Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Economic Stimulus Fight: Winners and Losers

With Congress set to pass President Obama's economic stimulus package in the next 48 hours, it's worth revisiting the last few weeks to determine who emerged stronger and weaker as a result of the fight on Capitol Hill.

It's clear -- and fairly obvious -- that Obama is the big winner given that he will get most of what he wants in this bill on the timetable that he demanded. But, who else won in the economic stimulus fight? And, more deliciously, who lost?

Our picks are below. Agree? Disagree? Have winners or losers of your own? Offer them in the comment section.

WINNERS

Susan Collins/Ben Nelson: The Maine Republican and Nebraska Democrat emerged as the faces of the compromise in the Senate and won special praise for their work from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.). Collins may well be the most underrated senator in the chamber and Nelson's work to forge compromise should bolster his middle-of-the-road image as he looks toward what could be a very tough reelection fight in 2012. More broadly, Senate moderates emerged as winners as they showed that even with Democrats at 58 seats (and perhaps 59 before this Congress is done), several votes will still be needed to break filibusters -- or at least the threat of them.

Town Halls: The visuals coming out of Obama's town hall meetings in Elkhart, Ind. and Fort Myers, Fla. earlier this week were a perfect way to show the American public that the president is one of them and his plan is aimed at trying to help the little guy. Obama tended to favor big speeches at critical moments of the campaign but he and his team made a savvy decision to abandon the major address in favor of the smaller bore appeal of town halls. And, the positive media attention these events drew -- heck Julio Osegueda is a full-fledged media star -- ensures that Obama will continue to do them as he continues to sell the economic stimulus package to the public.

Harry Reid: Whether or not Reid stole House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's thunder with his announcement yesterday that a deal had been reached, the Nevada senator ensured that he would be the public face in Congress for a deal. Reid is not the most telegenic or charismatic politician but he is among the craftiest. And with national Republicans preparing to heavily target his reelection in 2010, Reid wanted to make sure he was front and center when a bipartisan (sort of) deal was announced. Love him or hate him, you've got to admire his pluck.

Rahm Emanuel: By all accounts, the White House chief of staff was knee deep in the negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate bills. Emanuel, who is know for his brash persona and penchant for swearing, is actually held in high esteem by many of his former colleagues (including even some Republicans). That Obama has a former member of the House leadership as his right hand man paid dividends for the president during this tense negotiation.

Eric Cantor: Before the debate over the stimulus package, it's not likely that anyone outside of Washington or his Richmond-area 7th district could have picked Cantor out of a lineup. But, the House Minority Whip was front and center during the fight over bill -- leading the charge to keep Republicans unified in opposition to the plan. Cantor, who many GOP strategists have long believed is a rising star, emerges with a raised profile and a permanent spot on cable television chatfests.

LOSERS
Eric Cantor: Yes, you can be a winner and a loser all at once. While Cantor did significantly raise his profile, he (and his staff) committed a few faux pas that drew unwelcome attention. First, Cantor was quoted in the Post insisting that in "just saying no" Republicans were doing the right thing -- a comment seized upon by Democrats and turned into ads by Americans United for Change. Then a Cantor spokesman sent an ill-advised video -- spoofing a labor union as thugs -- to a reporter, a move for which he subsequently had to apologize.

House Democrats: The lower chamber took on the lower profile in the negotiations over the economic stimulus bill and, from watching television at least, it appeared as though this was a Senate-run production. Yes, House folks, we know that Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer did television on the bill but the faces of this compromise were Reid, Collins and Nelson.

Bipartisanship: While the vote on final passage has yet to happen, neither side seems to believe that a significant number of Republicans in the House or the Senate will cross party lines and support the legislation. Given Obama's initial hope that the bill would attract broad bipartisan support, the nearly-straight party line vote has to be seen as a blow against bipartisanship in the nation's capitol. If Democrats and Republican can't come together in February 2009 what makes anyone think they will do so in October 2010 or November 2012?

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 12, 2009; 12:30 PM ET
Categories:  House , Senate , White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: White House Cheat Sheet: The Fight Is On
Next: Gregg Withdraws as Commerce Nominee

Comments

Winners: President OBAMA and the Democrats
Susan Collans,Arlen Spector,Snow
States of Maine and Pennsylvania


Loosers: The Republicans and Judd Gregg
Sadly the states the Republicans
who voted against stimulus
came from. Foxnews,Hannity
O'Reilly Factor, Glenn Beck
Rush Lim, Mitch McConnel
Eric Cantor

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | February 13, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abuse

beut_d --

Uh, sorry, but I didn't say anything about debt.

I did bring up the need for national motorcycle helmet laws as a way to stop the brain damage that leads to people becoming Republicans.

Clearly, its too late to help you, but think of all the other people still leading useful productive lives...

By the way, there's a rule against attacking other users, so feel free to attack Democrats, Republicans, or even Druids, but not other readers that post.

That's against the rules.

Posted by: svreader | February 12, 2009 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Chris, how about expanding on this comment you made: "Reid is not the most telegenic or charismatic politician but he is among the craftiest."

Reid appears to be the biggest problems Democrats have. If, as you say, he's "crafty" he's been hiding it well. He consistently appears to be nothing more than a roadblock. He was quick to claim face time on TV yesterday, but what did he contribute? Was he even involved in these negotiations? He has deserved to be replaced everytime he's been needed since he weasled his way into that job. The country needs a real leader in charge of the Senate. Dump Reid!

Posted by: TT42 | February 12, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza:

You omitted one loser from your list once the package passes both Houses and is signed by the president: the country.

Posted by: argie | February 12, 2009 8:17 PM | Report abuse

If memory serves correctly, Senator Isakson (R-Ga) introduced the $15000 tax credit for home buying in the Senate bill that was ultimately removed in favor of the $8000 and more limited House alternative. This is a loss for the real estate industry and the housing market in general though certainly not for the government which would subsidize a lot of 'sell my house to my neighbor/family' arrangements.

One has to wonder why Senator Isakson would vote against his own pet amendment. He would probably have had a seat in the conference committee to fight for it.

Posted by: NedFlanders1 | February 12, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

SVREADER doesn't know what he's talking about. It wasn't the debt that caused prolonged recessions, it was the failure to act. Get your facts straight, you amateur!

The Republicans think they won, but soon enough they will have realized that opposing this most popular Pres. will be a disaster. If they didn't realize already how bad it is, they soon will. I guess it takes a catastrophe of even greater proportions for them to get it. Good thing the American populace has already.

Democrats in general have not done well with this attempt at bipartisanship. I'm sorry they tried. It's like arguing with extremists; any compromise you make becomes absurd and embarrassing. The sad part for Dems is that by learning from this lesson to quit the notion of bipartisanship will only make them seem partisan. This is not how 2001 and 2002 played out during the early 43 years, when Dems were (overly) conciliatory. The country doesn't want partisanship, but for some reason, the Reps get away with it. Perhaps its time for a new party?

Posted by: beut_d | February 12, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Marnett, I don't know where you live, but here on Earth Obama's been president since January 20 -- about 3 weeks. And he made a big point of not treading on Bush's prerogatives while he was still occupying the White House.

So, I'm not sure what you're commenting on, unless it is the intransigent distrust between the parties in both houses we've inherited from W. It is sad that most of the Republicans in Congress won't make a good-faith effort to talk to the Democrats -- or that the House Democrats don't believe they can trust the Repubs.

Obviously, reiterating these sad truths is unproductive wheel-spinning. Since I actually believe a lot of the Repubs in Congress are actually (appearances to the contrary notwithstanding) smart and patriotic, and that the Democrats can get beyond the insults that Armey and Co dealt them when they ran the plantation, I hope we can move beyond this posturing.

Posted by: thmas | February 12, 2009 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Who lost? Post-Partisanship
(Obama's hope for a new kind of politics).

He is now learning that "Kumbaya Is Not A Method" [cf. retired Army Chief of Staff General Sullivan's book "Hope Is Not A Method"].

Hillary Clinton was right when she said:
“I could just stand up here and say ’Let’s just get everybody together, let’s get unified.’ ... The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect."

What Ron Brownstein calls the *Second Civil War* continues. Sigh.

Posted by: msa_intp | February 12, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have succeeded in giving the American People the impression that they are entirely AGAINST them. There are NO Republican winners in this.
I recognize that they are having private parties celebrating their great victory of obstructionism but out here in America-Land the people are breathing a sigh of relief that SOMEONE has done SOMETHING to put a brake on the entire collapse of our way of life.
And that SOMEONE, is the President. This is not patty-cake and it is not politics-as-usual. In case no one has noticed, the Republicans have handed the nation the absolutely worst crises in every way and in every shape and form that we, really, have ever been in.
What do Republicans do? Insist that their same old way of doing the business that has almost destroyed us completely is the RIGHT way to do business.
Republicans have demonstrated that they are very dangerous to the nation and utterly and completely and unflinchingly dedicated to doing NOTHING to save us.

Posted by: cms1 | February 12, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Reopublicans are the biggest losers. They've shown America that they bite the hand of friendship every time.

They don't even know how to be bipedal, let alone bipartisan.

Posted by: svreader | February 12, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Losers ? America. and its citizens.

Many countries borrowed billions and printed billions trying to spend their way of recessions...

Canada, Japan, Argentina and Zimbabwe. All of them suffered for at least a decade afterwards or still suffer.

