A Free Math Class for the Children's Table

Thank you, Al! The kids' table is a mess, and Obama must be thinking "This is why we can't have nice things."

Jane keeps returning to the scene of the crime. Earlier this week she highlighted those awful Udalls, as proof that dynasties suck. Now she's in a twist over blue-dog democrats, blithely ignoring her role in putting one in the Senate. But she once made a movie, and she's perky on cable!

Keep keepin' it real, Al. Obama's ground game is relentless and right out there for all to see. Not to disparage your political acumen, Al, but why doesn't anyone else get what he's doing? It's so blatant and tuned-in. The guy is a maestro.

How likely do you think it is for 60 votes to hold up on all of these different bills, if those opposed are made to publicly fillibuster each one for hours and hours on end? (As opposed to simply threatening to fillibuster).

Your smackdown today over at Great Orange Satan was a thing of beauty.

Booman Tribune is a must-read when it comes to understanding strategy in Congress. So far, besides the various groupings of moderate Republicans we have also in some cases seen the Republicans who serve on various committees voting with the majority on the issues or bills that come before their committees. This is so that they can wield some influence within the committee.

At least so far, it seems that individual Senators are more concerned with their own self-interest than that of their party, and that makes them amenable to various forms of persuasion from the White House. We'll see if this holds true for the stimulus bill.

And this looks likely to set the cat among the pigeons!

While I totally, 100%, agree with your assesment of the situation...you may have stretched the "kids table" bit just a tad too far.  Just saying --

But man, I'm craving some cookies and milk now.  Thanks a lot!

Once Franken is a Senator, to get anything passed in the Senate will require one, not two, Republican votes.  57 Dems, 2 Ind. + 1 Rep = 60.

Right now they need two Republicans, not three as your essay suggests.

Or possibily I'm misunderstanding something here.

JPM - You're right. It's that Lieberman factor that makes the math harder, but I'll adjust the text to fit that.

HuffPo is reporting that Obama is considering Judd Gregg for Commerce Secretary. This fits exactly into your narrative, Al. The kids' table will whine about another Republican in the Cabinet, unable to do the math on a filibuster-proof Senate.

From Gregg's point of view, it's gotta be a consideration. He can have much more impact in the Cabinet than in the Senate minority, and he won't have to worry about running for a seat that he might well lose. Obama can keep him on the reservation AND enjoy a smooth ride in the Senate.

But the kids' table will be in an uproar! Sippy drinks will fly!

Ah, good.  My degree in math finally pays off.  (-:

I suspect Obama will have at least as hard a time keeping Democrats in line as finding a single Republican to pick off.

But did not make it obvious!

Just to close the loop, here is BooMan's take on these very issues (and on Sirota).

I don't think they would be spreading the Gregg story if Gregg wasn't ready to jump ship, because otherwise it would become very difficult for him in the Senate. The New Hampshire governor could still mess things up by appointing a Republican but hopefully it would be someone who was so grateful they were a reliable Democratic vote anyway.

Now what will the pointless polarizers around the blogosphere say if Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) is tapped to be Commerce Secretary? Might the temperate tone of the last 10 days also have something to do with wooing Gregg to leave the GOP Senate minority, thereby giving the Dems the 60 votes that will make life just that much easier to pass some of the more difficult legislation (Health Care) Obama will want to push in the next year or two? I don't know much about Gregg from a policy perspective; I haven't a clue whether he would be a good Commerce Sec. But, it does seem that Obama has kept this cabinet position unfilled post Richardson's withdrawal for perhaps this most Machiavellian move. 

Obama is hitting all the right notes today: scolding Wall Street for its insane bonuses, signing the Lilly Leadbetter bill as his first bill, and reminding everyone that Pittsburgh Steelers' coach (Tomlin), owner (Rooney), and hall of fame star (Harris) all campaigned vigorously for him! What a truly populist hat-trick. (Sadly, I suspect some of the blogosphere's most strident pundits would feel equally uncomfortable if they had to seriously engage with the language of class-critique, the idea of gender-equality, or the phenomenon of sports enthusiasm.)  That Obama wins this curious trifecta is all the more exciting.

I have long viewed Sirota as a boorish, self-important, self-chosen deciderer of all things and people liberal.   Using him as an example of one of the bad actors at the kids' table is a little bit o' genius, Al.  Thanks for that.

And your point on the math is correct.  Also.

Anyone who can -- with a single appointment -- dim the screechings from Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Jane Hamsher, and David Sirota, is not just a political genius but is owed a deep debt of gratitude by all Americans who listen to our national debate.

