Mike the Mad Biologist

Democrats won the election handily. Why are we rolling ourselves? I thought Obama would be smarter than the usual Democrat and not negotiate against his own position on behalf of the Republicans. Apparently, I was wrong, since that seems to be the impetus behind making 40% of the ‘stimulus’ tax cuts:

Obama strategists say he wants to get 80 or more votes in the 100-member Senate, and the emphasis on tax cuts is a way to defuse conservative criticism and enlist Republican support.

Why 80? He needs 60 votes to get cloture in the Senate. As Krugman noted, this is nothing more than a sign of weakness. Can we stop punking ourselves? Please?

At the very least, force the Republicans to publicly negotiate. I understand the need to get 60 Senate votes, but 80? It’s not like the Republican economic agenda has any credibility at this post. And if you negotiate halfway competently, you might just change the storyline from “compromise Democratic plan” to “Republican obstructionism.”

Post-partisan depression
indeed.

Comments

  1. #1 D. C. Sessions
    January 5, 2009

    And if you negotiate halfway competently, you might just change the storyline from “compromise Democratic plan” to “Republican obstructionism.”

    One of the pres-elect’s Cabinet candidates is married to an expert in this approach.

  2. #2 Paul Murray
    January 5, 2009

    And it won’t work anyway. Just because you support a bill the republicans like, doesn’t mean they will vote with you on something they don’t like.

    Wanna know why? Because they stand on principle. Something the left needs to remember how to do.

  3. #3 Burrow Owl
    January 5, 2009

    Dude.
    Did you *really* think that “The One” was going to be any different than his predecessors?

    C’mon.
    Look at his cabinet picks.
    Review his voting record in the Senate.

    This guy isn’t likely to deliver anything more than a half-baked redo of the Clinton administration.
    (Minus the semen stains, of course.)

  4. #4 erotikshop
    January 6, 2009

    This guy isn’t likely to deliver anything more than a half-baked redo of the Clinton administration.
    (Minus the semen stains, of course.)

  5. #5 Ermine
    January 6, 2009

    Oh no, not the Clinton Administration!

    I remember how horrible it was to have a balanced budget, and even – My God! – A surplus. Those were such rough years.. I can see why we all need to put our collective feet down and proudly exclaim ‘Never Again’!

    Wait.. What?

  6. #6 Burrow Owl
    January 7, 2009

    The idea that Clinton presided over a balanced budget and/or a surplus is one of the larger lies to come out of that era.
    Aside from the fact that it’s rather difficult to have both surplus and debt at the same time (national debt was 57+% of GDP when he left office), the Clinton administration’s surplus claims were nothing more than a dishonest sleight-of-hand trick which involved siphoning off a large chunk of SSI/Medicare funds.
    To give credit where it is due, he did *reduce* the debt- it was 66% of GDP when he took office.

  7. #7 oyun
    January 7, 2009

    This guy isn’t likely to deliver anything more than a half-baked redo of the Clinton administration.

  8. #8 Troublesome Frog
    January 9, 2009

    Aside from the fact that it’s rather difficult to have both surplus and debt at the same time (national debt was 57+% of GDP when he left office)…

    Stocks vs flows, people. Stocks vs flows.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.