Politics Is the Art of the Possible

in the senate....

Do they think they will be in the majority for ever?????

and still...the geniuses on dKos who want the president to go crazy on the republicans ass...can't explain to anybody how to get 60 vote

the amount of shortsightedness I have witnessed in the past days is tragically sad.

Very inspiring. Thank you so much for posting it.

Palgirl - Let's not worry too much about the anti-bipartisanship faction. There's a difference, I think, between speaking truth to inanity and allowing the inane to get under our skins.

First, that faction is measurably shrinking around the watercooler that you mention. (Case in point: that crazy lady from Texas has a diary up there equating bipartisanship with "insanity" and it's getting only a trickle of recommendations whereas my little salvo yesterday was recced to the top list all day and half the night - we're winning the battle for hearts and minds).

Second, is that we don't want to become toward them as they are toward us. That's how they're losing ground.

So, by all means challenge errant claims, laugh at them, mock them, even, and always speak the truth to their fictions, but we have to begin to shift from thinking we're the smaller group to being, well, what we cheer in terms of tone-setting on the national level. That's how we win.

The hilarious thing is that the nuclear option is irrelevant when it comes to the stimulus bill. Under the Budget Act, Republicans are legally entitled to require a 3/5ths vote to pass any bill that introduces deficit spending. The nuclear option would reduce the cloture requirement, but you'd still need 60 votes to pass the bill.

Long story short: the Strangeloves are only underlining how little they know about the legislative process.

Thank you, Al.  For this inspiring, inspiring video.  Hope this one goes viral.

Especially thank you for your response to Pal Girl - I know how she feels, and it seems like  another good lesson in learning about winning.

In all the discussion about the politics of the stimulus, too much of which is extremely limited hindsight ("if Obama had done x, then y"), no one speaks of the simple fact that 60 votes are needed. How are you supposed to get 3-5 Republicans to go against their party, even if in doing so they are merely acknowledging the reality of a round earth? The economists mock all sides for not understanding the severity of the crisis. Great. But as George Will said this morning, "how can you ask Republicans to no longer be Republicans?" (or something to that effect). This is precisely why the strategy needs to be (and surely is)... well, strategic as opposed to being tactical. Nobody is under the illusion that this legislation is more than a thumb in the dike, least of all people (like all the adjuncts I work with) who have made it this far but will most likely be losing their jobs in the next months. And, over time, the America-haters in the Republican ranks (as well as some Dems) will be isolated, targeted, and confronted. 

All that said, I am very excited to see President Obama channel candidate Obama as he steps out in these townhalls this week. These events will surely take up a lot of media oxygen.

With respect to the stimulus plan, there is a mounting pressure on supply-side Republicans, and Blue Dog Democrats, that I expect will soon force them to find some common ground with Obama. Just imagine the chaos that will be created nationwide when hundreds of thousands of families [children included] are forced into the streets — pictured on TVs across the land standing in bread lines or running from stores after stealing bread, just to survive one more day.

The clock on that day arriving, a flashback to the 1930s, is ticking down with each day they hold up the stimulus, as this news report from Wisconsin makes clear:

ANESVILLE (WKOW) -- Wisconsin's Workforce Development Secretary told 27 News that officials have formally asked the federal government to bailout the state's nearly depleted unemployment insurance compensation fund.

Sec. Roberta Gassman said federal officials are being asked to loan Wisconsin approximately $400 million so the state can keep paying unemployment insurance benefits for the next few months.

Gassman said the last time such borrowing was necessary was two decades ago. Several other states have turned to borrowing from the federal government to handle increasing claims on unemployment insurance. ...

There will be a bill soon, despite the chicken-littling. Because if there's not, the holes in the dike will eventually expand into major cracks that cannot be plugged by short-term borrowing — and for many thousands of the constituents of these obstructionist Senators, the sky will, in fact, begin to fall.

I keep reading these stories about what Obama has to learn about being president, and I wonder instead: When will the news media learn?

These are the same "pundits," after all, who spent the entire primary and then the general election explaining why Obama just didn't understand how to run a campaign, how he was going to get swamped by Clinton and then by McCain, and why he had to change his tactics.

These are the same "pundits" who wailed about how Obama was losing the daily news cycle, not understanding that Obama didn't care about the daily news cycle, that his plan was thinking three or four steps ahead of that.

These are the same "pundits," in other words, who were comically wrong, who underestimated Obama. And yet, they continue plowing ahead in their ignorance, insisting that the only way to do things is to be a slavish adherent to the way things work in Washington.

