WSJ: McCain's Vote Should Trouble Obama

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123483096626095659.html

Spot on IMO

McCain's Vote Should Trouble Obama

By the president's own standard of bipartisanship, he has failed.

By WILLIAM MCGURN

"John McCain Was Right."

That's one headline we ought to see when President Barack Obama puts his name to the stimulus bill in Denver later today. But we won't. And the reason points to a glaring double standard on bipartisanship.

When Mr. McCain accepted the Republican nomination for president, he noted that while he and his opponent both spoke about moving beyond partisan divisions, only one of them had a history of working with members of both parties to get things done. "I have that record and the scars to prove it," he said. "Senator Obama does not."

Only a month ago, with Mr. Obama holding a dinner in Mr. McCain's honor, it wasn't hard to imagine the two coming together on the big challenges facing our nation. But now Mr. McCain has come out strongly against the stimulus in a spirited dissent suggesting that the whole process was a "bad beginning" for someone who promised a new spirit of bipartisanship. That ought to give White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel pause, if only because it wasn't all that long ago that Barack Obama was speaking the same way.

In a passage from his 2006 book, "The Audacity of Hope," he sounds like a Republican complaining about the stimulus. "Genuine bipartisanship," he wrote, "assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained -- by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate -- to negotiate in good faith.

"If these conditions do not hold -- if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs . . . are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so -- the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this 'compromise' of being 'obstructionist.'

"For the minority party in such circumstances, 'bipartisanship' comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being 'moderate' or 'centrist.'"

As a rule, complaints about the "lack of bipartisanship" generally represent the whine of the losing side. With regard to Mr. Obama's handling of the stimulus, however -- his first big test as president -- they have a more interesting subtext. For one thing, his promises of a postpartisan future in some ways became the substance of a campaign built on lofty but largely undefined invocations of "hope" and "change."

For another, a stimulus package with strong bipartisan support was well within his reach. Even at full strength, the Republicans didn't have the votes to obstruct the stimulus if they had wanted to. And with a little imagination, a White House in search of bipartisan support might have easily picked off Republicans by exploiting differences within the party.

Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter suggests, for example, infrastructure as one area popular with some of his fellow Republicans. Had Democrats added, say, a few more infrastructure projects, perhaps a half-dozen Republicans in the Senate and as many as 30 or 40 in the House might have signed on. But the White House went the other way.

"President Obama has never been able to say 'No' to the left of his party," he says. "So instead of having Rahm Emanuel keeping Congressional Democrats in line, they left this bill to the most partisan members of Congress, starting with Nancy Pelosi."

Mr. McCotter has a point. For all of Mr. Obama's eloquence on the need for Democrats to be more respectful of religion, more willing to confront the teachers' unions, and more open to the opportunities of the market, when it comes time for action it's a different story. On issues from abortion to free trade, Mr. Obama's votes suggest a man careful not to do anything to offend the Democratic Party's most entrenched interest groups.

What does this mean for the next four years? We are told that when LBJ learned of Walter Cronkite's famous broadcast questioning U.S. policy in Vietnam, he said, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America." In a similar way, it might be worth asking what John McCain's strong dissent says about this president's commitment to lead us into a postpartisan future.

That was the standard Mr. Obama promised during his campaign. Now that he's got his bill, it will be instructive to see if he will be held to that standard by an "exacting" press corps he says is essential to ensuring that a ruling party negotiates in good faith.

[PleaseBlitz]

What does this have to do with McCain in particular?

[Burgold]

I disagree with the article's premice. From nearly every account I have read, Obama made great strides to bring the Republicans into the conversation and have them play a role. The Republicans by and large chose not to or chose such strict uncomprising positions as to prevent an honest debate of ideas. In that sense this bill was very bipartisan. The horse was led to water, but chose not to drink. Obama invited them, beseeched them, and worked with them to get on board (esp. on the Senate side) and they chose not to debate, engage, or work on the bill. They took a hardline position that was then voted on and being the minority they lost.

I saw and heard of many efforts to create bipartisanship. If it didn't happen it's because the Republicans didn't want it to happen.

(Now, if we are only talking about the initial House version than I agree that Obama probably naively thought they would behave like adults and Pelosi did not, but for the Senate and final bills there was certainly an effort made and not an insubstantial effort made, especially considering that their votes were not needed.

