Do Congressional Democrats Need Intervention? Attitude adjustment?

[DeepModem Mom]

CNN: Do congressional Dems need intervention?
By Gloria Borger

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Yes, it's early. Very early. Barack Obama hasn't even moved into Blair House yet. But it's time -- for an intervention.

How else to confront the oddly self-destructive behavior of congressional Democrats? How else to figure out why they seem intent on depriving their new president of a swift -- and truly bipartisan -- victory on his all-important economic stimulus package? It's as if they haven't quite figured out what the public meant when it voted to change business as usual. Or that sometimes, in order to get something done, the perfect is the enemy of the good, as the cliché goes. Or to effectively cripple the Obama presidency in its infancy would be, er, bad for them.

Sure, the griping Democrats are having visions of President Bill Clinton's early deficit reduction plan which -- while a success -- made lots of them feel like Republicans. And they don't want to repeat the Republican rubber-stamp mind-set of blindly following a president for the last eight years -- into an unpopular war, an economic crisis, and finally, over the cliff. What else could possibly have prompted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make the point that, "I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him." Or, as my kids used to say, "You're not the boss of me." (Reid is wrong; my kids were right.)

This is not to say that some of the Democratic complaints may not be perfectly well-founded and justified. Maybe corporate tax breaks for companies hiring new employees isn't the best of ideas, as Sen. John Kerry suggests, because these companies might hire new people anyway. And there are bound to be differences over the best ways to spend the huge federal pot of $775 billion or so over two years, or how to cut taxes as part of the plan.

But here's the important part: Both spending and tax cuts have to be part of any stimulus package. As one top transition aide explains to me, "It's hard to spend that much money over two years effectively without doing both." If there were eight years in which to spend the money, it might be different. But the new administration is looking for what he describes as "a very quick jolt -- and that's hard to do without a combination of things."

Do the corporate tax cuts help to bring in some GOP votes? Sure. But please explain why there is something wrong with that....

***

It may be hard for Democrats to move smoothly into a world in which they are in charge and responsible, but that's their new normal. Opposition requires keeping score; leadership requires action. And Democrats need an attitude adjustment.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/09/borger.democrats/index.html

[monmouth]

1. Couldn't agree more...n/t

[ddeclue]

2. NOPE.... I'm GLAD to see it..we've had 8 years of a rubber stamp Congress.

and an "unbranched" government - some healthy debate and legitimate consensus building and compromise will be far far better for the country than simply adopting any single person's plan - including Barack Obama's.

The Founders were very very wise men and understood that the best policy is derived through legitimate debate and compromise arriving at a consensus. They intentionally gave us THREE branches of government that balanced and checked one another and two houses in Congress to further divide the power. We've unfortunately been missing that vital aspect of our government for far too long and it has led us to the brink of disaster.

I trust Barack Obama will be willing and able to achieve the majority of his plans while always respecting the Constitutional process both in letter and in spirit and will not attempt to stifle debate and resort to Bushian rubber stamp tactics.

Doug D.

[NRaleighLiberal]

3. Somehow the egos of nearly ALL politicians have become unsufferably huge.

They have collective amnesia - that they are there to serve the public. They make it all about them.

And hopefully, with Obama in charge and a Democratic majority of the public that has found its voice, it will be at their professional peril.

[blm]

5. I'm surprised that you take Gloria at face value on this. Obama WANTS this debate on the taxes.

He gave a starting point for that debate that the Republicans can't claim the Dems are rubberstamping, so he gave room for dissent. And I see it as deliberate and strategic. Obama knows what will happen in the senate - he's been there and knows exactly what games the GOPs will play on this, and how the GOPs and their complicit media will be anxious to smear the Dems as rubberstampers.

[NRaleighLiberal]

6. Nothing to do with Gloria, everything to do about my overall disgust of politicians in general these

days!

[blm]

7. Well, her spin on it was overthetop, obtuse, and I'm laughing at the immaturity of her analysis.

.

[blm]

4. Gloria didn't hear Obama when he said he reads bad press not good and not INTO yesmen like Bush

needed around him.

Obama established himself as a president who respects debate and dissent this week and dumbass reporters are looking at trees instead of seeing the forest.

[Phoonzang]

8. It's good that the Dems have finally decided to stand up to the president....it's just the wrong one

Too bad they couldn't be this ballsy with Bush. But no, after years of rolling over, they're going to attack their own in front of the press.

[treestar]

12. I could hardly believe Harry Reid

When he said something to the effect he won't roll over for Obama!

Is this guy a Democrat? Did he ever say that to the Chimpenfuerhrer? :banghead:

[elleng]

9. Take a look at this point of view.

"The substantive issues surrounding an economic stimulus -- will the package be big enough and what mix of spending and tax cuts would do the job best? -- are clearer than the politics of getting it passed fast."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR2009010803030.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[DeepModem Mom]

10. I just posted that in Editorials and Articles! I would have posted it here...

but thought it was similar to the Borger piece. (While I don't always agree with pieces I post, I thought these two were both pretty good.)

[blm]

11. The pieces ASSUME that Obama and the Dems haven't consulted beforehand. I'm certain they did.

It is to Obama's and Congress' advantage to be seen as independent of each other, considering the last 8yrs of Republicans serving only the demands of a petulant President.

I would bet my house that Obama rolled out his plans expecting and WANTING some slight pushback from Dems.

[Jennicut]

13. I like Gloria, she always covered Obama very fairly

She was one of the few bright spots on CNN and cable news in general actually. And Reid is an idiot. But healthy debate, is well..healthy. And Obama has no problem with it. Reid, however, is trying to show he has a spine and well, he could have shown it against Shrub a long, long time ago. Too late Harry.