Blackboard: 4. Chalk: 0.

Not for the first time, I agree 100% with your analysis, Al. I think Obama is playing an exceedingly smart game and while the House Repubs may never come over, I think he has a fair shot with more moderate Republicans, and of course, more complications with the Democrats.

To my mind, Obama loses *nothing* by acting as he has done with the stimulus bill - he emphasises the fact that he believes in the checks and balances system by elevating Congress's role; he walks the walk when it comes to "reaching across the aisle"; and, as you and Nate Silver put it, effectively turns the Republicans into the party of No. What's the downside?

The proof is in the impact it is having on the outside. My husband, bless his cotton socks, is not a political hound in the slightest, but after watching the coverage here in Australia of how the votes went down, he commented, "Man, Obama is playing chess while the opposition is playing checkers."

Snowe and Collins, at least as quoted in the Maine papers I read, are sounding very supportive of the stimulus bill.

Actually, they do have criticisms -- They want more money in the bill for infrastructure, aid to states and for extended unemployment insurance.

In other words, their criticisms are the sorts of criticisms one might expect from Democrats.

You can't count on Collins to come through. She likes to talk more moderate than she votes. But I would be very, very surprised if Snowe ended up a no vote on it.

Oh, and Mainers absolutely adore it when people sound reasonable and want to sit down and talk with people. There's also a populist streak and, oh my, those comments on the bonuses on Wall Street just hit that sweet spot.  And so, while there aren't any polls out on Obama's approval rating in Maine, it's got to be quite high.

I called today to urge both Senators to support the stimulus bill.  Snowe's staff person replied that Olympia is still in the comments phase and has not stated her position yet.  Collins' staff person gave me a conviluted answer about this not being the "final version"  blah, blah, blah.

I am more optimistic about our chances with Snowe, but Collins is feeling pretty confident after her reelection.  She is also a classic rail hanger---she waits in the back to count the votes and if her vote won't make a difference she'll vote with the Dems (this is how she earns her moderate reputation).  Except for reproductive rights and the environment, she is a pretty safe vote for the Republicans--when the vote is close.

I doubt that either Collins or Snowe would filibuster--or even threaten to.  Obama's margin of victory was much too high for them to risk it.  Besides, our roads are crumbling and we are desperate for jobs.

In terms of Obama's strategy, he has clearly presented himself as the respectful adult, deeply aware of the hardships we are facing, willing to compromise, determined to put politics aside for the good of the people.  He may end up with a better package coming out of committee because of the Republican House 0 vote theatrics, and now Gibbs has said that information about the number of jobs created per district as a result of the stimulus package will be distributed in each district where Reps voted no.  Oh and an aide made it very clear that those who vote no from Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will be contested (read millions of highly effective Obama campaigners calling for change will be unleashed upon them).

I know that we are already organizing here on EFCA and it is coming together nicely.

I've been noticing that as well, where Repubs are whining that there isn't enough spending on public works projects.  There's substantial poutrage in the Repub ranks about it.

What's weird is that they don't even seem to realize the 180 they're turning.  When talking to a business associate today, who I usually don't even bother talking politics with because of his strident Limbaugh-istic blather, he starts complaining about how the stimulus (which he proudly claimed to have read) doesn't have enough for "sustainable jobs" and "infrastructure."  My instinct was to say, "well, that's what us Liberals have always been pushing for, ya maroon," but following the Obama/Giordano lead, I was able to keep my mouth shut and nod in agreement to everything he was saying.  I ended it with a, "Damn right.  What the hell is Obama thinking not putting more money into the working class!"  Walked away half expecting to see Rod Serling walk around the corner and tell me, "This...is the Twilight Zone."

If we continue to have traditional Repub voters pushing Obama to get more Liberal, we're in a very good good place, and Obama has been Prez for less than two weeks.  Astounding.  I've decided I need to learn to how to play chess....immediately.

Interestingly, Chuck Grassley, whose office, and investigators, I've dealt with on whistleblower issues in the past and have found to be actually more progressive than most in Congress on those issues -- though always poltical -- was interviewed on NPR today predicting the stimulous package would pass (translanted; he'll vote for it).

But the caviet was that he wants a separation of the short-term money from the long-term money -- meaning money in the bill that will be spent this year or next gets a pass, but appropriations beyond that, or that seem prolonged to assure their existence absent future congressional review, well, that will be a sticking point.