[@DCGoldPants]

Looks like its the GOP on the Hill vs. the GOP running their states.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/us/politics/17repubs.html

February 17, 2009

Obama Gains Support From G.O.P. Governors

By JACKIE CALMES

WASHINGTON — President Obama must wish governors could vote in Congress: While just three of the 219 Republican lawmakers backed the $787 billion economic recovery plan that he is signing into law on Tuesday, that trifling total would have been several times greater if support among the 22 Republican state executives counted.

The contrast reflects the two faces of the Republican Party these days.

Leaderless after losing the White House, the party is mostly defined by its Congressional wing, which flaunted its anti-spending ideology in opposing the stimulus package. That militancy drew the mockery of late-night television comics, but the praise of conservative talk-show stars and the party faithful.

In the states, meanwhile, many Republican governors are practicing a pragmatic — their Congressional counterparts would say less-principled — conservatism.

Governors, unlike members of Congress, have to balance their budgets each year. And that requires compromise with state legislators, including Democrats, as well as more openness to the occasional state tax increase and to deficit-spending from Washington.

Across the country, from California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger to Florida’s Charlie Crist and New England’s Jim Douglas in Vermont and M. Jodi Rell in Connecticut, Republican governors showed in the stimulus debate that they could be allies with Mr. Obama even as Congressional Republicans spurned him.

“It really is a matter of perspective,” Mr. Crist said in an interview. “As a governor, the pragmatism that you have to exercise because of the constitutional obligation to balance your budget is a very compelling pull” generally.

With Florida facing a projected $5 billion shortfall in a $66 billion budget, and social costs rising, the stimulus package “helps plug that hole,” Mr. Crist said, “but it also helps us meet the needs of the people in a very difficult economic time.”

Mr. Obama’s two-year stimulus package includes more than $135 billion for states, to help them pay for education, Medicaid and infrastructure projects. Yet even that sum would cover less than half of the total budget deficits the states will face through 2010, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research and advocacy organization.

The states’ reliance on the federal government in times of distress will be showcased this weekend, when the governors come to Washington for their annual winter meeting. Their focus will be on infrastructure needs and home foreclosures.

The disconnect between Republican members of Congress and governors recalls the mid-1990s, when Republicans took control of both the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years. After an initial public show of being partners in a “Republican revolution,” the partnership all but dissolved when governors strongly objected as the more dogmatic conservatives in Congress tried to cut domestic programs and then shut down the federal government in an unsuccessful showdown with President Bill Clinton.

Recently, Governors Schwarzenegger, Crist, Douglas and Rell joined 14 Democratic governors in signing a letter to Mr. Obama lauding his economic plan. Other Republicans would have signed on, said a person familiar with the letter’s drafting, but for party pressure in their states.

The National Governors Association sent a bipartisan letter of support to Congressional leaders of both parties, signed by its Democratic chairman, Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Douglas, its Republican vice chairman. “The combination of funds for Medicaid, education and other essential services is critical for governors as they work to manage the downturn in their states and improve government for the long term,” it said.

Mr. Crist even campaigned last week with Mr. Obama in Florida for the recovery package.

“Whether it’s teachers or people on road crews helping our infrastructure, those in the health care arena as it might relate to Medicaid, all of these areas are important, all of them can produce jobs,” Mr. Crist said, adding, “Regardless of what your party is, Republican or Democrat, it really doesn’t matter. We have a duty and an obligation to the people who elected us, no matter what our position happens to be, to work together to get through this thing.”

Yet all 16 of Florida’s Republicans in Congress voted against the package. Representative Cliff Stearns condemned it during the final debate as an “unprecedented big-government grab for citizen reliance on the federal government.” Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, called the bill “a steaming pile of garbage” on his cable television talk show.

The House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, angrily dumped the 1,073-page bill to the floor during debate. In the Senate, John McCain of Arizona called it “nothing less than generational theft.” And Republicans in both chambers derided what they described, often misleadingly, as pork spending for the likes of marsh mouse preservation.

Many projects, however, reflected the job-creation wish lists that governors had sent in.

Utah’s Republican governor, Jon Huntsman Jr. sought up to $14.4 billion for roads, rail and sewer projects and for construction of a prison, courthouses and veterans’ nursing homes. Gov. Bob Riley of Alabama, another Republican, came to Washington to discuss transportation projects with his state’s Congressional delegation. “He’s going to make sure Alabama doesn’t miss out on the money we’re entitled to,” a spokesman said.