Canada's Trudeau borrowed tens of billions during the 1970s rapidly expanding: Government, inflation, and surprisingly unemployment. Canada spent most of the 1980s and 1990s struggling out of debt with repeated cutbacks to health care and state transfers. Fortunately with NAFTA free trade, resources, and a global boom and Canada got lucky and emerged as the best of the G8.


From the NY Times Feb. 6 2009, “Japan’s Big Works Stimulus is a Lesson:

“…In the end, say economists, it was not public works but an expensive cleanup of the debt-ridden banking system, combined with growing exports to China and the United States, that brought a close to Japan’s Lost Decade. This has led many to conclude that spending did little more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an enormous tax burden for future generations… Among ordinary Japanese, the spending is widely disparaged for having turned the nation into a public-works-based welfare state and making regional economies dependent on Tokyo for jobs..."

Posted by: pvilso24 | February 12, 2009 7:15 PM | Report abuse

You know I hate to bring this up but it's only been two months or less since President Obama became President and it's also hard for me to believe that President Obama can not get any votes from the Republicans not one. I think that the Republicans are still in shock and aw that they lost the election by a black man I hope this isn't the case and if it is I'll tell the Republicans this, this was and is at this time in history the best man for the job and I feel this in my heart. But than again what do Republicans know about feelings

Posted by: mernatti123 | February 12, 2009 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Translation: Nothing more, nothing less, it's called PAYBACK to ALL of the Political Contributors that paid to get THEM a chance to keep their jobs!!!
NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS!!!

Posted by: thgirbla | February 12, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

JOHN McCAIN! He is absolutely IRRELEVANT, which must just burn him up. Could not happen to a nicer guy! Maybe you can take up flying again - just forget about being a meaningful Senator.

Posted by: rradoccia | February 12, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Keynsian economic policy was comprehensively discredited a long, long time ago.

The reality that Obama needs to recognize is that the New Deal was a financial disaster- actually far worse than the market downturn that lead to it. He needs to stop basing his policies on dumbed-down civics-text versions of events and consider economic logic.

And the president has decided to demonize private enterprise, just as FDR did, as a way to present government as the great savior… so typical of socialists with no business or executive managerial experience.

You cannot make a country rich by looting taxpayers, then paying people to pour cement and pick up trash. These activities amount to capital consumption- and are not sources of productive investment. One can say that they are either useless or needed tasks, but it is not a matter of ideology as to whether such public projects will make us all wealthier... they WILL NOT. - Do enough of this nonsense, distorting incentives and crippling the guiding hand of the market, and you can destroy the livelihoods of an entire generation-

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com

Posted by: ReaganiteRepublican | February 12, 2009 6:44 PM | Report abuse

I think that if you rate Obama as a winner, the Republicans have to be seen as losers. True, they showed remarkable party unity. But they also failed to articulate an alternative vision, and failed to block the President's. They cannot get far with that approach. People may not punish them for opposing the stimulus bill, but they certainly won't reward them for it.

Posted by: jonawebb | February 12, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Let me add as a note to liberals and centrists and moderate Republicans: we owe Senators Spector, Collins and Snowe our support when they need campaign contributions in their primary and reelection campaigns. There is no doubt that the conservative republicans are going to go after each of them with a vengeance. We owe them our thanks and our support for doing what is right for our nation, and not for the ideologues.

Posted by: lawhamptons | February 12, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Who are the big winners? How about We the People? Duh.

We all know the stimulus package is a high-risk Hail Mary attempt to get us out of the deep ditch Bush/Chaney drove us into. It’s heavy chemotherapy for stage 4 economic cancer, and it may not save us.

But, if President Obama does manage to lead us out of these dark woods, future generations will praise him like we praise FDR. Our kids and grandkids will thank him for their jobs. They will rightly credit him for prosperity that allows them to repay the huge debt happily, just like we credit FDR for our huge middle class that happily paid the debt from World War II.

And, if the president fails, then we all fail. Our children and grandchildren will rightfully blame our generation for destroying the prosperity we inherited. World political power will inexorably drift away from Washington and economic power away from New York.

I sometimes wonder if the right wing nuts would choose that dismal future rather than have their ideological beliefs discredited.

The free market knuckle draggers will claim vindication, of course, If the president does fail. Like witch doctors when good crops follow virgin sacrifices.

Until then, they just howl at the moon and rage “Free markets now, free markets tomorrow and free markets forever!” sounding like George Wallace on segregation. They continue to think bread lines are okay for the American middle class, as long as the caviar is fresh at the country club. They cruse as liberal anyone who bends his elbow when shouting Sieg Heil!

God save us from them.

Posted by: JohnInTexas | February 12, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Associated Press -
updated 12:03 p.m. PT, Thurs., Feb. 12, 2009
President Barack Obama called on Americans Thursday to follow Abraham Lincoln's example of showing generosity to political opponents and valuing national unity — above all else.

Posted by: rmorris391 | February 12, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

We should hope that this President has learned in the past long two weeks that the Republicans are going to do nothing--repeat nothing---to help him with his ambitious and needed agenda for America. The GOPs agenda is to wait in the weeds so that in 2 or 4 years they can disavow themselves from whatever this administration accomplishes or fails at. We must remember that there will be failures together with successes. Senator Gregg's change of heart and words is another example that the relationships between the parties will be as bad as Dick Cheney would have ever wanted.

Posted by: lawhamptons | February 12, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

askgees wrote:
"The national debt was only burdened with the cost of the wars until 4 months ago ...."

-----
You have no idea what you're writing about.

The Bush administration signed $5 TRILLION in new deficit spending which added to the federal debt during 8 years in office before October 1, 2008.

Nor did all of that $5 trillion go to war spending, more was due to tax cuts to the wealthy - like me.

Posted by: boscobobb | February 12, 2009 6:11 PM | Report abuse

repubsux - Unfortunately, I don't wear a tinfoil hat. I am merely an observer and, in the past several years, as regulars here can tell you, I haven't been wrong yet.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 12, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Loser: the Washington Post, in this piece which treats a major economic policy decision as a simplistic horse race. Obviously, who wins and who loses depends on the long-term outcome.

One article probably doesn't hurt, but as a general approach, horse race coverage vitiates intelligent political discourse, and frankly, I think it is bound to work against Obama - -and thus the country -- as the president tries to repair a massively broken system.

Posted by: lind2008 | February 12, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Look the President bent over backwards and even had cocktails with these obstructionist Republicans the American people are sick of these idiots that are called Republicans The hell with Judd Gregg I don't understand why President Obama would want a obstructionist in his cabinet Remember the President reached out to the Republican party We went Thur eight years of their Ideas and I myself know that only tax cuts will not get this country moving again I only know that this President is trying to move forward, nobody knows if this stimulus plan will work because nobody has had these kind of problems. The American people by the polls are supporting this President an I support this President if it does not work this country will be in more trouble than it is. If you are like the obstructionist and are hoping for failure you should get out of this country because it would be UnAmerican to wish this President to fail. If it works their is not much left of the Republican party is there? Like there is anything left anyway

Posted by: mernatti123 | February 12, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

It i.s pleasant to here replicans talk
about waste ,I.m still trying to hear someone talk about the 9.3 bilion dollars that went to the people of that coumtry we just conquered that by the way we were just looking for weapons of mass distruction, If I were obama do it my way or give it back to bush.

Posted by: creid41 | February 12, 2009 5:47 PM | Report abuse

You've presented a false dichotomy.

Regardless of how you vote, EVERYONE'S MONEY IS ON THE TABLE ON THE SAME BET. Your bet is placed. If it doesn't pay off we're all worse off.

You darn well better hope we're ALL winners, because if we're not all winners, we're all losers.

Posted by: boscobobb | February 12, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

I'm rather surprised you didn't name Nancy Pelosi, apart from the House Dems as a loser in this. I don't think it was so much the House Dems taking a back seat to Harry Reid and the Senate as much as the House Dems were chastened by the across-the-board negative assessment of the House bill as an over-the-top liberal wish list. It was Speaker Pelosi herself who let it happen that way, in fact I suspect she insisted upon it.

Posted by: markie_de_sade | February 12, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

With TARP we had a similar amount of urgency to pass a bailout for the banks and it turns out that the banks irresponsibly used the money to pay themselves bonuses for running their companies into the ground.

See what happens when government messes with the free markets? These companies were rewarded for their bad behavior.

As shameful as this activity was the government should have anticipated that Wall Street and the law of greed would need a check on it to make sure the bailout money was being spent in a worthwhile manner.

See what happens when we make decisions too quickly?

$789 billion is a lot of money to spend without much forethought and planning.

The goal of "creating or saving 3.5 million jobs" is worthy one, but exactly how is this going to be done?

Congress and President Obama have not satisfactorily explained how this bill is going to save and create jobs. Instead we are faced with inflammatory rhetoric saying that if we do not act now, we will be facing a catastrophe.

The whole idea behind our government is that drastic plans of actions need to be carefully scrutinized and not undertaken in a fear driven frenzy.

Dan Decker
-------------------------------------------

Dan,

On a general level, I agree with you. There is a real question as to whether how quickly we should act. Some say we're already past that date, some say it's ahead of us. I agree the a great deal of scrutiny is required for bills from BOTH parties. I will not accept a stall if it is clearly for partisan reasons. I fear that the GOP would be saying Obama is not moving quickly enough if he was not pushing this bill through at the current pace. I agree wholeheartedly that it is a large sum of money and I too would like some explanation of connecting point A (funding) with point E (job creation) by points B-D in explaining how they envision Project X will create Y number of jobs. I am trying to find out what economists are thinking. I want them to be vocal right now and they appear to be silent.

