< News Cut on Campus: MCTC | Main | On Campus: The art teacher >

To the victors go the...

Posted at 7:46 AM on January 28, 2009 by Bob Collins (19 Comments)
Filed under: Politics

~~Sen.~~ President Barack Obama knows how to send a pointed message. On Monday, he granted his first interview to a news organization in the Middle East. On Tuesday, he made his first visit to the Capitol to reach out to congressional Republicans in an effort to get some traction for his stimulus package.

Republicans aren't ready to jump on the bandwagon, yet. But a 'tweet" (a message on Twitter) posted by one of the Republicans who attended -- Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan -- would at least appear to usher in a general spirit of working together.

"Very impressive session with Republican House members.If President carries this on it does open door for a new tone!Let's hope! Nice job!"

President Obama, himself, said all the right things:

"I hope I communicated a sincere desire to get good ideas from everybody," he added. "My attitude is this the first major piece of legislation we've worked on, and that, over time, some of these habits of consultation and mutual respect will take over, but old habits die hard."

That phrase -- old habits -- could've been referring to any number of things, but one wonders if it refers -- at least somewhat -- to Democrats, especially given the comment of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she was asked why there are virtually no suggestions from Republicans being included in the House version of the stimulus package.

"We had an election which was about our differing views. The American people agreed with us."

So much for the "we represent all Americans" cliche. Never mind that 22 of 50 states voted for Republicans, or that the difference between winning and losing for Democrats in 3 of 4 battleground states was 2 percent of the vote.

That, of course, led to a question for the speaker about what her comments say about bipartisanship.

"It says that some of us have heard the voices of the American people and their desire for change..."

And some have not?

To turn this around a bit, Gov. Pawlenty won an election, too. And yesterday he announced several initiatives including eliminating help for people with traumatic brain injuries and disabilities, as well as older people at risk of nursing home placement, according to a Star Tribune assessment.

Maybe you agree with that. Maybe you don't.

Does an election make the question moot?

Program alert: At 11 a.m. on MPR's Midday today, House Republican Minority Leader Marty Seifert and Senate Assistant DFL Majority Leader Tarryl Clark will join Gary Eichten to respond to the governor's budget proposal.

Comments (19)

"Sen. Barack Obama..."

I'm sure this isn't a purposeful mistake, but he is President now.

Posted by brian | January 28, 2009 8:13 AM

I"m not a Democrat, but the Republicans have no clue and have nothing but more damage to offer in form of magic plan economic plans and culture war initiatives. These guys have been screwing up my country up for 20 years and I'm sick of it. I don't want Democrats to make nice with these jerks. To the extent that Republicans are genuinely trying to identify and address legitimate public policy issues, great. But judging by their statements on both local and national levels they're still trying to dismantle any part of government that actually serves people and turn personal opinions about private matters into wedge issues. These folks are nothing but a toxic influence, including them is like adding poison to an ailing patients diet.

Posted by Paul | January 28, 2009 8:30 AM

Is there anything in the stimulus plan you don't like, Paul?

Posted by Bob Collins | January 28, 2009 8:37 AM

Cheap shot with the "sen" vs. President, Bob.

I was also disappointed with Pelosi's comment. I think the overwhelming message everyone was trying to send to our leaders was that we are SICK of partisan politics in Washington. I am a democrat, but did not like Pelosi's comment. I admit, there is a great urge to give the Repbs. a taste of their own medicine, however, that is childish and frankly, democrats should be know better than that. Its known as "taking the high road", folks.

Posted by Carolynn | January 28, 2009 8:46 AM

Cheap shot? It was a mistake, not an assault. I also am still writing 2008 in my checkbook.

I am flawed on so many levels, Carolynn.

I'm different from most people that way.

Posted by Bob Collins | January 28, 2009 8:48 AM

oh Bob, you know I love ya! I thought the line through was a "ironic" editing device. Can't you delete? My apologies.

Posted by Carolynn | January 28, 2009 8:59 AM

Is there anything in the stimulus plan you don't like, Paul?

Which plan, Pawlenty's or Obama's?

Posted by Paul | January 28, 2009 9:04 AM

Ah, I was confused, of course your asking about Obama's plan. Is there anything I don't like?

I don't like the fact that it won't work. The team he's put in place appears to be focusing on Wall Street instead of main street and that won't work. The financial sector is a part of the economy, it's not THE economy and I'm not sure Obama's team gets that. We've already dumped hundreds of billions of dollars into the financial sector and as far as I can tell they just took the money and ran.

I also don't see any reason to cut anyone's taxes. We paid those taxes last year, we can pay them again this year. I think a national health care system would be one the biggest economic stimuli we could implement, I'd rather they keep my taxes and give me a national health care system than give me a tax break that's just going to be eaten up by co-pays and deductible's.

