About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

WaPo, please define "too late"

February 01, 2009 10:37 pm ET by Eric Boehlert

The Post's hand-wringing editorial about Obama's stimulus package insists the president needs to do more to placate Republicans; he needs to make more cuts in order to win their bipartisan support. (Why? Is legislation passed without Republican support somehow seen by the Beltway press corps as being not legitimate?)

But get a load of this pretzel logic:

Mr. Obama has sought bipartisan support for the bill. This is to his credit, but by simultaneously courting Republicans and assigning the actual drafting of the bill to Democratic congressional leaders, he has wound up zigzagging between the two parties rather than herding them together. When he seemed to lean toward more tax cuts to win over Republicans, Democrats rebelled and opted for more spending. When they proposed hundreds of millions of dollars for contraceptives and the Mall, Mr. Obama had the controversial provisions removed, but too late to win over Republicans.

Did you follow? Prior to the vote in the House on the stimulus package, Obama pulled provisions Republicans objected to. But according to the Post editorial, it was too late.

Go ahead and re-read the Post passage a second and third time, because the editorial never makes any sense even after multiple readings. The Post urged Obama to listen to Republican complaints about the stimulus package and to act on them. Obama did precisely that prior to the House vote. Yet Republicans, unanimously, still voted against the bill.

So according to the Post, who's to blame for the lack of bipartisan support? Obama, of course.

Support Our Work


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by LuvLuLu (February 02, 2009 11:53 am ET)
         
      I listened to Republican complaints about the Stimulus package on the Sunday morning news talk shows, and none of them made a bit of sense. They all throw out that it's "pork", but there's really very little pork in this bill. They all say that it won't stimulate the economy, but economists of all stripes say that it will. They all say that tax cuts like what they suggest would be better stimulants, but the evidence is not there to back them up. They're wrong on almost every level, and Democrats have to cave to their demands?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (February 02, 2009 1:48 pm ET)
         
      I think you've summed it up pretty well. The Republicans seem determined to follow their defacto leader, Rush Limbaugh over a cliff, taking the rest of us with them if they can, as they cling desperately to their talking points.

      The sad part is that the "liberal media" are acting as enablers.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (February 02, 2009 6:07 pm ET)
         

      Let the Repubs toe the party line. If they want to stay out in the cold and sacrifice themselves for Rush then God Bless them. They don't know the word compromise so they can go to hell.

      Prez. Obama will wait a little longer and if they want to row their own boats he will certainly say Bon Voyage. This guy is not playing politics as the RadioRightNuts insist, they are. Goodbye GOP, your days are numbered.

      Report Abuse