Posted by: SteadyState | February 12, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

I don't know it this bill will work or not - and rather expect it will work to a lesser degree of efficiency than we want. But the Republicans who tried to show disdain for an honest effort of the Democrats were looking very bad. They may have a unified strong voice - but it also helps to have something sensible to say. They missed out on that. We all know they are selling us short. This is not a season for hedge funds.

Posted by: gary4books | February 12, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

askgees

Every day you wonder how the republicans lost the election just read your post. Does it ever occur to you that in order for Obama to have won by the margin he did that he had to get votes from people that did not vote democrat the last election. So does that mean that some of those welfare people you speak of that supported Obama are republicans? Use your brain the next time you post.

Posted by: ged0386 | February 12, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

What about Vice President Joe Biden? He started meeting with his former Senate colleagues in December trying to gin up support for the coming Stimulus package. He and his incredible wife Dr. Jill have also been socially wooing many of the VP's former Senate colleagues. Though the Republicans in the Senate decided overwhelmingly to bow out, don't underestimate the VP's influence in bringing the three Northeastern moderate's into the fold.
Vernice in Bowie

Posted by: 21859 | February 12, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone stopped to think that this might be the real terrorist attack? And Bush and the Republicans set us up for it. Give President Obama a chance; he hasn't even been in office a month. This is uncharted territory. If the Republicans were as smart as they think they are, we wouldn't be in this mess. They're really just unthinking, self-serving bullies.

Posted by: LeotheLion1 | February 12, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

With TARP we had a similar amount of urgency to pass a bailout for the banks and it turns out that the banks irresponsibly used the money to pay themselves bonuses for running their companies into the ground.

See what happens when government messes with the free markets? These companies were rewarded for their bad behavior.

As shameful as this activity was the government should have anticipated that Wall Street and the law of greed would need a check on it to make sure the bailout money was being spent in a worthwhile manner.

See what happens when we make decisions too quickly?

$789 billion is a lot of money to spend without much forethought and planning.

The goal of "creating or saving 3.5 million jobs" is worthy one, but exactly how is this going to be done?

Congress and President Obama have not satisfactorily explained how this bill is going to save and create jobs. Instead we are faced with inflammatory rhetoric saying that if we do not act now, we will be facing a catastrophe.

The whole idea behind our government is that drastic plans of actions need to be carefully scrutinized and not undertaken in a fear driven frenzy.

Dan Decker
http://www.weeklypoint.com


Posted by: DanD4 | February 12, 2009 5:28 PM | Report abuse

The stupidity in America today is unbelievable. First of all, the wars were not illegal. Look up the word; check out the info regarding the sending of the troops. After you have done that stick you're head in the oven, the last thing America needs is any offspring of yours running around. The national debt was only burdened with the cost of the wars until 4 months ago when Congress authorized 750 billion for the stimulus package. Now Obama wants’ more. Making the grand total 7.8 trillion dollars. Out of that 220 million is for creating new jobs. So you are wrong NO ONE WILL BENIFFIT and the next 2-3 generations will suffer because of his ignorance. But I guess that’s good for the democrats considering their base supporters are welfare recipients. Might as well make 70% of the country welfare recipients so they can get re-elected. Great plan.

Posted by: askgees | February 12, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse


Congratulations you proved the first sentence of your own post correct with the rest of your post. You sound like a mad republican who wants to vent at democrats for benefiting from bad leadership by republicans. Funny how you can predict all the bad things that will result from democratic leadership but cant seem to acknowledge the failure of republican leadership that has gotten us to this point. Then you wan to vent at democrats as if its their fault republicans ran the country soo bad. Have you forgotten who was in charge in all branches of government the last decade? Now you want democrats to go kill themselves because YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH regarding your party. Democrats cant change your party republicans have to. Want to get mad at someone get mad at the republicans who blew their opportunity at leading the country.

Posted by: ged0386 | February 12, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

It looks like the Republicans will soon take over the mantle:

"They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

Posted by: p2dppd | February 12, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Republicans lost this battle in every way but Sunday. They whinned, postured, cried, slung trash and rhetoric and threw a tantrum, but they sure as heck chose not to participate in any functional way.

Posted by: TimeforChange | February 12, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

I think that the real issue is will the package create jobs and do the job not the politics of who won and who lost. If this package has too much pork and too little stimulus then America will be the loser.

Posted by: mharwick | February 12, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

As an independent who generally is just left of center, I think that a bill including both political partys' ideas would be best and could incorporate the best of ideas from both sides. Clearly, the Senate is more interested in playing bi-partisanship ball, but the House is full of loonies on the right and the left. With that said, if the Republicans are out here just to make Obama look bad and are going to continue playing obstructionist games, I am done with them for a significant amount of time in the forseeable future. Votes for any national level Republican will not even be an option on my ballot. The current incarnation of their party makes my stomach turn. I am not saying that I don't prescribe to SOME of their beliefs (small government [I will add effective], fiscal restraint), but I think Trickle-Down has been shown not to work; they need to find a new course and stop having wet-dreams about Ronny Ray-gun.

Posted by: SteadyState | February 12, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"The government is best which governs least." - Thomas Jefferson

Our government has been overreaching for decades and we are now faced with unprecedented government intrusion at almost every level. From the Patriot Act to TARP and the "Stimulus" bill, we are quickly becoming a state subject to central planning rather than a republic. We all know where history relegates such. Any vote against increased government is a vote for liberty.

Posted by: BBailey7 | February 12, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse


Bipartisanship: involving two political parties; relating to, undertaken by, or including two political parties

Partisan: showing unreasoning support; showing strong and usually biased support for a cause, especially a political one.

Biased supporter: a strong supporter of a person, group, or cause, especially one who does not listen to other people's opinions

Resistance fighter: a member of a group that has taken up armed resistance against occupying enemy forces

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | February 12, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

This may be a blessing in disguise. President Obama extended a hand to the Republican Party, and two of its members acknowledged his sincerity and accepted his offer.

Senator Gregg was sincere in his decision to withdraw his offer to serve our new president, and I cannot fault him for doing so, and who knows, this could be the opportune time to ask Mitt Romney to fill this important post.
My guess is that Mitt Romney would remain faithful to his party, but he would be even more faithful to his country during this difficult time.

George Cournoyer, North Smithfield,RI

Posted by: Mainstreeter | February 12, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Biggest Winners: The American People

Thanks to the careful scrutiny of the bill by Republicans, lots of wasteful and non-stimulus spending came to light that we'd otherwise not have known about. While Republicans were not successful in getting all of it removed, they did get a significant portion of it taken out, and the american people are pleased with this and fortunate that their tax dollars will be more wisely spent.

Posted by: boosterprez | February 12, 2009 4:44 PM


Now if they were only that good at objecting to pork when they are in power they could have stayed in power. Dont you agree? If only they could stand up to their own leaders like they stand up to democrats.

Posted by: ged0386 | February 12, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Guess this sort of silly, who won, who lost exercise has some merit if you're a columnist deciding what to write about.

Most notably absent from the list - the American people.

Posted by: magellan1 | February 12, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it funny that now republicans are concerned that their children and grandchildren will be paying down the nation's debt. Yet when the Bush administration was running up the national debt, and borrowing money for his illegal war, they sat back and cheered him. The only people who benifited from Bush's economic policy were the very rich. Everyone will benifit from Obama's policy. Even you stupid republicans. But you damn sure don't deserve it.


Posted by: strictly_liberal | February 12, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

The stupidity in America today is unbelievable. First of all, the wars were not illegal. Look up the word; check out the info regarding the sending of the troops. After you have done that stick you're head in the oven, the last thing America needs is any offspring of yours running around. The national debt was only burdened with the cost of the wars until 4 months ago when Congress authorized 750 billion for the stimulus package. Now Obama wants’ more. Making the grand total 7.8 trillion dollars. Out of that 220 million is for creating new jobs. So you are wrong NO ONE WILL BENIFFIT and the next 2-3 generations will suffer because of his ignorance. But I guess that’s good for the democrats considering their base supporters are welfare recipients. Might as well make 70% of the country welfare recipients so they can get re-elected. Great plan.

Posted by: askgees | February 12, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

While I appreciate bsimon's evident concern about deficit spending, I would take issue with the idea that a nearly 800 billion dollar government "stimulus" package that does little more than put more people on the government payroll is the answer. I prefer to live humbly on what I make by making sound financial choices as opposed to depending on a tax hike from the government to "create" 4 million, billion jobs, thus ensuring everyone admission to the land of milk and honey where no one minds paying 50% income tax because everyone has seven figure incomes. This bill places a good deal of money in the hands of a body, (congress) that has made far more bad fiscal decisions than good ones! Do we REALLY think allowing congress to spend their way out of trouble is the answer? Give the people their own money back and let them sink or swim as they will. (Or don't democrats subscribe to Darwin anymore?)

Posted by: michaelellis29 | February 12, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

The House can't compete with the Senate for drama, and it shouldn't want to. Pelosi has enough votes that Democrats could pass nearly anything they want and the best House Republicans can do is whine to Stephanopolous. Senate Republicans have some say with their abuse of the filibuster, something they wanted to do away with when they ran the show.

