimulus, the Rethugs have a 31 percent approval rating.

Sorry to burst your bubble redstate mike but your Party's approval ratings are getting worse, not better. President Obama handled it exactly right and thats why we have a bill with more than $450 billion dollars of spending in it.

I think redstate mike should check the more recent polls also. You see Congress may have a low approval rating, but its not necessarily because of the Democrats.
Posted by: sgwhiteinfla

You of course missed the point, which is that Pelosi of low approval ratings wrote the bill and was the original face of it. Saying that hers are better than the republicans is still saying hers are way below Obama's. Having her be the face of it made Obama look passive.

Red State Mike wrote: You of course missed the point, which is that Pelosi of low approval ratings wrote the bill and was the original face of it.

No, Mike, you missed the point that Pelosi's low approval ratings come from a combinations of dishonest conservatives like you and Democrats who feel she isn't doing enough to oppose and reverse Republican policies and implement Democratic priorities.

Having her be the face of it made Obama look passive.

That statement has to be on par with one of the stupidest you've ever made here, Mike, and that's a bold statement.

Obama has been the face of the stimulus push -- he called for it since before, and during, his inauguration. There's no lack of perception that Obama is urging action on a stimulus package.

What made Obama look passive, if anything, is the intransigence of the so-called "centrists." But even then, as Steve documents elsewhere, Obama has changed tactics and stepped up the pressure.

I don't know if it's cognitive dissonance or plain old-fashioned dishonesty that causes you to elide Democratic Congressional approval ratings with those of the Republicans, but you've been corrected enough by now that even your own legendary ignorance is no longer an excuse.

Shame on you, Mike.

I should add that Pelosi beign the so-called "face" of the stimulus bill was a perception promoted by Republicans, who initially were cowed at the prospect at opposing the popular Obama.

Mike, you've demonstrated consistently that your criticial thinking skills aren't very good, but you really do need to start considering that the Republican propaganda you suck down, from Rush Limbaugh to Fox News, is bullshit. You wouldn't embarrass yourself here as much.