MyDD :: Republicans don't need "new ideas"--just Democratic failure

Republicans don't need "new ideas"--just Democratic failure

by desmoinesdem, Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:20:08 PM EST

A funny post by Paul Rosenberg at Open Left pointed me to this post by Greg Sargent:

The Republican National Committee, under new chairman Michael Steele, has quietly killed an ambitious plan to create the Center for Republican Renewal, a big in-house RNC think tank intended to develop new policies and ideas in order to take the party in a new direction, a Republican official who was directly informed of the decision by RNC staff tells me.

The Center's goal was to help the GOP reclaim the mantle of the "party of ideas," as RNC officials glowingly announced in December, and the decision to scrap it has some Republicans, including allies of former RNC chair Mike Duncan, its creator, wondering how precisely the RNC intends to generate the new ideas necessary to change course and renew itself.

Rosenberg mocks Steele's apparent decision to give up on making the GOP the "party of ideas," but I think Steele is smart not to waste money on this project. As I've written before, I share Matthew Yglesias's view that the time for Republicans to implement effective new ideas was when they were in power.

Whether the Republicans come back in 2010 or 2012 has little to do with their ability to generate new ideas and everything to do with how Democrats govern.

If Democrats fail to deliver on big promises, the pendulum will swing back. If Democratic leaders succeed, no think-tank generated "new Republican ideas" will prevent a political realignment in our favor.

If only we could explain this concept to the Democrats in the U.S. Senate who are eager to strip from the stimulus bill the government spending that would help the economy by creating jobs (school reconstruction) or increasing consumer spending (more money for food stamps). Those same so-called "centrist" Democrats favor leaving in tax cuts that provide much less "bang for the buck" (tax credits for business, fixing the alternative minimum tax).

UPDATE: As usual, Paul Krugman put it well:

[T]o appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts.

In the name of bipartisanship and compromise, Democrats in the Senate may approve a stimulus bill that won't work. That will do more to revive the Republican Party than the think tank Michael Steele axed. Even if a handful of Senate Republicans vote for the stimulus, Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats will pay the price if the economy continues to decline.

President Obama deserves much of the blame for the sad turn the stimulus debate has taken. His negotiating strategy was deeply flawed, as debcoop and Theda Skocpol have explained. He should have started the debate on the stimulus with a much higher dollar number and a clear statement that he would not accede to failed Republican ideology.

I've noticed on these stimulus threads that some commenters think Obama would be acting too much like George W. Bush if he applied his political capital toward crafting a strong Democratic (rather than bipartisan) stimulus bill, and shaming a few Republicans into going along. I disagree. The most important thing for Obama is to pass a bill that will help the economy. Voters won't give him points on style if the economy is still lousy in 2010 and 2012.

Bush's mistake was not being partisan, but using his political capital to push through policies that failed miserably. If he had rammed bills through Congress that boosted our economy, improved the environment, kept our national debt from exploding and didn't get us bogged down in an expensive war, he might have laid the groundwork for Republican realignment while his approval ratings were still very high.

Tags: barack obama, economy, economic policy, stimulus, Republican Party, Republican National Committee, RNC, Michael Steele, Center for Republican Renewal, RNC think tank (all tags)

Permalink :: 27 Comments :: Post a Comment

We can get more stimulus funds (none / 0)

By putting them into the 2010 budget, which cannot be filibustered.

by Kent on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:42:29 PM EST

cw versus reality (none / 0)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/7/1 9538/94477/1020/694626

by bruh3 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 11:06:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why Obama won (none / 0)

Too many of Obama's more ardent supporters confuse style as being more important than substance.

A lot people in the real world are hurting. If you are faced with your mortgage, healthcare cost, kids in school- etc, then you aren't worried at all about DC style.

I think Obama misunderstands why he won. He thinks he won to change DC. He won to change America. Those two ideas require different strategies.

by bruh3 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:44:35 PM EST

Re: (2.00 / 1)

What is so hard about looking at the makeup of the Senate and understanding the kind of bill that can realistically be passed there?