So, if this bill is to pass with the likes of Grassley, it will have to be carved up a bit, it seems to me, or at least provisioned more so, that the first batch of money in the first two years that is clearly going to the streets is cleared; the argument after that, which seems to be addressable, is how to set up congressional clearance points.

This makes sense if you're a Republican, betting on taking back the government, because it gives you a crack in the future at rolling back what you don't like. It's kind of like what the Dem.'s achived with the rich man's tax cut, a sunset provision.

So as a betting man, and knowing how life works over the past 50 years, I suspect a few sunsets will put the sunshine on this bill. Then it's up to Obama and the Democrats, if they want to assure the balance of the package, to get re-elected.

That's politics in America as I see it.

The Senate just passed SCHIP with all Democrats and nine Republicans. Once we get a look at the list of those nine, we'll have a better sense of who we have to work with.

Snowe and Collins were at the White House for the signing of the Lily Ledbetter Act. A nice sign for bringing them into the fold.

All I've wanted, these past 8 years, is straight up debate.  This is what Obama and the democrats deliver.  Amen.  This is as good as it's going to get, and it's pretty good. 

Sirota, et al, seem to feel entitled to some reciprocal Democratic hegemony: as though the last 8 years of lock-step, rubber-stamp Republican amen-choir  was not an outlier but the desired norm.  Now that we've defeated the GOP, the entitlement goes, we Dems get to play fiat and decree... 

The democrats are fractious, contentious and often disagree and are, more often, disagreeable.  Before Ronald Reagan made loyalty a commandment the Republicans were too... in fact, for most of the life of the republic, whatever majority power existed had to fight for each and every vote.  We are now returning to more normal modes.   I am pleased more than I can say, right now, at the entirely democratic Democrats.  Sure, if I were King and got to dictate the shape of the stimulus package,  it sure wouldn't look like this. But I'm not King. I'm an adult in a democratic republic and I accept the process, and it's outcome, willingly.   David Sirota still has some growing up to do... 

It seems to me that Rachel Maddow has also been regressing to the children's table, this after years of good work at Air America.  She's had Sirota on as a guest, and has been playing the "Obama's doing it wrong" "Obama's not progressive enough" tune rather loudly of late.

I made the mistake of venturing over to Salon.com today... argh! I avoided it like the plague at a certain point during the primaries, because it was populated primarily by Hillary dead-enders.

Looks like they're still kicking around, waiting for a reason to scream that Obama is a failure and a phoney, because in his first week in his office he - gasp - attempted to appear bipartisan. Man, that guy Greenwald, what is his problem sometimes? It would kill him to give Obama any credit. I loved that day when you smacked him around a few months ago, Al.

There's a billion pages of comments on his article on "post-partisanship" today, all screaming because Obama has failed to sufficiently satisfy their lust for GOP hide. Only a few people can muster any defense of Obama (hey, it's not like he achieved any progressive goals this week), and Greenwald's response to one such person, who defended Obama's political acumen, kills me:

"I don't really quite understand when people say this.

I agree that Obama is an excellent politician, maybe the most skillful American politician in decades. Beating the Clintons isn't easy. And becoming the first African-American President obviously takes massive political talent.

But it was conventional wisdom for two years that whoever got the Democratic nomination would almost automatically win. It was a Democratic year from the start. Many people thought the election was un-loseable for Democrats. He was running against a GOP that, long before Obama, was as collapsed and discredited as a party can be.

Obama ran against an old, politically stiff Senator and a running mate who became a national joke. Even then, it took a financial meltdown for him to really pull ahead.

As I said, Obama's political skills aren't in doubt. But this notion that he's proven himself to be some sort of master political operator is quite overstated in my view."

-- GlennGreenwald

Britta - Where you say "aarrrgghh," I'm entertained. The guy may be good in some areas of policy, but he doesn't seem to grasp politics very well, or the magnitude of what has happened.

One thing that's been so annoying with Reid's management since election 2006 is that on critical issues all the Republicans had to do was "threaten" a filibuster.  He never made them actually go through the bad press of reading phone books for several days. I believe Nate Silver once commented that it's never a good idea to pick congressional leaders from swing states.  Although California is certainly not a swing state and Nancy Pelosi ("Impeachment is off the table.") was also disappointing after the Democrats clearly won an anti-war mandate in 2006.  I felt deeply betrayed by congressional Democrats after the 2006 election.

Watching the machinations to get various Republican senators to vote with the Democrats is highly entertaining. I agree with Al's serious point in this post, but so far there hasn't been a lot of suspense in it.

