Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up

Saturday punditry. And not exactly consensus about the tone in DC. Well, this will be written up as an Obama victory, even though the bill is nothing to be proud of [check the list of cuts. Still, a win's a win].

Bob Herbert:

It was good to see the president, ordinarily so cool, so accommodating, exhibiting some real fire the other night. It seems to have done some good.

Charles Blow:

Republicans are trying to draw Democrats into a screaming match because they know they’re better at it. They are the masters of shrill — masters of stoking ignorance and rousing rabble.

Democrats, on the other hand, should know better, especially No Drama Obama. He comes across as much more competent when he appears unflappable. That’s part of what inspires so much confidence in him, and confidence is all people had to go on with the stimulus bill. (I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that virtually no one read the entire tome.)

Remember, rancor is the Republican briar patch.

Gail Collins:

But think of it this way — the drama in the Senate drove Tom Daschle completely out of the news. In a week or so, nobody will even remember that he was nominated for anything.

Ezra has an excellent rundown on the Tom Daschle replacements, and sensibly splits the jobs Daschle would have had into HHS admin and White House Office of Health Reform. It's got a good feel for what's out there, from Rosa DeLauro to John Podesta (who could fill both jobs.) The worry on the left remains Phil Bredesen at HHS.

Mark Blumenthal: Wording matters. Some of the recent surveys changed their stimulus survey wording as well as dollar amounts.

So we have yet more reason for skepticism about the apparent decline in support for the stimulus package.

Charlie Cook: Obama needs to do it his way, not the Hill's way.

David Broder: It just hit me. Republicans are screwed. And they wouldn't have elected Michael Steele as RNC chair if they didn't realize it, too.

WaPo editorial:

The former vice president should apologize for, not defend, his administration's terrorism policies.

Better late than never.

Peter Robinson: I wrote this column before the stimulus passed. Now don't I look like an idiot.

•  Like most legislation is looks like sausage...

  and its making was just as ugly.  Maybe next time Obama won't have to compromise because they have relieved him of that particular monkey.

  by PhotogHog on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:41:44 AM PDT

  •  Exactly

    The public has seen that Obama has tried compromise but the GOP are willing to participate.

    But in the end this is better.  Compromise only goes so far.

    by Drdemocrat on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:25:43 AM PDT

•  nothing to be proud of?

  There is 500 billion of spending on important intiatives in the bill.

  200 billion in middle class tax cuts...

  I don't get it. Is it everything? No. Is is something substantial. Yes.

  by mysticlaker on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:45:54 AM PDT

  •  it's needed work

    OTOH, it should have been bigger, important items were gutted (but will be added back, for showmanship). It will be classified as a win, with Nelson and Collins holding Obama hostage for a while. But take a good look at the list of what was cut when it's available.

    by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:49:23 AM PDT

    •  It is going to conference

      as you allude, so there's reasonable hope some of the more serious cuts can come back.

      I've heard rumors they cut the funding for school construction.  That one hits close, as the building I work in is slated for replacement and we're just waiting for money from the state to break ground.  Of course, the state has no money, so we need a federal bailout of the state so the state can release funds to us...

      by litho on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:51:41 AM PDT

      •  xyz provided the list, just below

        http://www.politico.com/...

        $16 billion School Construction cut.

        by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:56:43 AM PDT

        •  here's my bet

          if the money does not come back in conference, the next stimulus legislation with will be the "Rebuild American Schools Act"

          We ain't get everything in one shot.

          by mysticlaker on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:00:20 AM PDT

        •  was that the entire allotment

          or was it part of the allotment. IOW have the cut it completely or lowered the allotment?

          by mdmslle on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:20:21 AM PDT

          •  not clear

            good question. Maybe someone else knows.

            by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:25:23 AM PDT

          •  The way I read that list there was only 1 thing

            eliminated entirely.  The other things are still in the bill but are getting less money.  I think that because of the one line that says (eliminated) by it while the others do not.

            I might be misunderstanding it though.

            by Edgewater on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:52:55 AM PDT

        •  Class bias was a backdrop in the stimulus debate,

          The blogger, Matt Yglesias, pointed out that the Senate version is geared toward the upper class while the House version is geared more toward the poor. That observation to me is correct and insightful. I didn't understand why Ben Nelson and the others kept saying that food stamps, pell grants and education were none stimulative. These would benefit the poor more. Well it's obvious that they believe the poor do not contribute to this economy. According to them, only the rich contribute to this economy. This view is not only short-sighted but pernicious. Poor people count as well. The Obama administration said it will revise the bill in conference. One thing is that I hope the focus is on helping the working poor.

          by Micheline on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:36:56 AM PDT

    •  some of the money will come back

      We know it will - both through the normal budgeting process, and additional specific program bills.

      I just think it is unrealistic to put everything in one bill, and personally risky (both for the country, and politically). Do I want more money for headstart, and such? Yes, of course. Do I think the additional billions are going to make a quick differnce, absolutely.

      500 billion is A LOT of money for programs. Let's not lose perspective here.

      by mysticlaker on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:53:03 AM PDT

      •  oh, it had to be done

        I'm not arguing that. If it doesn't pass, it doesn't do any good. But why would anyone be proud of those cuts?

        by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:55:15 AM PDT

        •  it's the process

          And I watched every painful momement of it yesterday (Every stupid speech, every republican crying, it was very hard).

          Until we have 60 senators, either we change the rules, or we except that this is why our government works. And IMHO, it worked to give much greater good then anything done in the last 8 years yesterday. I am proud of that.

          by mysticlaker on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:58:29 AM PDT

          •  better than what Bush would have done?

            absolutely. His would have been the McCain bill.. all tax cuts.

            I just think it's time to set the bar higher. But a win's a win. A loss would have been crippling.

            by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:04:40 AM PDT

          •  Better Democrats as well.

            by Micheline on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:37:58 AM PDT

    •  Those things can be put in a separate bill

      Obama can make the case that the housing bust and job losses have cut into property tax revenue, which is used to fund public schools. Let the Repugs be forced to vote on funding public education. The sooner we get them on record opposing public education, affordable health care, and living wage job creation, the sooner we push them over the cliff into oblivion. We have a president who can sell the ideas and knows how to frame like he wrote the book.

      by DWG on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:00:18 AM PDT

      •  from a practical perspective

        anything that doesn't make this bill will be fought as "too expensive, given what we spent on the stimulus".

        by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:26:29 AM PDT

        •  You have three choices on education

          1. Raise property taxes to make up shortfall.

          2. Let the school systems fail, killing public education in many districts

          3. Allow the feds to help fund public education.

          Number 1 won't happen. Number 2 would be a long-term disaster.  Number 3 is only option. Let the asshole repugs oppose public education and we will see how many will be back in 2010. Every the conservative nitwits at US Chamber of Commerce are pushing for better public education to prep for future work force.

          by DWG on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:51:40 AM PDT

  •  People have to remember that there will be

    other bills that will be done including an Energy Bill, an Education bill, etc.

    The next bill that will be worked on in the Spring in the Energy bill.  Expect Obama to get SERIOUS about energy independence.  Hopefully by than we will have Al Franken so all we need is one more Republican.

    by Drdemocrat on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:28:17 AM PDT

•  more from Herbert

  "This bill is stinking up the place," said Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina who not only opposed the legislation but wanted to make sure that no one would mistake him for a class act.

  hahahahahaha!

