By Caitlin Taylor

Jan 27, 2009 8:17am

The Note, 1/27/09: Giving Season? Obama courts GOP — but compromise will mean pressing his own party

By RICK KLEIN The focus will be on President Obama’s relationship with Republicans on Tuesday, as the president travels to Capitol Hill to begin to make good on his campaign’s well-known pledge to remake politics as we know it. But the real dynamic to watch: Obama’s relationship with Democrats. Why? The stimulus bill is making its way to the House floor Tuesday, and it appears likely to get off the floor Wednesday without even a handful of Republicans supporting it. The president has the votes he needs — but not yet the number and type of votes he wants. If that’s going to change, it’s going to require convincing Democrats who are pretty happy with the package they have — and are (slightly) happier with the new Congressional Budget Office analysis they have to back it up — that they would be even more pleased if they include a few extra Republican ideas. A large number of Republican votes may not be available to Obama, not really. Plus, at a certain (not too distant) point, the bill becomes about policy above politics (shouldn’t priority one be that its authors believe the package will actually work?). But if the president is going to make his bipartisan pledge mean something, it’s going to require more than personal persuasion. He’s going to have to use his pull with Democrats to change this train’s direction — to make it possible for Republicans to come on board. Here’s a start: “House Democrats are likely to jettison family planning funds for the low-income from an $825 billion economic stimulus bill, officials said late Monday, following a personal appeal from President Barack Obama at a time the administration is courting Republican critics of the legislation,” the AP’s David Espo and Andrew Taylor report. “Several officials said a final decision was expected on Tuesday, coinciding with Obama’s scheduled visit to the Capitol for separate meetings with House and Senate Republicans.” The president meets with the House and Senate GOP caucuses on Tuesday — outnumbered, though maybe not outmatched. And what he doesn’t finish at lunch, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel may finish at dinnertime. “In the first month of 2009, President Barack Obama seems like he’s spending more time on Capitol Hill than he did the last two years he served in the Senate, and he’s definitely spending more time with Republicans,” Roll Call’s Emily Pierce reports. “But Republicans said Obama will have to do more than flatter them by agreeing to appear at their luncheons today, even as they give him credit for trying to change the overtly partisan tone that has gripped Washington for two decades.” Said a Senate GOP leadership aide: “What remains to be seen is whether the president’s vision of bipartisanship can be accomplished by Democrat leaders in Congress.” The House package isn’t going to change much at this point — so watch the action in the Senate, where the committees get cranking Tuesday. What constitutes bipartisanship, anyway? “The unanswered question: whether the new Democratic president will actually listen to GOP concerns about the amount of spending and the tax approach — and modify his proposal accordingly,” the AP’s Liz Sidoti writes. “Getting a significant number of Republicans to back the measure would be a triumph for Obama that would set a bipartisan tone for his presidency and signal that he values Republican ideas — and is willing to give a little to get a little.” “This is the week when we’ll begin to see whether that tender sapling called bipartisanship can take root in the Era of Obama,” Gerald Seib writes in The Wall Street Journal. Slate’s John Dickerson: “In the face of increased opposition, how much will Obama work for bipartisanship as an end in itself? Will he agree to GOP modifications to buy votes, or will he accept puny GOP support because he knows that, in the end, voters are more interested in action than whether he lived up to some standard of bipartisanship that he set for himself?” To that point: “This is 1936 economics,” Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the top Republican on the Budget Committee, tells The New York Times’ Carl Hulse. “But it reflects [House Budget Chairman David Obey]‘s ideology and his economic doctrine. They took everything in their file cabinet that has been piling up for 100 years, threw it in this bill and called it economic stimulus.” The Financial Times’ Edward Luce: “Unless he comes up with a new incentive for Republicans to change their position, Mr Obama’s bipartisan aspirations could go up in smoke before he has completed a week in office.” Are there other goals at work — well beyond the stimulus? “So far, his gestures have shown few signs of success, as Republicans have continued to snipe at his signature initiative — legislation to stimulate the economy — and even to question the sincerity of his efforts,” Janet Hook and Peter Nicholas write in the Los Angeles Times. “But whether or not he picks up support from Republican lawmakers, Obama has already accomplished one important aim: He is winning over more Republican voters than he did on election day. If that continues, the president’s hand could get stronger on Capitol Hill.” “He will be searching for support for his stimulus plan and trying to foster a spirit of openness that might come in handy for future legislative battles,” CQ’s Edward Epstein and Kathleen Hunter report. “Congressional historians say the new Democratic president’s trip to Congress to speak to the opposing party’s members might be historic.” Rahm works it too: “The president’s top aide, Rahm Emanuel, has invited a group of moderate Republicans to a private White House meeting Tuesday amid a Democratic push to add bipartisan flavor to an $825 billion economic stimulus package making its way through Congress,” CQ’s Jonathan Allen reports. “The smaller confab is scheduled to take place after Obama and Emanuel meet separately with large caucuses of congressional Republicans and congressional Democrats on Tuesday.” The day’s headlines aren’t all perfect for Team Obama: “The twin visits are an exceptional gesture for any president, but they follow two ominous signs late Monday,” Politico’s David Rogers reports. “First, Obama’s choice for treasury secretary and economic point man, Timothy Geithner, won Senate confirmation by just a 60-34 vote. Second, the Congressional Budget Office issued its final report suggesting that only about two-thirds of the money would reach the economy in the next 18 to 19 months, well short of the goal set by Obama.” More from the CBO report’s finer print: “The total package — including tax cuts and direct aid to the poor and unemployed — won significantly better marks for speed than the portion of the package devoted to highways, schools and other infrastructure projects, which are among the Democrats’ top priorities. The CBO report predicts that only about 40 percent of the $356 billion dedicated to those projects would be spent by the end of 2010,” Lori Montgomery reports in The Washington Post. “From $400 million for NASA climate-change research to $650 million for digital TV converter-box coupons, the unprecedented spending in President Obama’s economic stimulus plan is provoking questions about whether it can create jobs and jolt the country out of recession,” S.A. Miller writes in the Washington Times. A new Treasury secretary, but not a great vote: “Partisanship is officially back,” declare Politico’s Lisa Lerer and Mike Allen. “The [Geithner] nomination vote gave conservatives an opportunity to rail against Geithner, as conservative talk radio rallied a flood of calls to Capitol Hill on Monday opposing his nomination. A majority of Senate Republicans heeded those calls, making it clear that Geithner may have a credibility gap with the GOP.” “Geithner, who failed to pay more than $40,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes from 2001-2004, survived a haranguing on the tax issue by Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee last week and will take over at Treasury as President Barack Obama initiates a multipronged strategy to pep up the U.S. economy,” per ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf. On Geithner’s first day — helping for down the road: New rules Tuesday from the Obama administration (and its new Treasury secretary) on TARP spending: “In order to ensure that investment decisions are guided by objective assessments about the health and stability of the financial system, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, at the direction of the President, is announcing new, stepped-up rules to limit the influence of lobbyists and special interests in the EESA process. These new rules go beyond the approach taken under the EESA to date, and will help ensure a new level of openness and accountability going forward.” The White House is also weighing in on the $50 million jet purchased by Citigroup — on the government dole to the tune of $45 billion: “Their basic message was, ‘Are you kidding me?’ ” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos reported on “Good Morning America” Tuesday. “The White House made it clear that they need to see a different answer from Citigroup today.” Plus — the White House could be asking for more bank bailout funds as early as next week, Stephanopoulos said. The political stakes of Tuesday’s meetings don’t belong to Obama alone: “There are risks for Republicans as well. If they are highly critical of the popular president, Democrats could portray them as ‘childish’ — a pointed word used by Obama in his Inaugural address to denigrate political gamesmanship,” The Hill’s Molly K. Hooper and Jared Allen report. Resisting the give (and take): “The Republican answer to this turmoil? Tax cuts. They need to go into rehab,” Bob Herbert writes in his New York Times column. “The question that I would like answered is why anyone listens to this crowd anymore. G.O.P. policies have been an absolute backbreaker for the middle class. (Forget the poor. Nobody talks about them anymore, not even the Democrats.) The G.O.P. has successfully engineered a wholesale redistribution of wealth to those already at the top of the income ladder and then, in a remarkable display of chutzpah, dared anyone to talk about class warfare.” Writes Bob Shrum: “They went winless in November, but obviously not shameless, simultaneously complaining that Obama’s stimulus wouldn’t be fully felt for eighteen months or more, then suggesting that the package include extensions of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy — through 2013! They appear to oppose everything but lavishing tax breaks on the rich and invading countries on false pretenses.” Keep in mind who Obama is dealing with on his own side of the aisle (and consider where following them would lead): “House Democrats renewed their effort to force former White House aide Karl Rove to testify in a probe into Justice Department controversies, presenting a challenge to President Barack Obama, who will have to decide whether to defend his predecessor’s legal arguments,” Evan Perez writes in The Wall Street Journal. “For more than a year, the Bush administration blocked congressional demands for testimony from Mr. Rove and other Bush aides. The White House’s assertion of executive privilege prompted the aides to refuse even to show up for a hearing.” The new-policy-a-day policy of the new White House could also mean a new fight for every day. “Rolling back eight years of the Bush administration is not going to happen overnight,” Dan Eggen and Michael D. Shear report in The Washington Post. “Obama’s call for tougher vehicle emissions standards, for example, ran into immediate opposition from major business and auto industry groups. His plan to close the Guantanamo Bay prison has angered Republicans who object to transferring suspected terrorists to U.S. facilities. Many of those same Republicans are also fighting his economic stimulus proposal, arguing that it is too costly and would ultimately be ineffective, while others have attacked his plan to quicken the pace of troop withdrawals from Iraq.” “President Barack Obama opened the door to state-level regulation of greenhouse gases, kicking off the first round of what promises to be a lengthy fight between major industries and his administration over how to combat global warming,” Stephen Power writes in The Wall Street Journal. “The impending new regulations come at a time when US car manufacturers are barely surviving, and after the federal government loaned more than $17 billion to help them avoid bankruptcy and confront the combined pressures of increased competition from abroad, a deepening recession at home, and an evaporation of consumer credit worldwide. But Obama said that while industry’s problems must be fully considered, its future depends on building greener cars,” Lisa Wangsness reports in The Boston Globe. Sorry, Matt Lauer: President Obama did his first formal TV interview Tuesday — with the Arabic cable TV network Al-Arabiya, ABC’s Jake Tapper reports. Coinciding with the dispatching of George Mitchell to the Middle East: “All too often the United States starts by dictating — in the past on some of these issues — and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved,” Obama told al-Arabiya. “So let’s listen. He’s going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.” “In tone, his comments were a stark departure from those of former president George W. Bush, who often described the Middle East conflict in terms that drew criticism from Palestinians,” The Washington Post’s Michael D. Shear and Glenn Kessler write. “By contrast, Obama went out of his way to say that if America is ‘ready to initiate a new partnership [with the Muslim world] based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.’ “ “The interview was the second time since becoming president that Obama has made a point to reach out to the Arab world. Last week, his first call to a foreign leader went to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas,” McClatchy’s Warren P. Strobel reports. A new test for the new lobbying rules: “George Mitchell, President Barack Obama’s special Middle East troubleshooter, was chairman of a law firm that was paid about $8 million representing Dubai’s ruler in connection with a child-trafficking lawsuit,” Bloomberg’s Timothy J. Burger reports. “The DLA Piper law firm did legal and lobbying work on the case, which alleged that Dubai’s Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al- Maktoum and another official used children kidnapped from other countries to ride as jockeys in camel races. The firm lobbied federal agencies, members of the U.S. House and about two dozen Senate offices, including those of Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2006 and 2007, according to Justice Department foreign-agent disclosures.” Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s impeachment trial, day two: “Senators expect to hear Tuesday a select segment of four covert recordings of the governor that federal and House prosecutors have said will allegedly show Blagojevich trying to shake down campaign donations from a horse-racing industry official in exchange for signing a bill to divert casino gambling revenues to horse tracks,” Ray Long and Rick Pearson report in the Chicago Tribune. Tell us you won’t miss this guy: “His lawyer has quit, the mayor of Chicago calls him ‘cuckoo,’ and Blagojevich probably wasn’t helping his case with a media tour yesterday that included a taped appearance on the ‘Today’ show and live shots on ‘Good Morning America,’ ‘The View’ and ‘Larry King Live.’ But he just might establish himself as an unofficial poet laureate of the criminal justice system,” writes The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank. Why the Kipling? “That poem to me really exemplifies the ups and downs and struggles of life, and the need to have perseverance and stick to things and come back, that really make you a person of character,” Blagojevich told ABC’s Russell Goldman. “You guys can mock the poetry, but they’re words I’ve known for a long time and believe in.” Kirsten Gillibrand gets sworn in as a senator Tuesday — but the fallout continues in New York. Blisters Fredric U. Dicker, in the New York Post: “Gov. Paterson yesterday insisted he had no idea who did the slime job on Caroline Kennedy — although the source of the information is about as close to him during the day as his wife is at night. He’s a liar. The person responsible for the smear was an individual whose identity is well known to the press, whose full-time job is to do the governor’s bidding, and who is intelligent enough not to call reporters to damage Kennedy’s reputation without approval from the top — and that means Paterson.” The sounds of silence: “So the new White House finally gets its e-mail up and running smoothly, and then what happens? The entire system crashes Monday morning,” per the AP. “The last e-mail from the White House press office before the breakdown arrived just before 9 a.m. Monday, advising that President Barack Obama’s event on energy independence in the East Room would be open to all media, instead of just the smaller group of reporters and photographers that typically follows the president.” The Kicker: “Compared to steroids, this is going to be a breeze.” — George Mitchell, taking on his new role as special envoy to the Middle East. “Just say, ‘I am not a crook’ to us. Do it!” — Joy Behar, on “The View,” to Rod Blagojevich, who refused (though did start his next sentence: “But let me make this perfectly clear . . . “).

