If Obama and the Democrats want to be more successful in the future, they need to learn from their mistakes.  Their approach to this stimulus was a mistake.  I’m happy to say that Pelosi and the House Democrats made serious mistakes — including failing to stand up for their perfectly justified spending provisions.

But it still seems to me that the biggest mistake was Obama’s “postpartisanship,” which initially proposed an insufficient stimulus and is leaving us now with a hugely inadequate stimulus.  

I don’t think you understand the logic of my argument.  Obama is the leader of the Democratic party, so when there is an initiative that he wants to see passed and the Democratic party wants to see passed he is going to be the go-to person in the project of defending the proposal.

If Obama undermines the success of the plan he wants to see passed by not vigorously defending that plan, by tepidly talking about postpartisan this or bipartisan that, he ought to be blamed when the plan falls well below the lower threshold of what he himself admitted was necessary.

If Democrats want to resist Obama, there’s no particular reason for them not to do so.  If they succeed in their resistance, then Obama should be mad at their success.  If they fail, then Obama should be happy at his success.

I think the American people would have been much better off if Congressional Democrats had resisted Obama’s postpartisan approach and had pitched a 1.3 trillion dollar pure spending bill, and then after a repeat of the fight we just saw agreed to reduce it to 900 billion of a spending/tax combo.

That’s what you would do if you were buying a used car. The same negotiating principles apply for passing national-level legislation. 

They could have proposed spending that Republicans would feel compelled to support — such as spending on construction projects at military bases, massive road re-paving projects, etc. Instead, they proposed spending on items that any legislator with a brain in his skull would expect Republicans to object to, like the NEA, condoms, ice breakers, etc.

In other words, Democrats could have passed a huge spending bill with massive Republican support if only they had shown an iota of self-restraint in putting together the bill.

But they didn’t.

Instead of showing self-restraint, they loaded up the bill with items that will obviously offend Republicans. And then, you’re reduced to saying “Well, it’s spending!” as though the specifics don’t matter.

The question is, why did the Dems decide to spend the money on NEA spending, rather than something else. If you can make the argument that spending it on the NEA is THE MOST STIMULATIVE USE OF THAT MONEY, then make the argument. But the argument that all spending is equally stimulative and no government spending can possibly be wasteful hasn’t been made effectively.

You can blame Obama. He is the leader of the Democratic Party. And it is certainly correct that the Democratic Party’s success or failure will hinge entirely on Obama’s success or failure. That’s why House and Senate Dems need to understand that OBAMA IS IN CHARGE. Obama should be calling the plays, because he is the only one who can transform short-term anger at Republicans into long-term support for Democrats.

I agree with the logic of your comment: Obama is the leader of his party, and any Democrat who resists Obama in any way is merely weakening the party and increasing the chances that Dems will be successful. Do I understand you correctly?

NEA?  It’s spending.  Ice breakers?  Spending.

Stimulus is spending.  Again and again, we need to repeat:  stimulus is spending.  Do you want an economic stimulus that works?  Spend.  That’s the definition of stimulus.  There needed to be more of it, in fact.  Singling out Pelosi — who did fail in her duty, no doubt — misses the larger picture, in my view.  Look at Obama’s speech in the Rachel Maddow video:  that should have been Obama’s approach two-three weeks ago.  Democrats should have asked for much more — because, frankly, much more is needed — knowing they would have to give some of it up.

The American people should be posed with a couple questions if they’re having trouble deciding where they stand on the stimulus.

1. Do you want the free market to do what it will or do you want government intervention in the economy?

2. If you want government intervention, do you want cost-effective intervention or wasteful/useless intervention.

If you want the market to play itself out, do nothing.

If you want ineffective government action, cut taxes.

If you want effective intervention, spend.

The issues are not much more complicated than that, as far as I can tell.