Good. Pass the stuff that voters voted him in for, f**k the Republicans.

This is good news. It's about time the GOP leadership started realizing there will be consequences for intransigence and petulance.

It makes me laugh when they continue to claim that Obama is closed to GOP input on how to do things, when their input is usually "don't do that." The deal was that Obama would listen to all ideas, and take the good ones. It's not his fault that the GOP's ideas are the equivalent of "eat glass", "burn down the building we in", and "cut taxes, so the underpants gnomes will prosper."

Those bloviating bovines...

By any reasonable measure, Republicans just don't have anything substantive to offer right now.

Are you forgetting John Boehner's argument that global warming is a function of cow farts? Surely John's scientific argument shows the dead seriousness with which his fellow House republicans regard the issue of the century.

I wish him well. I do not look forward to reading the ensuing columns from the bipartisan-worshiping villagers, however.

"The truth is that Obama aides don't really care if they win over Republicans, as long as the public sees the president as making a genuine attempt at it. - politico

This is Republican spin at its worst. The idea was never to "win over" the blind, deaf and dumb. It was to incorporate reasonable safeguards in order to assuage their paranoia. But Republicans chose to continue slamming into walls in the name of principal.

It is way, way past time. It always disturbed me that he seemed to think it was possible to work with the Rs.

If the White House really is done taking Republican outreach seriously, it's about time.

Amen!

I still can't help but think that you're all being taken in by an Obama "outreach" effort that had this in mind. Because Obama wasn't being "thin-skinned." He was using their actions as the reason to ignore them. Rather than take the "we believe they won't act in good faith" route that many liberals wanted him to take, he has conclusive proof that they won't act in good faith. And he can throw their vote right back in their faces. Every time they try to pretend that they're willing to reach across, he can cite that one vote and destroy any argument they make.

Whether intentional or not, Obama began his presidency with a move that exposed the fraudulent nature of Republican "bipartisanship" in a way that trumped anything Dems have done since these bozos started using it against Clinton. And he couldn't have done that if he hadn't given them the opportunity to reject him. And he most certainly can't admit publicly that this was all a ruse, and there will be no knowing "wink" he can give us to let us know that it was a plan. Doing so would completely undermine the plan, as it would show that he too wasn't working in good faith; which is the only argument Republicans have left.

Like it or not, he's doing exactly what he'd do if this was a ruse and I find it hard to believe that such a crafty bunch of guys hadn't thought of this obvious maneuver. I mean, it's exactly what I'd have done, and these guys are definitely better strategists than I am. I fail to see how this isn't the obvious conclusion. And I think that anyone who truly thinks they're significantly better strategists than the Obama people are simply fooling themselves.

The only flaw in your thinking is that there was "something wrong" with the stimulus...because it was compromised by a the need for 60 votes.

This flaw in this argument is that the stimulus package paved the way for the use of reconciliation. The Obama plan was a fixed program. The stimulus allowed him to split the budget into two pieces. It didn't matter that he had to compromise a few hundred million at the top. What he got was a fast-track tax cut and some fast spending to keep the economy going until next year's budget starts to kick in.

It also allowed him to draw the battle lines, exposing not only republicans, but the so-called centrist democrats or blue dogs. As the stimulus money works its way into the local political discussion we'll get to the original goal of the stimulus: to remove the power of the earmark from powerful politicians and get them to work with local leaders and agency officials. He introduced competition into the equation.

On Charlie Rose last night some guest was talking about a local meeting where everyone was given three minutes to push their plan for stimulus cash. The meeting went on from 5pm to 11pm. These were not mere local citizens asking for cash, these were leaders, school officials, neighborhood leaders, people who represent more than one vote. This is democracy, and it was caused by passing a huge, earmark free, results-based, grass-roots managed, distribution of government aid.

The American voters care about results - jobs, healthcare, no more wars. Don't care whether the bills passed with "bi-partisan" support, just that they passed.

But, individual GOP politicos will be in a world of hurt in 2010 because they ended up supporting the wrong team.

I'd go even further than biggerbox, who says above: "The deal was that Obama would listen to all ideas, and take the good ones."

The same article reporting on Obama's meetings with the Republicans contained a quotation from John Boehner claiming that Republicans voted against the stimulus because none of their ideas were included.

This is utter nonsense. The stimulus bill had a number of provisions pushed by the Republicans from the outset, and the tax cuts were increased early in the process after Obama consulted with them. Numerous spending proposals that raised Republican ire were removed (NEA funding, etc. etc.), and three Republican Senators played a crucial role in shaping the final conference bill.

