Also, you write, “The problems grow more serious when Obama declares that he rejects the “failed theories” of Republicans — as, apparently, did the American people, except of course the very publication of the op-ed shows that Obama thinks he’s losing the debate on the stimulus.” I reject the idea that Obama can’t try to sell his plan, because the very act of trying to sell a plan is a sign of weakness. It’s no secret that getting this bill passed is a top priority, and to interpret this op-ed as evidence that Obama thinks he’s losing is unfair. 

That aside, if your point is that the message in the op-ed is the message Obama is selling elsewhere also — I agree that this message is driving a news cycle. I certainly agree with you that the Democrats are failing to sell their stimulus bill, but I’m not sure I agree with your diagnosis of the problem.

You write, “What Obama needed to have done is specify the causes of the problem and why his particular approach to the crisis is the best approach.”

The causes of the problem are complex. They involve complex financial instruments, overleveraged banks, the absence of necessary regulation, etc. How is it helpful to point out these things as a way to explain spending billions on renovations of new schools? It seems like what you want Obama to do is not to explain why this particular financial crisis happened, but to explain the economic theory that justifies random government spending as a solution. Is this what you mean?

Also, you write, “This passage answers “misguided” critics of the plan without accurately referring to the specific content of their criticisms and without reframing the debate to cast those criticisms as petty and ridiculous and fundamentally unserous.”

You’re right — to the extent that critics of this legislation are calling simply for more tax cuts, their arguments are falling flat, so it isn’t that effective for Obama to try to fight the Republicans on that basis. The reason the Republicans are winning this fight is because they are making the argument that this bill is chock full of spending proposals that are more about implementing the Democrats agenda than specifically stimulating the economy.

Obama has tried to reframe those criticisms as “petty and ridiculous and fundamentally unserous” in his interviews, when he has argued that if you took all the spending items Republicans complain about and added them up, it would still only amount to 1% of the bill. But that’s not good enough for this reason: If Republicans were basing their opposition to the bill on these items in and of themselves, Democrats could simply remove them and move forward; but the point Republicans are trying to make is that the inclusion of these silly items calls into question the process that drove the writing of this bill. Republicans use these items as examples of an overall problem with this bill, which is that the bill seems to spend money on various programs instead of on things that will provide efficient, short-term stimulus. In making this argument, Republicans are winning support from the media, which is basically saying the same thing, as I mentioned in my blog.

To reframe the debate as you suggest, Obama needs to either defend each and every item in the bill, or else defend the overall theories that caused these marginal items to be included. So why doesn’t he?

I would argue that on these grounds, the current bill may be indefensible. There is no economic theory that calls for increased spending on contraception, or benefits for Filipino veterans. The inclusion of these items makes it impossible — or at least highly problematic — for Obama to persuade people that this bill isn’t just what Chris Matthews recently called a “grab bag” of legislative goodies.

It would be fair to lay the blame at Obama’s feet for this if Obama had drafted this bill — but this bill was drafted by House Democrats. Obama is forced to defend a bill that draws negative attention to itself because House Democrats are MORONS!

So what op-ed would you write? How would you do a better job than Obama did?