  Bob Herbert, NYT.

  by OLinda on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:46:34 AM PDT

  •  I think the fact that Lindsey Graham claims

    that it stinks up the place tells me there is alot of good stuff still left in it to actually stimulate the economy. The GOP doesn't want Obama to succeed. Remember they are taking their orders directly from Rush now.

    by flatford39 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:01:36 AM PDT

    •  I Think Lindsay Is Smelling Himself

      by chaboard on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:22:31 AM PDT

      •  and so is everyone else

        he's the one stinking up the place.

        No, he's one of those stinkin' up the place, his comrades are just as odorous.

        by Patriot4peace on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:24:42 AM PDT

    •  That smell comes from Lindsey

      having his head so far up John McCain's behind.

      by cinsch on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:23:46 AM PDT

•  It looks like they had

  a field day with the cuts.  Here's the list:

  http://www.politico.com/...

  Hopefully they put most of them back in in committee.

  by xyz on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:48:36 AM PDT

  •  thank you!!!

    everyone needs to review this list.

    by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:14:26 AM PDT

    •  I can't believe

      they cut building schools, that's jobs.  

      Is it correct to say that after it leaves the conference committee, it only needs 51 votes and they can't filibuster?

      by xyz on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:43:18 AM PDT

      •  i don't know for certain

        but I believe it will need 3/5 approval.

        by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:53:11 AM PDT

        •  Thanks!

          by xyz on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:08:51 AM PDT

•  I'm not sure what Charlie Blow

  is thinking there.  I read that column scratching my head the whole way.  Does he really blame Obama for injecting partisanship into this debate?  Does he really think the Democratic response to Republican partisan attacks -- remember how many Republican votes the stimulus got in the House? -- should be to bend over and do whatever Lindsey Graham wants?

  by litho on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:49:31 AM PDT

  •  I'm guessing

    he's advising an Eisenhower 'above the fray' that would have resulted in the same vote and less face time for Graham on cable.

    by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:57:59 AM PDT

•  Let me see if I got this straight

  Multiply each dollar of government spending by a multiplier to get the estimated increase in GDP.  Then divide by a GDP factor to get the number of jobs created (or, I guess, saved).  It would look something like this:

  ($X of Spending * Y multiplier) / Z GDP Factor = # of Jobs

  If so, why stop at $800 billion?  Why not $5 trillion?  There'd be more new (or saved) jobs?

  Oh yeah, I guess you'd need to account for the following variables/concepts:

  1.  The scholarly debate questioning the legitimacy of the multiplier.

  2.  Even assuming the multiplier is legitimate, not every dollar is going to be spent in the current fiscal year.

  3.  The scholarly debate on the nexus between GDP growth and jobs.

  4.  The effect of each dollar that is borrowed in order to fund each dollar of spending.

  Oh well.  A political win is a political win, in any event.

  by notcosmo on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:50:00 AM PDT

  •  Here's what a Keynesian would say

    The Keynesian formula is straightforward. First, you estimate how much the economy should be producing — given all the people and factories and offices. Blinder's guess is $15 trillion. Then you look at what the economy is actually producing. He puts that at $14 trillion.

    The government shouldn't have to spend the entire trillion-dollar shortfall. That's because of something called the "Keynesian multiplier." Every dollar the government spends produces more than a dollar in spending throughout the economy. If the government pays you to build a bridge, you spend your paycheck on rent and food and so on, and then your landlord and grocer have money. Using Keynesian math, you can figure out exactly how much the Obama administration should spend.

    Blinder taps his chalk, winding up his calculations. "That would lead you to conclude that you needed about $650 billion as a stimulus," Blinder says. "Voila! That's the kind of number they're talking about right now. You see it in the newspapers every day, a number in that range."

    link

    by litho on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:53:45 AM PDT

    •  Great link to Keynes, but it also says

      Politicians took the Keynesian message that government spending can be good and ran with it. They paid for the war on poverty and the war in Vietnam. They sent a man to the moon. All the while, they piled up the federal budget deficit, convinced that Keynes gave them a free pass.

      Prescribing Keynesianism to some politicians is like prescribing crack to a coke addict. In the 1970s, the patient hit rock bottom. The U.S. had high unemployment, and the Keynesian solution stopped working. The national government spent and spent, but unemployment only got worse. Then came inflation, something Keynesians had no answer for.

      by notcosmo on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:27:36 AM PDT

      •  Requires surplus capacity

        The point of Keynes is that when the economy is not using up its productive capacity due to a lack of demand, adding demand (monetized government deficit spending) increases production and thus doesn't cause inflation.  If on the other hand there is a tight supply of critical resources, and increased spending uses those resources, then the price goes up.

        The late 1960s and early 1970s had a rather expensive war (not as expensive as Iraq, but a lot for the day) going on in Vietnam.  It was unpopular, so it was largely funded by deficit spending rather than more taxes (though at one point there was a tax hike).  But the crucial energy markets changed in the early 1970s, as, among other things, the UK gave independence to the UAE and OPEC grew more powerful.  The US economy was much more energy-intensive then (both because of inefficiency and because most of the heavy-manufacturing jobs later went to Asia).  The economy was out of balance. Keynesian spending doesn't fix shortages of supply, nor does it purport to!

        So the revisionist wingers who try to use that as a way to disprove Keynes are basically full of crap.  At the time, nobody was arguing about Keynes.

        by K S LaVida on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:42:45 AM PDT

•  Bah

  The former vice president should apologize for, not defend, his administration's terrorism policies.

  It should say the former vice president should be prosecuted for his role in the administration's terrorism policies. It was not a lapse in judgment or taste. Torture, kidnapping, and a war of aggression are crimes against humanity.

  by DWG on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:51:18 AM PDT

  •  If only

    someone would start talking about this, create a buzz, demonstrate the support for it.

    Obama seems reluctant to go there - a huge disappointment.

    by Patriot4peace on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:11:21 AM PDT

    •  2.5 weeks...ans excuse me he's been BIT BUSY

      trying to save the economy from total collapse.

      He's been on the Hill himself personally trying to get this thing done.

      I'm not disappointed he's chosen not to bring this up right now. If he did i'd question his common sense.

      We r on the verge of economic collapse. Its possible. Many other nations economies have collapsed. Our could too. As much as i want to see prosecutions, this right now, at this precise moment s not the time to bring it up. chill.

      by mdmslle on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:29:36 AM PDT

      •  it's getting

        swept under the rug, the more time goes by the less likely there will even be someone appointed to investigate.

        I'm sure the man is capable of multi-tasking, don't pull out the strawman that he's fixated 24/7 on the stimulus.

        If he's put it on the back burner, fine - but all indications are he's trying to minimize the importance of this issue.

        And if he lets it go, I will remain disappointed.

        by Patriot4peace on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:54:17 AM PDT

        •  i disagree with your premise

          and you have no basis for it that the more time lapses the worse chance of prosecution gets.

          i say i want them to make sure they have a damn good case before they arrest bush or cheney. The worst thing that could happen would be to rush into a prosecution with less than 100% case and have the bastards be acquitted never to be able to be tried on those charges again.

          open your mind and humor me for a minute:

          lets say obama said yes we're going to prosecute. and Holder said YES we're going to prosecute. that would have made you happy. but with no investigation taking place at that moment it would be equal to the sheriff in you town saying he's going to prosecute you for something he's pretty sure you did before he even launches the investigation. Then is the DA were to say it, youre screwed n matter what. AND your defense attorneys would have a field day with it and you'd probably be acquitted. A confession aline is not enough  here. Cheney and Bush will bring the best defense money can buy. We need to be SMARt about this. I DNT want them acquitted.