Bipartisanship failed because Republicans played obstructionists, and Obama made it painfully obvious. He invited House Republicans to dinner, who are only slightly more relevant in this town than the DC Republican Party. They responded at the dinner by insulting him and making it obvious they will vote no on anything Obama does. Obama has allowed them to cast themselves as interested only in making him look bad, so he looks the gentleman and they look like spiteful jerks.

Obama also showed that he can be a nice guy and a hard knuckled politician at the same time. He'll invite you to dinner, but he'll get his way with or without you.

Posted by: AxelDC | February 12, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Republicans gained four seats in the 2004 Senate elections, at the high tide of Republican popularity. If Democrats get four seats back in 2010, there's going to be a lot of whining and gnashing of teeth in the (remaining) red states.

As usual, the Republicans have nothing to fall back on but their dogmatic lies. Apparently any construction project for them is "pork", but in reality-land, the bill passed has no earmarks from any legislator. They are desperate to preserve the Bush legacy even after the voters have passed judgement.

One notes that Arlen Spector is up for reelection in 2010. I guess he wants to keep his job, unlike most of his colleagues.

Posted by: lartfromabove | February 12, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

"As a practical matter, Ddawd correctly pointed out that a domestic bill that draws the ideological line will not be the beneficiary of bipartisanship. Another instance of the great ideological divide will be card check, but since blue dogs will also oppose it it will be negotiated to an uneasy compromise."

There are a few Republican Senators who are willing to buck the party line, but when it is such a struggle to get even Snowe and Collins to join in and McCain being such a vocal critic of the bill, it makes me believe that this isn't a political maneuver, but bullish sticking to ideology.

As a Republican, if you aren't going to say no to $800 billion in spending, then what the hell WILL you say no to?

Posted by: DDAWD | February 12, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

And with that oh-so-happy thought, I bid you all good day. It's getting spooky in here...

Posted by: repubsux | February 12, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you need another categories: BIG BIG LOOSERS. And I think Judd Gregg will be the only one in this one.

And the American People should also be in the Winner categorie: at least for pushing this guy to widraw his name from consideration.

Posted by: Klausy | February 12, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

michaelellis29
I am a middle-class tax payer.
Under this bill, my taxes will be going down.
How is the American taxpayer such as myself is the biggest loser?

Posted by: strictly_liberal | February 12, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse


some more losers

the foreclosed upon families.
they won't be able to re-coup.

i donate to father joe villages/st vincent de paul.
they send me letters. last one was received about 3 weeks ago.
in their homeless shelters, their usual number, that they feed about 1500 a day.
it has gone up to 5500 a day.

along with homelessness comes violence.
like husbands blowing away their entire families, etc.
but the press won't report this too much.
you will hear some stories leak out about the violence, crime, and homelessness
but our press is inherently blind to the truth as well. it doesn't sell, ya know.
it doesn't keep the viewers.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | February 12, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Contrary to popular belief, Obama's victory came from rage, not hope. We gave money to see corrupt Democrats and Republicans in general get lost.

Obama knows this, he ditched Daschle instantly, realizing he needs our anger behind him, not aimed at him.

But both sides are underestimating the anger of the downwardly mobile center.

Sure there will be the polar gravitation of about 10% each to the far right and far left, but the great majority of us know who did this to us, we know what they did, when and how they did it.

The Republicans with no exceptions and some corrupt, crony (pay to play) capitalist Democrats, like Dingell, better run and hide.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 12, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Bipartisanship is a goal, not an event.

The Republican/Reagan model has taken a beating - but not everywhere. All politics being local, it still pays for people like McConnell and Sessions and Boehner to adopt a scorched-earth strategy.

If Democrats retain the House and get 60 seats or more in the Senate, the equation changes as Republicans will need Democrats more than Democrats need Republicans. Only when it is clear that their dead-end tactics are leading them into a dead end will Republican moderates begin to re-emerge.

What Obama is doing now is putting out the welcome mat. "You'll have access if you care to use it" is the message. Don't forget his history in community organizing - behavioral change takes time and only follows a change in consciousness. He plays a long game; it matters not whether the Fix downrates Bipartisanship this week or next month.

Posted by: j2hess | February 12, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Biggest Winners: The American People

Thanks to the careful scrutiny of the bill by Republicans, lots of wasteful and non-stimulus spending came to light that we'd otherwise not have known about. While Republicans were not successful in getting all of it removed, they did get a significant portion of it taken out, and the american people are pleased with this and fortunate that their tax dollars will be more wisely spent.

Posted by: boosterprez | February 12, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it funny that now republicans are concerned that their children and grandchildren will be paying down the nation's debt. Yet when the Bush administration was running up the national debt, and borrowing money for his illegal war, they sat back and cheered him. The only people who benifited from Bush's economic policy were the very rich. Everyone will benifit from Obama's policy. Even you stupid republicans. But you damn sure don't deserve it.

Posted by: strictly_liberal | February 12, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Winners: Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Tax and Spend liberalism, socialism, failing government pet projects.

Losers: The American Taxpayer.

Posted by: michaelellis29 | February 12, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Losers: RNC/GOP. Seriously, it's as if they all found fiscal discipline religion again, but still want more tax cuts for Billionaires! Do they think we haven't been paying attention to them and their America-hating actions?

Winners: The World - because it is a global crisis, and sadly many nations have been waiting for us to get off our duffs.

Posted by: WillSeattle | February 12, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

At the least, Obama has made his administration priorities, morality and personality clear as black and white.

Posted by: GordonShumway | February 12, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

It is clear to me that the way the GOP acts they think they are still the majority party. As long as they continue to dig in their heels they may remain the minority party. Democrats do need to learn the word compromise and not act like the GOP did back in the days of Bush. We are in charge we can do whatever the heck we want. Well we see what doing what you want has landed our country.
Kids can we learn to play in the sandbox together? Hmm.

Posted by: bjlopez1130 | February 12, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

I'd put Reid, Pelosi, McConnell and Boehner at the top of the loser list. They have shown us that they are unwilling to set aside petty partisan squabbles for a few weeks even when the task at hand is reducing the risk of a worldwide depression. They hold positions of leadership in Congress but missed a golden opportunity to show that they are actually leaders.

Obama can change the way the Executive Branch does business but Reid, Pelosi, McConnell, and Boehner hae signaled that Congress is and will remain an organization owned and operated by lobbyists.

Posted by: exco | February 12, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

I'd put Reid, Pelosi, McConnell and Boehner at the top of the loser list. They have shown us that they are unwilling to set aside petty partisan squabbles for a few weeks even when the task at hand is reducing the risk of a worldwide depression. They hold positions of leadership in Congress but missed a golden opportunity to show that they are actually leaders.

Obama can change the way the Executive Branch does business but Reid, Pelosi, McConnell, and Boehner hae signaled that Congress is and will remain an organization owned and operated by lobbyists.

Posted by: exco | February 12, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27... dude (or dudette)... take off the aluminum foil hat and take your meds!

Posted by: repubsux | February 12, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin - No, I did not. I would like to read the article's. Can you repost links to them? And, thank you.

I have spent the past two years detailing exactly what would happen and when. I simply cannot fathom how the "experts" in Washington, even here at the Post, fail to run basic socio-economic models. The amount of ignorance demonstrated is both disheartening and downright dangerous. The trend lines, by the way, show the breaking point coming in late March or early April. AFter that, there is no turning back, and you can simply forget this country's continued existence. Then, this next Fall and winter will be marked by wide spread hunger, disease, riots, social unrest, rage and directed violence at all levels of authority, but especially immigrants, business and banking leaders. That will spill over to political leaders in late 2009. Afterwards we will witness cycles of repression and violence, much of this involving private armies like those sold by Blackwater, increasingly sever, until the government and all authority simply collapse. I expect some sort of cobbled together dictatorship, with vast regions of the country breaking away, likely arising out of some sort of unholy alliance by our Eastern business-Wall Street establishment and private "security" firms. Our liberals might just get a chance to see some real honest-to-god Nazi's, not the confused conservatives they so commonly call by that name.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 12, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Starting unnecessary wars, blowing money on the Military Industrial Complex, rich wall street cronies and well connected no bid business's(Halliburton) is exactly what the Repuglicans did for the last eight years and that's exactly why they're a very small minority now.

So when you hear Repuglicans crying about domestic spending tell them to put a sock in it because if it wasn't for them we wouldn't be in the economic crap hole that we're in right now in the first place.


Posted by: DrainYou | February 12, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1, so you think tomohara3471 understood your explanation? Yeah, I don't think so either. It just makes waaay too much sense.

Like I said... talking to a duffel bag.

Posted by: repubsux | February 12, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Chris, if you'd stop blathering on and started looking at data, you would know that while Obama's approval ratings are still quite high and little changed since his inauguration, John Boehner has about a 52% DISapproval rating and Mitch McConnell is just about right up there with him.

In the short term, the Republicans lose because they look like they created a mess and then stood in the school house door, so to speak, when Obama and the Democrats went to clean it up. In the longer term, Obama and the Democrats win big if the economy recovers sufficiently that people can notice.

The Republicans either have to come up ideas that the American people can believe in or stand by while Obama rolls them. Tax cuts and just let the economy take its course ain't gettin the job done.

