The lesson of the House Vote.

[demiurgent]

That's right. When the vote came, not one Republican voted for it. Meetings at the White House and all the rest led to... not one vote.

I'm not commenting on the package in general, mind. This is, to use the term, a process story.

For the next two years, this is how it's going to run. The Republicans are going to vote 'nay' unless they bring the bill to the floor. They're going to find something to oppose in any bill, whether it's a good one or not. They're going to play hardball. They're going to have their ranks closed. They're going to shut down whatever they can shut down, and they're going to oppose, period. It's been a long time since we've been in this situation, so let me reiterate the lesson of Bill Clinton's first congress to President Obama:

No one. No one. No one is better than the Republican party on defense. No one.

If the Democrats want to have a prayer of retaining Congress in two years, they need to close ranks and do shit. There can be no more 'serious concerns' out of the Democrats over things President Obama proposes. Not in the media. Not publicly. Obama on the other side of the equation must must must sit down with Congressional leaders before going public with anything, and must iron out differences before they begin.

This is Varsity League shit, and if the Democrats show any of the chickenshit divisiveness they're so famous for, there's going to be a bloodbath in 2010.

(And if you're gearing up to respond about what a pork-laden excess the stimulus package was, go back to the beginning. This is a post about strategy. Don't mistake the content for the structure.)

Comments

[snowspinner.livejournal.com]

I suspect that the Democrats played this one perfectly, actually. Obama made a good show of going to the Republicans, meeting with them, and addressing their concerns. He made high profile concessions to them - generally minor ones, but high-profile ones. Tax cuts were always a part of the stimulus for them, he politely but distinctly took Pelosi to the woodshed for the contraceptives line, he's made a very, very good show of bi-partisanship. And now, because the Republicans showed what was frankly excessive discipline, he has the moral high ground - the entire House Republican bloc is tainted with this. Because they acted so completely monolithically, they no longer have an easy claim to individual principled stances. They acted as one, so this becomes a partisan move - in a way that it's not for the Democrats, because Obama lost a few votes there. For the Republicans, this was a nakedly partisan move, and Obama can and will nail them on petty partisanship on a fundamentally important issue.

And that's why I suspect that 2010 won't be bloody in the same way - because as it stands, Obama outplayed them in the public sphere. He looked conciliatory and bipartisan. They looked like angry hacks.

I mean, back with the Clinton impeachment, the Republicans maintained credibility in part because they lost some votes. Losing Shays and Specter, who publicly turned on the party there, kept it so that there was a shred of moral integrity behind the vote. Only a shred, but at least the Republicans who voted to impeach and remove from office can claim with a straight face that it was a sincere conviction on their part that Clinton had done wrong.

To me, it looks like the Republicans are playing out of a decade old playbook against the guy who wrote the most recent edition. It's a gruesome mismatch.

[darthparadox.livejournal.com]

This was pretty much my theory. Obama's given the bipartisanship thing a shot, here, and the Republicans weren't interested in doing anything but obstructing. So now, Obama can say "Hey, I tried; they aren't cooperating", and tell the Republicans and their "compromises" to go to hell.

[holzman.livejournal.com]

Better still, when the stimulus plan starts creating jobs the Republicans are all on record being against it. That doesn't play well for them in 2010.

[ed-dirt.livejournal.com]

You should email the white house with this.

[z-gryphon.livejournal.com]

Except possibly without the exact phrase "Varsity League shit".

[izzylobo.livejournal.com]

This is Varsity League shit, and if the Democrats show any of the chickenshit divisiveness they're so famous for, there's going to be a bloodbath in 2010.

Yes.

Right now, the Democrats (or at least Obama) enjoy the support not only of their Party Faithful, and their "Got No Other Choice" allies, but of a large number of disgruntled Independents and Republicans - some of whom have fully jumped ship, others of whom have just voted across party lines.

But there are levels of support involved. There are actions the Democratic party must take to keep my support in 2010 (closing Gitmo, renouncing torture, undoing - or at least ameliorating - the damages done to the Constitution over the last 8 years). But there are also actions they must not take to keep it, at least at the congressional level (don't get further in bed with big business, don't fuck up Afghanistan/Pakistan worse than it already is, don't screw the Constitution any worse than it already is).

I don't want to jump ship and support the Republicans in 2010 - I personally think they need at least a decade or two in the wild to recover and to age out not only a bunch of the Vietnam era fucks, but also the neo-con assholes and Limboid parrots - but given it's a two party system, it's the only way to send a message to the Democratic Party if they start screwing up.

Democratic Party - don't screw up. Keep your fanatics muzzled (Carolyn McCarthy - I'm talking about you, among others). Keep in mind that while Obama has more of a mandate than many presidents in recent history - you as a party do not, and your support structure is neither monolithic nor particularly deep in its strength. You're going to need more than two years to clean up the damage done in the last eight - concentrate on that, and keep a clear eye on what is damage, and what is your personal agendas.