          So now we have an attorney general who went as far as he legally could by saying waterboarding is torture. Obama really should have much to say about this at all from a legal standpoint. The AG is supposed to independent of politics. So Holder can get n there now ans start looking around. When he does, you best believe there are going to be LOTS of people "talking" to cover their own asses if noting else. This helps build our case. Bush and Cheney are being very smart.I notice how Bush said they cleared it with counsel everything they did. They are building their defense. We cannot be stupid or rush into this.

          I know it sort of sucks. and I know you want it done now. But we need to build this case smartly and strongly and to fail yo do so defeats the entire purpose.

          Please, try to be patient about this. You may  think nothing's going on but that doesnt make it true. I've never seen a president to committed to restoring our reputation in the world. Prosecutions would be part of that but i'm just positive you're smart enough to understand that legally this has to be done right. We've got the right team (both Obama and Holder are exceptional legal minds) and we're gonna do it right.

          by mdmslle on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:39:59 AM PDT

          •  Agree

            It will require a thorough investigation to get convictions, which will take time. I want these bastards convicted, not just charged and beat the rap.

            by DWG on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:54:25 PM PDT

          •  I do have a premise

            and it started with taking impeachment "off the table".

            That was a clear blinking neon sign for "We're not interested in prosecuting the president for what we know he did".

            Talk to me in three years and 6 months when Obama is asking to be re-elected and george bush is living comfortably in Dallas, having not spent a day in court.

            I hope I'm wrong, but our silence now is tacit approval for letting bush get away with it. I'm not stupid, and I'm not closed minded - I'm simply reacting to observed realism.

            If we are not loud and persistent there will be no investigation.

            by Patriot4peace on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:42:05 AM PDT

        •  Now that Holder's position is set I think he's

          the one to be looking to for a move toward investigation.  And he was only confirmed 5 days ago.

          I'm willing to give the man more than 5 days to get settled in and start scoping things out.  I don't want Holder going off half-cocked and giving him time to understand the full situation is important in allowing him to build his case.

          I've been disappointed in Obama's "look forward" message too but until his AG was in place there wasn't much he could do other than make noises that would risk Holder's confirmation.  

          I know Obama is capable of multi-tasking but this task isn't his alone to take on.  His postition here is, in part, to get an administration in place to take care of the issue and he has gotten Holder into place.

          If this is swept under the rug I'll be more than disappointed - I'll be completely disillusioned and entirely furious.  But you have to give Holder some time to get the broom out before you accuse him of sweeping things under the rug instead of out into the light.  

          by Edgewater on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:47:29 AM PDT

          •  Meanwhile

            we talk about it. We let the newly elected officials know that we're thinking about it.

            If we wait silently, that might be taken as a sign to let it go, and that's where I started this thread, how do we let them know that we support prosecution of a former president and vice president?

            It's not about THEIR silence, it's about OUR collective voice. Squeaky wheels we must be, to quote Yoda.

            by Patriot4peace on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:36:16 AM PDT

•  First step of a long journey

  Look, this bill ain't perfect, I'm sure.  But we have to start somewhere and go quickly.  What other president has had to confront such a financial crisis at the beginning of their first term?  Only FDR - that's the level of crisis Obama is confronting.  There's been a steep learning curve but we know that Obama is a quick study.  

  by EyeStreetMom on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:51:30 AM PDT

  •  agreed

    but let's work to make it a better bill in congress.

    by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:32:53 AM PDT

    •  that's - er - committee... n/t

      by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:33:25 AM PDT

  •  The bill isn't perfect

    but we do have to start somewhere and Obama has more to deal with than just a horrible financial crisis.

    He's also dealing with the crisis in our media which is fighting him for ownership of the "bully pulpit".  They've been undermining the Obama administration since he took office and supporting obstructionist DC Republicans at every step.  He was working for bi-partisanship and they were working on destroying Obama's credibility with the public.  It's no surprise that his approval rating took a hit.

    I think the emphasis on bi-partisanship was a poor choice and that the last couple of messages from Obama indicate that he has learned from the events of the last two weeks and their coverage in the media.

    Hopefully, we'll see the speed with which he is able to implement his plans pick up but he's still going to be going against the tide of the right-wing media that's for sure.

    by Edgewater on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:57:19 AM PDT

    •  Yes - Irresponsible Media

      The media thrives on conflict - a variant on "if it bleeds, it leads."  It's so sexy to portray this as gladiators in the arena - and much more conducive to ratings.  Deck chairs on the Titanic.

      The republicans got the bit in their mouths and ran with it.  They need to get schooled.  It's like dog training.  First you establish your position as alpha - without that, there is no incentive to take instruction.  

      It's a learning process on both sides.  And our guy is much smarter....

      by EyeStreetMom on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:20:49 AM PDT

•  Here's one you missed Connecticut

  From David Sirota via Salon:

  Only weeks ago, the political world was buzzing about a "team of rivals." America was told that finally, after years of yes men running the government, we were getting a president who would follow Abraham Lincoln’s lead, fill his administration with varying viewpoints, and glean empirically sound policy from the clash of ideas. Little did we know that "team of rivals" was what George Orwell calls "newspeak": an empty slogan "claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts."

  A couple points Sirota misses are that with respect to Iraq and Gitmo Obama has simply awarded himself 3 F.U.'s and 2 F.U.'s respectively. And on Iraq it looks like he's getting ready to tack another F.U. on before the first three are even finished.

  Hell, even Friedman at least waited until the last Friedman Unit was expired before he issued a new one.

  Meet the new boss, same as the old.

  But don't worry, Obama is really gonna make Congress pass the EFCA. Right after he get Solis confirmed in 2011.

  Suckerzzzzzzz........

  by WayPastJaded on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:52:40 AM PDT

•  It sounds like the columnists are on Obama's side

  That is good. I agree, you can be too cool. Obama needs to show some passion on this subject. It will help him over the next eight years.  We need to know when he is adamant about certain subjects.

  by uc booker on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:53:50 AM PDT

  •  that's a good point

    this is like a squibbler though the infield that counts in the box score as a single as solid as a line drive smoked to center field.

    from the WaPo:

    But the likely passage of the legislation represents a significant victory for Obama, who has put his political capital on the line to relentlessly stress the immediate need for the bill, even as it swelled in cost and lost GOP support.

    by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:07:36 AM PDT

    •  A win is a win

      Remember when Bill Clinton tried to get a $16 billion stimulus bill passed and he still lost?

      Looks like Obama will end up getting a $800 billion stimulus package passed.  Although it is isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, it is a start and will be adjusted once again when the House and the Senate bills have to converge.

      by Drdemocrat on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:15:42 AM PDT

      •  Nothing succeeds like success. nt

        by flumptytail on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:01:00 AM PDT

•  Interesting re. POTUS trip to Florida next week

  It's been announced that President Obama will visit Ft. Myers Florida and Elkhart Indiana next week promoting the stimulus.  Charlie Crist is fully onboard with the stimulus package and has been for a week.  Charlie's going to announce whether to run for Martinez' Senate in few days.

  Will Obama give Charlie the stage in Florida?

  by route66 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:54:32 AM PDT

  •  I'd imagine he would

    give him the stage, after Crist standing behind the bill.