Posted by: Bob22003 | February 12, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27 your viewpoint is well taken. The banking industry or should I say the BANDIT INDUSTRY is a well oiled machine that gets its wheels greased but they have learned from the poorest of the poor - BEG!!!!!

Posted by: kurtbw | February 12, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Olympia Snowe gets a nod also, from the House. Again, it, IMO was not exactly the form of BIPARTISANSHIP as we know it to be (for those familiar with the word and HOW it impacts American politics). However, it sends a signal a way is made to continue the effort, long after a Obama administration, so that accountability is restored and barriers to communication, are removed.

No longer little "down the hall sweatshops" for a select few. Ok maybe a dream in DC but still the effort was there to do more than plant a seed. Lets see how this grows.

Posted by: kurtbw | February 12, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Biggest Losers: Republican party.

Anytime they get outside of their anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, tax-cuts-for-the-rich, comfort zone they just fall to pieces.

Petulant, obstructionist, hypocritical little children is putting it mildly.

When this works, and it will, everybody will remember that the republicans "just said no" and "just didn't do it".

Also they came out:
1. with Rush Limbaugh tagged as their de facto leader, nobody knows who Steele is.
2. Having linked themselves to the Taliban in search of tactics.
3. Most importantly - they accidentally let on to their deep disgust with, and of, working people.

They're doomed....

Posted by: Heerman532 | February 12, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

wernier:
'dem dare are fightin' words.

leave my man Rahm alone.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | February 12, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

The biggest losers of this so-called 'stimulus package' are the American people, who'll have to pay for this Democrap Socialist boondoggle that's nothing more than a payoff for services rendered to Obama and Democrap Socialist supporters for electing them. In about two years when this stimulus package do-do hits the fan with our economy in the tank, inflation and unemployment numbers in double digits (a la the Carter years), and the American people starting to realize that what the Barack Obama and Democrap Socialist Parties Marxist ideas are doing to our country is leading them to a USSR-type Socialist Workers paradise, it'll be the Democrap Socialists who'll be the BIG losers in the midterms.

Posted by: armpeg | February 12, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

ETPIETRO:
not sure about those cuban cigarmakers but i do know that the polar ice cutters/ice breakers got elimated.
something small like 50 million
(((sly grins))

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | February 12, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

tomohara3471 asks
"Why do liberals hate tax cuts? Why is keeping more of your own money a bad thing?"

I'm an independent voter. I don't hate tax cuts, personally. But, frankly, I don't want a tax cut as much as I want a raise. And some job stability. Supply and demand being what they are, I want fewer people to be unemployed. If we can stop the layoffs & start hiring - everybody is better off, because as demand goes up, so do prices. In other words, when hiring increases, wages & salary go up. That is the kind of economic stimulus that I - and more importantly, our economy as a whole - needs.

Sure, a tax cut that puts a few more bucks in my pocket is nice. But it doesn't do much to address the systemic problems with our economy or our federal budget. Borrowing money to cut taxes is about as stupid as last year's plan to borrow money to write checks to taxpayers. Sheer idiocy that merely postpones taking real action & forcing the tough choices onto someone else, down the road.

Anyone who is seriously concerned about our economy & federal debt realizes that the primary problem right now is getting the economy back on track. Once the economy's on track, we can start to address the perpetual deficit and growing national debt. To claim that we need to cut taxes at the same time as expressing concern about deficit spending demonstrates either a lack of understanding of how the items are related, or a deliberate effort to mislead the reader/listener.

Posted by: bsimon1 | February 12, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Interesting list. I really think that the obstructionists Republicans stand to be the biggest losers. The South will take stock at their gambit and eventually the moderates and liberals will put them out to pasture. The real problem with the right-wing Republicans is that their prejudice and hostility toward ordinary Americans, especially minorities, is hard to conceal.

For a party to tell us that spending a lot of money to try to avert financial disaster is wrong after gleefully spending 5 trillion dollars above budget during the last 8 years. Since they refuse to be a constructive part of the solution, they need to replaced when the opportunity arises.

Posted by: EarlC | February 12, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

MikeB - Did you see the two links I gave you to an NPR interview with an author who has written that free trade is a "dead" idea?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 12, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Other Winners:
Henrietta Hughes, face of the new homelessness, broke our hearts...asked for help and got some.
Claire McCaskill: her smart, sensible, every person reactions are setting her on a path to stardom.
Charlie Crist, standing apart from the partisan bickering..on stage with Obama. Huge win!
Losers:
Rahm Emmanuel..Part 1 House Bill..FAILED the President by letting Pelosi go wild. His non effectiveness cost the President the high ground. Part 2 ? Conference/Part 3 Some redemption by holding House Dems down.
Nancy Pelosi: As big of a partisan as anyone. Her position is there is a mandate here..but she fails to recognize it is a mandate NOT just for change away from Bush policies, but change away from porking it and Washington knee jerk politics and ideas.
Special category: Managing to be irrelevant:John "fundamentals are strong" McCain. Why insert himself into this so strongly in a non helpful way..so there Obama..I am a maverick. Ha!

Posted by: wernier | February 12, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

It will turn out that bipartisanship is built on the long term effort to open cordial discussions, not a single vote, and professional negotiations are best patient and built over time.

As a practical matter, Ddawd correctly pointed out that a domestic bill that draws the ideological line will not be the beneficiary of bipartisanship. Another instance of the great ideological divide will be card check, but since blue dogs will also oppose it it will be negotiated to an uneasy compromise.

Bipartisanship will be front and center on shaping foreign policy and the efforts of the Prez and the VP NOW will pay off THEN, or so I hope. I think you will see McC and Graham, for example, standing with Gates and Jones and Clinton on national security policy. And part of that will be the efforts of the WH to reach out on every bill, no matter how unlikely the result. When these guys are having cocktails at the WH every week or so they will find it harder to disagree just for the sake of being disagreeable.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 12, 2009 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Sheesh..., or should I say "sheep". I can see from reading the comments that both the Democrat and Republican faithful are still drinking the cool-ade. Might I suggest that you try thinking outside the box. If you do, you will see that both parties are fatally flawed. But alas, the electorate seems intent (no matter what the circumstances) of electing the same life-time politicians over, and over, and over again.

Posted by: NoVaPatriot | February 12, 2009 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Oh, please! The destruction of our economy was a bipartisan effort. Leaders of both parties ponied up to the hogs trough set by corporations, the financial services industry, Wall Street, and the governments of India and China. Sure, Bush was a disaster. But, remember, this free trade nonsense, the H1-B visa that has gutted our ability to invent our way out of this mess, outsourcing, tax incentives to move factories overseas, all of it began under the Clinton Administration. It was, moreover, Clinton's invention of the idea of literally trading U.S. jobs for foreign policy incentives and acquiescence that marked the beginning of the end.

Other countries followed our lead and it led to equally disasterous results. We are STILL repeating the mistakes made by Clinton and Bush. Politician's like Dodd and Schumer and Richardson and all of those Republican's squawking about the bailout still have their faces in the dogs dish provided by banks and corporations. Obama still welcomes CEO's to the White House that continue to care more about profits than their own survival. The age old question, can a country go bankrupt, has been answered in the affirmative, and it is more than likely that the United States will cease to exist sometime this next year.

Morons! The stock market, not a very good indication of the health of our economy anyways, is due to fall to the 6500 range. The dollar is going to collapse as an international currency and investments of all sorts are going to flee this country like rats from a sinking ship. Those low low Wall Mart prices, those cheap Mac's and clothing and purses, all have and had a price to pay and the bill has come due. End free trade. Ruthlessly go after companies that have outsourced jobs until those jobs return. Tax the snot out of goods and services that are produced by American companies, or U.S. based "multinationals", offshore. Learn from the lessons of the past and use the Sherman Anti-Trust laws to break up big companies, banks, and other monopolies. Understand that we can thrive, have always thrived, as a people, making things, growing food, providing services, and selling them to each other. An economy that depends upon consumer spending for 90% of it's income has no need to play in a global economy where the rules are so fixed that it is not in our national interest.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 12, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Cantor and Baner (he spells it "Boehner") have succeeded in backing their party into a weak obstructionist position from which it will be difficult to extricate themselves. Is the Republicans' quest for a new winning identity now at an end?

Just saying no presents an inauspicious prospect while so many are suffering from the woes of the nation's economic downturn.

Posted by: FirstMouse1 | February 12, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

A little premature to announce Collins and Nelson as winners.

By today's accounts, it seems as though they both got rolled like a couple of Cuban cigars.

Speaking of which, isn't there money in this package to subsidize Cuban cigarmakers?

Posted by: etpietro | February 12, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Republicans will lose, because reality always gets the last word.

Posted by: svreader | February 12, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse


(((the babe cracks up laughing ))

CDIERD1944:
right on.
remember the scene in american president..about the letter from the CDC, etc. etc..
Mike Douglas says to Martin Sheen:
"with 61% approval rating, i don't need their help to get a bill passed".

Yeah baby.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | February 12, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

The Rupublicans, both House and Senate, showed themselves to be the biggest loosers of all. When the American people demand bipartisanship from their leaders in an effort to stave off disaster, the Republicans embrace disaster rather than giving a Democratic President a "win." Their mantra continues to be "party before country."

Posted by: Lefty_ | February 12, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

lynnlm --

I'm not sure Republicans even have DNA.