What is it about "change" that they don't understand?

When you get done with all the nit-picking and crying, the fact will remain that Obama came into office and within a month passed the most massive economic stimulus package ever. When history is written, it won't care whether there were two or 20 Republican votes. It will only care whether the measure worked.

Those are exactly my thoughts. The Chicken Littles are trying desperately to raise the specter of a 2010 Republican resurgence unless the stimulus bill has 'X' amount of spending. Of course, it's not clear how their fearmongering is supposed to accomplish anything, but it sure helps them get attention.

My view is that economic decline is inherently harmful to Republicans, regardless of who is in the White House. The more things decline, the more people will clamor for government intervention. We saw this in 1934. FDR's hundred days, as radical as they were, did little to immediately relieve the Great Depression. However, that didnt mean there was a Republican arrival in his first mid-term election. On the contrary, the people looked at the benefits it did provide and gave him an even greater mandate.

Despite the howling about how the stimulus is "ineffective" and "useless," the fact of the matter is that it will create jobs. It will likely not be enough to turn the economy around, but Obama will have results to point to and say, "This worked. We tested. Now, we need to do more."

Now, it's tragic that we may have to wait until 2011 to really get the economy back on track, but those insisting that a less-than-optimal stimulus will destroy the Democrats are tipping their hand. They don't have solutions to offer, just the same kind of panic we saw during the election.

This video is very inspirational but I also think, with the uptick in hate group participation (see http://www.splcenter.org ), that this man should watch his back as he will be seen by some as the biggest traiter ever.

Off topic:

Does anyone know offhand when the method of calculating unemployment was changed and where I can find specific information about how and why it was changed?

Thanks

Thanks for sharing that, Al!

As for the talk about the stimulus bill...sigh. Congress needs to do something already. I'm not in the same pinch that others are in yet--I'm in healthcare, so demand for our services is going up, not down--but I feel its effects. And the more people who get laid off, the harder it will be on everyone.

I don't know if the obstructionists see the forest, but I do. Should that one burning tree not be put out soon, the rest of the forest will burn down. They are busy sitting on their hands, hoping that that tree will burn out and that the fire will not spread to others, but it already has. For the life of me, I don't understand this practice of putting ideology before country.

And yes, the chattering villagers always read Obama wrong. That unfortunately includes several within the supposedly progressive blogosphere. That's not to say that the man can't be wrong, but you would think that people would learn to let things shake out before drawing conclusions.

One of the dKos front page authors wrote about the unemployment rate here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/6/03458/6639.  The story says the method of calculating the employment rate was changed in 1994.  Perhaps this will give you some leads toward additional research.

There are at least 36 Republican senators who seem willing to do whatever they can to obstruct the stimulus, and who should be handled as Al said earlier about the House Republicans. To the people who say "Make them filibuster", I say that these 36 Republican senators will be very willing to filibuster and they do not care about public opinion. My mind boggles at how long 36 senators can talk!

And meanwhile, the Senate is unable to do any other business while this is going on. Don't play chicken with someone who wants to do it. IMHO, making the Republicans filibuster would play right into their hands.

The other thing I don't get is the "Restore the House bill in conference". Whatever comes out of conference has to be passed by the same Senate that forced the compromise in the first place and as Brendan notes, 60 votes are still needed. I am still waiting for any of these people to explain how they plan to get 60 votes for their perfect stimulus bill when they need at least three Republicans to achieve that.

Poutrage may feel good but at the end of the day it hasn't achieved anything and the problems still remain.

Is anyone else having trouble with the sound on the video? Volume is on and I've checked and the mute is off.

And since this is an open thread...

I am so tired of people complaining about Obama not making progress. I understand this is an expression of many things we're all feeling; frustration that the situation is as challenging as it is, frustration with our elected officials and the powers that be in general, people in power not wanting to lose it, people who lost power being angry, fear (lots of fear and anxiety).... But, the man has only been President for three weeks! He's done a tremendous amount in such a short time. What he walked into is a crisis of the magnitude few Presidents have had to grapple with in their first weeks of office.

MaryA: This may not address your question with respect to the unemployment rate calculation, but I do know now it is based on a Bureau of Labor Statistics survey that is an estimate -- and so has a margin of error up and down. It also is adjusted annually based on a benchmarking formula. If you want to wade through the process, which is quite thick, this link offers an overview.

And this link takes you to the latest BLS unemployment report, which puts the January national unemployment rate at 7.6 percent, based on the core formula.

