U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser (D) Joe Neguse (D) Michael Bennet
50% 50% 50%
Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) Brian Mason

60%↑

30%↑

20%↓

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%↑

30%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

45%↓

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 30, 2009 01:28 AM UTC

Congressional Republicans: Stupid Partisans or Brilliant Tacticians?

  • 42 Comments
  • by: Jeff Bridges

Obama made a great show of going to Capitol Hill to try and gain Republican support for his stimulus package. He said, repeatedly, that if Republicans had a good idea he’d listen. So far all I’ve heard is that they want more tax cuts. A shocker, I know.

But really? Tax cuts versus investing in America’s future through infrastructure improvements that will pay dividends for years to come, create thousands (millions?) of jobs, and help to fight global warming through renewable energy projects that will also help us become more energy independent? Sure Republicans have to play to the base, but “more tax cuts” doesn’t exactly scream visionary leadership.

Then, as we covered yesterday, House Republicans all voted against Obama’s stimulus package. Every single one. The President physically went to the Hill seeking bipartisan support, then followed up the vote with a cocktail party at the White House for Congressional leaders from both parties. His thanks – bubkes.

Are Republicans really that out of touch with the new post-partisan world?

This reminds me of a scene from The West Wing where President Bartlet walks over to the Capitol seeking a compromise. When Republican leadership refuses to meet with him they look like inflexible ideologues uninterested in solving America’s most pressing problems – sound familiar?

Now I’m sure the Republicans have PR folks with far more experience than I have, and they certainly need to distinguish themselves from Democrats to win in two years, but this seems rather short sighted to me. There’s plenty of time to present an alternative ideology before the midterms.

To their credit, Republicans did present a stimulus plan that lost in a vote just before the one on Obama’s, but voting as a bloc against the President right out of the gate makes Republicans seem – to me – like a bunch of reactionary partisans without any new ideas.

Thoughts, fellow Polsters?

Tweet
Share

Comments

42 thoughts on “Congressional Republicans: Stupid Partisans or Brilliant Tacticians?”

  1. It would seem to make sense for MOST of them to vote against it, while a few Republicans in more liberal districts vote for it. “Bill passes on a mostly party-line vote” is a fairly common headline, but “Bill passes; not a single Republican votes for it” has a very different connotation. I think they did some damage to themselves this time. They really look like children.

  2. “Tax cuts versus investing in America’s future through infrastructure improvements that will pay dividends for years to come, create thousands (millions?) of jobs, and help to fight global warming through renewable energy projects that will also help us become more energy independent? ”

    You’ve nicely laid out the issue here, Jeff. It’s public sector versus private sector as the engine for new growth. We can let Washington do it or do it ourselves.

    Your ideology will probably determine which side you think is more effective in growing the economy. I think history shows one side has an advantage but I’m sure many here will disagree with me.

    1. A few more bucks from tax breaks in people’s pockets at this point is not going to be  nearly enough.  Won’t hurt and people may be able to catch up on a couple of bills but  we need an economy that produces enough well paying jobs and we need to start getting there ASAP.

      Tax breaks for the wealthy clearly haven’t been producing those jobs. In fact the middle class has been losing ground, not just since the dramatic financial events of the past few months but throughout the years of the Bush/GOP tax cuts. It’s time to try something else.

      I understand that most of the Republicans left in the House come from a shrinking number of hard right, Limbaugh loving districts and feel they have to stand against the baby killing, gay loving, commie Dems or they could get primaried out.  The Senate is different. Some Rs there have to win states that are more purple or even blue leaning than red and I’m betting they won’t ALL be willing to say “no” to trying something else. Especially after they get Dems to give a little in the more collegial Senate.

      If Obama believes the kind of stimulus package he wants will work, he shouldn’t worry about no R House support. As long as it gets passed and people feel a difference for the better in their lives between now and 2010, let the Rs worry about it.  

      1. I still don’t understand why Republicans in Democratic-leaning House districts wouldn’t vote for it. What about Ahn Cao, Mike Castle, and other Republicans in places with Dem-leaning PVI?

        1. 1. Republican leadership was probably keeping everyone on a pretty tight lease for this one.

          Even in the minority leadership still has a pretty big stick to wield.