Posted by: svreader | February 12, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

hold the phone independent4,
how did conservatives block education reform?
bush did no child left behind and conservatives balked big time.
couldn't get their free money from IASA any longer (like they had done for 10 years with education going NOWHERE)...
then comes NCLB, a good law, if enacted properly by states, and the conservatives from many of our states, b**ched, griped, cried, and tried to change state law to circumvent it.

oh yeah, come to arizona and i can tell you how NCLB was massacred.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | February 12, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Republicans aren't actually against the bill.

They're just being paid Billions by the pork industry to say or print the word "pork" as frequently as possible to make people hungry for pork sandwiches, pork roasts, and pork chops.

I don't even normally eat pork, but all this Republican talk of pork is getting me realy hungry for a nice roast pork sandwich.

If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone.

Thank God they don't call it Dolphin Spending.

Democrats should call Republican spending "Dork" spending, and use it as every second or third word like Republicans do with the word "pork"

Turnabout is fair play.

Republicans are Dorks.

Posted by: svreader | February 12, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Whoever you people are who are talking about how support for the stimulus package is "dropping a rock" need to check out the latest Gallup.com poll. Support is 59% and opposition is 33%. Obama's job approval rating is rising to 64%. People do like politicians who get things done vs. those who say government is evil and whose only goals are tax cuts and starting wars to impose democracy on those who have no clue what the system means.

Posted by: cdierd1944 | February 12, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

The Republican-Bush economic crisis is the result of the Bush Mis-Administration? What did Bush and his appointees do? They announced a crisis and presented congress with a two and one-half page template for congress to approve. Congress approved it, the big Banks and Wall Street Republican brokers got bailed out, without conditions. Now the Repugnicans are nit-picking while the economy dives. They have no honor, let alone respect.

Posted by: lynnlm | February 12, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

The Friends of Haliburton, the BushPalinCheneyMcSame voters, are losers.

They better be. They have an awful lot of blood on their hands.

But really, who cares what Republicans "think"? Who are their national candidates?

Bobby (not his actual name) Jindal? Michael Steele? The boiled pig: Rush Limbaugh?

Republicans are irrelevant until their base donates the $400 million dollars needed to contest the national political landscape. Until then, they are just angry, detestable losers.


Posted by: shrink2 | February 12, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"Why can't so-called "conservatives" see through the Republican line of bull-crap? They couldn't care less about you!"
-------------
Because Conservatives are the party that has blocked education reform for the last eight years and longer. The smart conservatives make sure that the "average joe" conservatives stay stupid. That is the only way they can guarantee votes.

Posted by: Independent4tw | February 12, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse


vbhroomes:
nope, not the baby boomers.
don't blame them.

i have thought about who is the loser in this and i have to say
Tom Daschle and our health care system. specially our health care system.

and all the autism money in the world is not going to fix it.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | February 12, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

CORRECTION:

"UNITED WE STAND" was recorded by a long-forgotten group called "Brotherhood of Man" and not Peaches and Herb.

They did "REUNITED."

Either tune is apropos to the occasion, however.

And will that jazz piano be standard-issue at all Obama bill signings and events? I'm down with it...

Posted by: scrivener50 | February 12, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

tomohara3147 wrote: "Why do liberals hate tax cuts? Why is keeping more of your own money a bad thing?"

It's like talking to a duffel bag. Just how many "Joe The Plumbers" are there in this party? Do all of you own imaginary companies making $280K a year? Wake up!

First of all, I am as fiscally responsible as anyone out there. By my own boot straps, pay-as-you-go, etc, etc. Obama is talking about TARGETED tax cuts. To those who need it most. Why would you want to give billions in tax loop holes to the same CEOs that you are screaming at when your kids' school is crumbling and their teachers can't even make enough to live on?

Why can't so-called "conservatives" see through the Republican line of bull-crap? They couldn't care less about you!

Posted by: repubsux | February 12, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Susan Collins/Ben Nelson without a doubt! Obama gets a B+ (the plus was the quickie stumps in Indy and Florida (Florida trip may prove to be a bigger winner for him in two years also), smart to make the trips.

Also, a bit of a loser or the half happy, half frown goes to Mr. Spector (R-PA) for getting brow beat by the RNC and Caucas. Hey the other two stood their ground and could easily see beyond the doom and gloom, same of party line of where the innoculation for funds should go. Sure if we did exactly what the opponents of the current stimulus wanted we'd have the SAME budgeting Wash and SPIN cycle of the previous 6 years.

The tone down was to save Spector's face but let's face it. Allowing the VULTURES to set up their BUSINESS shops to converge on those that benefitted the most from the stimulus whether by way of processes and procedures (even by way of politics on the local level), or directly skimming it away before its done for indivuals, would have sealed the fate for failure WITHOUT at least a try to do something with civility.

Now we know the lower and middle class got screwed again, by appeasing Mr. Spector, since the tax savings looks more like enough to do a half a fillup at the pump for a subcompact car, but in the long run, its a Stimulus, across the board, so impact is felt in multiple areas and jobs begin to eventually grow from Business tax and financial help.

Indeed the EFFORT will speak volumes down the road for Bipartisanship when OTHER events, etc. occur forcing them to work together. The United States must avoid being under siege by constant bickering vs making things happen to dig out of the whole whether from the previous adm or what is done from the current one.

Another winner is PATIENCE. Unless someone expected some form of a miracle, you better saddle up folks and get tough. The ride's going to be rough no matter who had been in office. We still have to deal with the TRADE WORLDWIDE, two war fronts, health care, droughts, disasters by nature and a cast of thousands.

Posted by: kurtbw | February 12, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

The Republican members of the House were losers. After the party just elected new leadership to change its image and diversify its base (in response to significant losses in the November elections), they will be seen by tens of thousands of registered (out of work Republicans) as out of touch with reality. So at a time when they want to widen their base, they will have achieved the exact opposite effect.

Posted by: rrodine | February 12, 2009 3:15 PM | Report abuse

The problem with Republicans is that the surgeon slipped during their "nose job" and it turned into a "lobotomy"

Posted by: svreader | February 12, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

You have to list Senile John McSame in the LOSERS column. After promising to work with the President, he spearheaded misguided Republican Taliban and unleashed unscrupulous attack not only the bill (which is fine0, but also the president. Tell that senile that the election has ended months ago. He’s stuck in the past. He always has.

Posted by: JHigginss | February 12, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA GETS A 'SAVE' FROM THREE BRAVE, ALLEGED 'RINOs'

Winners:

GOPers Specter, Snowe, Collins. This daring troika gave Team Obama the "save."

They are getting skewered today in the wingnut blogosphere. Such a badge of honor.

Expect them to be invited to the next WH cocktail party, where the pianist will play a jazz version of Peaches and Herb's "United We Stand."

Now... will Specter, a good and decent man who carries heavy burdens of history on his shoulders, step up on the Judiciary Committee and restore civil liberties and human rights in America by answering this question:

IT IS DAY 24 OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

DO YOU *REALLY* KNOW WHAT YOUR 'MULTI-AGENCY ACTION CENTER' IS UP TO?

http://my.nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-targets-terrorizes-u-s-citizens

http://my.nowpublic.com/world/domestic-torture-radiation-weaponry-americas-horrific-shame

OR (if links are corrupted):

http://My.NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | February 12, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

It may just be a tactical victory for Obama, the biggest loser you didn't mention was the next two generations who are going to be left to pay the bill. The baby boom generation will rightly be recorded by historians as the most selfish and self-centered generation in American History. The idea that baby boomers, like generations in the past, should sacrifice for future generations simply does not register with them. Anybody who supported this generation theft should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by: vbhoomes | February 12, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

When Harry Reid praises RINOs, that makes them winners?

As for those townhalls, perhaps Chris Cillizza shouldn't cheer this country's further descent into Idiocracy. The questions people ask at townhalls are almost always incredibly bad. That turns them into little more than theater, an attempt to fool people into thinking they have a voice when all they're doing is acting as setups for a speech from Obama.

If anyone wants to change things, contact major bloggers and urge them to push this plan:

http://24ahead.com/how-stop-stimulus-bill-ask-tough-questions-and-ill-help

Regular citizens need to ask the questions that the hacks at the WaPo are too corrupt to ask.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | February 12, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the democrats own this stimulus bill. They are lucky all the details have not been seen. Look for big gains for GOP in 2010.

Why do liberals hate tax cuts? Why is keeping more of your own money a bad thing?

Posted by: tomohara3147 | February 12, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Bipartisan? Most Repubicans aren't even bipedal. They should be removed from office for conduct unbecomming a Mammal.

Posted by: svreader | February 12, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

I think the Republican party was a big loser. John McCain, Lindsay Graham and several others made fools of themselves last week. When talking economics, they spouted gibberish. Contrary to all the facts, they tried to label Obama as AWOL on the economy. Huh? Perhaps the unmovable 25 to 33 percent of hardcore Republicans were impressed. But For the rest of America, these Republican leaders looked ill-informed, petty, out of touch and obstructionist. They got plenty of photo ops and sound bites for a few days, but were steam-rolled by the president this week.

Posted by: QuincyScott | February 12, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

The math is simple. The Democrats one a substantial victory in the Fall and that energy continues as Obama wins a significant victory. Once the economy finally ignites and catches on, when recovery blossoms like tulips in spring the GOP Taliban will be despised. And if the tulips don't bloom? The GOP will still be despised for not only having created this calamity but for stupidly clinging to the very ideas and principles that has ruined so man lives. At the end of the day, Obama is the big winner.