From the most current BLS report:

Both the number of unemployed persons (11.6 million) and the unemployment rate (7.6 percent) rose in January [2009]. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 4.1 million and the unemployment rate has risen by 2.7 percentage points. 

The unemployment rate continued to trend upward in January for adult men (7.6 percent), adult women (6.2 percent), whites (6.9 percent), blacks (12.6 percent), and Hispanics (9.7 percent). The jobless rate for teenagers was unchanged at 20.8 percent. The unemployment rate for Asians was 6.2 percent in January, not seasonally adjusted.

So, as you can see, another factor that makes the obstructionist in the stimulus battle look very bad is that like all recessions prior to this, the rising unemployment rate disproportionately affects minorities, despite all the talk of a post-racial America. That means a boiling point will be reached in those communities far faster. 

And when you factor in what the BLS calls alternative measures of labor underutlization, which is defined as "total employed part time for economic reasons and marginally attached [currently unemployed who have given up on looking for work]" the unemployment rate jumps to a remarkable 13.9 percent for January 2009, up from a 9.9 percent rate a year earlier.

So I wouldn't be surprised to find, based on that broader calculation, that the actual unemployment rate among the Hispanic and African American communities is already well past 20 percent.

It's a ticking time bomb that a wise politician would do well to attempt to defuse quickly.

One thing that I think seems to be flying over the heads of some of the folks in the netroots is that by making compromises on this one bill to attract republican votes, it seems very likely that people like Sen. Specter and Collins will be onboard for any further recovery plans. I believe that their political futures are now tied to the recovery of the economy.

(you know me by now), I'm just genuinely befuddled and curious to get your take on things: how much do you understand about  the U.S.'s current financial situation?  Because personally I'm having a hard time understanding what we're fighting for here.  I get that we need to get a stimulus passed. And time is of the essence. But ARE the tax cut concessions just screwing us over, rendering the whole thing inadequate anyway?

I'm having a hard time sorting through the mess, and then I read economists such as Krugman who sees doom and gloom with the current tax cut/spending ratios.

And then, I'm disappointed when I see things like Head Start getting slashed, but did Head Start belong in a Stimulus anyway? Can't that still be passed separately?

I'm quite curious for this prime time press conference, as to whether it will help us all sort some of this out. Anyway, any help/analogies/insight you have to offer in the meantime would be greatly appreciated.

My husband and I attended an Economic Recovery meeting in St. Louis, MO. People are suffering, some more than others.

The most important element for me was the interest in upcoming Aldermanic races.  The host was so excited to support her candidate, going so far as to have flyers with an invitation to meet the candidate today at an event. They are fundraising and working to unseat an incumbent.  

I e-mailed folks from my Ward that I have worked with via the Obama campaign, concerning an upcoming candidate forum this week.  7 people are running in the primary.  I'm sure I'll know who I want to support after this forum.  I hope some of the folks from the campaign, my neighbors, will attend.

That's it.  Looking forward to Obama's speech tomorrow.

Thanks for the "Art of the Possible", Al. 

It's why I do what I do. It is possible to change the darkest heart, I really believe that.  That's more than changing the tone--it's changing what we are deep within, where we really live, an essential transformation.

There really is hope.

Thanks, Al.

Thanks so much!

I just realized that off topic is the same abbreviation as open thread. :) 

Al, this little video and watching the interview on "60 Minutes" of the U.S. Airways crew both brought me to tears tonight. What wonderful stories both of them and the reconciliation that Obama's presidency has brought into so many lives.  In Chicago I get this sense in my daily routing - riding the El, in my work and travel and shopping, etc. that my daily interactions with African Americans are so much more pleasant and kind. It's just an unspoken calm and pleasant atmosphere - an atmosphere that you didn't know wasn't there until you felt it was there.  I have to wonder if respect and kindness among strangers is more potent and more beautiful than love among friends.  Certainly the U.S. Airways and the KKK man apologizing to Rep. Lewis demonstrates the power of respect and kindness.