          2. Supporting more tax cuts will always be popular regardless of what happens to the economy. Spending, especially on this scale, requires a bit more work to sell.

  3. The Democrats are betting the economy will begin to turn the corner late this year or sometime during the first six months of next year. If that happens, the Republicans will be cooked goose for the third general eleciton in a row.

    The Republicans on the other hand are betting on failure for the President’s stimulus plan. There is no other way around it but they are taking by far the biggest chance. Even if the Presdient’s stimulus package doesn’t work all that well, the Democrats can still run on their record that they tried while the Republicans voted against it regradless of the fact the Republcans had an alternative.

    The Republican argument is don’t do anything except tax cuts and hope it all works out. In other words, let the invisible hand of the market have its way but at bottom, their argument rests on the premise that we, as human beings, are bascially incapable of formulating a policy or policies that can correct and lead us out of our economic woes. I don’t think that is a winning argument because Americans have always had the “can do” attitude that we are capable of solving problems.

    If I had to take a chance, it would be with the Democrats.  

    1. Even if the President’s stimulus package doesn’t work all that well, the Democrats can still run on their record that they tried while the Republicans voted against it regardless of the fact the Republicans had an alternative.

      I agree, the debate wasn’t there, the GOP is full of chicken shits.  OK, but if it doesn’t work at all (unlikely, only because I don’t see the economy getting any worse, our standard of living will not be ultimately affected), or if it kind of helps, but leaves this huge debt, the Joes of the world are going to say, “Crazy spending Democrats, can’t trust them in any office.”  Even though Repubs tend to leave more debt, they’re considered the “fiscal conservatives.”  I don’t know why either, but that’s the cookie.

      1. The Democrats will be able to say they tried to stablize and, above all, restore our way of life while the Republicans solution is to let nature take its course and see what happens (except for tax cuts).

        When a crisis arises, it is normal human instinct to try and stem the crisis or end it and return life to normal.  Whether we agree with the President’s stimulus plan or not, he is trying to do that, while the Republicans are betting on a hope and maybe a prayer that the economic crisis resolves itself. I believe the Democrats will reap the political rewards in 2010 for having tried. Even if the President’s plan doesn’t work all that well, what platform are the Republicans going to campaign on in 2010: “See we told you the President’s plan wouldn’t work. We recommended doing nothing.” Even if the electorate is dissatisfied with results of President Obama’s stimulus plan, the Republicans will have to have a solid alternative to run on in 2010. Running on “we told you it wouldn’t work but we don’t have an alternative” isn’t a winning strategy. People will want the government to do something.

        Finally, the public is smart enough to realize that we are in a deep hole and our economic problems can’t be completely turned around in a matter of days or months. If, after the stimulus plan passes, the economy begins to improve the Republicans will be blown out of the water in 2010.  

        1. except for this

          while the Republicans are betting on a hope and maybe a prayer that the economic crisis resolves itself.

          I think the Rs are hoping the opposite.  If the crisis is resolved (either ‘by itself’ or through stimulus) the Rs will look like they did nothing.  

          Only if the economy continues to decline will the Rs be able to claim they were on the right side here.  Thus, I think, Rs want the economy to fail because they want Obama to fail.  They want government to fail because government is ‘socialism.’  Like Walter from Denver they celebrate when government falters and cannot meet its needs.

          Why do Republicans hate America?

        2. I think you are probably right. Certainly hope so and not just about this probably blowing up in the faces of the House Republicans.  Since they’ve got nothing but more of the same tax cuts, that pretty much leaves Obama’s plan, give or take a tweak, as our only hope.  If Obama’s plan doesn’t help get this economy moving again things are going to get very very scary as if our situation isn’t scary enough already!

        3. is lowered expectations. Poll after poll people tells us that while people are optimistic about the job Obama will do, but they are pessimistic about the Economy and how long things will take to turn around. People are not expecting miracles. This won’t stop Republicans declaring the Stimulus a failure two months after it passes, but that’s the game they have to play.  

          1. You’re in control of everything and you’re praying that people will have lower expectations of you and that will make you look successful?

            Good luck with that.

            1.    Just pointing out the political reality of the situation. Republicans are gambling that if they oppose the stimulus and the stimulus doesn’t work they will look like heroes. But in judging the success of the stimulus you have to take into account current expectations, which public opinion surveys tell us are pretty low. I think Republicans are over playing there hand.

