Who cares what a latte-drinking barking dog of the left like Maddow thinks?

I think Maddow is being pretty disingenuous here. You can oppose the stimulus on principle but if gobs of money are going to be spent on your district exactly what should an elected representative do? Sulk and pout? I don't get it. Greg Mankiw's makes the correct argument:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/02/illogical-attack-on-gop.html

why do we always have to argue about everything? why cant we all just get along...such trivial arguments. I am voting independent in 2012

Dilip... the hypocrisy is real. Republicans who literally said "Federal stimulus will not create one job" are taking credit for jobs created by the stimulus.

I wonder if any Democrats who voted against tax cuts ever took credit for saving constituents' money. And if they did, would Republicans let anyone forget it?

You can oppose the stimulus on principle but if gobs of money are going to be spent on your district exactly what should an elected representative do?

You can oppose the stimulus on principle but if gobs of money are going to be spent on your district exactly what should an elected representative do?

Oh, I don't know - how about (a) refuse to take part in any celebrations of it; (b) issue a statement reiterating your opposition and your belief that even in your district, it is still wasted money; (c) campaigning on an end to federal pork, because setting principle aside for your own district encourages everyone else to do so as well and in the end the budget keeps growing.

Those would be honest, principled responses. It really doesn't take a lot of imagination. Sadly, we set the bar so low that we assume principled responses aren't even in the realm of possibility so people ask things like "what should these Republicans do?"

Unfortunately, you're fighting an uphill battle against perception. For no particular reason I can think of - other than nonstop Republican propaganda - when Republicans champion their own efforts they are perceived to be telling the truth, and being characteristically modest to boot, so that the actual results are probably even better than what they're saying. When Democrats champion their own efforts, they are being small-minded and childish, and if whatever they're talking about was so successful, surely the Ameriucan people would have noticed without prodding. It's an unfortunate and unwarranted predisposition, but it's something Democrats will apparently always have to contend with.

Perhaps it has its roots in Republicans' successful smearing of Democrats as the party of elitists. Americans are perhaps the only demographic on earth that prefers its leaders to be not too smart. This in turn originates, I believe, in the cherished and iconic dream that America is a country where anyone can succeed if they only work hard enough, and anyone can be president. The reality is much different, and most are at least peripherally aware that the same two families held the presidency for nearly 20 years. There hasn't been a dumb farmer hick president in living memory, but the notion persists that a dumb farmer hick *could be* president. Therefore, presidents (and politicians in general) who give themselves airs like they're smarter than most other people are unpopular, because they're making it look like what they do is complicated.

You'll notice Republicans generally take pains to appear folksy and simple, somebody who looks natural with a beer in one hand and a mittful of barbecue in the other. That's why all the mockery of Obama as somebody who can't bowl, eats Arugula (and knows what it is) and is fussy about orange juice resonates so well.

Americans are perhaps the only demographic on earth that prefers its leaders to be not too smart. This in turn originates, I believe, in the cherished and iconic dream that America is a country where anyone can succeed if they only work hard enough, and anyone can be president.

The hypocrisy is exposed by what those Republicans wrote in their letters. They are quite specific that they seek stimulus money to create jobs in their districts, and some of them have stated publicly that the stimulus bill has not created a single job.

They aren't just saying "since you're going to spend the money anyway, we should get some". They are talking up specific projects for job creation, many of the same ones that Obama has pushed.

Except that Americans also prefer their presidents to be lazy and disengaged

which makes sense - Americans want to believe their President is just like them.

The conservative economic argument against stimulus spending is that it is composed of two different government actions: (1) Coming up with money (through taxes or through borrowing), and (2) Spending that money. I don't think there is any disagreement that step (2) creates jobs and stimulates the economy (well, I suppose there are right-wingers who don't understand ANYTHING at all). The disagreement between conservative and liberal economists is whether the anti-stimulus effect of step (1) negates the stimulus effect of step (2). Conservatives argue that taxes or borrowing takes money out of the economy that would otherwise have been going towards economic investment that would have created jobs.

The flaw in the conservative argument is that leaving lots of money in the hands of the rich and the corporations doesn't mean that the money will be spend on job-creating activities. Not all uses of money have the same impact on jobs. For example, investing in gold, as talk show hosts on both the left and the right advise us (as paid spokes-people) probably has no stimulative effect whatsoever.

Anyway, I don't mind oversimplifying for political purposes, but I do want to point out that the argument is oversimplified. The congressmen who want their district to get their fair share of stimulus spending are only admitting that spending creates jobs, they aren't admitting that the combined two-steps create jobs. If the stimulus money is going to be spent, anyway, then of course they want some spent in their home districts.

I thought that the whole point of "no earmarks" in the stimulus bill was to force politicians to negotiate for the dollars they voted against, to work with local officials and home state politicians, and to eventually get their photo taken when the dollars arrive.

Basically it required them to "publicly" bring money back to their districts without getting a kickback from big-time contributors.

I guess this still hasn't sunk in with dems or the media.

Here's why this tactic will flop - and it's pretty simple really: In an environment where unemployment will hover around 10% (and likely exceed 10% once again come November), voters really aren't going to care whether Republicans played political games with the stimulus or not; their only concern will be whether the stimulus appears to have succeeded. Want to play clips of Republicans doling out oversized checks of stimulus money? Fine...when those GOP candidates respond with ads showing Biden and Obama promising unemployment won't exceed 8% if the stimulus is passed....which ad will have the greater resonance?

