I’m predicting the final vote on Obama’s $800 billion-plus fiscal stimulus bill will be split along party lines, with only a few rogue Republicans in the House and Senate voting to support the bill.
In spite of Obama’s extraordinary efforts to work with the G.O.P. on this legislation, Republicans won’t support the bill for a variety of reasons. As Politico notes:
With most moderates having retired or been defeated, especially among House Republicans, there is little political danger in opposing nearly another trillion dollars in spending at a time when many conservative-leaning voters are weary of government intervention after months of bailouts.
In other words, the moderates — those Republicans who would have been most tempted to support the bill — were replaced with Democrats in the last election.
Furthermore, Republicans understand that in order for their party to return to power anytime soon, Obama must not go down in history as a phenomenally successful president; and this means they cannot hand Obama a massive political victory in the first weeks of his presidency. In his final column for the New York Times, Conservative columnist William Kristol correctly identifies the significance of Obama’s fortunes. He begins by acknowledging (proclaiming?) that a conservative era in American politics that began with Ronald Reagan has ended. Then, he considers whether the new era will be a liberal one:
The answer lies in the hands of one man: the 44th president. If Reagan’s policies had failed, or if he hadn’t been politically successful, the conservative ascendancy would have been nipped in the bud. So with President Obama today. Liberalism’s fate rests to an astonishing degree on his shoulders. If he governs successfully, we’re in a new political era. If not, the country will be open to new conservative alternatives.
I believe Kristol is right: If Obama is seen as a successful president, it will not only empower him to make significant progress in implementing his agenda throughout his eight years in office — it will also set the stage for Democratic dominance of American politics for a generation. Which is not what the uber-conservative Republicans want at all. So they can’t acknowledge that Obama’s plan is good for the country.
Finally, it seems that many conservatives honestly don’t think the stimulus bill will work. Consider the following reporting from Politico:
Obama’s soothing tones Tuesday couldn’t mask his disagreement with Republicans on the need for more tax cuts in the package. That was the first question he took in his meeting on the House side — and Obama brushed it away with a polite, but firm, no thanks.
“Feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part,” Obama said of Republican opposition to the Democrats’ refundable tax credits, according to two sources in the room.
Finger-pointing aside, that partisan reality gets at why the relationship is fraying: irreconcilable differences.
“It lasted about two days,” quipped Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), when asked if the honeymoon was over.
Why so soon?
Because, he said, conservatives are just “not receptive” to Obama’s agenda.
Yet even Inhofe, a true-believing conservative who represents a state in which Obama lost every county, is unwilling to take after his former colleague.
“He is very likable, he presented himself very well, and he seemed to want to be inclusive,” Inhofe said in a brief interview following Obama’s meeting. “But if the product is anything like we think it’s going to be, it’s not one that is going to be sellable to conservatives.”
In other words, a lot of Republicans will oppose the bill because it’s just not what conservatives want to do. That’s American democracy.
For all of these reasons, Republicans won’t give Obama the “bipartisan” support he is looking for. Nevertheless, the bill will pass — and then Obama’s political fortunes will rise or fall based on how effectively the bill turns our country’s economic frown upside-down. Of course, not long after the bill passes — maybe a few months later, maybe six months later — Republicans will argue that the bill was a dismal failure, and Democrats will argue that the bill was a smashing success. I believe this is basically the debate that will determine whether Congressional Democrats keep their majorities in Congress in 2010.
So lets hope the bill is a success, for the sake of the millions of Americans who will benefit from a strong economy, and for the sake of the millions of Americans who will benefit from another two years of Democratic governance.
So if Obama is doomed to fail in his efforts to win lots of yes votes from both parties on his stimulus bill, what is the point of all his extraordinary ”reaching out” to Republicans? All right, all right, perhaps calling it “extraordinary” is over-the-top. The media uses the word “rare.” As in:
Obama’s trip to Capitol Hill was rare for a sitting president, especially given his decision to meet only with the opposition. He met with Democratic lawmakers earlier this month.
A week after being sworn into office, Mr. Obama returned to the Capitol for the first of what his advisers said would be frequent visits with members of Congress. Yet it was still a rare event for a president, particularly a Democratic one, to sit down with the entire Republican conference. …
It was far too early to say whether Mr. Obama’s visit to Capitol Hill would attract any more Republican votes for the economic recovery plan that is scheduled to be considered on Wednesday in the House. But officials from both sides said it was the beginning of a dialogue between Congressional Republicans and the White House that did not exist even when George W. Bush was in the Oval Office.
The rare trip by a president to Capitol Hill revealed the urgency in Congress and the White House over a cure for the souring economy
So the Washington press corps seems to agree that Obama’s visit with Congressional Republicans was “rare.” It is also worth noting that his visit effectively compelled a number of Republicans to say nice things about him. Consider this from the L.A. Times:
Despite their opposition to the stimulus plan, many House Republicans came away from their meeting with Obama saying the president had impressively laid the groundwork for future cooperation.
“I thought it was a great gesture on his part and it begins a dialogue,” (Rep. Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis) said. “He did a good job starting us off, at least, beginning to talk to one another. And that will help him in the future.”
And this from the New York Times:
Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, said after the meeting that significant philosophical differences remained between the president and the Republicans, but they also agreed on several fronts. The mere fact of the meeting, he said, was an early sign of a willingness by the White House to solicit input from all sides.
“We both share a sincere belief that we have to have a plan that works, that will revive our economy, create jobs and help preserve jobs in our country,” Mr. Boehner said. “I think our members enjoyed the conversation. I think the president enjoyed the conversation. I look forward to continuing to work with him to improve this package.”
And this from Politico:
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), one of the House Republicans on Obama’s target list, lavished praise on the president for coming to visit in an interview after the lunch. But she indicated she was still uncertain if she could reward his effort.
“Do we need a stimulus? I believe we do. But do we need to spend the amount that were spending? I’m not convinced of that.”
Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), asked if any of her colleagues were more inclined to support the stimulus measure after their back and forth with Obama, was more blunt: “I don’t think so.”
Of course, she didn’t want to place the blame at the president’s feet.
“It’s unfortunate that their leadership didn’t negotiate with us,” Biggert said. “The problem is that the process now is too far down the road.”
But, with a twinkle, she said, “he really cares about what he’s doing.”
Obama is “sincere.” He is “laying the groundwork for future cooperation.” He “did a good job” getting them to “talk to one another.” He has a “willingness” to “solicit input from all sides.” He “presented himself very well, and seemed to want to be inclusive.” He “really cares about what he’s doing.”
I don’t know what all this praise means, but it will be interesting to see how many of these same Republicans are willing to support nasty campaign ads against Obama in four years. It may be that Obama is actually setting a new tone in Washington — and setting a new precedent against with all future presidents will be judged in their treatment of members of Congress.
UPDATE: It appears the bill may win at least one Republican Senator’s vote, according to this report from a Politico article released tonight:
Rising above the fray Tuesday — but almost omnipresent — was Obama himself, meeting with rank-and-file House and Senate Republicans and making his case that the floor votes ahead are just the first steps in a larger action plan to address financial regulations, home foreclosures and banks teetering near insolvency.
“His presentation was a tour de force,” New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg told Politico. The top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, Gregg has been an outspoken critic of the level of new spending in the administration’s plan but said: “I felt much better. … He’s clearly moving forward aggressively on all the different fronts. I was very impressed. If he puts it in the context of an integrated effort, I’d consider it.”
Now why didn’t George W. Bush meet with rank-and-file Democrats and impress them with his “tour de force” presentations about his overall strategy in the War on Terror?
I guess we’ll never know.