Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & blawgs
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Law & Letters
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
ADW blog
Father Z
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
The Anchoress
Whatever
Nate Silver wonders why "House Republicans are opposing popular legislation from a very popular President, and doing so in ways that stick a needle in the eye of the popular (if quixotic) concept of bipartisanship. They would seem to have little chance of actually blocking [] legislation, since they are far short of a majority, and since the Senate Republicans, who can filibuster, have thus far shown little inclination to go along with them...." They're between a rock and a hard place, and I suppose the answer comes down to is this: in resisting Obama's agenda, they risk alienating the center, but in failing to do so, they would certainly alienate their own party. All else being equal, between two unpalatable possible outcomes, shoot for the one less likely to occur.
Moreover, Silver simply assumes that Obama's efforts are now popular and will remain so. I suspect that House Republicans think - not without some justification - that if the economy doesn't recover, this "recovery plan" will look a lot like a near-trillion dollar boondoggle. [ADDED: according to this, a senior Republican says that "[p]olling showed us that when we took the vote, independent support for the bill was collapsing. Democratic support was climbing while the independents ran away."]
After all that's been said about Ledbetter v. Goodyear and its aftermath on this blog, I don't have anything new to say about the passage today of the Ledbetter Act, so I will say merely this. I think the message that this enactment sends to businesses is that if you buy another business, your only rational course of action is to fire every employee, and have them reinterview for their old jobs, throwing out every last vestment of any preexisting pay or seniority system. The alternative is to expose yourself to liability forever after. The Democrats' framing of this bill as being about equal pay is misleading; all agree on that principle, but it's unfortunate that countervailing concerns were ignored. They say hard cases make bad law, but debates that ignore one side of the balance make worse law.
(This was amusing, too.)
The House GOP v. the President
Every single one of those House GOPers, like the President, won an election in 2008. None of them did so on Obama's coattails. The President's current popularity is a non-issue here.
Indeed, one could argue that
Indeed, one could argue that they did so fighting against candidates who rode on Obama's coattails. Republicans who won an election in 2008 really were the proverbial salmon swimming against the current.
The House issue has more to
The House issue has more to do with Nancy Pelosi than President Obama. I don't blame any GOP representative who voted against being steamrolled and being shut out of the entire process. Nonpartisan my [word not allowed here]. I think the GOP in the Senate should filibuster if it is also railroaded. Truthfully, President Obama did a thousand time more engagement in a week than Nancy Pelosi has in her entire term as Speaker. She needs to take some lessons from Obama.
As far as the DTV delay. The GOP was right. This is one of those things that has already been delayed and delayed. Just let it happen. If people's screens go to snow, maybe they will finally act. There is always going to be a percentage of people who never do anything until they have to. Besides, I know there is a want to auction off the bandwidth that is freed up along with making available some very important bandwidth for emergency services.
PS I am also glad that my Blue Dog representative, who I did not vote for, did vote against the stimulus.
competing spins on this
I'm a bit agnostic on both sides' spin. But especially the democratic spin. Since the GOP was given so little involvement, there is very little upside to their just going along. And there's really no cost to opposition since the bill passes easily either way. Unless you count the cost of being spun as "uncooperative" by democrats. But that charge only sticks when your lack of cooperation actually holds things up. So they achieved the only thing they could, which was to act unanimously to send a tiny signal that the GOP 1) thinks the approach to this bill is wrong and 2) they're uninterested in rubber stamping stuff they have no real input upon.
But we won't know where these folks really stand until it comes to vote where GOP "no"'s will have actual consequences.
This is one small drama. IMO, it's a mistake at this point to try to characterize it as suggestive of reflexive stonewalling, but that's the narrative the democrats are trying to establish. Obama comes off looking good for trying. But he has to be patient and show repeatedly that he is TRULY willing to accept input from the GOP if he wants their cooperation. Why would the GOP be interested in cooperation simply because Obama is swell and says nice things? It's a simple trade here. The GOP wants genuine input in return for working with the President to make things happen. Genuine input means that you get to affect the output.
The democratic congressional majority, unlike Obama, has yet to show any interest in granting genuine input to the GOP. I would not be at all surprised to see Obama undertake a showy staredown with the dem con maj on a signature issue where the GOP minority's take better represents the people. Obama is IMO more than capable of making a small-minded partisan bulldog like Nancy Pelosi look like a petty partisan out of touch with regular folks.
It's hard to label the minority party "obstructionist" when...
The GOP is actually going to be in fairly good shape, politically, dealing with Pelosi. She's still on the kick of whining about "obstructionist" Republicans. But she can afford to lose over 30 Democratic votes and STILL pass bills over unanimous Republican opposition (House Membership Profile). Any bill that fails will be a result of disagreement by moderate Democrats, not Republican obstructionism.