Bookmark the link below to get The Note’s daily morning analysis:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/the_note/index.html For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/ Follow The Note blog on Twitter: http://twitter.com/thenote

User Comments

How much longer can Obama afford to woo the Republicans when it’s beginning to seem clear that they don’t understand that they’re not in power anymore? Is it time for the White House to play hardball?
http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | January 27, 2009, 8:41 am 8:41 am

Tax cuts , the republican answer to everything. All that does is add to the deficit. When Jimmy Carter left office the national debt was less than a trillion dollars. Now it’s like 11 trillion and growing fast.

Posted by: Jim Bob | January 27, 2009, 9:03 am 9:03 am

he’s weak, he “needs” consensus…
and the democrats in congress and the senate should tell him to go Cheney himself.
They don’t need the gop votes,, and obama will have to sign off on the leglislation or have nothing passed

Posted by: twill | January 27, 2009, 9:06 am 9:06 am

It’s all about politics. The only reason Obama wants bipartisan support on this is that when it fails, he can say it wasn’t just liberal tax and spend left that supported it. The only reason he’s doing anything at all is because he can’t politically be percieved as doing nothing. Beyond that, they don’t have a clue.

Posted by: LongT | January 27, 2009, 9:13 am 9:13 am

It is a campaign promise made, and a campaign promise kept–reach across the aisle and work together in a bipartisan manner. Does he need the votes? No. Would he like the votes? Of course. Will it pass regardless? Highly likely. This is the right move by PBO.

Posted by: William J. LePetomane | January 27, 2009, 9:19 am 9:19 am

Share the blame when it doesn’t work.

Posted by: LongT | January 27, 2009, 9:23 am 9:23 am

It’s been so long since we had it, we’ve forgotten what democracy looks like. It looks like this: debate, disagreement, compromise. The best decisions are reached when all the objections and alternatives are put on the table. I am well pleased with both President Obama and the “loyal opposition.” The Republicans are raising good points, all Americans are deeply engaged in this debate, and we will move forward as the united, cantankerous, country we are.

Posted by: Amy | January 27, 2009, 9:25 am 9:25 am

Stand up GOP and vote NO on everything Obama prorpses. he is just looking for someplace to lay the blame for his failed policies, and they will fail. Don’t play the old bait and switch with this devil.

Posted by: bho | January 27, 2009, 9:26 am 9:26 am

LOL. All you radical right-wingers out there, hoping against hope that it will fail. Get real. There WILL be a bill on his desk by Presidents’ Day. Bet the ranch on it.

Posted by: William J. LePetomane | January 27, 2009, 9:27 am 9:27 am

bho: what is a “prorpses?” Is that some new radical right-wing lingo? LOL.

Posted by: William J. LePetomane | January 27, 2009, 9:28 am 9:28 am

Go by Obama’s pocket book. I am just sick of it!
http://james4america.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/the-pocket-obama/

Posted by: char12@cableone.net | January 27, 2009, 9:30 am 9:30 am

William; No, I really hope it will work. I’m just saying that Obama seeking bipartisan support when he doesn’t need it is just political insurance. That’s all.

Posted by: LongT | January 27, 2009, 9:34 am 9:34 am

Matt,
Last time I looked he was President, not Dictator or Emperor! I am not a big Obama fan, but he is approaching this correctly so far in regards to the stimulus bill. He has junked the foolish birth control aspect of it and lets hope he has the stones to throw out more pork – Demcratic & Republican.
If he is really serious with his talk, he will continue down this path.

Posted by: Mike_C | January 27, 2009, 9:39 am 9:39 am

The Republicans in dissent in the House and Senate do not represent those that elected President Obama. While we have watched since last Friday the Republican Majority Leader of the House and Senate position themself as defenders of the “Conservatism” in America we know two things very, very clearly: 1) Trickle down DID NOT work and 2) Reaching across the aisle is a two directional objective, but reaching across the aisle with clear defiance is obstructionism. President Bush is gone – on with restoring America. If President Obama’s objectives do not succeed the Republicans will have the opportunity to replace him – seems to me they have great fear that he will succeed and the Republican party, the neo-cons, the wealthy corruption, greed and what’s in it for me attitude will see days like the gilded courts of France. Bread, work and dignity are more important than pandering to religious extremists, fear mongerers and control freaks.

Posted by: OnTheGloryRoad | January 27, 2009, 9:40 am 9:40 am

William J. LePetomane
Left wing moron’s wrote the bailout and it is a failure but who do you blame Bush for signing it? Or were the rep morons for voting against the first bailout? Doesn’t look like it now does it. Seeing as you’re too stupid to understand how washington works spelling should be the least of your concerns.