Other than that, I have been avoiding all politics again on TV like I did during the late primary and GE because I am so sick of the media trying to gin up a story about Obama failing.  And the useless Democrats (90% of them anyway) - they remind me of their "support" back during the primary for Obama - both after he did the race relations "Imperfect Union" speech as well as when he had the delegate count and only needed their undecided "Super" endorsement.  Back then of course, other than a small handfull, they all sat on their hands for a good two months unnecessarily creating the Hillary side show and draining funds from all of us having to help Obama's campaign --well past the date that he actually had the nomination.  Man, was that infuriating.  And now the same Democrats today are making Obama do all the work on the Stimulus Bill while they either sit on their hands or wring them. I mean, seriously - the Republicans are out there all but saying the world is flat and these useless Democrats are muttering out loud "well it wasn't flat when Bush was in office so I would have to question my colleague's statement but if it is flat we will work with them to round it out." blah blah blah. Useless and embarrassing.  

And I wish someone would go off the PC train and tell the political novices such as myself what is the DEAL with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?  Are we stuck with them as majority "leaders" for as long as they are elected officials?  Or is there some term limit to this hell we are in?  I mean, how DO they manage to get elected?? Do they have any honest convictions about anything? I don't think so. I get annoyed just looking at them when I have the tv on mute.   I swear, if the Republicans feel about those two the same way I feel about John Boehner then expecting any Republican votes for Obama for the next 8 years is not living in reality. 

Al, to end on a more positive note, would it be possible for you to catalog all of the Obama administration's accomplishments in the first 30 days in one of your posts?  I saw that someone did it on DKos but it wasn't entirely complete.  And rather than just list them perhaps provide a quick summary of tangible benefits (as only you can do!) 

Man,

I can't see the video.  For the past week, I haven't been able to watch some videos on youtube.  Is anyone else having this problem? Or do I have to change my settings or something???

I think the hardest part of our meeting on the stimulus was figuring out just how to explain it to others without many exact details of what it would mean for our state. The legislation is still morphing, and while it's true that Colorado certainly needs any federal assistance it can possibly get, what it will exactly mean for job creation here—and more importantly, where those jobs will be—makes describing it somewhat difficult.

Still, on local issues there was agreement that members would do research (numbers) on what the state's job outlook actually is like in our area, sending hand-written thank you notes to the Senate Republicans that are reaching across partisan lines, coming up with ways to help unemployed community members find jobs and places to stay, and some poor scribe has even offered to consolidate a list of info all about the state legislature/city council, tracking pertinent legislation, knowing helpful lawmakers and testifying during committee meetings. There were both quite a few attendees involved with the presidential campaign and a few who were involved for the first time.

Iamh32 - Try, A. clearing your "chache" on your browser, B. restarting your browser.

If that doesn't work, write to webmaster@narconews.com. But I bet that works.

AL's take would be insightful! You can keep up with what the president is doing on the White House site. Under the Briefing Room pull down tab is a list. It also includes complete press conference transcripts - Gibbs is often a hoot.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/2/8/101115/4015/47#c47

Is such a dare - of asking the people who created the financial mess to clean up - possible ?

amk

I do appreciate the confidence and optimism here.

It seems to me that a lot of very wealthy man are taking a hopeful stab at fixing the economy without making any fundamental changes to the power structure they all benefit from. Its bipartisan. Would any normal citizen really prefer a tax cut to universal health care? This week's journal with Bill Moyer had a great segment about how most journalists also benefit from this power structure and have praised Obama the most when he doesn't threaten it.

One main thing that is different from the Great Depression is globalization. In the thirties, America was a tight boat. Most all the money put into circulation stayed here. Nowadays the money leaks away to China and European utility owners and India and Mexico- yes they need it too, but it won't reverberate and keep on giving here at home.

Another thing is natural resources. In the thirites, we had huge stands of old growth, oil reserves, steel mills, healthy fisheries, rivers to exploit for industry, agriculture and electricity, abundant rich cropland, cheap land for homes.

We do have amazing technology now, and with Obama a chance to go forward wisely. We have sun and wind, and massive landfills of broken stuff that might be recyleable. Obama is a wise man, but his interest is humanity more than economics, and his learning curve on this subject is going to be a tough experience. We have to be vigilant about Obama though- in a couple of years I think he'll probably be an astonishingly good president ready to shake things up, and we'll have to work hard to keep him on board.

As tricky and obfuscated as the bankers like to make economics, in the end it just about what you produce with what you spend. We have a lot more people now and fewer real resources. I don't see how the problem can be solved without ending the trade imbalance and restoring some of the really excessive private wealth to the commons.

Did you read about the Jubilee in the old testament? Every 64 years, the people who had accumulated the most goats, wives and lands had to return some of it to the commons. This over-accumulation is just something that happens in human societies. Maybe some kind of a once every 220 years jubilee tax.