It is also very educational.

I think there's a difference between Republicans "supporting" a bill and not filibustering it.  They can vote for cloture -- or even decide not have a filibuster -- even if they don't vote for the bill itself.  For example, the horrendously partisan Bill Clinton passed his first budget, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993, without a single Republican vote, even though the Democrats did not have 60 Senate votes.

At issue is whether making lots of concessions to House Republicans was a wise move since those concessions produced no Republican House votes.  As for what happens in the Senate, is Sirota actually saying that Democrats shouldn't do what it takes to get the votes to invoke cloture? Based on what I've read of his writing (and I'm not a big Sirota fan) I haven't seen him advocate something that silly.

You point to the Senate vote on SCHIP as a way to show that a bi-partisan approach can work in the Senate.  Nobody says it can't on some issues.  My point is that it depends on the issue.  The fact is that 40 House Republicans voted for SCHIP, yet not one voted for the stimulous package, do it's not surprising that nine Republican Senators voted for SCHIP. (And WTF happened to Kennedy's pal Orrin Hatch on that one?  He supported it last year.)

We'll soon see how united Senate Republicans are on issues their constituency -- extreme wealth and corporate power -- has a bigger stake in. The first real test of that will be when the Senate vote on the stimulous package comes up.  For House Republicans it was a free vote.  They knew it would pass no matter what.  But in the Senate, Republicans are under tremendous pressure not to be seen as obstructing something that will produce jobs.  Enough of them are likely to at least vote to invoke cloture, just as they did wrt Clinton's first budget.  Once again, the issue is how bad and ineffective does Obama have to make the stimulous bill in order to get enough Republican Senate votes to invoke cloture?  My guess -- given how much money Republican-supporting businesses are going to make off the deal and how much pressure is already out there -- is not much.

The EFCA is another matter all together.  The Chamber of Commerce and all of the rest of big business, from the B of A to Home Despot have been organizing hard to defeat EFCA.  I think it likely the Republicans will be more united on that one than on SCHIP.  I'm not convinced that making concessions on the stimulous package -- something Senate Republicans would have serious trouble defeating cloture on -- will do anything at all to bring enough Republicans around to help invoke cloture when EFCA comes up.

For Republicans, making it easier for workers to unionize is like gutting Social Security is to Democrats.

I can hardly believe my eyes - two Senators from Tennessee did the right thing!

Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Susan Collins (Maine), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), Richard Lugar (Ind.), Mel Martinez (Fla.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Arlen Specter (Pa.).

That IS odd. Maybe Republicans in the Blue leaning states will vote with their contituents, and deep red state Republicans feel so safe that they can vote with their conscience. 538 has a nice visualization of votes so far so I'll be looking out for this dynamic.

Granted that Sirota et al are quite irritating to listen to, I still wonder whether they might help shape the narrative in any favorable way.

It seems that the whining about post-partisanship would help reinforce Obama's image as, well, post-partisan.  And since the public at large presumably likes such an image, maybe the whining is for the best?

Jim - I don't think the Knights of the Children's Table are relevant enough to be shaping any narrative. Sure, they're useful in the sense that I found them useful as Mrs. Teasedales in my essay above; as a foil to show "how not to do it."

But in the end I think the US left has had 40 years of such whining and nail-biting as its dominant tendency - which is why the US left has failed to grow into what would be considered a "movement" in any other country. The bigger challenge right now is to re-arm the grassroots with a more clear-headed way to view the realities and act upon them not as lame "activists" but as organizers. The beautiful losers are more of a distraction than anything helpful to any narrative. They are like the proverbial fireman who goes out and commits arson to justify his job but only ends up demonstrating that he's the very problem he claims to be fighting (in this case, they're acting, well, like the man they say they hate most: George W. Bush).

SCHIP.  Thank God.  Let the kiddies mess up their table as much as they want to. SCHIP!  Thank God!

Al, thank you.

Here's two pictures that absolutely scream CHANGE.

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/01/29/a-story-in-pictures/
Note that the second one has Olympia Snowe in there as part of the crew. Collins was also at the event but was out of that shot.

Having supportive Republicans to the signing ceremony (one at which everyone appeared to be having a wonderful time) is an excellent way to reach out and build alliances.

I remember reading about how, when he was in the IL Senate, Obama would have poker parties with plenty of Republicans. I mentioned that to a friend who has numerous relatives who have served in state government and she said quickly said that this was hugely important because building relationships is critical to policy success. Sometimes folks forget - or never learned that.

