To the rest of us, (me included as a Republican of over 30 years), Jay Cost's analysis is flawed. It has been our observation that the current leadership of the Republican party has decided to put party above nation! -Kevo

Great post. I used to enjoy Kevin when he used to post here. You haven't missed a beat - if I were to go so far as to say, it maybe Kevin who is missing quite a few these days.

-- r

In other words, Republican lawmakers have gone so far around the bend, they're surprising their own supporters.

Except that, at least in Cost's case and I suspect more generally, they aren't surprising their supporters. For the supporters to be surprised, they would have to be aware of what the Republicans in Congress are doing. But Cost clearly isn't aware of what is going on in reality, instead clinging to a fantasy that Republicans must be taking a modestly sane position despite the concrete irrefutable facts; which may, if it is representative of supporters of the Republican Party, explain why the Republicans in Congress, despite the microscopic support for their actual policy stances, aren't feeling any pressure to budge from them.

It also suggests the avenue of attack: progressives must do everything possible to underscore just what it is that Republicans are doing. We assume, often, that we need to justify why what the Republicans are doing is wrong, assuming that their supporters are aware of and agree with their policy stances. Given the polling on their policy stances, maybe the problem isn't that their supporters have bought some kind of justification of their stances, but that they oppose those stances but aren't aware that the Republicans they support are taking them in the first place.

You quote: "Who's arguing that "tax cuts alone" will solve this problem? Even if some are, is this the median position on the Republican side? Is this the position of the more moderate members of the GOP Senate caucus like Lugar, Voinovich, and Murkowski?"

Simple answers: YES and YES.

By the way, for the benefit of Jay Cost and others who have forgotten both their native language and basic mathematical concepts, here is a dictionary definition of "median" in the statistical sense: "designating the middle number in a series..."

You have done a great job of presenting the actual distribution of Repub Congress-critters. In plain English, the answer to Cost's question --Who's arguing that "tax cuts alone" will solve this problem? -- is damn near all of them.

Jay Cost clearly hasn't been paying attention, but I don't think I know anyone who hasn't been reading blogs who knows about those votes. The Democrats have done a terrible job of getting the message out. I realize the media has a bias, and that they've been airing Republicans in excess, but still, it would have been nice if at least a few Democrat attack dogs existed who could be out there publicly flogging those votes as examples of the Republicans being "partisan" and "not serious" about fixing the problem.

It's clear the GOP has slapped the hand that was stretched out to them. They need to suffer the consequences of that decision. But so far, few people realize how obstructionist they've been.

Why do you assume Jay Cost isn't aware of the facts in this case?

The GOP apparatchiks are more aware of facts than they let on. They just don't give reverence to facts if the facts don't help their arguments.

The idea that Cost knew of these votes and decided to play dumb is not lost on me. I've often said (and I know I'm not the first) that the neoconservative game plan actively involved keeping people clueless. If you're getting conflicting reports on the status of the stimulus (in this instance, it could be any issue), and you don't know what's true and what's not, there's a good chance you'll just tune out, frustrated and fed up that there's so much disinformation being floated around. And then the GOP wins, because the less people pay attention to their shenanigans, the more shenangians they can thrust upon us.

I think Vicki has it right. Cost isn't unaware of the Republican position; he's lying about it.

I used to have heated arguments with a Republican friend about how I thought the GOP had become extreme-right and radical, and that no one in the entire power structure was pushing back. He thought I was extreme-left and radical.

We haven't spoken for months. I wonder what he thinks now? Seems like it is finally cracking the CW that the GOP is a bunch of hypocritical head cases.

Given the polling on their policy stances, maybe the problem isn't that their supporters have bought some kind of justification of their stances, but that they oppose those stances but aren't aware that the Republicans they support are taking them in the first place.

I think there's something to this. I think the number of people who don't know what the Republicans are doing is shrinking as people find out and leave the party, but I know there are at least a few things that would horrify my father if he found out what the actual policy idea was and not what Rush Limbaugh tells him it is.

Steve Benen wrote: "What I find especially interesting, though, is that Cost not only wasn't aware of this ..."

It's more likely that he is aware of it, and is deliberately lying.

Steve Benen wrote: "I guess it depends on the meaning of 'median.'"

"Median" has a precise meaning in statistics. It has no precise meaning in the context of describing a range of opinions held by members of a group, since such opinions cannot be quantified.

I don't hold it against Cost that he used a mathematical term out of the context of mathematics, in a loose sense.

What's more important is that Cost is clearly misrepresenting the actual voting record of the Congressional Republicans, who have overwhelmingly voted to reject the stimulus package and pass a package of tax cuts for the rich instead.

What Cost and other commentators refuse to acknowledge is the distinct idological assymetry of our 2-party system. We have a party of the center-left, with a very substantial moderate component, and a party of the hard right, with practically no moderates at all. And there's vitually no ideological overlap between the two parties. Even before the last election, which wiped out a number of Republican moderates, the most "liberal" Republicans were almost all to the right of the most moderate Dems, according to ADA ratings. That leaves very little scope for bipartisanship.

I hope and suspect that Obama realizes this, and that his talk of bipartisan outreach is really just talk, designed to win the support of a public naively looking for less "bickering" in Washington.