Tactics aren't going to win this for the Dems; only (perceived) accomplishments that actually command support from the voters will.

Imagine what someone like Maddow on one of the 'big three' networks could do for the attitudes and realities of the majority of Americans who are generally disengaged from politics?

Someone who simply reports facts to the people who only watch TV news. Too bad that Republican-friendly corporations--and only a few of them at that--own all the airwaves.

Wow ... there are huge blocks of uranium that are less dense than Dilip.

It's simple, Dilip:

Republicans bitched and moaned about government spending, only to turn around celebrate that spending when it benefited them politically.

The claim -- to this very day -- that the stimulus hasn't created a single job, yet take credit for jobs created by the stimulus.

What they could have done, Dilip, is actually stand by their principles.

But they didn't.

Instead, they were willing to put our entire nation at risk by taking no action whatsoever to save jobs or the economy ... only to then act as if they, and they alone, were responsible for the successes of that which they opposed.

If you don't understand why that's a problem, then you're either obtuse or clinically ignorant.

The big problem is that it would require a coordinated sustained offensive from Democrats to drive this point home. Biden has been doing a reasonable job hitting on this and Gibbs has mentioned in a couple of times in briefings but they are lone voices in the wilderness.

The problem is Congressional Democrats do NOT follow WH talking points. They never did it on Healthcare or Defense and they're not going to do it on the Stimulus. They end up presenting a fractured inconsistent message that can not break through the well coordinated noise machine the Republicans have built.

...Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine...

Wait, who is this again? Is this a real person?

Mark D said: "What they could have done, Dilip, is actually stand by their principles."

Well, that's where you're wrong, Mark; they _did_ stand by their principles, the principal principle being "Consistency, like rules and laws, is only for losers (ie Democrats and other latte-sipping liberal elitists). And who cares what they think?"
Another fine, traditional Republican principle is "Anything that enriches me or gets me elected is, by definition, moral."

Democrats may be facing some headwinds this fall....

Actually, this is a good thing. When sailing, it's knowing how to move against the wind by "tacking" that turns skittish little boys into men of the sea. Sounds pretty much like something Dems can use a bit of....

I've wondered for years why Democrats have never swung at and broken open the huge pinata offered to them by Republican hypocrisy. It's nothing new. Dems could have been doing this for years, day after day, issuing press releases and holding impromptu press gaggles to point out that Sen. or Rep. so-and-so (R) just revealed a complete lack of concern for policy and a total lack of respect for American voters by displaying rank hypocrisy on topic X.

Why has it taken Rachel Maddow to make this clear? Why is she doing what the Democratic Party itself should have been doing? They should be embarrassed at her effectiveness.

It was always easy, and it should have been a regular feature of our public discourse. Too bad it took 8 years of Bush and the appearance of Rachel Maddow to make it happen.

I think that Rachel Maddow is refreshing and I enjoy her in depth reporting and showing how hypocrital the Republicans are. Keep up the great work Rachel, I look forward to watching you every night.

@Dilip - actually it's not about pouting and shouting. it's about consistency. The republicans who opposed this bill did not have to show up at ribbon cuttings and photo ops. It would have been just as easy to stay home.

AL: Rachael Maddow is a goddess of reasonableness. If only the right wing of the Republican party weren't such tools, there wouldn't really be a need (or draw) for her.

As it is, we need someone who can stand up for what is morally right in this country. Thus, Rachael in all her glory.

@DNS: The reason why Dems won't take a swing at the pinata you describe is because there are a lot of folks on the left, from the base all the way up through the highest levels, who think that it's wrong because We Can't Do That Or We're Like Them. They honestly believe this garbage about how if we just "play nice" with the GOP, then people will come around and realize how mean those ol' Rethugs are.

Trouble is, it's the folks in the media - the GOP's little buddies - that set the tone, and the tone is always about who can say the most meaningless, hateful garbage. And if it's coming out of someone with a D next to their name, it always gets spun as Those Mean, Hateful Demmycrats Talkin' Mean About Us Real Murkins.

It's basically the Batman fighting the Joker every single day, except the Joker's got good PR. And Batman's too damned self-righteous to let the Joker even get slightly hurt.

"Too bad that Republican-friendly corporations--and only a few of them at that--own all the airwaves."

Actually the airwaves are overwhelmingly liberal, except for FOX who has garnered ever increasing ratings by the choice of the viewers, not the influence of corporations.

That said, it is correct to cry hypocrite when a politician denounces a policy at one moment, then takes credit for its results a moment later (unless they also retract their earlier statements)

But overall, can't we recognize that the government borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to create - what, 100K jobs? - is wildly and insanely wasteful.

Especially government jobs - which will continue to draw more resources from the private sector - and temporary jobs which by nature end in the near future. I suppose one could make a case that it's basically welfare that produces value, but I'm certainly not convinced. Especially when the "stimulus" is not producing the promised results at all.

p.s. this hypocrisy you speak of is not uniquely democratic or republican, it's pretty well distributed across career politicians.

Remember "pay go"? Remember how "the surge won't work"? Produce your own examples.

As voters, we need a longer memory, and to demand politicians that stand by their values so we all get who we think we're voting for - or we need to kick them out.

Then we can debate values instead of the bullcrap slung back and forth among a bunch of earmark wrangling liars.