    He's earned it.

    by xyz on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:07:55 AM PDT

  •  time to pin the governors dowm

    for: Crist, Ahnold

    against: Sanford, Palin, Barbour...

    by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:08:44 AM PDT

    •  Crist and Ahnold's states are in trouble...

      so is Palin's with the drop in oil prices, but she and Barbour will both cut off their noses to spite their faces for partisan politics.  Haley Barbour didn't have to watch his state suffer in the aftermath of Katrina-benefit of being former RNC chair.  For Crist it is no longer an extra special benefit to be in Jeb Bush's adopted state.  In short any republican who has to live in the real world has real reason to be very afraid-the epic fail of tax cuts now, tax cuts forever is an equal opportunity devastation.

      by cinsch on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:38:16 AM PDT

      •  irony is palin was FOR it before she was

        against it.

        by mdmslle on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:40:44 AM PDT

  •  Charlie Crist WILL be onstage with Obama for

    sure.  He supports the stimulus package.  It will be a "bipartisan" photo-op.

    If Crist runs for the Senate than he will win folks.  He is very popular in Florida.  

    However I would rather have Crist in the Senate than Ben Nelson from Nebraska.  Crist is closer to Democratic policies than Ben Nelson is.

    by Drdemocrat on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:18:27 AM PDT

    •  do you mean Bill nelson or Ben Nelson? nt

      by mdmslle on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:42:20 AM PDT

      •  I meant Ben Nelson from Nebraska

        He is more of a Republican than Charlie Crist is.

        Bill Nelson from Florida is a Democrat by name as well as actions.

        by Drdemocrat on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:55:53 AM PDT

        •  haha. right thats why i asked

          bill is my so-called democratic senator. HA

          by mdmslle on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:42:55 AM PDT

        •  Bill Nelson

          is closer to Ben Nelson than you think.  He is namby-pamby and always a risky proposition.  Perhaps now with the Dems in control he'll think with his head instead of the prevailing winds on his licked finger...

          by route66 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:46:16 AM PDT

  •  the coolness factor work though

    did you notice the lead-ins on the national news the day he lit up the Wall Street CEOs?

    "Obama unleashed fire..."

    Then later when he delivered the speech to house dems?

    "Obama on fire..."

    I think his coolness works in so much that when he steps outside of that normal demeanor, its noticed. It makes news. And automatically means its damned important. Sort of like when your normally serene parent screams "watch out!" you know its important.

    If he was always or even often passionate, important points lose impact. Just think of diaries who always publish with !!!!! after every title.

    by mdmslle on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:36:41 AM PDT

    •  Even when he's lighting into Wall Street CEO's

      he maintains his cool.  He appears reasonable, calm, and adult.  There's no ranting and no vitriol.  Just a common-sense statement of the facts from someone who looks like the smartest one in the room.

      He's made some mistakes, yes, but overall I think passage of this bill is going to look like a win to the general public and it really is a step in the right direction.

      by Edgewater on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:04:39 AM PDT

  •  wow. look like crist is

    simultaneously solidifying his 2nd term and isolating himself from the GOP crazy-base.

    glad Obama's coming  here. Glad Crist is putting the needs of our state before political affiliation. Thats what a governor is supposed to do:look out for t he interests of the people of the state.

    this is why Crist is so popular here. he does this type of shit all the time. Make good decisions. Sometimes not so good, but sometimes good.

    by mdmslle on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:39:35 AM PDT

•  Kind of looks like "Obama's Naked Moment" is

  "Robinson's Naked Moment"

  by Dave the Wave on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:54:50 AM PDT

•  how is this a win?

  we did not need one repub vote to pass this yet Obama begged ,borrowed and threatened to get three votes to pass this .Make no mistake this is a dem bill and it sucks.

  by sparty on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:55:56 AM PDT

  •  yes we did

    needs 60, we had 58 at best (Franken is not seated.)

    We needed 2, sounds like we got at least three (Collins, Snowe, Specter.) Hard to know what to count Lieberman as, but he'll vote against the D position on amendments and for the bill.

    by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:02:34 AM PDT

  •  huh? nt

    by mdmslle on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:43:41 AM PDT

•  NOT AGAIN!

  This ia  worse bill than even the original draft. Even more tax cuts and even less to spend on health care, education, the homeless, poverty reduction, the environment... The mighty O is no mighty change agent. More of the same!

  http://www.sunstateactivist.org/...

  by LCLiberal on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:58:20 AM PDT

  •  It ain't over

    The House Bill needs to be reconciled with the Senate Bill and thus it will be adjusted further.

    Expect less tax cuts and more spending when the bills come together.

    by Drdemocrat on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:19:53 AM PDT

  •  oh def. more of the same. pfft.

    of course this is the only piece of legislation Obama will be allowed to write in 4 years. there's to be no 2009 fiscal year budget, didnt you know? Or any other spending bills. none of it; all he rules changed and this is IT. we'll have make the economy work on a measly 800 billion for the next 4 years cuz lord knows after this passes obama's job is over.

    pfft.

    come on. this is getting tired. NEWSFLASH: we cannot put 10 trillion dollars worth of spending into one bill.

    We can however, put it in the budget and other special appropriations. injecting 500B directly into the economy WILL have an effect. Giving the middle class 200B in tax breaks WILL offer some relief and encourage some spending and confidence. People WILL get back to work and when that happens the next round is easier to argue.

    by mdmslle on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:50:25 AM PDT

  •  BTW the rethugs dont agree with you

    they think the bill sucks for exactly the opposite reasons you do.

    that should tell you something...that the bill as  it is will probably work at least somewhat. We all know t hey want it to fail. it it was a bill that would fail, they'd be all for it. As it stands they are crying n the senate floor because they know it WILL create jobs and further marginalize their arguments about tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations yadda yadda. When people get back to work and dont have the fear of losing their homes, what then for the GOP?

    Thats why theyre bitching and crying. the bill will work and they know it.

    take a deep breath.

    by mdmslle on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:55:09 AM PDT

•  WaPo editorial critical of Cheney?

  There will be one less job in the print media shortly.

  by manwithnoname on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:00:22 AM PDT

  •  That made my morning!

    by Drdemocrat on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:20:20 AM PDT

•  "Nothing to be proud of"?

  Jesus.

  No wonder Dems are seen as whiny losers. We should be trumpeting our victory over the obstructionist Repubs and talking up all the great stuff that is IN the bill.

  If this were the Republicans bill they'd be crowing about the few crumbs they threw to the ever-negative Dems to shut them up.

  The more we piss and moan because it's just not perfect enough, the more exasperated the public is going to be about how we Dems are never, ever happy.

  Lisa

  by Boston to Salem on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:05:42 AM PDT

  •  great point! - eom

    by mysticlaker on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:07:05 AM PDT

  •  sorry

    this isn't a triumphant win (see SCHIP), it's a win. The kind you fight for every inch, and hit the showers as soon as you can.

    We still don't know what the final looks like (likely better) but there's nothing inspirational about looking at what was cut and hearing Ben Nelson be cited as the power broker. The states are going to get slammed.

    small list of cuts:

    $100 million Distance Learning
    $98 million School Nutrition
    $50 million aquaculture
    $2 billion broadband
    $1 billion Head Start/Early Start
    $5.8 billion Health Prevention Activity.
    $2 billion HIT Grants
    $1 billion Energy Loan Guarantees
    $4.5 billion GSA
    $3.5 billion Federal Bldgs Greening

    Well, make the best of it and move on.

    by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:12:34 AM PDT

    •  In conference all you need is a simple

      majority & not a filibuster proof majority. I suspect alot of these cuts for the states will get back in. The first step was to get it to conference. I call that a victory.

      by flatford39 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:16:46 AM PDT

      •  I'll be happier when I see the final

        in the meantime, Collins, Nelson et all are the temporary winners and the states uncertain of what tey won.

        by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:19:27 AM PDT

      •  more from Think Progress

        But the Nelson-Collins gang’s proposed cuts disproportionately harm women, children, and their future. The Wonk Room has already detailed their plan to cut support for education and health care. Nelson and Collins also looking to eliminate tens of billions of dollars in programs that would invest in a green economy:

        http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/...

        by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:24:19 AM PDT

      •  You Got A Reference For That?