However, Brian, I disagree with your prediction of a show-down between President Obama and Speaker Pelosi. There's no up-side to that for the President. He's already getting credit for being "bipartisan" (though that so far shows only in words, not deeds). He's good at making nice gestures, like inviting some Republicans to watch the Super Bowl with him at the White House. Meanwhile, there's sufficient moderate House Democrats who know that they'll lose reelection if the House turns sharply to the left; they'll take care of putting pressure on Pelosi. Taking on Pelosi doesn't get him better press for being "independent" or anything like that. It would only hurt his relationship with the left wing of his party, who are already starting to question their support for him because of things like appointing Clinton and not immediately indicting Bush/Cheney.
Left and Independents are questioning....
I must agree with Pat. For example Pelosi and Reid are eager blasters of Gitmo. They still live on the spite-Bush venom. Can you imagine their reaction had Obama not ordered Gitmo closed (in a year)? So, Obama acted to close Gitmo to calm the Left though he had no plan. It also helped his image abroad though Europe doesn’t want any detainees…LOL. I assume he had time to consider the legal consequences, but he was told today by the Gitmo judge that his motion to stay the trial of the USS Cole bomber is denied.
Obama supported not seating Burris and also supported on Constitutional grounds the anti-discrimination act Simon talked about and the Union open-voting Bill. There is a little trend here on strange Constitutional thinking and we are only a few weeks into the NEW AGE. There is some Independent reaction to a few of Obama's moves (which he has had a lot of time to think about) like his SECINTER saying the Bush drilling plan is dead, much that is not positive. Seems the Left likes Obama, but Independents are scratching their heads. Listening to Sec Salazar, Pelosi must be laughing having told the American people they have it wrong about drilling. Daschle was picked as campaign payback and so was Richardson. So I see Obama catering Left domestically, when from my point of view, the long term success of the Obama administration will require Republican support. Right now, Obama doesn’t need it which is a good time to cater to your base, especially if your Grand Plan contains much of their ideology.
Again, we do see Obama shoring up his Left now after the Clintonista transplantations with rumors of gays in the military and anger at Wall Street. Clearly, blacks shot down California gay marriage. Americans still want drilling and are nervous about a trillion dollar plan that won’t do much right now, if ever. Think Obama will bring up immigration soon? Unless he is in an Obamabubble, he knows where mainstream American is. Pelosi does not represent majority polling. It would make moderate Democrats more comfortable were Obama to actually create a bipartisan middle, but Obama is playing to the Left on domestic issues for now.
Why? Maybe those Daily Briefings. As Obama tries to move center on national security and foreign affairs in the manner Brian thought he might several months ago (watch out Brian for the Grand Bargain), the price to calm the Left might be teaming up with Pelosi on domestic issues which covers the economy. As far as International issues, he needs the Republicans and put up the Hillary/Biden/Gates firewall. Maybe bipartisan applies to only certain issues…LOL.
The Republicans should oppose the bailout for the reasons Brian states. They need to put forward a better package even if it is less detailed and appears only in national op-ed pages. They also need to explain what parts of the bailout they oppose without the ideology. Pelosi was a product of mindless opposition towards Bush. She simply said Democrats didn't need a coherent alternative because they were not the majority. Now we have to listen to Franken on the Floor of the Senate. The Republicans should be as gracious as Obama, but draw their line and state their principles. Given the weak plays by Obama this last week and with him showing more rage towards Wall Street than he EVER did towards our foes, Obama cannot count on a free media ride. If Obama thinks he can sway Ahmadinejad, he surely must be able to swing some GOP.
Sadly, I think Obama will concede to Democrats in Congress most domestic issues, despite Reid's warning that he doesn't work for Obama. He wants Congress to share the responsibility while winning over those on the Left angry that Obama has not acted like their Political Messiah. As things heat up and Obama feels the fire, he will have to consider who he will throw under the bus next. Right now he spins towards the Left, but don’t be surprised a year out or two, he throws Pelosi and Reid, both under the bus. His followers will have nowhere else to go.
whatever mechanism
Makes sense to me Pat. And whatever mechanism curbs Pelosi is fine with me.
I thought someone said the abortion funding got cut or reduced. No?
I also don't mind if the left wing relationship suffers. Especially since I've been saying for so long that the sooner they express disappointment and disillusionment, the better. Maybe that can join Nader in the bitter grudge nursery. It's awful hard to have a good relationship with someone incapable of noticing when they are getting more than half of the loaf.
Beside most all will be forgiven by these folks when something like single-payer subsidized healthcare passes. The chances will never be better than in 6 months when the COBRA runs out for all the families of folks who have lost their jobs in the last 3 months. And I know that's anathema to you Pat, not saying it to poke you. I'm just saying the constituency for it will be very high by then, is all.
two cents
Of course the alternative negative outcome for the President is that he's seen as incapable of standing up to his own majority congress. That could be a particular problem if said congress passes laws unpopular with the public. Rep. Pelosi was wise to pull out the contraception aspects of the stimulus package (particularly after she publically "blew it" on ABC). Will she continue to "pull back" if she perceives the "slam dunk" majority as the only thing that matters? We should remember how Dennis Hastert stumbled on this also.
As an aside, why is it not mentioned that several democrats also voted against the bill. So maybe its a bit more than "party politics"!