Anyone who paid any attention knows this. So Obama is now in a good position, since he can say "I included you in the process, and we also responded to many Republican demands in crafting the final stimulus bill...yet Republicans still voted en bloc against it, except for three Republican Senators (one of whom now has a party-supported [or at least not party-blocked] challenger from the right)."

I have the feeling that the Obama adminstration and Democratic strategists are finally applying elementary game theory: cooperate first, but if your partner betrays you, then choose the punitive option until the partner demonstrates cooperation.

This game-theory approach works substantively, but it also works politicaly, I think. Voters can see that Obama and the Democratic party tried cooperation after a strong electoral win, and they received non-cooperation. This justifies non-cooperation on the Democrats' part until the Republican cooperate--at which point, the Democrats will cooperate and compromise again. That's why you hear Democratic spokespeople emphasizing the "we won" meme, now: the Democratic strategy is intuitively fair, now, rather than vindictive, because of the Republicans' betrayal on the highly visible stimulus bill.

The 'window of cooperation' until October 15, moreover, creates an opportunity for the Republicans to 'cooperate' in making a health care bill, if they want to play. That too is both good game theory -- really, everyone benefits, at least politically, in this game if the outcome is cooperative -- and good politics. Despite their past bad behavior, the Republicans are being given a chance to demonstrate political cooperation, aka 'bipartisanship'. It's up to them, and the majority (as polls confirm) has them exactly where they deserve to be.

Dunno.
Having a few breakaway Republicans vote with the majority WOULD be a positive thing.

You just shouldn't give up anything important to get it.

Offer to add incidental amendments in return for a promise to vote FOR the package.
Get 4 Republicans on board. If every one of them betrays you and a few Blue Dogs turn their backs, it still passes and you know who not to trust.

I'm not sure what the nature of these incidental amendments could be, but Congress USED TO BE rather good at negotiating bipartisan agreements. I'd hate to see the Democrats give up on the process as completely as their opponents. It just isn't healthy and there should be an opening made in order to give the GOP an incentive to come to their senses. It must remain obvious to the public that the GOP is CHOOSING to be impotent in meaningful improvement of our nation.

I don't think the White House ever expected a serious, good-faith effort from Republicans on health care or any other issue. But Obama had to try, if for no other reason than to give the GOP enough rope with which to hang itself.

Excellent decision! It is a shame that not one of them could get with the program on the stimulus and Dog knows they've shown what they're prepared to offer: more tax cuts/spending freeze/gas tax holiday! Whenever I see Boner (who looks like a bronzed hangover, seriously!), that pasty little pencil dick (Eric Cantor) and Mitch McCornhole all I can think is that I wouldn't work with any of them!

Nice to see that Obama is learning this lesson much quicker than WJC.

Freeze the bastards out. And if and when some sensible GOPers decide that they want a seat at the grown-up table, make them work for it.

My question is: what took so long?

@Doctor Biobrain:

I don't think that Obama's actions were a ruse; he has been too consistent on this point. During the campaign he said that if you try to negotiate with a foreign dictator, and the negotiations fail, you will have an easier time getting other countries to agree to sanctions than if you refuse to negotiate. He also said, repeatedly, that he thought the American people wanted politicians in Washington to work together. So obviously he expected Republicans to pay a political price for their intransigence. But that doesn't mean that reaching out to Republicans was a ruse. I think he believes that, if Republicans are willing to go along, bipartisanship is the best approach to solving our nation's problems. If he is successfull, he will get reelected even if he shares some of the credit with Republicans.

you would think there's some republicans who would find it beneficial to latch onto Obama some. Not even one wants to be seen as the rational moderate? not even one?

There is nothing lost in the long run for what Obama tried to do. It was the noblest of approaches and it will be remembered as such.

And especially now that he is noting the results out loud, in a deliberate and conscious way so that all can't just easily forget--that's very wise.

I don't think he is thin-skinned--I think he's a true pragmatist AND negotiator who does believe that policy works better for all of us when more from all parties are on board.

I'm sure he's very disappointed they didn't come through last time around. But that's a hit a big guy like him can easily take. With head held high.

Not even one wants to be seen as the rational moderate? not even one?

Glutz, the problem is that there is a (highly justified) notion that rationality will got get one through the next primary. Most of America is hungry for rational pragmatism, but not most of the Republican activists.

Well, okay for Obama...but he's going to have to answer to David Broder.

I think the Republicans who are worried about the design of the health care reform should get involved. Who knows they might even join together with House Dems to create a better systemic structure and combine that with the other improvements the Baucus committee has in mind.

We need a new system both Dems and Repubs will feel good about and support fully for many decades. Even if Repubs didn't like the final product in it's entirety and chose to vote against it they would at least feel better about it if some of their inputs made it (what they would say) less dangerous.

There's no reason for them to sit on the sidelines wrt the design of this bill.