         I thought so too but last night an article from last spring was linked here showing Chris Dodd claiming he would filibuster the output of the conference reconciliation on the FISA bill.

        by chaboard on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:32:12 AM PDT

      •  I don't believe that's right

        I suspect it'll be another 60 votes, but I have to check with the parlimentarian when he wakes up.

        by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:39:16 AM PDT

    •  YES - MAKE THE FUCKING BEST OF IT.

      Why should non-Dems and non-progressives even TRY to work with progressives like you if you are NEVER EVER going to be happy with something?

      What's the point? Voters want to feel good about what gets done in Washington by the people they elected. That makes them want to vote for them again. They don't want someone rending their garments and tearing their hair out about how it wasn't good enough.
      Go ahead - post another reply telling me about more stuff that's wrong with the bill.

      Go ahead. I'll wait.

      Lisa

      by Boston to Salem on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:20:36 AM PDT

      •  heh

        you think mild "did you see what they cut" and let's understand the bill" discussion is an affront to coalition building?

        I danced and celebrated when SCHIP passed. I might even dance and celebrate when the final bill is passed.

        In the meantime, it might help to actually see what the bill is and what's missing so we can put pressure on the conference to get the best possible bill in the end.

        Quit yelling at me becase I've been rude enough to point out we are in the eighth inning and the game's not over yet (I'll celebrate then.)

        by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:32:58 AM PDT

        •  That I'd like to see...

          Progressives celebrating when they didn't get everything they wanted. I won't hold my breath.

          And I really don't care if you dance in the streets - unless it's televised. I care what people read here on the front page, and how they feel when they read it, and whether they want to join this band of happy brothers.

          Dems and progressives may have learned how to win, but many of us haven't learned how to act like winners.

          Lisa

          by Boston to Salem on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:42:43 AM PDT

          •  did you read what i wrote?

            obviously not.

            PS where were you on Jan 20th?

            by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:55:05 AM PDT

            •  Yeah I did.

              "Nothing to be proud of" was the walk-away last line of your front page story. Hence my criticism.

              And I was at work, trying to hear the inauguration in between meeting with patients.

              What does that have to do with anything?

              Lisa

              by Boston to Salem on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:40:24 PM PDT

              •  it has a lot to do with partying and dancing

                that was the time to do it, not now.

                Since this am, a lot more has come out about the different versions. I stand by my comments.

                by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:08:24 PM PDT

                •  Just as I predicted.

                  You're just proving my point. It's like a hive of Toby Ziegler's here these days.

                  Lisa

                  by Boston to Salem on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:28:31 PM PDT

                  •  welcome to reality

                    you'll like it. The water's fine.

                    The House version of the stimulus bill emphasizes helping states and localities avoid wide-scale cuts, while the Senate plan focuses more on tax cuts.

                    We'll get there, but we're not there, yet.

                    by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:09:16 PM PDT

                    •  *rolling eyes*

                      Please. Spare me the condescension.

                      You're the one being more realistic with "We'll get there" than you were this morning.

                      Lisa

                      by Boston to Salem on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:29:56 PM PDT

                      •  actually

                        The House bill is better. The Senate bill is what we've got. The two need to be reconciled. It doesn't change the lay of the land one bit whether you choose to have a chip on your shoulder about it or not.

                        by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:19:24 PM PDT

                        •  Who said it did?

                          Where did I say that my attitude - or yours, for that matter - impacted the fact that the two bills need to be reconciled, etc... etc... something I am really clear about, thanks.

                          My complaint had to do with the negative, "nothing is ever good enough, here we go again" attitude I am seeing all over this site these days. It sucks, especially on the front page. It's not attractive or effective. It does not serve our cause.

                          And I have no chip with regards to this bill- you seem to. This bill is "nothing to be proud of".  That's why this little back-and-forth got started. I get that it's a process, and we progs are not going to get all we want - not even close. And I also get that being whiny and negative about it costs us in the short run and the long run.

                          Lisa

                          by Boston to Salem on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:35:19 PM PDT

                          •  I don't have a "cause" other than honest writing

                            and nuance.

                            OTOH, go back and read your capital letter shouting.

                            by DemFromCT on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:01:31 AM PDT

                            •   You don't have a cause?

                              Really? Because I thought this blog was about electing Democrats, and electing better Democrats. That's not something you're invested in?

                              There's been an awful lot of "we're doooomed" uh.... nuance.... going on around here lately. And saying a bill is "nothing to be proud of" isn't very nuanced at all. That kind of attitude and tone just makes people want to throw up their hands and walk away.

                              It. Doesn't. Help.

                              Lisa

                              by Boston to Salem on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:29:15 AM PDT

                              •  Electing Dems and better Dems? yep

                                Best way to do that is honesty and more complete coverage. If all you want to do is cheer lead, that's your right, but has little to do with me. We elect Dems by being reality based. If you don't like how I do it, write your own diary (you have the power).

                                by DemFromCT on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:50:52 AM PDT

                                •  asdf

                                  lol... are we both attached to our computers this weekend or what?

                                  You seem to keep missing my point, or creating a straw man, or something.

                                  I never, ever said we need only positive coverage, we should ignore reality, blah blah blah.
                                  I criticized you for the walk-away line in your front page story. It was not nuanced. It came across as whiny and negative. It seemed to confirm an opinion about liberals/progressives that I hear a lot: never happy, nothing's good enough, perpetually pissed, etc...

                                  It's possible to be honest, critical, nuanced AND frame things in a way that encourages people to keep on fighting. Being black-and-white ("nothing") about a complex situation is one of the surest ways of discouraging people from continuing to try.

                                  There's a ton of "grey" in between rah-rahing and "this bill is nothing to be proud of". This site is having a hard time finding the grey lately.

                                  Lisa

                                  by Boston to Salem on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 05:06:21 AM PDT

                                  •  see chuck todd

                                    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

                                    an opinion I share. I think the line I used is apt, and if you think it's whiney, you ain't seen whining. ;-P

                                    but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

                                    by DemFromCT on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:04:14 AM PDT

                                    •  Yes, lets.

                                      agree to disagree.

                                      And I spent 15 yrs working with children with severe behavioral and emotional problems so I know from whining, believe me!

                                      Lisa :)

                                      by Boston to Salem on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:20:40 AM PDT

                                      •  LOL

                                        I have my own experiences with that clientel, and it ain't nothin' compared to this place.

                                        by DemFromCT on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:22:44 AM PDT

                                        •  HA!

                                          Now there's where you and I have agreement!

                                          Thanks for the exchange,

                                          Lisa

                                          by Boston to Salem on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:33:23 AM PDT

          •  Well, if all I read on the front page was

            giddy joy about everything or unrealistic claims about how this was the win we all wanted I probably wouldn't read the front page anymore.

            It's great to come here and enjoy talking to people who, like me, think Obama is an extraordinarily promising President likely to bring a lot of needed change.

            But it's also good to come here and read a pragmatic take on the ramifications of what's going on in DC.

            Just sayin'.

            by Edgewater on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:23:12 AM PDT

            •  Pragmatic, yes.