A gigantic bill twice this size would never have been passed, it would have been dead on arrival, not just with the Republicans we absolutely have to have for passage, but also with close to 10 Democrats. The bill would have easily died in the Senate and we would have NOTHING. So, when you claim that Obama should have gone ahead and "crafted a strong Democratic (rather than bipartisan bill) stimulus bill and "shame" a few Republicans to come along", that fails to understand the fact that in the Senate we neither had the 3 Republican votes we needed - in the absence of Franken - nor another 6 to 8 Democratic votes with the package as it existed yesterday, BEFORE the cuts, which presumably you already found sorely lacking and way too small at the $930 Billion price tag. On the whole, the Senate IS a centrist body at this point, and the stark reality is that we have to get 60 votes together, no matter what. What exactly would be the point of a bill that does not have a realistic chance to get us to 60 votes, perhaps not even to 50?

We have to deal with reality, not a purity pipe-dream that looks swell on paper for us progressives but would just have ended up killing the stimulus package without a ghost of a chance.

The public was generally in favor of a stimulus package, but they generally felt that the price tag of $900 Billion plus was a bit too high, wanted to see cuts. A bill twice the size, as is talked about as necessary to actually "fix" the economy would have not been received well by the public at all.

At some point a realistic view has to be adopted, one that views this stimulus package as part of a larger picture, a starting point, not the be-all, to get the economy going again. Other parts are needed, including a speedy overhaul of the health care system.

by devilrays on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 11:30:13 PM EST

Well said (none / 0)

And deficit spending bills need 60 votes. So the whole "we'll make them filibuster" has no place in this debate.

60 votes is needed NO MATTER WHAT.

by RussTC3 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 11:35:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

And not to mention losing more blue dogs in the House. My problem with the package is that the wrong things were cut. The AMT fix could have been left out (for now) and could have really important things like more aid to the states for those in need.

Here in California, you can't even go to the DMV
on certain days.

by esconded on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 11:36:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Because now that your 60 rule is proven false as it being the rule that is certainly the rule:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2 /7/19538/94477/1020/694626

You move the ball to claim 50 would not happen. That's not believable.

You keep claiming what could have been. The problem is you don't know that. You speculate based on your fear, and your analysis runs from there.

If Obama had done a national speech in prime time the day before he delivered the bill, and done a marketing blitz, despite your certainty- we do not know what would have happened.

We never will know because Democrats always elected your approach. Consider what a few GOP members want, and ignore the public. Sell the mangled version of the bill after the fact, rather than before.

In other words, you whole posts is a set of assumptions that is based on the circular logic of doing things the same way each time, and then saying, but we had not choice. Yeah, that makess sense as long as no one thinks about the reality that other presidents have used the bullypulpit

What you really mean- is that Obama was not willing to expend the capital if his plan was wrong.

by bruh3 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 11:42:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

The same old pablum. We KNOW that the bill was very shaky YESTERDAY, that it did not have the votes to pass, and from public statements made by several Senators, Republican and Democrats, we knew that the bill as it was would have failed passage. Nelson and Conrad were out, several other Democrats as well as the 3 Republican Senators. That is what we KNOW. A bill TWICE that size would have done what, exactly? The suggestion that a much, much larger bill should have been pressed through is laughable.

The compromise that was hammered out brought the Republicans in as well as the resisting Democrats. We can moan and groan about "the humanity of it all", but until progressives replace the Senators from Maine as well as the Democratic Blue Dogs all this is just self-serving purity vanity. There is fantasy and there is reality. The reality, as it exists in 2009, requires an approach that has nothing to do with the fantasy some progressives appear to be living in. Perhaps things will be different after the 2010 mid-term elections, but as of right now we need for 2 Republicans and the 10 Blue Dogs all to be on board to get bills passed in the Senate. Simple fact.

by devilrays on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:08:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

actually your post is the same thing that have been said to rationalize fear by democrats since the early 90s so your claim of old pablum on my part is ironic. Thanks for the laugh. There is now not much difference between Clinton and Obama.

By the way, repeating your argument to me is not going to convince e that the same stategic triangulation we have done since the 90s is the right approach when I know other options were available (I listed one) but not tried. So all you have is well he did it therefore he needed to do it. That's a circular argument.

I don't expect to convince you. Irrational behavior is often its own justification.

by bruh3 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:12:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

definition of insanity (none / 0)

actually your post is the same things that have been said to rationalize fear by democrats since the early 90s so your claim of old pablum on my part is ironic. Thanks for the laugh. There is now not much difference between Clinton and Obama.