Posted by: mike | January 27, 2009, 9:42 am 9:42 am

“The question that I would like answered is why anyone listens to this crowd anymore. G.O.P. policies have been an absolute backbreaker for the middle class. (Forget the poor. Nobody talks about them anymore, not even the Democrats.) The G.O.P. has successfully engineered a wholesale redistribution of wealth to those already at the top of the income ladder and then, in a remarkable display of chutzpah, dared anyone to talk about class warfare.”
-I could not have said it any better myself. Exactly.

Posted by: Rod M | January 27, 2009, 9:49 am 9:49 am

Well, what do you expect from the sore loser Republicans. The Republican party was started by a bunch of wealthy business men and they still want to control the tax cuts to their advantage. That Party was never about the people of this country. They were only about filling their own personal coffers. And isn’t that what the Bush Administration was all about? After all the isn’t any oil in Afghanistan for them to go after the Al Qaida because of 9/11. It was more profitable to go after a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 but was rich in oil and Halliburton’s interests. Oh yeah! That’s right! Cheney was really running the Presidency from under his bunker. A well-known war mongering VP who was able to convince a lame-duck President (and right from the beginning of his first term as President) to start a war, especially at a time when emotions were high and people were dealing with emotions and not intelligence! And that invasion has cost this country an economic failure of disaster proportions. And the Republicans who were responsible for de-regulations and massive spending on a war that caused more enemies than it got rid of still want to tell this Administration how to run the government after they made a sham of the government for the last 8 years! REpublicans! You lost! Face up to it and get over it! You never had the welfare of this country in your interest and you still don’t. You lost! period! Done! Start thinking about the united Stat es and those who live here and not about filling your pockets with tax breaks. And as far as the auto industry is concerned…you got the bailout! Start making more economical and environmentally safe cars. The SUV you guys made were a gas-guzzling disaster. Start using the money for economical purposes instead of crying over what you want to do v. what you should do! As far as Citigroup is concerned! T he bailout should never be given to you! Y ou do not go and by a $50MM Jet for your convenience and fire thousands of employees contributing to the massive unemployment. The CEO’s should be fired and start raising those from the bottom through the ranks who really know more about banking than the fat cats at the top who take more for themselves than what is good for their employees and their depositors. ENOUGH OF THESE CEO’s LIVING OFF THE BACKS FO THE MIDDLE CLASS (if their still is a Middle Class) AND START GIVING SOMETHING BACK – like their huge salaries, stock options, albeit they are probably worthless at this point, and their Golden Parachutes.

Posted by: Karen | January 27, 2009, 9:51 am 9:51 am

We all know that the Republicans version of “tax cuts” are tax cuts for the rich, wealthy, their political contributors, their “banks, corporations, and others” that have them in their pocket. They have no clue real America, nor do they really care. Their “small business tax cuts” is a cover for more mega corporation tax cuts. I’m sure Halliburton, Exxon-Mobile, and other corporations see themselves as “small businesses” so they can get in on the welfare. Just like all these companies that became banks overnight to get welfare bailout money like American Express, Hartford Insurance, and others. Of course, let’s not forget about those banks that went and bought other banks and financial houses like Bank of America and Wells Fargo then went to the government to get the money to pay for it. Some pair of blue blooded royal cojones. Republicans have screwed this country enough, they need to crawl back under the rock they came from…worms.

Posted by: jake | January 27, 2009, 9:56 am 9:56 am

LePetomane,
Of course it is a given that the it will pass. The real issue is will it make any real impact. All this talk about public works projects is not going to get much stimulus into the economy for quite a while. Then even when it does, you have race baiters like Robert Reich pushing for the package to have quotas beased on race.
Obama needs to send him very far away!
Pelosi has once again shown she is totaly clueless. Her fumbling, bumbling, stumbling attempt to justify money for birth control as part of a stimulus package was hilarious. Talk about the poster child for what is wrong with Congress. Just call her the Pork Queen!
I wonder just how much of that 600 million for Digital TV she was planning on funneling back to her district?

Posted by: Mike_C | January 27, 2009, 9:58 am 9:58 am

Posted by: Mike_C | January 27, 2009, 10:00 am 10:00 am

Democrats won the presidential election and have clear majorities in Congress. That means that the majority of American people want the Democrats to lead the way out of this financial mess. We don’t want a Republican plan out of this mess. That’s why Democrats won the election. I highly recommend to our Democratic leadership that they go with what the people voted for.

Posted by: hang | January 27, 2009, 10:00 am 10:00 am

Theres really nothing to complain about. Obama’s been doing alright. And he’s been super busy. Excatly what I expect from a president.

Posted by: North Park | January 27, 2009, 10:06 am 10:06 am

1) Trickle down DID NOT work and 2) Reaching across the aisle is a two directional objective, but reaching across the aisle with clear defiance is obstructionism.
———————————–
Obstructionism – Dems know all about it…go back and look at how many times since 2003 they, Led by Barney Frank, blocked Republican attempts to add regulation to the lending industry.
Also, I find so very interesting that you jokers keep saying Trickle Down does not work. YET…we listened to weeks of of liberal union pandering because “Trickle Down Job Loss” was VERY REAL !!!!
I have a question for you, how many people do you know who get a job from someone who has LESS than they do?
Job creation is by defintion a “trickle down” concept. You don’t have to like it, but you can’t disprove it!

Posted by: Mike_C | January 27, 2009, 10:08 am 10:08 am

Obama’s desire for bipartisan support on this is simply politics. It’s clear. He’s a smart politician.

Posted by: LongT | January 27, 2009, 10:12 am 10:12 am

On bi-partisanship: President Obama has the luxurious position of being able to get his personal agenda pushed through by a democrat controlled house. He states no firm position on the legislations they present. He calls for bi-partisanship which in the minds of voters is a gesture of sincerity. As he calls for bi-partisanship he makes no recommendations to the house as to compromise changes he’d like to see made. Therefore he evades all culpability in writing the legislation.Then at the signing he appears to have won a great victory for the people. Meanwhile the conservatives are being shafted. They must continue to oppose any bad legislation the house proposes. Doing so makes them look like dissenters, but that’s what politics is about, different ideas coupled with the determination to affirm those ideas. Dissent is not a bad thing and partisan politics is the norm. Nothing has changed except the holder of the reins. We all know the congress and house are at fault for our problems, but they act under advisement of the president. When our way of life deteriorates and we have nothing to show for the trillions of dollars invested in leftist pet projects while our economy dwindles and our national debt grows, he will share culpability with the legislature, because he didn’t object to their policy, he in fact will sign it into law. The buck stops with Obama. Remember the things he’s brought to the table.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 27, 2009, 10:13 am 10:13 am

onthegolryroad; Should we conservatives in your estimation submit to the tree hugging, atheistic, pacifistic, utopian ideas of the leftist control freaks?