              Negative and pissy, no.

              by Boston to Salem on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:38:40 PM PDT

    •  I would like to see someone

      naming those cuts in sound bites, not that the MSM would rush to that interview.  You would also have to hit them over the head a few more times with "stimulus is spending" though.  Obama played this well though, he extended the hand (and predictabley got it bit off), he kept his cool, he was passionate when he needed to be, now the professor is going to go out and explain it.

      by cinsch on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:48:17 AM PDT

    •  Did anyone believe it would be otherwise

      this isn't a triumphant win (see SCHIP), it's a win. The kind you fight for every inch, and hit the showers as soon as you can.

      Given how far to the right our country has been pulled over the last eight years?  Given how the MSM fought Obama's plans and tried to make them look ridiculous day in and day out while the Obama administration was countering with the weak-tea plea for "bi-partisanship"?

      We're going to be seeing a lot more fights like this IMO - the obstructionist DC Republicans and their MSM noise-machine are not just going to wither up and blow away without creating a nasty fight first.

      Hopefully, though, this emphasis on bipartisan agreement can be cast aside now that it is clear to anyone that DC Republicans would rather have our economy die than compromise on anything.

      by Edgewater on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:15:29 AM PDT

      •  well, i like the idea of getting three (or one)

        and calling it bipartisan ;-0

        In addition to the large cut in state aid, the Senate agreement would cut nearly $20 billion proposed for school construction; $8 billion to refurbish federal buildings and make them more energy efficient; $1 billion for the early childhood program Head Start; and $2 billion from a plan to expand broadband data networks in rural and underserved areas.

        Let's keep our eye on the ball. We're not done.

        http://www.nytimes.com/...

        by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:22:28 AM PDT

        •  "Let's keep our eye on the ball. We're not done."

          Definitely I agree with you.

          There was a lot to like in that article you just linked.  I really liked the comparison of "centrist" "patriotic" Republicans who are going with Obama with the sort of implied too-far right and unpatriotic Republicans who are not.  I'm amazed that the MSM is capable of printing that. ;)

          by Edgewater on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:31:27 AM PDT

  •  Brilliant point!

    The moment the stimulus bill passes, the media airwaves and websites should be swarming with Democrats claiming victory over mean-spirited, pointless republican obstructionism.

    The graph from yesterday's FP item, showing that republicans appear on the networks 2:1 over Democrats has got to stop and this is where the tide should turn.

    by The Raven on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:47:49 AM PDT

    •  i agree. is there a way to influence that or ????

      by mdmslle on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:58:29 AM PDT

      •  There is

        For clues, look back to the ill-fated Edwards campaign. Remember how the media framed the race as Obama v Clinton? In about every 6th, 7th article there'd be a minor reference to Edwards. It's almost as if he wasn't even in it.

        That was his fault - not the media's.

        He needed to call the networks, reach out to reporters, say things like, "I'm going to give a press conference tomorrow on my plan to rescue the middle class," he had to make his own media opportunities.

        Same for all of our people. If they sit around, waiting for the phone to ring, then they'd better be prepared to turn on the TV and watch Lindsay Graham and Saxby Chambliss lecturing us on how and why Democrats are Teh Suck and why only republican policies will save us.

        by The Raven on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:02:28 AM PDT

        •  I disagree about Edwards not getting media

          Edwards was known as a lawyer defending individuals against corporate wrongdoing.

          Trial lawyer who blew the whistle on corporate greed and crimes.

          This alone made Edwards anathema to the corporate media.

          by LNK on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 03:28:34 PM PDT

•  WaPo isn't quite right: Cheney should defend

  his administration's terrorism policies at the Hague, not in the media

  by Dave the Wave on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:06:04 AM PDT

•  I disagree with Blow and agree with Herbert

  Obama ABSOLUTELY had to say essentially "enough is enough" and bring out the whoop ass.  

  Every day since Wednesday he has been bashing the GOP "old tired ideas" that got us into this situation in the first place.

  Obama's fire in his belly got me fired up and ready to go.

  Obama now knows that he has to be in campaign mode from now on to sell his agenda for the GOP will be blasting him every single day.  Bipartisanship is officially over.  Now it is about getting just a couple of Republicans to sign on.  We REALLY need Al Franken ASAP because there are going to be major fights down the road on Health Care reform, new Energy policy, Education reform, etc.

  by Drdemocrat on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:12:27 AM PDT

  •  I hope Obama's focus on the importance of

    bipartisanship is over, I agree.

    Recall Clinton's efforts to reach across the aisle, and how the haters, starting with Rush, not only mocked him and tried to destroy him, but used those honest efforts at bipartisanship to push Clinton to the right.

    There's a political price, as well as a prestige price, that Obama and we lowly worker-types will be made to pay if Obama continues to play silly "I want the republicans to like me too" games. The republicans are old hands at turning that sentiment into political profit for themselves to the detriment of the American public.

    Enough!

    by annominous on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:19:18 AM PDT

    •  take heart

      that obama posturing was exactly that. i wouldnt have voted for a guy who wasnt willing to try. i personally had been so sick of inaction in washington caused by ideologues putting their party above the people that i checked out of the political process altogether. obama changed that for me and tens of millions of americans  like me. Every wonder who those 40% of indies/moderates are/were...here are. And we voted for him 2:1 for a reason. We hate partisanship.

      what he's done is instead of telling americans "you cant work with these SOBs" he SHOWED it. Its an effective teaching tool. Obama's no idiot. He knew the GOP wouldnt play along - they want him to fail more than they hate Bill and Hillary!  He knows that but i'm glad he "tried" (very publicly i might add) and was rejected (also very publicly and resolutely).

      Now people can see for themselves who is reasonable and who isnt. Who values solutions  over ideology and party and who doesnt. He secures his place in the hearts (and votes) of millions of americans and the GOP is an open exposed festering mess.

      He did it perfectly. I just cant believe the House GOP played into it. What dumbasses.

      by mdmslle on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:07:24 AM PDT

•  You just gotta read Broders column

  It's like a light bulb went off in his head. He finally wrote what has been essayed on the blogs for the last five years.

  I guess some people are just slow learners.

  by flatford39 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:14:06 AM PDT

  •  He basically said that there is now

    a BLUE WALL that the GOP have hit and will continue to hit.

    by Drdemocrat on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:23:29 AM PDT

    •  it took Steele's election for him to see it

      go figure.

      by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:34:33 AM PDT

      •  Exactly n/t

        by flatford39 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:35:22 AM PDT

  •  I can't believe I'm quoting Broder

    Yet, here he is, in all his Brobdingbroderousity:

    The states that are part of the blue wall have distinctive characteristics. As Brownstein wrote, they "combine large numbers of well-educated, affluent and less religious whites with substantial numbers of racial and ethnic minorities, including sizable immigrant populations."

    They rank high in the proportion of college graduates and residents who are foreign-born, and their median income tops the national average. They lag in church attendance. Every one of those traits makes them less receptive to the message being offered by most Republicans.

    That is the writing on the wall. Broder could only have done better by fully explicating "the message offered by most republicans."

    by The Raven on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:50:51 AM PDT

•  charles blow obviously has not spent

  much time around here.

  Shrill? Screaming matches? Weeping and gnashing of teeth? Rending of garments?