I don't expect to convince you. Irrational behavior is often its own justification.

by bruh3 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:12:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: definition of insanity (none / 0)

Simple fact is that the Senate is CENTRIST, and is made even more so by the fact that it takes 60 votes to override a filibuster. On the whole Republicans have shown us that they don't care about public opinion at this point. As a group they are basically down in the dumps with approval for GOP representatives languishing at around 25%. There is no way to SHAME them into complying with our "ways," they have already staked their existence on complete economic collapse and are more than happy to be merely obstructionist, with the final hope remaining that the economy stays in the toilet for a very long time. However, to get bills passed we HAVE to have a few Republican votes from the so-called RINO centrists and also the Democratic DINOs, to get bills passed. It is astounding to see such obvious ignorance of the simplest facts, reality as it exists today.

If the economy shows any kind of life over the next 3 years the GOP will reap no rewards, only scorn, for being so obviously obstructionist. Forget about GOP competetiveness for some time.

It seems indeed that YOU are full of fear of the GOP celebrating a resurgence, with said fear based entirely on the belief that the economy will collapse hopelessly, allowing the GOP to convince enough people that they actually have the goods to "save" the economy. For you to be right you have to actually rely on the same outcome that makes up the only remaining hope for the Republican party.

by devilrays on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:36:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: definition of insanity (none / 0)

Keny discusses the simple facts. We are in the middle of a depression.

All of your facts mean nothing under those context. YOu don' get this, and I don't think you will until it hitsyou personally.

by bruh3 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:51:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: definition of insanity (none / 0)

Those are not the facts. We have not seen the required 10% drop in GDP yet and we have not been in a recession for over 3 years. Thus, we are not in a depression. It is possible that we will see it in the future, but a depression we are not in at the moment.

Now, is it a very serious economic downturn? Of course. That is why a hefty priced stimulus bill is needed rather than the $200 Billion non-starter Republicans wanted. Still, reality in the Senate dictated some of the terms. It is better to have 80% of something than 0% of nothing.

My advice: Shed your fears of a phoenix-like GOP resurgence that relies on the economy collapsing into a hopeless abyss for many years. Try to understand that the Republican economic model has been thoroughly discredited and discarded by the American people, and even if the economy does not turn around dramatically and sharply in a hurry people do realize who the culprits are, that we are in this for the long haul, and will be in no mood to return to the trickle-down days anytime soon. Also understand that the stimulus bill is not the FINAL word on the economy, as you appear to have it. It is one stepping stone with more legislation planned and in the works to help the economy along short- and long-term, reshaping America as we knew it.

Also, on the flip side, if the economy shows any kind of positive movement over the next 2 or 3 years, which it might well do, it will be credited solely on the current administration and Democrats in Congress, with Republicans on the whole seen as only interested in obstructing for political gain. A resulting 30 years in the desert once again is entirely possible for those guys.

Progressives have to learn not to cut their noses to spite their faces.

by devilrays on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:45:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

because you engaged in make believe (none / 0)

re 60

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2 /7/19538/94477/1020/694626

You move the ball to claim 50 would not happen. That's not believable.

You keep claiming what could have been. The problem is you don't know that. You speculate based on your fear, and your analysis runs from there. How do we know what would have hppened in a nationalized speech by obama before deliverying a bigger stimulus?

If Obama had done a marketing blitz, despite your certainty- we do not know what would have happened.

We never will know because Democrats always elected your approach. Consider what a few GOP members want, and ignore the public. Sell the mangled version of the bill after the damage is done and its too late to shape opinion, rather than before. It's not rocket science. I can not imagine the private marketing industry run the way dems think marketing should work.

In other words, your whole posts is a set of assumptions that is based on the circular logic of doing things the same way each time, and then saying, but we had no choice.

Sure, that makess sense as long as no one thinks about the reality that other presidents have used the bullypulpit

What you really mean- is that Obama was not willing to expend the capital if his plan was wrong.

by bruh3 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 11:45:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

I agree. I happen to believe that the conservatives are in the same boat today that the liberals were in 40 years ago (the Bismarck), but the progressives seem to be on the same track the conservatives were as well (ldeological puirity or else).
The latter is not the formula foreffective governing.

by spirowasright on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 01:18:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It wouldn't matter (none / 0)

our system of governing is design purposely to prevent "purity or else" from being an effective way of governing.