Posted by Paul | January 28, 2009 9:19 AM

"Does an election make the question moot?"

It can. In the case of Pawlenty, an election subsequent to his victory by plurality has given the DFL larger majorities in the state Senate & House. Not quite enough to moot him by veto override, but close.

The interesting comparison is of the styles between the two executives. President Obama doesn't really have to play nice with the GOP, but has chosen to none-the-less. Gov Pawlenty seems to enjoy a more adversarial relationship, which I propose is a cause in the ongoing budget mess that we've been experiencing in MN. I would be impressed if Gov Pawlenty tried something creative that addressed systematic problems with the structure of the MN budget; instead he limits his creativity to employing accounting gimmicks to 'balance' the budget.

Posted by bsimon | January 28, 2009 9:30 AM

It is nothing short of incompetence and a lack of vision when the prevailing party does not seek out the input of the losing party. As you pointed out, Bob C., it isn't as if the Dems won staggering majorities in all the states, such that they could more accurately say that "The American people have spoken, and have repudiated the Republicans. So, we don't have to pay any attention to them." (Note that I say this as a person who has no love for Republican ideology.)

And what happens when the wheel turns, as it invariably will? One snub begets another, regardless of which party started the snubbing. It would really be nice if our elected leaders behaved more like reasonable adults than children, but history gives me little reason to be hopeful about it.

It is also incompetent and immoral, IMHO, to make budget cuts on the backs of the least fortunate. But that's par for the course for Gov. Lessisplenty.

I'm with Paul. Let's get universal health care going!

Posted by Bob | January 28, 2009 9:57 AM

A stimulus plan that could work

Last night on "The Daily Show", Jon Stewart gave his "trickle up" economic recovery plan during an interview with Gwen Ifill. He suggest that we give the money to consumers with the proviso that they use it only for debt. Banks will get their money, consumers will get out of debt, and all of these toxic assets can be detoxified.
To me, this sounds like a great idea, but I'm not very knowledgeable about economics. Is there any reason something like this couldn't work?

The interview can be watched " target="_blank"> here.

Jon raises the issue at about 5:20

Posted by Dave | January 28, 2009 10:26 AM

The thing you have to remember about elections in the US is that no candidate of either party represents a clear majority. The lack of real majority support explains why third party candidates are playing such havoc as of late. The two party system has engineered an artificial political landscape that pretends that one party is liberal and the other conservative. In this landscape the "people" are supposedly in the middle which is supposed to be "moderate". In fact both parties are to the right of the middle. The warped landscape explains a curious phenomena that many researchers have noticed over the last two decades or so. Americans self identify as liberal or conservatives based on where they place themselves in relationship to the parties, giving the appearance of being more or less evenly divided. But when you dig into actual positions you find that the majority of Americans are well to the left of either party. Americans want the government to protect the environment, air and water quality far more actively than either party advocates for example. I could give more examples but the point is this: Americans haven't really seen a truly liberal-progressive government in many decades. If Obama is going to be a genuine liberal, and he certainly talks like one, you may well find he is an incredibly popular president with popular policies because Americans may finally have a president that really represents them on the ideological spectrum. This is not something that most Americans predict because they would have put Obama well to the left of their own self identified location. It's kinda like national health care. Most people whine and complain about big government but when you actually describe what a national health system would like 80% of Americans say: "oh, well we need that like a decade ago". In other words, Americans locate themselves on the ideological spectrum based on their relationship to the parties rather than their actual position on any reality based ideological spectrum. A president that can take advantage of that could get a lot done. Which brings us back to the Republicans.

The problem facing the republicans right now is that they may have to figure out how to appeal to a real majority for a change. If the American people re-align themselves on the political spectrum based on Obama's popularity the republicans will find themselves far to the right of their constituencies. You'll notice one reason republicans appeared to flounder around in the last election is simply because no one wanted to talk about abortion and other standard republican issues. Basically, they just didn't have anything to offer because they're not accustomed to participating in the discourse, they are accustomed to controlling it.

In Minnesota I think we're seeing the future play out. The difference is between the Arne Carlson's of the Republican part and the Tim Pawlenty's. You can work with Carlson republicans, you can't work with Pawlenty republicans. Pawlenty folks just don't get it. If Pawlenty doesn't drift more towards Carlson, we're going to see deadlock, vetos, special sessions etc. On the national level republican's seem be realizing that they need to drift back to practical conservatism, to the extent that they do that, Obama will work them. But if logic doesn't prevail there's always this...