On Maddow-- As much as I like her show, she has been, and remains a "chicken little". On her AAR show, her Guru, David Bender is trying to school her much as All does here. The beauty of Obama is that he lets people see what they want to see, but that allows him to control the action.

On cloture-- I don't worry much about Democratic strays. A Ben Nelson, for example, can vote for cloture and then vote against final passage of a bill he knows will pass anyway. He simply separates procedure from actual legislation. Big majorities, if played correctly, give cover to Democrats in reddish areas.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/30/samantha-power-returns-pr_n_162452.html

amk

...then just wait until Obama rewards some of his more reliable republican supporters by either (a) explicitly supporting them for reelection or (b) not supporting their Democratic opponents...

* I'm not too pleased with the negative connotations of "children," though I do understand how it's fun to denigrate some of these folks. Remember, after decades of being played for a sucker it's hard for many to realize what Obama's role is here -- they're still looking for that bloodied-but-noble guy with the square jaw at the front of the phalange who will take care of everything for us. It's a complete paradigm shift for them to understand that Obama won't do anything for us, that, at best, he will do what we make room for him to do.

Ironically, in today's column Sirota quotes FDR: " I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." As Al has written, that's the model to use. Unless we make room for good ideas, Obama will have no chance. If we do, though, watch out!

Sirota sure gets around.  He was on Warren Olney's show today  - along with a host of others.  It was a good discussion overall although Sirota did continue to indicate that  "it's pointless to negotiate with terrorists."  That's just not helpful.  I fully agree with the comment above about the goal being real debate.  What a welcome treat that would be if we can really get there....you have to start somewhere.

On that note, I've heard two conservative think tank types on the radio in the last two days quoting the 35% corporate tax rate in the US...the second highest in the developed world.   I'm sure they are all over cable news as well but I don't watch.  I think corporate tax structure is a worthy debate to have but how disingenous is it to quote the 35% without indicating that the actual rate after deductions and loopholes is FAR less?  I mean, how do you have an honest debate with someone who distorts the basic facts?  What's worse is that in both cases I heard on the radio, nobody countered the point.  And really worse was when Ron Reagan, not the sharpest tool in the shed, said, "Really?  Hmmm."  And the conservative think tank dude said, "Oh yeah, it's true."  Anyone with their own radio show, should know better.  I'll forgive Warren Olney as he's just a moderator.

Kaleidoscope asked:
<blockquote>The EFCA is another matter all together.  The Chamber of Commerce and all of the rest of big business, from the B of A to Home Despot have been organizing hard to defeat EFCA.  I think it likely the Republicans will be more united on that one than on SCHIP.  I'm not convinced that making concessions on the stimulous package -- something Senate Republicans would have serious trouble defeating cloture on -- will do anything at all to bring enough Republicans around to help invoke cloture when EFCA comes up.</blockquote>
I think that's an excellent question.
Al, your thoughts?
 
p.s. If the blockquote thing didn't work, can someone please tell me how to make it work?

Russell - I think there are various Republican Senators who can be picked off to vote for cloture on EFCA even if they will then vote against it in the up-or-down vote. In addition to Specter (who voted for EFCA before), there are Snowe and Collins of Maine, there are lame ducks Voinovich and Martinez, and there are yet others who no doubt have important priorities for their states and may be willing to "play ball" by trading that vote for something they want more. The trick is to keep the channels of communication open, respectful and not polarized. I don't think it will be as easy for the GOP leadership to make every single member vote against cloture as some others seem to think. (And there may, conversely, be some Democrats that stray on that one, too. Keeping Pryor, Lincoln, Warner and some others in line will, I think, prove more difficult than drawing over some Republicans.

As for "blockquotes" click, below the comment box, "Turn off style tools," then add the code for blockquotes, then click "Turn on style tools" and, voila!, there you go.

So, essentially the bar to get things passed (assuming no significant defections by Dems, the Liebster, etc) is a bit lower: Obama just has to convince enough moderate/open-minded Republican senators not to block him procedurally (i.e., by opposing cloture votes) even though they can then vote against bills their leadership opposes.  That the gist?

At some point, though, will the Republican leadership find a way to whip them into opposing cloture (EFCA sounds like one of those potential times)?

And what's the strategy Obama needs to pursue in the House vis-a-vis Republicans?  Or does it really only matter in the Senate because of the ability to filibuster there (can Congresspeople filibuster?)?

Lastly, here's a...

...test.

Woot!  Mahalo, Al.

You have it exactly right, Russell.