              1. People know how bad it is and how hard it will be to fix.  Any progress in the right direction or even a stop to the slide will be appreciated by the public at this point so the Rs who dig in their heels on any package from the Dems will have to hope that things continue to get even worse at the expense of their constituents for a long time to come and that people blame it on the Ds. That’s certainly what Rush is hoping for.  

                2. the whole thing, it does make it hard to assume they’re doing the best for their constituents, rather than hoping to point and laugh at Ds.

                  I don’t like to think that, it’s too sad.

  5. because it seems to be so publicly obstinate for the House R’s to have made a caucus issue out of this in this way.   By “this way” I mean making the unlikable John Boehner chief spokesman and giving him the whining “Democrats won’t listen to us” script to repeat all week.  They look like the witless pudknockers they are, after getting the Blue Beatdown last November.  And I think the R’s are gambling on receiving the same kind of unpopularity the R’s got back during the Gingrich years after forcing the government shutdown.  The childish-seeming obstinance is offputting and they risk not jost political oblivion but getting tarred with a Limbaugh-like “I hope he fails” cultural tag.  But it may be a safe partisan gamble and it keeps the red meat Republicans fed.  Will the public at large remember their lockstep negativism by the 2010 midterms?

    I imagine that the R’s are also testing public opinion:  By Monday, there will have been some polling on public reaction… maybe they’re trying to figure out how the public regards them.  Any anyway, from their perspective, why be more accomodating than they need to be?   In any case, the Obama administration and the majority party is not likely to have given the House R’s anything except the opportunity to pose as team players.  From the House Dem’s and Obama’s and the Senate Dem perspective, why let the R’s take a bite out of the apple at the beginning of the process?  The Senate is where the real obstruction will take place if it takes place at all.  Let the House R’s into the deal, IF you need the votes, when a conference bill comes back to the House. them.    

  7. Voting “no” was the obvious political move for them. There was no reason to vote yes, especially with a second vote coming after conference committee.

    It wasn’t brilliant by any means, a polsci 101 student could explain why voting “yes” was pointless for the House GOP.  

    1. I’d hope for more strategery from the top Republicans in the nation than from a polisci 101 student. If the Republican brand is in such bad shape, and the American people want to see folks reaching across the aisle to work with each other, then voting no makes Republicans look petulant – just more of the same from a brand image that drove them into the dirt a few months ago.

      Voting yes – or at least not making it a Republican caucus issue – makes them look at the very least reasonable over partisan. Simply repeating the same failed mantra and obstructionist policies won’t win a majority in two years.

      1. that no-one actually cares about bipartisanship. It’s a nice selling point, and I’m sure most Obama voters liked saying that they were/are supporting him because he represents that “new brand of politics” but in the end Obama won because people thought he was the one most likely to keep the tap water hot, the grocery bill low, the socks from disappearing in the laundry, etc.

        The “new post-partisan world” is a fairy tale land told by the nice campaign story-time staffers, but it does help us Obama supporters feel nice and righteous, doesn’t it? (begins humming, “just a spoonful of sugar…”)

        1. From a Pew Research poll:

          Notably, many Americans not only see the president-elect as a problem-solver, but as a “uniter” as well.

          …

          Moreover, the percentage saying that Republicans and Democrats in Washington will work together more to solve problems, rather than bicker and oppose each other, is markedly higher than it was at the start of either of President Bush’s two terms. Currently, 50% say the two parties will work together more to solve problems, while 39% expect more partisan bickering. Four years ago, just 30% said the two parties would work cooperatively while nearly twice as many (59%) said they anticipated more partisan bickering. Public expectations for partisan cooperation are now as great as in January 2002, amid the mood of national unity that prevailed after the Sept. 11 attacks. [emphasis added]

          Seems like that “fairy tale” of a post-partisan world has become an expectation for the American people.