Posted by Paul | January 28, 2009 10:40 AM

Pelosi's remark is a great example of the "old habits" President Obama was referring to, and hopefully the Dems will come around to following his lead sooner rather than later. Of course there's a base desire to stick it to the minority now, but Carolynn's "high road" comment is dead on.

I do think the removal of family planning elements of the stimulus package was a big concession to Republicans, even though it makes no sense to me (and I hope all those folks who like to complain about welfare moms will shut up now), and I hope it wasn't lost on them.

Posted by Heather | January 28, 2009 11:15 AM

Back as editor of the Harvard Law Review, Obama
talked easily with the Federalist conservatives.
Pawlenty drips with contempt for the other side.
Obama will reach across the aisle and withdraw a bloody stump. I am not sure who among the democrats will take on Pawlenty.

Posted by Rod | January 28, 2009 11:21 AM

//And what happens when the wheel turns, as it invariably will?

In the state, it did. Back when the Republicans took control of the Minnesota House, their version of "bipartisan" was for Democrats to see it their way. And the DFLers basically said the same things the GOP in the U.S. House is saying now. And the DFLers pointed out that the House represents all Minnesotans, not just Republicans.

This is, as you point out... a pendulum of politics and it will turn. And then the question will be whether the next majority party considers it "payback time" or whether they view it as the opportunity that Obama obviously does.

Posted by Bob Collins | January 28, 2009 3:12 PM

"And what happens when the wheel turns, as it invariably will? One snub begets another, regardless of which party started the snubbing. It would really be nice if our elected leaders behaved more like reasonable adults than children, but history gives me little reason to be hopeful about it."

We live in interesting times. At the national level, it wasn't too many years ago that the GOP was talking about a 'permanent Republican majority.' The error they made was in governing as though this dream were fact. They overreached, ignored the voters' wants and needs, and suffered a swift and deep fall from their former heights. They are now in smaller minorities in the houses of the Congress than the Democrats were. President Obama is now trying a different kind of leadership. I am hopeful that it will work out, and that, as he says, we can combine the best ideas from both sides in order to move foward as a country.

I wish we had a similar kind of leadership at the state level. Gov Pawlenty seems incapable of approaching a problem without strapping on his ideological blinders first. The DFL seems incapable of developing a leader around whom they can rally and accomplish any real change in the state gov't. What that leaves us poor voters/taxpayers are perennial fights over filling budget holes with accounting gimicks, short-term funding sources and fee hikes unrelated to the costs of services rendered. What a mess.

Posted by bsimon | January 28, 2009 4:59 PM

we the people have been saying that we are sick of partisan politics for many, many years. I am not so surprised that Speaker Pelosi made the comments she made. Change her political affiliation and it would sound the same to me. "old habits" do indeed die hard.

What can we do? Why are we as a society so damn passive?

President Obama has experience making good with people that don't share his core beliefs. He knew that this meeting with Republicans will bear more fruit later on.

Compromise between opinions is the only way.

Posted by jim | January 28, 2009 5:43 PM

To Paul,

To your comment, "Give me a National Health Care system", I would say be careful for what you wish.
Simply put Nationalized Health Care is RATIONED health care nearly every where in the world. Not perhaps in a country like Germany with 50% tax rates -they are an exception. But Down here in NZ you wouldn't believe what you don't get with Naionalized Medicine. How about at 60 when you go in for your physical being told there is no electro cardiograms offered unless you already have existing heart problems. If you want one done pay $1200 out of your own pocket. I could go on about the two to five year waits for hip replacement surgery etc., but you get the picture.
Unfortunately, like subprime mortgages socialized medicine seems so very appealing at the beginning.
Bottom line-if the USA goes that way McCain's plan made a lot more sense. It might cost individuals more,but there is no free lunch-unless of course you are a Bank!!

Posted by Tom Hughes | January 28, 2009 6:29 PM

Toms says:

"To Paul,

Tom, we already have rationed health in the US. The difference is here it's rationed according to your ability to pay. There are good national systems and not so good national systems. We don't have a health care system at all, we have markets that produce the least amount of health to smallest number of people for the most amount of money in the world. I'd rather have a national system and be trying to make it a good one, than have a market that cannot be made to work. You my friend are the one who should watch what you wish for, I hear your privatizing you health care system... good luck with that.

Posted by Paul | January 28, 2009 9:31 PM

January 2009
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Master Archive

MPR News
Radio

Listen Now

On Air

Marketplace™

Schedule

Shortcuts
Hourly Newscast
Hosts
Station Map

Other Radio Streams from MPR

Classical MPR
Radio Heartland

Services

Become a Sponsor

In The Spotlight

Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web.
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.