Commenting on this financial crisis without a grounding, without an understanding of the roadmap, is pointless. Here's a great start. Put it on and listen while cleaning the house, driving to your country estate, or when you can't sleep. (Episode #365.)

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1263

It's two hours, and worth every minute. You will be riveted.

What a great way to start a hopeful day! 

http://www.etruth.com/Know/News/Story.aspx?id=474958&fcid=Know-NEW/UPDAT...

To those who are complaining that Obama is too friendly toward the Senate centrists (and Krugman is among them, saying that Obama is saying too many good things about the compromise), what do they think is the best approach to gain their support for all the legislative endeavors that lay ahead?

Obama and we have big, big things we want to accomplish - on health care, the environment, social justice, energy, etc. - and we need all the coalition partners we can get.  You don't trash potential allies, just as you don't assume that these are always going to be your allies. An open hand makes much possible.

By way of TPM, this Gallup poll shows that Americans approve of the way Obama is handling the stimulus bill by a 67-25% margin. Republicans in Congress are getting 31-58%. Most importantly as Eric Kleefeld points out is a comfortable majority of independents approve of the way Obama is handling the stimulus package and are also largely in favor of the stimulus package itself. So it looks like Obama's bipartisan tone is making him look good with the public while Republican obstructionism is making them look bad: just as planned.

Naturally, there are already people claiming that the real reason for Obama's high approval is he started listening to their advice to stop trying to be bipartisan. Oh well.

I'm disappointed in Krugman's position that things would have been different had Obama taken a tougher line at the beginning.

As many have observed here - but rarely elsewhere - Obama's campaign revolved around the promise of bipartisanship.  Thus, he had absolutely no choice but to begin his administration that way, particularly on such an important bill.

Even had Obama not campaigned on bipartisanship, a more aggressive opening move (i.e., a bill seeking more spending, fewer tax cuts) would have been even easier to pick apart by the GOP and so-called centrists.  No matter how you slice it, a handful of GOP/moderate votes would always be needed. Ignoring their concerns and trying to bully them would have been totally counter-productive, in my view.

Monday Column by E. J. Dionne, another sensible voice.  Reminds me a bit of Al, but not as well written.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/08/AR200902...

The tax cut/spending ratio is not the end of the world. The CBO estimates that even the inferior Senate version will significantly boost short-term growth while balancing out any long-term deteriment of additional debt. Krugman's writing, I find, is fairly unclear, and he often uses hyperbole and terms that don't have a clear meaning.

How much is enough? What will the impact be? How much will it accelerate recovery and what will be the long-term impact in a decade? Krugman doesn't clearly answer these questions. He points to some specific details, and then points to the sky and says, "Falling!"

As it stands, if this stimulus doesn't boost growth enough, there will be another stimulus bill. The Senate is not closing up shop tomorrow.

I finally understand something about Wall Street and how unregulated speculation and unsecured debt helped bring down the house of cards. Please continue to share links that explain complex issues.

Any thoughts on the Obama Justice Dept's siding with the Bush Justice Dept. on states secrets as they pertain to the rendition lawsuit? Is this a slippery slope? Holder says it will be reviewed in general, but not for this case. There must be some legal argument here that I am not understanding.  The ACLU is really up in arms about this. Thoughts anyone?

Stroszek, you have nicely succeeded in slowing my brain from spinning. Thank you!  We are in the midst of a very weird situation in California right now that's compounding it all.

Alexa, Ira Glass rocks. If you haven't heard the one about the weightlifing snowman, it's a must. Also the one on landlords. If this episode is on the subprime mess, I've heard it a few times. I found it most helpful in getting a grasp on it, although the timing in all of it still confounds me a bit. I'll have to check and see if this one's different.

Al, can I tempt you to let your economist shine? ;)

Senor Giordano.

Narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield, that's how.

I've been spinning into a chicken-little frenzy, pissed at the Prez for not doing what I thought he needed to do to take care of me, without even realizing it.  Even though I'm supposed to go buy strawberries and eggs and be home by 7:00, I'm glad I stayed a little late and visited yous guys.

I guess I should lay off Krugman for a while.  Oh, and Alexa, that series has probably been the most useful piece of information I've gotten yet about how the housing thing happened.  The only flaw is that it was produced before we started getting the hint that the bubble extended throughout the economy, but I think the story's the same in every sector.

Thanks, Al.

Thank you for posting this video.

As I watched this, I saw it as politics _expanding_ the Art of the Possible.

It's a joining of several shows. Get to Hour 2:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1263