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 27, 2009, 10:18 am 10:18 am

OK, show of hands…How many think the Muslims are so dumb they’ll fall for another US manipulation that encourages them to abort their children? Never mind the aspect of this legislation being an in-your-face gesture toward the domestic rightwingers. I think the moral standards of Muslim nations are higher than ours. It won’t work in favor of our image in the eyes of our enemies. The radicals will be infuriated.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 27, 2009, 10:26 am 10:26 am

While bi-partisanship is laudable, practically, most Republicans are political fanatics. The Republicans do not want Obama’s plan to work any way, so they are just going to sabotage it. The CBO backs the current plan.
A poll in Newseek magazine indicates that 76% of voters favor making health care more accessible, 75% want to repair the infrastructure, and 74% want to develop new clean energy technology.
Let’s go with the will of the people. There’s no way Obama can appease the GOP, but examining the Newsweek poll, the GOP is irrelevant.

Posted by: Bill | January 27, 2009, 10:28 am 10:28 am

mmonroeliveson…no, just don’t shove down our throat that BS Republican economics that have taken this country down the toilet, while making the rich richer. This country belongs to real America, not the banks, corporations, and the rich who exploit every opportunity to feather their nest even more, even at the expense and misery of real America.

Posted by: jake | January 27, 2009, 10:29 am 10:29 am

Jake; Those people and businesses who paid taxes are the only ones who deserve bailing out. You should never expect to receive more from your government than you paid in. Unemployment compensation, social security benefits, and medicare insurance coverage are all paid in. The rest is charity.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 27, 2009, 10:32 am 10:32 am

jake; Sorry, businesses built this country. They had a plan and contracted labor to do the work. Businesses originated the jobs and paid the wages. Without businesses the government has no source of income.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 27, 2009, 10:36 am 10:36 am

jake; You and I don’t own this land. Don’t pay your property taxes and see how long you get to keep possession of “your” land. The government owns it. We only rent it.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 27, 2009, 10:38 am 10:38 am

Dear Bill; What you say about the wants of the people is true. The question is when and how we go about achieving those goals, and what moves will bring them about. Additionally the state of our failing economy might need to be considered for some recovery before addressing those projects. We are spending trillions of dollars with only Obama’s assurance that his pet projects will stimulate the economy. Many don’t see this legislation as favorable to our future. Meanwhile, with no assurance of his economic recovery package having success, we are making long term additional budget commitments.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 27, 2009, 10:45 am 10:45 am

Bipartisanship would dictate that the best ideas of the two parties merge in the middle. The USS Obama is suffering from a severe port list.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 27, 2009, 10:49 am 10:49 am

Monroe, my husband is a conservative, republican, conservationist athiest! Does that make him a tree-hugger atheist republican?

Posted by: scentsofroses | January 27, 2009, 10:52 am 10:52 am

I just read that Boehner (R) Ohio has instructed the Republicans in the House to vote against the Bill. I see a lot of Republicans and Democrats trying to work in a bipartisan manner. Boehner doesn’t seem to grasp the concept of compromise. I hope Ohio will show him the door when he comes up for reelection.

Posted by: Paige | January 27, 2009, 10:56 am 10:56 am

The Republicans will never stop complaining. They’re still upset their man with the Alaskan house wife on his hip didn’t win. They’ll never get over it. They will continue to make things difficult for Obama the next four years.

Posted by: keredte | January 27, 2009, 10:59 am 10:59 am

scentsofroses; Good morning. No your husband obviously can handle cutting down trees if he’s a conservative. I was just giving onthegloryroad a dose of his own medicine. Sounds tacky doesn’t it. We really shouldn’t label people.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 27, 2009, 11:02 am 11:02 am

To keep his pledge of a new type of politics, he has to work evenly with both parties! Who won does’nt play into it if unity is what Obama is after.

Posted by: as if | January 27, 2009, 11:02 am 11:02 am

People dont want bipartisanship, they want things done their way! America is a splintered nation, massive tragedy is the only thing that will bring us together.

Posted by: for sure | January 27, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am

To answer the question in the article’s title–No. Obama cannot please everyone because there is too much Pluribus and not enough Unum in the components of this self-serving, pork-filled bill.

Posted by: NewCongress2010 | January 27, 2009, 11:09 am 11:09 am

keredke; I’m not a republican or democrat but I must admit you’re right. The Republican party didn’t offer much did they. But they almost won. Only three percentage points behind with lame candidates and half the campaign budget. Tells us something doesn’t it? It was hardly a mandate.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 27, 2009, 11:16 am 11:16 am

If the Republicans don’t want to get on the bus well then that is a decision that they made. They are currently outnumbered because they were outvoted by the taxpayer. Screw em!

Posted by: BikernAz12 | January 27, 2009, 11:18 am 11:18 am

No one can say that Obama didn’t hit the ground spending. And now he has a veto proof house. Scary!

Posted by: LongT | January 27, 2009, 11:18 am 11:18 am

No, he can’t please everyone with his stimulus descision.
Smart, informed and objective people know and understand that the same basic idea falied miserably last summer and all a trillion dollar stimulus will result in is inflation and the US governement having to pay a higher interest rate on the Treasury Bond as our currency becomes even more diluted on the world market.
Stupid, ignorant and politically blind people see this pittance as their devine right and anyone interfering with is neo-con trying to derail Obama.

Posted by: TheLastGoodIdea | January 27, 2009, 11:21 am 11:21 am

1) Jimmy Carter is a moron, ruined our economy, and had one of the lowest approval ratings of any president.
2) Last time I checked there’s atleast 2 parties for a reason.
3) I agree that it’s just political, but don’t act like Republicans wouldn’t use it as a political WMD in 4 years if his trillion dollar giveaway fails.
(which it logically will)

Posted by: chris | January 27, 2009, 11:21 am 11:21 am

BikernAz12……..Millions of Taxpayers didn’t vote for Obama, so what’s your point? If 1/2 the population doesn’t agree with “the one” just screw em? I’d expect something like that to come out of the mouth of a liberal.