Mr. Obama began courting the governors before taking office. He invited them to Independence Hall in Philadelphia in December to discuss the economic challenges. Nearly all accepted.

In his opening remarks, Mr. Obama had “a special word” for the Republicans: “I offer you the same hand of friendship and cooperation that I offer our Democratic governors.” He deferred to Mr. Douglas, the Vermont Republican, to steer the discussion.

Privately, Republicans favorably contrasted Mr. Obama with the outgoing Republican president, George W. Bush, according to two participants.

Though Mr. Bush had been a governor — in good economic times — his relations with state executives were distant at best. Amid a downturn early in the decade, he unsuccessfully opposed $20 billion for the states. Last fall, he resisted some Republicans’ pleas for aid.

Mr. Douglas in January sought a meeting with the new administration at the White House office that is a liaison to governors. Instead, he got an Oval Office meeting with Mr. Obama.

When reporters briefly came in — the two men flanked the fireplace just as presidents and foreign heads of state typically do — Mr. Douglas praised Mr. Obama for his leadership. The stimulus bill “might be a little different” if he had written it, the Republican said. “But the essence of a recovery package is essential to get our nation’s economy moving.”

[GibbsFactor]

Obama doesn't need to be bi-partisan right now.

[ccsl2]

Obama doesn't need to be bi-partisan right now.

Exactly. It would be nice, but he doesn't have to.

The GOP Governors side with Obama over the GOP on the Hill. Not surprising being as though these Governors are the ones who are doing the budget cutting, and know what they need to keep people in their jobs.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Obama doesn't need to be bi-partisan right now.

I agree. And in the same breath, the GOP has no incentive to be bi-partisan right now either

[dcoles11]

Bipartisanship is all well and good but lets get real. The American voters clearly said, we don't want the republicans in control. The republican party failed.

[ccsl2]

I agree. And in the same breath, the GOP has no incentive to be bi-partisan right now either

They don't right now. But if some of the things Obama is proposing do work, then they will become more bi-partisan.

[PleaseBlitz]

I agree. And in the same breath, the GOP has no incentive to be bi-partisan right now either

So basically, the WSJ is just outing itself as naive for believing Obama's book and campaign promises. Dolts.

[ccsl2]

Bipartisanship is all well and good but lets get real. The American voters clearly said, we don't want the republicans in control. The republican party failed.

There's definitely no denying that. I think that is why Obama is getting out of Washington and going right to the American people.

[PleaseBlitz]

They don't right now. But if some of the things Obama is proposing do work, then they will become more bi-partisan.

Exactly.

In January, the Dems and Repubs switched places as to which party was rooting for and against the US economy. You gotta love politics.

[Burgold]

Exactly.

In January, the Dems and Repubs switched places as to which party was rooting for and against the US economy. You gotta love politics.

I don't think that's so. Last September, the Dems gave Bush and Paulson almost exactly what they wanted and they even stripped it of oversight at their request. Boy has the latter turned out to be a mistake.

[PleaseBlitz]

I don't think that's so. Last September, the Dems gave Bush and Paulson almost exactly what they wanted and they even stripped it of oversight at their request. Boy has the latter turned out to be a mistake.

The best thing that happened to the Obama campaign was the banking collapse. Before that McCain had caught him and was slightly ahead, then a week later (along with the ridiculous talk of McCain suspending his campaign) the banks started failing and Obama ran away with it, all the while pointing at 8 years of strictly republican policies that caused the mess.

Now the Dems are pot-committed that the economy turns around soon (regardless if its due to the spending bill or not) and the Repubs are praying in 2 and 4 years the economy is still in bad shape, as it is their only hope of regaining some modicum of power.

[Midnight Judges]

I disagree with the article's premice. From nearly every account I have read, Obama made great strides to bring the Republicans into the conversation and have them play a role. The Republicans by and large chose not to or chose such strict uncomprising positions as to prevent an honest debate of ideas. In that sense this bill was very bipartisan. The horse was led to water, but chose not to drink. Obama invited them, beseeched them, and worked with them to get on board (esp. on the Senate side) and they chose not to debate, engage, or work on the bill. They took a hardline position that was then voted on and being the minority they lost.

I saw and heard of many efforts to create bipartisanship. If it didn't happen it's because the Republicans didn't want it to happen.

This is exactly right. Obama went out of his way to treat Repubicans with respect and to incorporate their ideas. He invited them to the whitehouse, he brought them into the discussion, he even dissed Nancy Pelosi by urging House Dems to vote against her version of the stimulus in order to help house Republicans gain influence.