          1. is that republicans not jumping all up and down over the post-partisan bandwagon isn’t a crazy strategic failure. Of course people are going to say they support and hope for bi-partisanship in their elected officials, hearing poll respondents say “I love partisanship — love, love, love — and I also love gambling on the horses and going to dogfights; they’re the right way to go.” Everyone thinks they’re in the moral right, we are rationalizing and self-justifying creatures, and no-one (or few people) know how to, or take the time to, morally defend partisanship. Thus, everyone says they expect a post-partisan world, but no-one will actually care when the next election comes around so long as the bread is on the table and the lights still come on. Elections are about the people, not the candidates, and if republicans think they can get the people to make the link between hot water from the sink and tax cuts, easier than they could link light bulbs and increased deficit spending, then that is absolutely they’re winning strategy. Post-partisan rhetoric is just fluff on the cake.

            1. People certainly care about the lights and the water, but that’s not all they care about. That sort of thinking is what doomed Republicans this last election, and will doom them in 2010 if they keep this up.

              Obama ran a positive campaign based on hope for a better America. Republicans ran on fear-mongering, from Reverend Wright to William Ayers. People are sick of that sort of crap and right now they crave real leadership.

              This was a transformative election about more than just our pocketbooks. Partisanship will certainly come back into vogue at some point, but right now people want their leaders to make the best decisions based on what they believe is right – not on petty party politics. If even a few Republicans had jumped ship this wouldn’t look nearly as bad, but leadership clearly decided to “whip” the caucus into shape.

              Obama and Democrats = reaching out. Republicans = partisan hacks. Not exactly a winning message in this environment.

          2. is that republicans not jumping all up and down over the post-partisan bandwagon isn’t a crazy strategic failure. Of course people are going to say they support and hope for bi-partisanship in their elected officials, hearing poll respondents say “I love partisanship — love, love, love — and I also love gambling on the horses and going to dogfights; they’re the right way to go.” Everyone thinks they’re in the moral right, we are rationalizing and self-justifying creatures, and no-one (or few people) know how to, or take the time to, morally defend partisanship. Thus, everyone says they expect a post-partisan world, but no-one will actually care when the next election comes around so long as the bread is on the table and the lights still come on. Elections are about the people, not the candidates, and if republicans think they can get the people to make the link between hot water from the sink and tax cuts, easier than they could link light bulbs and increased deficit spending, then that is absolutely they’re winning strategy. Post-partisan rhetoric is just fluff on the cake.

  8. 11 Democrats joined with the Republicans in a bi-partisan vote against the massive spending bill.

    The enormous pork bill (which includes 100’s of millions in contraception, and repairing the lawn in Washington, and of course stimulating the arts by funding the National Endowment for the Arts) was passed with a partisan vote by Democrats who demonstrated their newly found power to stuff it down the throats of the American people.

    The bill’s popularity among the people?  Well, it is below 45% according to pols.

    2. the “millions in contraceptives” was dumped days ago.  I think I got a Planned Parenthood e-mail urging me to complain about that yesterday. Personally, I’m fine with cutting it from the stimulus bill. Also believe they lost the lawn repair before the vote.  Your talking points need up-dating.

  9. According to Rassmusen: http://www.rasmussenreports.co…

    Forty-two percent (42%) of the nation’s likely voters now support the president’s plan, roughly one-third of which is tax cuts with the rest new government spending. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 39% are opposed to it and 19% are undecided.

    And when presented with the Republican plan:

    While support for the plan has slipped, support for a recovery plan that includes only tax cuts – like the one proposed by House Republicans – has grown during the past week. Forty-three percent (43%) of voters support that approach while 39% are opposed.

    It looks like support for both plans is about equal, but support for the Democrat’s plan slipped 3% in the last week.  Maybe that’s why we have to have a vote on it right now.  The rubes are getting wise to the con.

    1. is probably within the margin of error, may not represent any change at all.  The public clearly isn’t thrilled with anybody on this.  The public feels screwed.

      1. Exactly!  People are looking at the first “stimulus package” and can see that all it did was support the bottom line of institutions that did stupid things and now will get out of taking responsibility for doing them.  It did not help the average American and now they are looking at this further leap into greater debt with a gimlet eye.  

        Republicans aren’t standing in the face of a tidal wave of public demand for the package. They are representing an equal number of citizens who feel that it is the wrong thing to do.  I don’t see that as leading to political suicide.

        1. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There’s another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

          Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren’t likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President’s new budget director, told Congress a year ago, “even those [public works] that are ‘on the shelf’ generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy.”

          http://online.wsj.com/article/…

          .

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

72 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!

Colorado Pols