Posted by: bho | January 27, 2009, 11:28 am 11:28 am

Increasing government spending does not improve the economy. Much of the programs Obama is going to increase spending on are matched programs between the federal government and the staes. State and federal taxes will have to go up if more money is to go to Medicaid, Medicare and public works – all of which are matched programs. This is what the prublic does not understand. It is simpy expanding welfare. The best way to steer the economy through these tough times is to keep taxes low and to WATCH SPENDING! The markets will emerge from this mess one day on their own.

Posted by: mm | January 27, 2009, 11:29 am 11:29 am

You libs keep drinking the Kool-Aid. See how far it gets you. All the way to the poor house, oh wait, never mind, you’re already on the welfare rolls, so I guess you don’t mind that our economy is tanking.

Posted by: bho | January 27, 2009, 11:30 am 11:30 am

When the government says that they are going to “spend money to create jobs” don’t believe them because it does not make sense. When a politician says that it simply means that they going to move money from one sector of the economy to another causing the sector that lost money to suffer. There is no net increase of jobs. In fact, they will be pay cuts and loss of jobs.

Posted by: mm | January 27, 2009, 11:32 am 11:32 am

Obama is making his mark. So let it be written, so let it be done.

Posted by: mojo | January 27, 2009, 11:35 am 11:35 am

I think it’ll all work out. Looks good so far.

Posted by: hey Scoob | January 27, 2009, 11:35 am 11:35 am

He doesn’t have to. George Bush rammed policy down congress for years. The give tax breaks to the rich and hope they are kind enough to trickle down a little money has been proved a huge failure. IT HAS NEVER WORKED!! The Republicans are digging in their heals on failed policy. Corporations will not hire any more people with the tax cuts and the small business Republicans say they are fighting for don’t cut employees because of taxes they cut them because of lack of consumers to buy their products. Tax cuts don’t have a big enough impact on small employers to entice them to hire more employees. That is an absolute fallacy. If a corporation or small business can perform the same work with a smaller workforce they will do it regardless of what they pay in taxes. If sales are high enough to require another body on the floor to build product another body is hired, its that simple. Taxes or no taxes!

Posted by: dan | January 27, 2009, 11:45 am 11:45 am

No Republican should participate in the destruction of our Democratic Republic. The Founding Fathers intended for government to have minimal influence over the private sector, what we are seeing now are Marxist ideas that don’t work and have no place in this country.

Posted by: Ron | January 27, 2009, 11:46 am 11:46 am

chris
Jimmy Carter was one of the best Presidents we ever had. I was stupid and voted for Ford the first time, but four years later I supported Carter when other lazy, disgruntled voters put Reagan in the White House. Carter was too good for us. He forsaw the need to get off oil, installed solar panels in the WH, which Reagan later removed, he crafted a peace agreement with Israel and the Palestinians which subsequent Presidents abandoned,to our detriment. Carter is one of the few Amewricans respected in the MiddleEast, he is a true Christian, fighting disease in Africa and homelessness in America. I just saw Carter last night on Jon Stewart, I strongly urge you to buy the episode on iTunes. If you want to see a living American hero: look at Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: Amy | January 27, 2009, 11:49 am 11:49 am

dan – The taxes that the small business or corporations pay is proportional to the gross income of the small business or corporation. If the small business or corporation grows significantly, extra workers will be needed. If the small business or corporation is then subjected to a higher government-imposed tax (already 35%), then workers will in fact, be laid off. Sorry. You are suffering from George W. Bush Dereangement Syndrome. The only – and only – way to grown the American economy is through the private sector and decreasing taxes. No matter how you spin it – it is the only way. For you to assume that tax rates have no impact on the hiring practices of businesses proves that your knowledge of basic economics is truly lacking. You obviosuly have never owned a business either.

Posted by: mm | January 27, 2009, 11:52 am 11:52 am

Biker; Feeling gnarly today? You keep ‘em honest. Some of them may not read sarcasm into your statement. Careful what you say lest you cross over to the dark side. I must work for my living so I can pay enough taxes to support the posters on here. Ya we got what the majority that voted wanted. Change we can believe in. Now let’s see how that works out. See ya later.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 27, 2009, 11:56 am 11:56 am

CNN just ran a bite on Obama getting on the phone with Republicans and mentioned that he also asked the Democrats to remove the contraceptive funding from the stimulus bill. I figure CNN won’t post my comment, so I’ll try here also.
Please write your representatives and let them know how you feel about this bill and the process.
I am about to send another letter urging my representatives to inform people that ACORN is also slated to receive money in this bill. How can a non-profit organization who uses volunteers be seen as stimulating the economy??
Please people – educate yourselves (on both sides!)

Posted by: scgirl | January 27, 2009, 11:58 am 11:58 am

I noticed that a lot of Republicans are getting antsy about this money. — Why is that? — They SHOULD be looking up the skirts of their wealthier brethren, many of whom have departed these shores, and taken up residence in far lands. — Why have they flown? — Perhaps some of our Republican friends should look into the laws passed in the last 8 years, and just how much money was LEGALLY ripped off of the American people, including themselves, thanks to the Bush Administration. — Are they concerned that they will not get EVERY dime and nickle out of EVERYONE’s pocket? — Seriously, just HOW stupid do you REALLY think we are? — Do something unique, and help this country instead of merely criticizing every move made by Democrats. — Start behaving like responsible adults, already. — This is becoming annoying.

Posted by: Marie Z | January 27, 2009, 12:00 pm 12:00 pm

Powerthirsty and running with it.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 27, 2009, 12:02 pm 12:02 pm

Why is it the Republicans haven’t come forth with a plan? As long as this mess has been in the making, at least the Democrat’s had a plan, in writing, ready to go on day one and already on the internet to be consumed and digested by the public. Where’s the Republican proposals? What’s worse, the Republican’s have had legislation in the wing’s since 1999 that would be the best thing that could happen to the economy, with strong and growing support from legislators, yet they have hardly uttered a peep. They should be on every talk show in the land promoting “The Fair Tax Act of 2009″. Folks, get on board with this legislation, read it, digest it, support it. Go to the website, http://www.fairtax.org. After reading it, begin e-mailing, phoning or writing your legislators urging them to support this legislation.