Democrat mainstream;

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/are-executive-pay-caps-getting-sliced-from-the-stimulus.php

Has anyone nailed down an honest assessment of why any particular republican was against any particular spending item?

My guess is that it has nothing to do with the item, it has to do with the lack of an actual earmark. Obama killed the traditional pet project, campaign contribution induced earmark system. This system was just a patronage system for fat cats. Instead of these guys having to actually work for their money, they just hire people to do the work and collect a nice fee as a manager.

Now these projects will be negotiated with state and local officials and the Obama Administration. They will be put online so everyone knows where the money is going. The only way congressional republicans can get in on the action is by admitting that the money can create jobs and that the projects are worthwhile.

This must really piss these guys off.

"Median" has a precise meaning in statistics. It has no precise meaning in the context of describing a range of opinions held by members of a group, since such opinions cannot be quantified.

This is not really true in this case; position on a yes or no question, as presented here, is easily quantified by a binary variable that is either true or false, and the median is well defined for such cases, where a majority position exists, as being equivalent to the majority position; since well over 50% (90% in the Senate, 95% in the House) of Republicans in Congress demonstrably (as shown by their votes) do support pure-tax-cut approaches, it is without any doubt the median position on that question among Congressional Republicans.

if the stimulus plan is so good, why dont the dems just pass it and take full credit? they dont need republicans.

i could care less for either party, but the plan is destined to fail miserably, as all government reallocation plans do.

"We can quibble about where the "median" is..."
Uh, no we can't. Let's not capitulate to the Republican tradition of redefining everything to fit their world view, in complete contradiction of reality. Remember, these are the people who have a problem with redefining the word "marriage." I know a few statisticians who would be ready to throw down if some knucklehead Republican wants to redefine "median."
If a majority of the group supports the position, then the median supports it by definition.

The difference between liberals and conservatives may come down to the fact that liberals consider politics to be a problem to be solved while conservatives consider it a battle to be won.

That's why Obama gives seven minute answers to economic questions and Republicans grunt out marketing slogans. Republican rhetoric doesn't actually explain anything, it's just an attempt to cleverly frame the issue so as to advantage their side.

Why else would Newt Gingrich be pushing this dishonest new label to attack the Democrats stimulus: "The Bush-Obama Bailout Plan." That's nothing more than an attempt to push off the toxic legacy of George W. Bush onto Democrats and wash Republicans clean of their sins. It's the same thing that right wing darling, Amity Shlaes, did in her revisionist history of the New Deal. To prove her point that liberals prolonged the Great Depression by interfering with capitalism's natural recuperative powers, the former Wall Street Journal editorial writer recast Herbert Hoover from conservative do-nothing into a raging "government activist" ally of FDR and the New Deal in order to saddle liberals with Hoover's sorry performance after the 1929 market collapse.

Today, Republicans know they have no credibility on fiscal responsibility after they doubled the nation's debt in less than a decade. But that doesn't change the GOP imperative to reclaim the mantle of fiscal responsibility as Reagan-style guardians of the public purse if there is to be any hope at all -- however slim -- of regaining political power. The public doesn't trust them on foreign policy and is tired of their bases' divisive culture wars. So, low taxes and small government are it. That's why Republicans, nearly unanimously, must oppose all government spending in the stimulus -- however beneficial it might be. That's what this Republican unity says to me -- that it's not about the stimulus at all because if it was we'd see more disagreement among Republicans on the merits. This is about the future of the GOP, first and foremost. This was a vote on the future of the party. The interests or beliefs of the individual members were incidental. And if that means that Gingrich must prostitute himself to recast George W. Bush as a DEMOCRAT then that's what it means.

Are there Democrats out there who are using this crisis to advance their liberal agenda? Of course. And reasonable people can disagree over whether that agenda is a good one, or needs to be advanced at this time. Liberal support for programs that they have advocated for a long time, and campaigned on, is a very different thing from Republicans who are standing in the way of this stimulus -- not on principle, but from necessity -- because they know their future as a party depends on it. Very few liberal Democrats need to worry about their political futures if the liberal programs they push somehow don't make the cut, this time.

Rachel - the reason the Democrats can't just pass the stimulus plan and take full credit is because the Republicans aren't allowing the plan to be voted on.

The Senate rules require 60 votes to end discussion on the bill (or filibustering) and to get 60 votes, some of the Republicans need to vote for this to happen. As a result, the Republicans are needed.

Now, if the Republicans would allow a simple up-or-down vote to occur, then you are correct, the Democrats could pass the bill without any help from the other party.

@ Ted Frier: And if that means that Gingrich must prostitute himself to recast George W. Bush as a DEMOCRAT then that's what it means.

But unlike Hoover, Bush is still around to defend himself, and, if memory serves me right, doesn't welcome criticism -- let alone beign cast as a hated liberal -- any too much.

His reaction to Newt's breaking of Reagan's 11th commandment would be interesting -- if anyone in the so-called "liberal media" cared to ask, of course.

@ Old School: if the Republicans would allow a simple up-or-down vote to occur, then you are correct, the Democrats could pass the bill without any help from the other party.

Not quite so -- if memory serves me right, since the stimulus runs a deficit, suspension of the PAYGO rules require a 60-vote margin even for an up-or-down vote. It isn't about a filibuster this time.