Posted by: medogsbstfrnd | February 12, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

After all the stimulus noise this week, President Obama is clearly proving to be a calm FDR figure ready to unify the country and try whatever makes sense and may help America out of economic disaster. The GOP demonstrated that they are not quite ready to change direction from the Bush-Cheney era...often appearing "Hoover-ish" in their stubborn obstruction.

America is ready for leadership that will lead, follow, or get out of the way. The GOP just cannot seem to do any of these.

Posted by: free-donny | February 12, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

billyc123;
why do you say: "Change we can believe in" and bi-partisanship, he puzzingly abandoned both this week...."

he has changed things...look how many repulsives are cryin' in their beers and predicting the end of the world because a smart man took the helm.
and bi partisanship---i think we have all agreed upon the fact that he really really doesn't need it...but he has done everything to encourage it.
-tell me that the town halls do NOT encourage bipartisanship
-tell me that the actual walking over to Congress to talk to them in the chambers did NOT encourage bipartisanship
-tell me the dinner for McCain did not encourage bipartisanship.
-tell me the cocktail parties at the white house did NOT encourage bipartisanship
-tell me that Michelle going to federal agencies did NOT encourage bipartisanship.

aaaawwwww gee. just like a repulsive. all the facts are there for you, you can see the logic...but refuse to acknowledge.
take the toys and go home now.
oh wait......be a terrible two and fall down on the congressional floor now and have a big temper tantrum!!!

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | February 12, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

The House GOP is the ultimate LOSERS in this fight. They had no alternative plan; no vision; no new ideas. Nothing! Nada! They are falling back into their old destructive and disruptive ways. They embraced losing Taliban strategy of burn and destroy. There's no honor in that. There is no vision in that. There is no solution from that.
They don’t get it. There is a fundamental shift of voters’ attitude and they are misaligned with reality. Citizens voted for CHANGE and demand action and bipartisanship not same old tired ideologies of the last 8 years. These idiots are deaf toned. Don’t worry, they will remain in a permanent minority if they keep up this attitude.

Posted by: JHigginss | February 12, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

I think you should list Harry Reid as a loser. Simply being out in front for a photo op. doesn't mean he somehow becomes the face of this bill or bipartisanship. I think it showed the leadership of both sides to be out of touch with the new administration and the American people. Pelosi and Reid are squandering their opportunity.

Collins and Nelson made the stimulus happen for Obama. They are the model of leadership the American voters should be looking for to move the country forward.

Posted by: jnoel002 | February 12, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

I'd slot the President into the "losers" category. After campaigning on a promise of "Change we can believe in" and bi-partisanship, he puzzingly abandoned both this week in order to campaign for this bill via the aforementioned Town Halls. I thought he looked amateurish and desperate in doing so.

Posted by: billyc123
---------------------------------
How then would you suggested that he do anything different to get bi-partisan support for the bill...oh, I know, the only thing left--have each of the Repuke Representatives of Congress bend over on national T.V. while he kissed their azz on camera. Bi-partisanship is a laughing matter for the Repuke Party...their goal and only goal is to do everything they can to make the President fail...never mind the people whom they were elected to represent; as far as the Repuke Party is concerned, this whole country can go to hell ass long as they get their way...2010...2012 extinct...

Posted by: Beingsensible | February 12, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

The Republican's "fire up the base" strategy is great... For us Democrats.

Like Doonesbury's "Uncle Duke"'s campaign slogan, "kinder and gentler fascism", they show the way Republicans "think"

Some people are born bad, some people become bad, and bad people become Republicans.

The more they post, the more people see their only their real core value is greed, and that they are actually take joy in seeing other Americans suffer or even just the thought of it.

It makes them feel "big"

And shows how small they actually are.

Posted by: svreader | February 12, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

TO BILLY C., first poster above. Uh, if you believe there was no attempt at bipartisanship, then you have bought the GOP propaganda hook, line and sinker. They have been on a campaign to try to persuade the American people that boo hoo we were not included, but how can you include people who won't show up, or you have people who would rather have the country crash and burn (Cantor's just say no is a theme the GOP campaigned for right from the start) then TRY to help in the recovery, who want Obama to fail, and are looking at the 2010 elections instead of at Feb. 2009? These are very dangerous people, if only it were just a matter of failures, but they are failures and fearsome!

Posted by: lrb100 | February 12, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

If this is what the "new" republican party looks like, I say rock on! Come 2010 and 2012, they will have about 75 seats in the House, 23 in the Senate and about 6 governors nationwide. And no amount of dark complexion (Jindal or Steele) will change that. Maybe then they will clue in and see that it's not the skin color or extra X chromosome, not gimmicks or fear tactics. It's about ideas, not idealogy. Intellectual aptitude, not uneducated pandering. Intestinal fortitude, not heavy-handed overreaction. And true compassion for those less fortunate, not hatred and disdain.

But then again, look who we're talking about. I seriously doubt that they will ever get it.

Posted by: repubsux | February 12, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

I think the Pelosi was the biggest loser. Its obvious to me Pelosi and rest of the Dems in the house were in a candy store after Bush left office. I don't think the GOP is the problem for President Obama, it might well be the the lefties in the House. I am moderate Democrat and I feel the country wants the President Obama to govern in the middle. President and Ramh must control those House Dems to survive,if they don't it will be a long 4 years

Posted by: valjeanharden | February 12, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

ADDITIONAL WINNERS:

Florida Governor Charlie Crist for being big enough to introduce President Obama at the Town Hall in his State.

Senators Snowe, Collins, and Specter for putting Country over petty politics.

ADDITIONAL LOSERS:

John McCain for after pretending like he was bigger than the petty Repukeblican political shananigins, falling right back in line with the exiled Party.

Indiana Senator Richard Lugar for being the petty person that he is and refusing to fly to his State with Obama to address the people of his State who are suffering with the highest unemployment rate in the Country in an effort to stand by his petty Party comrades in the Senate.

All of the Repukelican House Representatives for putting their petty Party politics before the people who elected them to represent their interest. Let's add the Repuke idiots in the Senate too with the exception of Snowe, Collins, and Spector. Here's hoping that 2012 will be the extinction of the Repuke Party. Then and only then will we be able to rebuild this great nation. Let them have tea and listen to their leader Rush.

Posted by: Beingsensible | February 12, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

The instant analysis of winners and losers seems way off the mark and for the wrong reasons.

The popularity of the stimulus package has been dropping like a rock as more of the details are revealed. Obama and the Hill Democrats are only winners in the sense they got this through before public support totally collapsed.

Now it had better work or people forget about it because they own it.

Posted by: drewnettles | February 12, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

I'd slot the President into the "losers" category. After campaigning on a promise of "Change we can believe in" and bi-partisanship, he puzzingly abandoned both this week in order to campaign for this bill via the aforementioned Town Halls. I thought he looked amateurish and desperate in doing so.

Posted by: billyc123 | February 12, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Once again the Fix needs to be fixed.

Clearly, the biggest WINNER is PRESIDENT OBAMA. He got what he wanted. If the bill had failed, you'd be SCREAMING about it, and blaming him. Fair is fair.

And Biggest LOSERS: the entire GOP PARTY. Everyone now knows their game plan, and come 2010, Americans are going to make new history with a LANDSLIDE of Democrats replacing feckless GOP.

What a sorry excuse for a political party. All they are is a one note band, all they know how to say is "tax cuts for the wealthy." They deserve to be rounded up and unceremoniously squashed by their symbol.

Posted by: ethanquern | February 12, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

With all the challenges that face us, the author wants us to consider who may have gained small tactical advantages during the stimulus bill disagreements. We all lose when we focus on those differences instead of the common challenges that frankly "don't give a damn" whether Reid scored points or not. For example, the President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has just said that Obama and the US must take action now on climate change- the situation will not wait. We can not afford politics as usual.

Posted by: steveandjanereed1 | February 12, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

By promising efforts of bi-partisonship with Congress, and not getting it, should send a loud and clear message to American voters whom to select to represent them when the next elections come up.

Posted by: vicsoir | February 12, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans in the House were certainly big losers and the polls support that contention. They kept saying they had a better solution but never gave any details. Their tax cuts are the solutions to all problems is so obviously bogus that they look ridiculous. Johm McCain sounds like an angry old man which aligns him pretty well with his base. The big winner is the American people who will benefit from the economic recovery and restored faith that the government can get something done despite the best efforts of the Republicans to continue the gridlock that has possessed congress for many years.

Posted by: cdierd1944 | February 12, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I guess I am just a dreamer. And a little naive. I will never vote for a Republican again. They don't care about us as long as they have their high paying jobs and pensions and health care that they deny us. The people who voted for them and who pay for that. Don't tell me we are broke when Bush hands out million dollar jobs and leaves office. Let's do a budget, zero based, and start again. Everyone reapplies for their job. Also no one in a government job gets any better benefits than I do. Then see them vote for any packages for benefits and health care. I am also very disappointed in Democrats. Stop being nice when I am losing my home, savings, and job. Push back!!!
I give up.