Posted by: devilkev | January 27, 2009, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm

what everyone is failing to realize is that its not all about if his plan would work or not, any big plans that one person tries to put in place is always a risk factor to think about.People thought that bush’s plan was the thing to go by,but you see where that has placed us.Any plan that at least starts a turn around from the direction that we were going is a good step lets start with the small crawling before we think about jogging (Rep) stop tripping listeaning to you all is the reason for this countries downfall

Posted by: jwilliams | January 27, 2009, 12:04 pm 12:04 pm

Marie Z – You are a partisan hack with no intelligence. The democrats stopped every single one of Bush candidates to the circut court for eight years. They went after him after he started to track the finances of terror organizations and they stopped him at every level when it came to monitoring the wehereabouts of those who have threatened the US. Go drink your Obama Kool Aid on some other board. You are a worthless pawn of the left wing.

Posted by: mm | January 27, 2009, 12:07 pm 12:07 pm

get rid of the earmarks!!
the latest ‘rescue’ package has BILLIONS going to ACORN? what the h*ll is that all about?
Obama is such a hypocrite!

Posted by: Matt- Illinois | January 27, 2009, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm

let me paint you all a picture if the richer countinues to get richer the middle class becomes poor and the poor becomes peasants then the rich will have a major problem.that would start a revolution between the poor peasants and the rich and so now everything that you would have worked for in the beggining would be irrelevant because now the poor has to make up some how for the losses and the only way to do that is by getting the rich. if everyone has a little something to call their own then there would be less of wanting what the next person has. (GREED)is the rule of all evil

Posted by: jwilliams | January 27, 2009, 12:17 pm 12:17 pm

NO EARMARKS OR IT SHOULD BE TOAST! DON’T PAY ANY TAXES – THEN YOU DON’T GET MONEY! IT SHOULD BE THAT SIMPLE!

Posted by: Willy | January 27, 2009, 12:17 pm 12:17 pm

After reading several articles and listening to some talking heads on cable I decided to go online (http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf) and see for myself how Congress and President Obama plan to rejuvenate our economy. After reading through the 647 page ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009’ two concerns sprang into my mind. Life experiences tell me to be aware of ‘pork’ and ‘pay to play’. Politicians have promised that there are no ‘earmarks’ in this $825 billion dollar plan. Instead of earmarks, this supplemental appropriations bill mandates the funds shall be distributed to State and Local governmental agencies through various federal grants. Therefore, ‘shovel ready’ construction projects, many with flaws, can quickly be funded in the name of expediency. Money and influence can determine who gets future grant funding. Fortunately, there are safe guards built in. I found them in Section 1109 under ‘PROHIBITED USES’ which proclaims, “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool.” I don’t know about you, but I will sleep soundly tonight knowing these 29 words will prevent possible abuses in an $825 billion dollar bill.

Posted by: Paul Warn | January 27, 2009, 12:20 pm 12:20 pm

There is nothing President Obama can do to please the GOP. Rush has already spoken for them. Yes, the leader of the Republican party is a druggie. The sad thing about this is they follow him.

Posted by: Tonya | January 27, 2009, 12:22 pm 12:22 pm

to marie z
you’re just a worthless on the right wing as i am to the left but i know one thing it’s going to change and then you would be even more worthless than you are now. see now we’re already starting on the wrong foot and we dont even know eachother thats the type of attitude comes from that otherside

Posted by: jwilliams | January 27, 2009, 12:24 pm 12:24 pm

the Democrats are using these ‘stimulus’ bills to pay back all of the lobbyists and special interest groups that helped get them elected.
it’s easy to cram in BILLIONS of earmarks in packages that end up costing us all a TRILLION.. and they know that if these items were brought up independently for review, that no rational person would vote in favor of them during this financial CRISIS.
Obama should stick to his promise, which was ‘NO EARMARKS’ in these bills. period.

Posted by: Matt- Illinois | January 27, 2009, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm

Tonya, are you daft? why would you want to bring up the fact that Rushbo abused pain killers? have you read Obama’s books? you do realize that the savior did his share of substance abusing, too, right?…pot, cocaine, etc.. oh, and HE’s the President. Rush is just a radio guy..big difference. personally, i don’t care. but i can’t believe how many libturds bring up Rush’s painkiller habit without thinking that Obama isn’t perfect, either.

Posted by: Matt- Illinois | January 27, 2009, 12:32 pm 12:32 pm

Rush is a fat pig bigmouth who can stoop so low as to lambast Michael J. Fox and make fun of his Parkinson’s Disease. Limbaugh is beneath contempt and his 15 minutes of fame are long since up.

Posted by: William J. LePetomane | January 27, 2009, 12:43 pm 12:43 pm

Amy
Geee, he sounds like a swell guy.
I notice you didn’t mention anything good he did for AMERICANS. Because it’s all hippy love fest b*llshit!Israelites and Palestinians have been murdering eachother for a couple millenia. Africa is an AIDS infested genocidal sh*thole(no offense to Africans, but they would gladly leave that continent to come here given the opportunity). And energy sources are determined by the free market! Greedy capatilsm which holds true to the predatory jugle we live in whether you wanna join me in reality or not. GET A CLUE! And BTW I will check that out but only because J.S. is a funny guy.

Posted by: chris | January 27, 2009, 12:44 pm 12:44 pm

Horrors! They say Obama drank beer before he was 21 also! Who cares what he did as a youth; many have that in their past. Limbaugh cannot blame his criminal abuse of Oxycondin on youth. He did it as a full-fleged (and full fleshed) adult.

Posted by: William J. LePetomane | January 27, 2009, 12:45 pm 12:45 pm

to compare Obama and Rushbo is just libturded. One of them is the President, the other one runs a radio show.. methinks you liberals are just a little bit too sensitive. it’s ok to get angry and blast away at the right..as long as people don’t say anything back, that might hurt your wittle feelings.

Posted by: Matt- Illinois | January 27, 2009, 12:50 pm 12:50 pm

devilkev; You’re overlooking what happened during the last administration. Bush took office with a high hopes agenda and broad voter support which increased after 9/11. Over the next seven years, while we formed and funded the Dept. of Homeland Security and two wars, all of which have improved our national security, Bush put his pet projects on hold because we couldn’t afford more government spending. How much more appropriate is it to now, during an economic crisis, and while we are still at war and while our present budget exceeds the government’s annual income, how much more appropriate is it now to back burner the pet projects until we have proven we can pay for them? Sometime somehow someway financial feasability and responsibility comes into play.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 27, 2009, 12:52 pm 12:52 pm

Amy, of course Carter is supported in the middle east, he supported land for peace deals which as history has demonstrated, have worked in anyone’s favor, but the Palestenians.