  Sorry. Democrats have a loooooong history of bitching. Thats one can of worms i'd rather not see unleashed unleashed until absolutely necessary. HA! The GOP thinks they know how to kvetch? Really? HHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHA

  by mdmslle on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:14:18 AM PDT

•  I may be off the mark

  as well as late to the party, but here in Kansas, the news is reporting that Governor Kathleen Sebelius may be in the running for Daschle's (sp.?) spot. I don't know if this is true. I will be slightly disappointed because I am hoping she will give the Senate a try. It will be bad enough to be stuck with a wingnut like Brownback as governor. We need someone with sanity to represent us here. Okay, I'll rephrase that: we need someone to represent those of us here who have sanity.  

  by forever blue on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:19:58 AM PDT

  •  I agree that she should aim for the Senate

    She would win and there would be another Democratic Senator.

    by Drdemocrat on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:24:24 AM PDT

  •  her name has repeatedly surfaced

    governors are pretty familiar with HHS's state support, and not so familiar with some of the tech and research ends of things.

    by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:35:44 AM PDT

    •  Don't get me wrong

      I would be proud to have her selected by Obama in any capacity. She was a warrior for him throughout our state. It's just that we need her HERE. We have too few Democrats who have the popularity she has. The woman is a class act. The only dirt Repugs could dig up on her was over a board game that her son invented and that little tidbit didn't make headlines for long.
      My dream? To see her debate Palin, one on one. I know, I'm kind of sick that way, but I won't get the chance to do it! lol.

      by forever blue on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:51:30 AM PDT

      •  We need to clone her. nt

        by flumptytail on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:06:25 AM PDT

•  The cut against State fiscal stabilization

  This is the most pernicious, evil, incompetent, dangerous part of this "centrist" cut.  The states are in a calamitous situation.  To have this yanked out is a disgrace.  And of course it's by far the largest cut in the legislation in dollar terms.

  What's so disgusting is that this vicious approach to the stimulus has been spearheaded by people who don't face the voters for a while -- Collins and Nelson.  I'd hope we start beating up on those who do face the voters next time who went along with this.

  by decisivemoment on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:36:24 AM PDT

  •  it's a big deal

    thanks for the comment.

    by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:40:28 AM PDT

•  Dick trying to keep out of jail

  Characteristically self-assured, Mr. Cheney perpetuated the myth that abiding by the rule of law puts the country in danger.

  As if he and his policies were the only thing standing between the United States and the destruction of several more national landmarks.

  by Patriot4peace on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:44:57 AM PDT

•  There will be more stimulus packages.

  by skillet on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:49:40 AM PDT

•  From Herbert - Great Quote

  "Republicans in Washington have behaved like a milling crowd standing in the way of firefighters trying to respond to a devastating blaze."

  That says it all.

  by JanF on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:49:48 AM PDT

  •  I modify Herbert's quote about Republicans

    To me they don't look like a crowd milling around, preventing the firefighters from getting through........

    The Republicans look more like they are detaining the firefighters while they loot the equipment and use the water, not to put out the fire, but in order to mix their cocktails.

    by LNK on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 03:25:29 PM PDT

•  Stimulus Bill GREW from 770B to 820B

  So unless this is viewed as Washington as usual, where "cuts" mean increased spending is slashed, this can still be considered a victory because we got the additional 50B in non tax cuts.  Change should include eliminating the "new math" calculus used to describe what is a cut in spending.

  by catchnrelease on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:02:22 AM PDT

•  So who wrote John McCain's bill?

  Phil "Enron Loophole, deregulate banks" Graham?  There has to be a God in Heaven, McCain isn't the President and Graham isn't any where near ANY official office.  Obama bent over backwards to be gracious in victory.  I will never hear the word hero associated with John McCain.  He is a small, small man.  Oh, and I would like to thank Mr. Enron loophole and Dick "top secret energy task force" Cheney for the $130 jump in my level billing.  When you have a job, a couple of wives, and more houses than you can count a $350 dollar electric bill may sound comical to you.  So how many unemployed dittoheads do you think Rush will put up in his five houses in Palm Beach?

  by cinsch on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:11:08 AM PDT

  •  Thain also

    Don't forget that the name most mentioned for Treasury after Phil Gramm's unfortunate mental recession comment was John "$1400 Wastebasket" Thain.

    We dodge two very enormous bullets.

    Even if we get disgruntled about how the Obama team does things we have to remember that the alternatives would have been disastrous.

    by JanF on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:24:29 AM PDT

•  I want to add one more thing

  The part of the stimulus package that won't help me at all is the incentive to purchase a house or car. I am so behind on my bills that my credit is shot. I can't imagine anyone willing to take a chance on loaning me money for either purchase. I would guess that this is true for many people at this time. Congress has already waited too long to act, in my opinion. It's too late to shut the barn door now; those cows are history.
  And here's a revelation...I have medical insurance, but I don't go to the doctor because insurance doesn't cover everything and I can't afford ANY new bills. Yeah, that's carelessness on my part, but I feel I have no choice. Read my lips...NO NEW BILLS! lol.

  by forever blue on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:17:57 AM PDT

•  Cuts can be put back

  If not in conference, then in the budget.  If it's the budget, the spending will be delayed.  But the important thing is that the money be there.

  by Paleo on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:24:13 AM PDT

•  I'm a tad bit on fire this morning because

  I heard last night that the auto bearing plant that used to be the biggest employer in this community will shut its doors.  It only had 150 people working there at the end but one of them was a guy whose family attends my church.  He is an engineer, she just had her third little boy at Christmas.  It was the plant that brought my husband and I to this town.  My husband lost his job there during the Bush I recession.  He was able to get a job at Honda six weeks later, but that was eighteen years ago.  Honda has never had a layoff in their history till now.  They have layed off all their temps, they cut back to 3 days a week, and rumor has it they will shut down for the month of April.  Did I mention this in John Boehners back yard?  I want these SOB's with more houses than they can count to look into 4 year old little Sammy's face and tell him why his Daddy does not have a job.  Sammy wouldn't have a clue what any of this means-because multiple generations of his family have done right and played by the rules.

  by cinsch on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:37:24 AM PDT

  •  Your story is powerful and you are not alone

    the problem is we dont have megaphones so ask to signify our suffering for all those who are waiting to exhale, hunkered down in their basement hoping that the grim-pink-slip will pass them bay.

    enter the out-of-touch republican: what you need is tax-cuts and pray more, it's not praying that is the result of all your woes.

    thank you for signifying the struggle of your community.

    by homohabilis on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:26:42 AM PDT

•  When We Get Franken

  in the Senate, it will be time for jihad against the Republicans.

  by BobNJ on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:38:32 AM PDT

  •  Which is why

    the GOP is in such a frenzy to stop that from happening. They should have to pay the penalty for frivolous lawsuits and taking up the court's time.

    by forever blue on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:18:40 AM PDT

  •  nice to know that YOU are ridding their wave.

    they call themselves the Taliban, or the RUSHeans

    are have vowed to wage insurgency against the Infidels Pelosi-obama-"the meek from Nevada"

    by homohabilis on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:20:50 AM PDT

    •  Whoa! Back the horse up.

      Even I can see that that was just a figure of speech. Used in the correct context, I might add. Chill.

      by forever blue on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:28:44 AM PDT

•  Where are the grassroots that elected Obama?

  What are we doing? Herbert's words lay it out bare. The Republicans have no moral authority in this economic crisis. They created the damn thing.

  But, they fucking know how to win the PR job with the American people. And, they will do it.  

  As they grieved last night over the grave of Reagan snotty little Graham threw out a threat. They will block everything Obama wants to do.

  And, Obama is standing alone.

  When Americans were outraged about the TARP Ceo's Washington heard it.

  What are they hearing, now? Nothing.

  Just go ahead and beat up Obama.