Our founding fathers put together a government where we would HAVE to work with those who disagree with us and have other opinions.

Obama isn't wrong for wanting to bring a few Republicans over, after all, Roosevelt didn't ignore Republicans, but he had ones willing to work with him, ones like George Norris, who paid the price in their party. Obama doesn't have that luxury, but our government is designed that he needs it.

Maybe our government is designed wrong, maybe this is a fault in the way our founding fathers put this together, they weren't perfect you know, they, like Obama, believed in the art of the compromise.

Keep Yelling, Nobody's Listening -SallyCat

by DTOzone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:01:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Again with the start high, get lower nonsense? (none / 0)

What the heck is wrong with you people?

Where is the logic that the Republicans would have been happier with a bill at say $1.5 trillion than one at $800billion?

Why would that high a bill have been easier to get 60 votes on than one at $800 billion?

The idiocy is just mind boggling some times.

by RussTC3 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 11:33:46 PM EST

We have real world experience with negotiation (none / 0)

I sense that many o fyou defending this style of negotiation do not. I am assured you will now claim that you do.

by bruh3 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 11:47:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans failure (none / 0)

The only way we could pass a $1.5 Trillion stimulus would be if Obama declared a national emergency until Republicans stopped filibustering. This is certainly an idea.

by Kent on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:05:34 AM EST

Re: Republicans failure (none / 0)

You do not think a great depression and our financial system on the brink of failure is a national emergency?

See, I have been reading the last few days. I am starting to think that may that's it. We here these claims of urgency, but none of its actually present in policy.

by bruh3 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:14:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans failure (none / 0)

I do think its a national emergency and Obama declaring one would likely get a bigger stimulus.

by Kent on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:23:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans failure (none / 0)

Thank you. This has been my thesis from the begining. This is not a situation that should be played by political terms because is a crisis that will place the country in a depression. Way too many posters come on here defending his moves as "politically" smart (whatever they decide that means for the week) without admitting that the real problem is that we are headed toward a depression. It can not be smart if it does not head of the depression. That's per se the flaw in all of their arguments. Yet the fear is so intense even in the middle of a depression the only thing that matters is politics as usual.

by bruh3 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:28:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans failure (none / 0)

We are already in a depression. We have been in one for about six months.

by Kent on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:35:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans failure (none / 0)

Technically, not really, but yes, I agree that we are there. There is no clear definition, but the fact that most of the job loses happened in the last 3 months is a horrible sign. If we have a few more months like this one, I don't know what will happen.

On a side note, part of the problem is that most Americans have never dealt with issues of extreme poverty. Having grown up in those conditions, I have. So, they are not yet fully appreciating where we are. I see that in the comments here.

You would think , based on reading some of them, that we are discussing any ordinary appropriations bill.

by bruh3 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:50:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans failure (none / 0)

Then Obama needs to get on national television and declare a national emergency that requires that we spend whatever it takes to get us out of this hellhole.

by Kent on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 01:16:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans failure (none / 0)

I agree. The problem is there are a lot of people here who are in denial. Thus, even if I agree- I don't think anything changes until reality sets in for them. Part of the issue really is that some peo prefer their fantasy to the economic reality.

by bruh3 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 02:49:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Depression or not? (none / 0)

An earlier commenter said this:

Me:
If you look at the past 8 years, GDP grew a pretty healthy 14 trillion, unfortunately, our debt grew by 23 trillion. Is this really growth if you take on massive debt to fund that growth?

Bush inflated the economy by increasing spending and lowering taxes to avoid the normal recession in 2001 that should have occurred. Now we are seeing the results.

Does anyone else question using the same Bush strategy of increasing spending and lowering taxes to try and solve the problem?

When you have massive debt there are only two ways to get out of it, decrease spending to pay off the debt or bankruptcy.

It's simple, if I am $100,000 in debt, will it solve the problem if I borrow $100,000 more?

That's why it is bogus when President Obama says any spending is stimulus. That is flat out wrong.

This emergency stimulus should only contain spending that will be a net positive, anything else should be removed.

We're not in a depression yet, but this bill doesn't seem like it will help.

by tpeichel on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 02:19:04 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.