Posted by: TheLastGoodIdea | January 27, 2009, 1:21 pm 1:21 pm

Does he control his own party, or is he a mere puppet of Pelosi and Reid?

Posted by: Puppet | January 27, 2009, 1:25 pm 1:25 pm

“Does he control his own party, or is he a mere puppet of Pelosi and Reid?”
He’s President, not dictator. And this isn’t a $10M highway project, it’s an $825B economic stimulus package. It’s not a matter of calling the whip’s office and calling it a day.

Posted by: Silky | January 27, 2009, 2:00 pm 2:00 pm

President Obama has the votes to get this Stimulus passed as it is right now and still he is willing to reach out and listen to the Republicans.
I’d say he is the Bigger Man, and Republicans are pushing the envelope at the expense of the American people.
also,
it’s amusing to read comments that blame our current economic crisis on the Democratic Congress which held control for the last two years.
The effects of a problematic economy may have become “Obvious” over the last couple of years but, Democrats are not alone in putting the country’s economy at risk.
I am not an economist but, I do work with the root of the home building industry. I could see the problems long before the last couple of years. Outrageous, overblown housing prices, loans going to people that didn’t qualify and credit card debt of people living beyond their means.
On top of all that is a leadership that believed that the economy was fundamentally strong.
That all has been going on for awhile now folks… a lot longer than the last two years…
There are Democrats and Republicans with their hands filthy from that mess.

Posted by: braith morgan | January 27, 2009, 2:22 pm 2:22 pm

both sides will have to yield a little to win a little. i think Obama will be very willing to cut pork. but pork is on both sides. what is “an investment to my constituents” to one is “pork” to another. i think the most egregious parts of the bill will be removed and everyone will save face. these people are for the most part lawyers who can settle amicably. Obama is a good negotiator and i think he will push Pelosi on some of the ludicrous (to this democrat) parts of the bill.

Posted by: Paul Wall | January 27, 2009, 2:35 pm 2:35 pm

On my site, I wrote a piece laying out what is actually in the Obama Stimulus Plan and was surprised by what I found. The problem is going to be that people are going to want the magic fix that will transform the economy to what it was. We have to remember that anything done is going to take time.

Posted by: elementaryfinance | January 27, 2009, 3:26 pm 3:26 pm

Paul Wall; Got to admire your optimism. The bill will be pushed through as is. The Republicans will be made out to be the bad guys as usual. He doesn’t want bi-partisanship. He has an agenda, the House may be farther left than he would have hoped for but he’ll sign the bill. Don’t forget he wants it approved by President’s Day. No time for revision or discussion.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 27, 2009, 3:29 pm 3:29 pm

mmonroeliveson—and i admire your pessimism. i hope it’s not the case. Obama needs to save himself from a bill this big being forced down the House’s throat. are the republicans going to get a trickle down bill they want with tax breaks for the rich? not this time. but in this economy i don’t think Pelosi is going to get her’s either. Obama needs political capital and the respect of moderate republicans. and he can do that without including some of the more egregious spending in the bill as it is. Obama wasn’t elected by just liberals (like me), he was elected largely by the middle class moderates who want real results. if he is a moderate he will have two terms. if he forces this bill, one term barring miracles. i think he is aware the Haight Street did not elect him, main street did.

Posted by: Paul Wall | January 27, 2009, 3:41 pm 3:41 pm

mmonroeliveson [not in this person's body!-ed.] sez:
“I think the moral standards of Muslim nations are higher than ours.”
of course you do, honey. that’s obvious from your need to impose your morality onto those who disagree with it. why not put your money where your big mouth is and convert? better still, move to a muslim theocracy. then you can stay in the house all day, cooking and cleaning and keeping your trap shut while the men run everything. for a big treat, you can don a sweltering birka and let your man accompany you to the marketplace that some other fundamentalist nut might blow up at any moment.
sounds like a blast, you should excuse the expression.

Posted by: moiraregis | January 27, 2009, 4:12 pm 4:12 pm

President Barack Obama made a serious effort to “reach out” to the Republicans (re: the ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009’.) He’s
seeking Republican input and obviously hoping for some modicum of moderate Republican support. One (1) cannot but agree; the gesture was “very positive”, whether you believe it genuine or not.
In the aftermath of todays ‘political dance’ I am convinced the vast majority of the Congressional Republicans have Absolutely No Interest in Bi-Partisanship (being a “softie”) and would much prefer “playing the Obstructionist role” (being “tough guys ‘n gals.)
If I were to offer a political strategic plan, my suggestion would be for President Obama to take “one (1) more shot” at ‘offering an olive branch’ and if he’s spurned again, turnover the bi-partisanship effort to a couple of Moderate Democrats (a Congressman and a Senator.) When that doesn’t yield positive results turn it over to his Chief Of Staff Rahm Emannuel – and let that be it!
If the President “moves the ball in the right direction”, the majority of the Republicans will continue to despise him for winning the election. If he “moves the ball in the wrong direction”, the majority of the Republicans will continue to despise him simply because he’s a Democrat. And they will ridicule him as they attempt to win back the Executive Office in 2012.
The Republican Party is “between a rock and a hard place” today. Why would they want to participate in anything, to aid the New President in being successful? To Guarantee him a repeat win in 2012? I really don’t think they have the talent to “dance the dance of Bi-Partisanship for what’s good for the American People.”
I think the New President is talented, smart, genuine and comes with integrity and good intentions, but politics in our society is a “Highly Competitive Endeavor.” And it’s NOT suggested enterprise for the ‘faint of heart.’

Posted by: bobj72 | January 27, 2009, 8:35 pm 8:35 pm

i totally agree with karen,s post above!!!right on karen!!!well stated and absolutely true!!the republican party never did care for the middle class and most likely never will!i hope mr.obama,s programs will be successful and our economy will recover or show some positive signs of recovery by 2011.

Posted by: purpleskull7 | August 9, 2009, 2:05 am 2:05 am

Top

The Note, 1/27/09: Giving Season? Obama courts GOP — but compromise will mean pressing his own party

Related Videos

Leave a Reply