The Republicans are rejecting bipartisanship, not Obama.

[Hubbs]

It seemed to me that the Republicans made up their minds to oppose the stimulus bill before a word of it was written. Obviously, they need some sort of justification, so they've claimed that there should be more tax cuts, that too much of the spending is wasteful, and so on. But they could have made those arguments no matter how the bill was structured. They wanted to vote against it for the sake of voting against it, and nothing Obama could have said or done would have changed that.

[dcoles11]

I hate to be a cynic here but why would anyone believe that the republicans would want whats best for the country right now?

They need the economy to stay bad for the next 2 to 4 years so they can have some sort of chance at gaining back some control.

If things get turned around, the Democrats will gain even more control than they have now in the future elections.

And i'm not saying the republican party is the only party that is capable of this, this is just politics and power.

The republican party has no power at the moment and the only way for them to get it back is for Obama and the democrats to fail.

That ought to at least make you think about the intentions of the republicans right now.

[GoSkins561]

Obama doesn't need to be bi-partisan right now.

Correct, not to mention everyone is ignoring anything the Republians have to say, while overlooking Obamas promises that got him elected.

[DjTj]

The best thing that happened to the Obama campaign was the banking collapse. Before that McCain had caught him and was slightly ahead, then a week later (along with the ridiculous talk of McCain suspending his campaign) the banks started failing and Obama ran away with it, all the while pointing at 8 years of strictly republican policies that caused the mess.

A lot of other things went wrong for McCain around that time too ... like the public learning that Sarah Palin wasn't exactly qualified for the job. But you're right that the market crash basically sealed the deal for Obama.

Now the Dems are pot-committed that the economy turns around soon (regardless if its due to the spending bill or not) and the Repubs are praying in 2 and 4 years the economy is still in bad shape, as it is their only hope of regaining some modicum of power.

The party in power is always pot-committed to the economy, which is a good thing, because they will presumably do what they think is best for the economy ... weird how representative government works like that.

[dcoles11]

Correct, not to mention everyone is ignoring anything the Republians have to say, while overlooking Obamas promises that got him elected.

What got him elected was the fact that he had a (D) next to his name and he was running against a McCain and Palin.

There are many people the democrats could have ran that would have won, of course the margin of victory may have been different.

[PleaseBlitz]

A lot of other things went wrong for McCain around that time too ... like the public learning that Sarah Palin wasn't exactly qualified for the job. But you're right that the market crash basically sealed the deal for Obama.

The party in power is always pot-committed to the economy, which is a good thing, because they will presumably do what they think is best for the economy ... weird how representative government works like that.

Which is what i said in post #12.

In January, the Dems and Repubs switched places as to which party was rooting for and against the US economy. You gotta love politics.

Burgold is the one you are disagreeing with.

[Ingtar]

What got him elected was the fact that he had a (D) next to his name and he was running against a McCain and Palin.

There are many people the democrats could have ran that would have won, of course the margin of victory may have been different.

This is a very sad thing to see and it is why we need more parties. If we are voting for people because of the party affiliation rather than their ability, what does that say about the intellect of the average American?

[SparkleMotion]

Just because the Republicans' motives may not be 100% pure, doesn't mean there aren't valid arguments against the stimulus.

To me, it's a copout to say that republicans want the stimulus to fail or that the economy failed because of republican ideas. There may be elements of truth to both those points, but they alone don't make the opposition to the bill unwarranted or obstructionist.

If the stimulus is a good idea, there should be better arguments for it than just discrediting the opposition.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I think the idea that bi-partisan means both Republicans and Democrats would be 100% happy with the bill is the problem. Bi-partisan means that both parties give some, and both parties take some. No one can reasonably say that Obama and the Democrats got everything they wanted. And no one can say that the Republicans (and McCain) got nothing they wanted. Both sides got some things they wanted, but not everything.

The difference is, Obama and the dems were willing to vote for it despite not having EVERYTHING they wanted.

[GoSkins561]

What got him elected was the fact that he had a (D) next to his name and he was running against a McCain and Palin.

There are many people the democrats could have ran that would have won, of course the margin of victory may have been different.

What got him elected was being a good speaker and people trusting that he would reach across the aisle. Republicans/Moderates wouldn't have voted for him if they thought he was going to push a far left agenda.