Posted by: ritagorra | February 12, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

bondosan:
valid

and i know it sounds cold but the greatest generation has broke(n) us.
their tabu(s) (my god, don't go to high school pregnant (i.e.))
their "this is the way it WILL be". the "you can't do that because it's always been done this way" attitude.
their hesitation for new projects.
their staunch prejudice.

i know i will get terrible feedback on this, but I am sick of the greatest generation being penned "the greatest generation".
time to acknowledge the paradox it brought us. and time to acknowledge the paradigm shift that THEY began that put us in this mess.
not the baby boomers. it is the greatest generation who did it.
thank you for dying on the field of battle and all that...but 64 years later
I AM DYING ON THE FIELD OF BATTLE !

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | February 12, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

ya gotta give President Obama credit.
he tried to make friends and influence people.
geez, i guess making 75% of the American people your quasi-friend isn't good enough.
oh wait....i guess making --what was it--2 million Germans that turned out in Germany to hear him speak-----
i guess making 2 million Germans quasi-friends doesn't count.
so what if he can't get 60 repulsives, that are stuck in the 1950s adam smith world of economics---to be his friends, eh!

besides, you know what Rahm (my new heartthrob) says:
"Always know where your enemies are so you know where the bullets are comin' from"

funny, they are all in the US government.
what's that tell you?????

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | February 12, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

A common Republican mantra these days is that Roosevelt's New Deal didn't help during the Great Depression (in fact, some lunatics have argued that it EXTENDED it!), but that, of course, WORLD WAR II is what pulled America out of the economic mess.

They speak as if WWII was some kind of terrific corporation, founded by Henry Ford and Bill Gates, that put everyone back to work.

World War II caused the government to engage in massive, unprecedented, deficit spending to respond to an emergency.

Following the war, the powerful economic growth that followed that government investment helped make the U.S. the most powerful economic engine on earth.

It seems like we're back to massive spending in response to an emergency.

And I think it will work out all right.

Posted by: Bondosan | February 12, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

"Um, that was a waste of a summer, then. Obama has been promising bipartisanship for quite some time now."

Well then I certainly hope that the last few weeks have taught the President that "bi-partisanship" is a waste of time, energy and good will. As psychotic as Limbaugh is, at least he's honest. Republicans don't want to see Obama succeed. Not a single one of them want that. If this bill was nothing but tax cuts for fat cats, they would still find a way to rail against it. Why? Because it came from "That One".

Forget bi-partisanship. All efforts should now be focused on defeating more republicans; dwindling their numbers. Not an ounce of effort should be spent on trying to work with them. It's not worth it.

Posted by: repubsux | February 12, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

repubsux:
i agree...

they can have cheese with their whine all they want, but in the final analysis, they must "take it and like it".
And that is exactly what the repulsives hate.
And man alive, you best believe this is going to "stick in their craw" big time, all the way until the next republican president.
then, let's watch the "hate" come out in the form of payback. republicans (and half of american society) love to see the blood on the flood. Like J.Lennon: "you scratch my back and I'll knife yours".
John had a republican in mind when he wrote that song.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | February 12, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

The biggest losers are both the Republican and Democratic parties that are seen by the nation as bickering children. We need to develop a new communications model that takes party politics out of it. President Obama is trying to act in a higher more mature way than the actors of either party. This is time to set aside party politics and act for the country. A tough thing for party leaders that count on the "congress wars" to get them re-elected.

Posted by: AZdave | February 12, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't Eric Cantor's name floated for VP before McCain selected Palin? He's hardly been under the radar; I would say that his wife's employer having benefited from the original TARP was certainly under reported.

(source: http://www.propublica.org/article/bank-employing-gop-house-leaders-wife-got-bailout-bucks-090123)

Posted by: umprof | February 12, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Three more losers:
1)US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
2)Wall Street
aka The conductor and the train wreck
No change upward until O initiates a trade war to ban imports (except oil) for eight years in order to restore manufacturing jobs across the board.
Just building a bridges, roads, and schools, is not diversified enough.
O's got to create a void with the import freeze in order to necessitate new jobs at home to fill that void.

Posted by: lockmallup | February 12, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"I didn't volunteer and participate all of last summer because I wanted to build a better relationship with republicans or negotiate with them."

Um, that was a waste of a summer, then. Obama has been promising bipartisanship for quite some time now.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 12, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

What is the big fascination with "bi-partisanship"? I whole-heartedly support Obama but this is one subject on which I strongly disagree with him. Republicans were trounced in the last two election cycles. The last one was particularly resounding. That means they get to sit down and shut up for 2 to 4 years. Period, end of discussion. They can vote "no" all they want, as long as their votes remain largely symbolic and utterly meaningless.

I didn't volunteer and participate all of last summer because I wanted to build a better relationship with republicans or negotiate with them. I did it because I did not want to see them or hear from them again. Ever.

Posted by: repubsux | February 12, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

"you ought to be listing obama as a loser..
he took a beating,and he looked foolish"

Republicans have been hammering Obama on this for weeks and took control of the debate. Obama, over the course of a few days, completely turned it around and shored up a good deal more pop support. It was truly astonishing.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 12, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

The uproar over the video is ridiculous.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 12, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

You forgot to add under losers:
The American People

Posted by: Hoops44 | February 12, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Specter will be the big loser. If he runs in 2010 he is certain to get a primary opponent and certain to lose.

Polls and focus groups will force him to retire early.

Dont lose sight of 1994, there was an enormous backlash. The deficits and changes to Medicare will get alot of voters attention by then. Heath Schuler of North Carolina is out front on this.

Would love to see Ross Perot venture out and comment on this and the job losses in Ohio and Michigan which probably arent coming back.

Posted by: wjwills7 | February 12, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I agree that Eric Cantor is in both the winner AND loser spots. Unfortunately for him, the loser spot was a lot more "net-viral" and offensive than his "winner" punditry on the Official Pundit Circuit. And, of course, bottom line, the legislation is going to pass, whether he likes it or not.

As far as bi-partisanship being dead...
President Obama did his part.

May bi-partisanship die a very quick death if obstructionism is the GOP definition of "bi-partisanship."

Posted by: freespeak | February 12, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

buzzm1
Why are you yelling?

Note; Issues stripped from the plan/bill are still issues that need to be dealt with. There removal does not mean that they will be ignored people. This is day 23.5 for goddness sake.

Looking for a scape goat already. Grow up


newagent99
you ought to be listing obama as a loser..
he took a beating,and he looked foolish

Why because he actually went out and tried to appeal to people, suport what he was proposing, talked to people?

Posted by: sinya | February 12, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

where has e-verify been stripped?
......
newagent: why is President Obama a loser.

because died in the wool greatest generationERs, bow tie 75 year old republicans can't stomach or swallow the fact that the tide is turning to,
oh my god...
smart and intelligent people who like action, know computer software packages, understand the law and code--- (instead of image-producing and "can i have a pool in my backyard now" repulsives.????)

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | February 12, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Harry Dweeb used his master's of degree in Nevada political arts.

Posted by: whocares666 | February 12, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is the biggest loser for failing to convince just three of their own members to join their obstructionism - and for ailing to follow through on their promises that a majority of Americans would support their efforts to block the stimulus.

The GOP is now officially a do-nothing party of obstructionists.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | February 12, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

It's great the e-verify was stripped from the bill. Now all the nativists can die of apoplexy. The fewer of them, the better.

Posted by: Garak | February 12, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure how you see calling town halls a winner. Obama didn't get what he wanted and actually called a bill his that was more a cobbled together bill from the House and Collins and Snowe and Spector.

There is no bi-partisanship out there and there will be less as Obama hopefully makes good on his promise to appoint pro-choice judges and move on giving members of the GLBT community equal rights.

I agree that Rahm Emanuel is a winner as he went and controlled his Democratic former colleagues but it will be interesting to see for how long he can do that.

Posted by: peterdc | February 12, 2009 1:03 PM | Report abuse

you ought to be listing obama as a loser..
he took a beating,and he looked foolish

Posted by: newagent99 | February 12, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse


E-VERIFY HAS NOW BEEN STRIPPED FROM THE FINAL STIMULUS BILL

ILLEGALS ARE FREE TO TAKE THE STIMULUS JOBS

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!

STAND UP AMERICANS, DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN!!!

TAKE ACTION TODAY!!!

OBAMA SAID HE WAS GOUNG TO CRACK DOWN ON EMPLOYERS WHO HIRE ILLEGALS.

OBAMA LIED!!!

SHAME ON HIM!!!

THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR BLACKS IS 12.6% AND OBAMA GIVES STIMULUS JOBS TO ILLEGALS!!

Posted by: buzzm1 | February 12, 2009 12:59 PM | Report abuse

isn't rahm wonderful !!

"Emanuel, who is know for his brash persona and penchant for swearing, is actually held in high esteem by many of his former colleagues."

i have a brash persona and penchant for swearing too! it's the chicago thing.

he is a winner in my book.
but the winner of this entire rigamole:
the people.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | February 12, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

If they voted NO, then the process would start over, be pushed back several weeks, the market would take another 1000 point hit, and REPUBLICANS would get the blame. You may complain about being out of power and unable to shape the agenda, but you better privately be thanking them for saving your collective hides from taking even more of the blame for the continuation of the Bush depression.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | February 12, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Calling a Republican who gives in to more than 98% of a slantedly Democrat agenda a winner or a moderate is uninformed. If Snowe, Collins and Specter voted NO this week and instead were, as we speak, making this bill at least 30-40% percent appealling to Republicans and actually bringing more Republicans in on it that would be different. They just proved they are RINOS and that's about it.

Posted by: star_key2 | February 12, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company