  Fuck health care reform. Let us just die.

  by redtex on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:45:15 AM PDT

•  Help me understand

  the republican drones/dittoheads keep repeating their "tax cut" mantra.  They say such brilliant things like, "we're going to give everyone a tax credit who goes out and improves their homes in some method or buys a car".  Here's where I need help...where do they think we're going to get that money to improve our homes (if we still have them) or buy a car?

  by momoaizo on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:50:04 AM PDT

•  Broder on Steele

  Bah. Steele is just part of the Repug's One of Everything strategy. Everything be cool if they marquee one African-American, one woman, one Hispanic,  one Jew, one Hindu-Catholic-Evangelical governor, etc.

  by DJ Rix on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:32:49 AM PDT

•  Thanks for Abbreviated Pundit Round-Up

  It's always quite perfect and extremely helpful!

  by LNK on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 03:21:37 PM PDT

  •  not always perfect

    but hopefully always helpful ;-)

    by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:18:44 PM PDT

•  Interesting analogy...

  In the Bloomberg article regarding University degrees and unemployment...(Oops. I already closed the page - see link above in story) ... They had quotes from people talking about the effect of this current Recession on jobs lost.  The person said something to the effect of:

  This recession is different from previous recessions in terms of jobs lost.  This recession is effecting more parts of the economy.  It's "tentacles" are everywhere.

  It's interesting because the slang term (if you will) for the IT villains (and their cohort) that continue to try to hijack the new system - (through codes) - is sometimes called "the octopus".

  Things that make you go: Hmmmm...

  by FundaMental Transformation on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:25:25 PM PDT

  •  Let me give...

    ... example.

    Just now, good guys send money - to help stimulate system.  Sending is confirmed. But money numbers on screen don't reach intended destination when expected.  Waiting, waiting, it's not coming.  Where did it go?

    Someone grabbed it off the screen.  They didn't get the real money, just the digital representation of it.  This happens repeatedly - demonstrating that the screen money is unhinged from the holder of funds' intentions for it.  The holder wants to send it one place, but it disappears - never arrives to it's programmed destination.  They have to find it with trackers.  It takes time and money to track.  It's always the same 'them' that they find.

    The system can't move forward until the IT villians stop choking the funds in the tubes.  If the digital representaion - the numbers on the screen - don't show up when/where/how they are expected to show up - the actual money can't be moved until the money holder pays for all the tracking and legal and everything.  But they can't use their money because now it's frozen on screen.  

    Someone is intentionally messing with the numbers on the swift screens. The goal appears to be to lock all the 'clean' money on the planet up through IT shenanigans.  I guess that is why it's an octopus - tentacles in every part of the financial system choking it off at it's multiple sources.

    Anyways, please watch Die Hard 4. It's not all make-believe.  Art imitates life.  In order to solve this problem, we will have to keep in mind the lesson of Peanut CO. of America.

    Just because the name "America" is on their sign, does not mean they care about the American people.

    I'm not unpatriotic for mentioning that.  I think they are unpatriotic for using the name of our country as a shield from their own unconscienable selfishness.  They are not the only ones doing it.  Some IT guys are do it too.  

    Oh if only the banking system could be as well-regulated as peanut butter.  Oh wait, bad example.  If only the problems with digital banking villians could be as well investigated as if people were dying because of it.  Because they are.

    by FundaMental Transformation on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:14:03 PM PDT

    •  Brilliant!

      Obama orders 'sweeping' review of US cybersecurity
      Agence France-Presse
      Published: Tuesday February 10, 2009

      WASHINGTON (AFP) — President Barack Obama announced a sweeping review of US cybersecurity to protect the government's information technology systems from security and economic threats.

      The 60-day review is to be overseen by Melissa Hathaway, a former official in George W. Bush's presidency who coordinated cyber monitoring for the director of national intelligence, according to a White House statement.

      ...

      "The national security and economic health of the United States depend on the security, stability, and integrity of our nation's cyberspace, both in the public and private sectors," said Obama's assistant for counterterrorism and homeland security John Brennan.

      by FundaMental Transformation on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:43:47 PM PDT

      •  Interesting...

        ... bit of intel on this side of things.  We get word today that there was an IT-villain sting over the weekend.  Several high-level black hats were reportedly arrested, at least one committed suicide to avoid arrest.

        Again - because I never get tired of it: Things that make you go 'hmmmm?'.

        by FundaMental Transformation on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 06:45:06 PM PDT

•  DemfromCT, it was great to read your praises...

  ... at effect measure.  I like when blogs give props.  Very cool.

  As far as the "we're screwed" comment and bird flu... I would like to share the findings of some research I did a few years ago about bird flu deaths.

  I was tasked to find the difference between the cases of those people who got bird flu and died, and those who got it, got sick, and then recovered.

  Interestingly, I found that science seems to show that those who die of bird flu are not actually dying from the flu.  They die from scurvy, often times before the flu has even been dagnosed, they already have scurvy.  Those who's scurvy was diagnosed during the bird flu treatment and received IV drips with vitamin C survived.  Particulary those who had previous to the flu exposure maintained a regular, healthy does of vitamin C in their body whether through diet or supplements, they had the highest likelihood of making it, because the doctors had more time to begin treating the patient before the scurvy kicked in.

  Now I'm no doctor, but that's what I learned.  So the recomendation from my group was that we would have to up our daily doses of vita C.  The reason big pharma doesn't want everyone to know of this simple step to help prevent possible death, is because they want to invent a patentable alternative to vita C in stopping scurvy.  Kind like AIDS and HIV - they go together.  The difference is that scurvy has been around for along time.  That one we have covered.  

  It's time for healthier communities anyway.  We all could use some vitamin C right at this moment, I reckon.

  ;0)

  by FundaMental Transformation on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:13:19 PM PDT

  •  have the findings been published in a peer review

    journal? just asking (the hallmark of science is reproducibility).

    here's a comment that may explain why vit C works in SE Asia and not here:

    Vitamin C

    Despite the popular belief that vitamin C can cure a cold and the flu, the scientific evidence supporting this idea is limited. There have been a few studies suggesting that taking large doses of vitamin C supplements at the onset of cold or flu symptoms, or just after exposure to someone with one of these ailments, can shorten the duration of the illness or ward it off altogether. However, the majority of studies, when looked at collectively, lead researchers to conclude that vitamin C does not prevent or treat flu.

    If that is the case, however, why do so many stand strongly by the belief that it works? Some experts suggest that vitamin C may only be useful in case of the flu if you have low levels of this nutrient to begin with. Another possibility is that the likelihood of success may be very individual – some improve, while others do not.

    Talk to your doctor about any pros and cons with regards to using vitamin C during cold and flu season.

    We used to have a saying when I was in training in NYC about vitamins: those who need them can't afford them, and those who can afford them don't need them. That doesn't invalidate your observations! It just raises the question who it should be applied to, and makes the case for organizations like ONE that try to alleviate hunger and poverty..

    by DemFromCT on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:28:10 AM PDT

    •  reference for above comment is here

      http://scienceblogs.com/...

      by DemFromCT on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:29:26 AM PDT

      •  The vitamin C was not used to treat the flu...

        ... in the cases that I studied.  That is the twist.  The vitamin C was used to treat scurvy which is brought on by the avian flu.

        I realize this is only hearsay because it's just me being a detective.  I compiled multiple sources for an internal study.  It was never peer reviewed.

        However, I would like to encourage any scientists out there to explore the link between scurvy and the bird flu.  Who knows, maybe they'll get a Nobel.

        by FundaMental Transformation on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 01:02:43 PM PDT