Republicans Need To Tread Carefully In Response To Jobs Bill

With the economy at the forefront of the public's mind, the GOP needs to be careful in its response to President Obama's new jobs bill.

In a Rose Garden speech this morning, President Obama, flanked by teachers, firefighters, construction workers, and police officers, introduced the American Jobs Act, which is being sent to Congress today:

President Obama called again Monday for Congress to support his $447 billion plan to create jobs, accusing Republicans of refusing to work with him because of election politics rather than specific policy differences.

At a Rose Garden appearance, Obama pledged to send Congress the American Jobs Act on Monday evening when the legislative body resumes its session. The president, surrounded by American workers he said would be helped by the bill, held aloft a thick sheaf of papers secured by a large binder clip.

“This a bill that will put people back to work all across the country, that will help our economy in moment of national crisis,” Obama said. “It is based on ideas from both Democrats and Republicans. And this the bill that Congress needs to pass: no games, no politics, no delays. I’m sending this bill to Congress today, and they ought to pass it immediately.”

Today in Politico, in an article that was published before Obama’s speech, Marin Cogan and Jake Sherman take a look at how the GOP is reacting to that plan:

House Republicans may pass bits and pieces of President Barack Obama’s jobs plan, but behind the scenes, some Republicans are becoming worried about giving Obama any victories — even on issues the GOP has supported in the past.

And despite public declarations about finding common ground with Obama, some Republicans are privately grumbling that their leaders are being too accommodating with the president.

“Obama is on the ropes; why do we appear ready to hand him a win?” said one senior House Republican aide who requested anonymity to discuss the matter freely. “I just don’t want to co-own the economy by having to tout that we passed a jobs bill that won’t work or at least won’t do enough.”

Even with the presence of so many GOP-friendly provisions in Obama’s plan — like trade agreements and small-business tax relief — some senior lawmakers are pulling back, wondering how the president will ensure his initiatives will not add to the nation’s debt.

“To assume that we’re naturally for these things because we’ve been for them does not mean we will be for them if they cause debt, if they [have] tax increases and if they take money from the free-enterprise sector, which creates jobs,” said Texas Rep. Pete Sessions, who heads up the House Republican campaign arm.

So as they try to grab smaller, passable measures from Obama’s jobs package, Republicans are also trying to strike their own balance between appearing open to bipartisan solutions and not giving the president an easy legislative victory that could tether them to his ownership of a bad economy.

Matthew Yglesias takes this as a sign that Congress won’t pass much of anything:

In a paradigm where the passage of major legislation counts as a “win” for President Obama then anyone who wants to see President Obama go down to defeat, then no major legislation can pass on a bipartisan basis. This is exactly the problem the White House had in trying to overcome GOP filibusters during the 111th Congress and the main problem they face in trying to reach bipartisan accords with the Republican-led House of Representatives in the 112th Congress. This is the fundamental reality of American politics today, but far too few people put it at the center of their accounts of what’s happening.

Steve Benen appears to be shocked to find that there’s politics going on in this establishment:

For all of the debate over what motivates Republicans on Capitol Hill, could this quote be any clearer? GOP goals have nothing to do with boosting the economy or creating jobs, and everything to do with undermining the president during a crisis.

The correct answer to this aide’s question — Americans get back to work is more important than partisan politics — never seems to enter the picture.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), chairman of the NRCC, added that no one should assume congressional Republicans will support policies, just because “we’ve been for them” in the recent past.

No, of course not.

The other possibility, of course, is that there are some Republicans who honestly believe that the policies that the President is advocating in this bill are unwise or will have, at best, a minimal impact on job growth. For example, we’ve had a Payroll Tax Holiday in effect since January 1st of this year, and the unemployment reports have laid bare the fact that it doesn’t seem to have done anything to stimulate job growth, or the economy. As I’ve noted before, most economists seem to think that the tax credit for hiring that Obama’s plan includes will do little to stimulate job growth and will just end up being a subsidy to employers who were already planning to hire anyway. Infrastructure spending was a huge part of the 2009 stimulus bill and it did little to spark hiring, even among the construction companies that got the contracts that were awarded under it. Rather than hiring new workers, most of these employers seem to have decided to go forward with the new projects using their existing staff. Moreover, if there is new hiring for such projects, what happens when the project is done? Unless there’s more work out there, those workers are going to get laid off again because it would not make sense to pay them to be idle. In other words, it is possible to be against the President’s bill because it’s filled with bad ideas rather than simply because one wishes to see the President suffer a defeat. Accusing all opponents of the plan of being in that second group is simply unfair.

That said, Yglesias and Benen do have a point. There are most assuredly Republicans who want to defeat the President, that’s why their called the opposition party. In some sense this is how our political system has always worked, the problem is that some Republicans on Capitol Hill don’t seem to realize that blanket opposition isn’t always in their interest. In this case in particular, I think that the Congressional Republicans are potentially playing a dangerous game, and putting their position at risk. As it was when voters went to the polls in November 2010, the economy remains the top concern of voters according to every poll that’s been taken over the past ten months, and the jobs situation is the primary reason so many voters are concerned about the economy. If the GOP lets itself be seen as being nothing but obstructionist on this bill, and the President is able to sell it to the public as something that could do some good, then they’re in danger of having the public turning on them over the next fourteen months.

There’s already evidence that the public is just as displeased with the performance of Congressional Republicans on the economy as they are President Obama, if not more. Consider, for example, last week’s ABC News/Washington Post Poll:

Sixty-eight percent disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are doing their jobs, a point from the record high in ABC/Post data since 1994. (And 15 points more than Obama’s 53 percent disapproval.) Notably, cutting through partisan predispositions, 33 percent of Americans disapprove of Obama and the Republicans in Congress alike.

Moreover, for all Obama’s weak ratings, he still runs about evenly with the Republicans in Congress in trust to handle the economy, 42 percent vs. 39 percent; job creation, 40-40 percent; and the federal deficit, 39-42 percent. Meanwhile record numbers, 16 or 17 percent, volunteer that they trust neither Obama nor the GOP to handle any of these.

There hasn’t been any polling yet on the jobs plan. It’s far too soon for that, for one thing. However, if it turns out that the public is reacting to it positively, then Republicans will need to tread carefully. If they’re perceived as not willing to work together with Democrats to solve the nation’s biggest problem, it could come back to bite them when polls open in 2012.

Update: Rasmussen is just out with a poll on the jobs plan, which may not be much of a guide simply because respondents only had the speech from Thursday to go on in making their judgment:

Voters think Congress may pass at least some of President Obama’s latest jobs plan but have much more confidence in reducing government regulations to create new jobs.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the $447 billion plan the president introduced to a joint session of Congress last Thursday evening. Nearly as many (36%) oppose the plan which includes the continuation of certain tax breaks, the passage of several stalled free trade agreements with other countries and new spending for education, infrastructure like roads and bridges and the further extension of unemployment benefits. Twenty-six percent (26%) are undecided about the plan.

A look at the partisan demographics suggests, however, that many voters still don’t know much about the plan and are just reacting to the fact that it was proposed by the president. Sixty-six percent (66%) of Democrats favor it, while 64% of Republicans oppose it. Meanwhile, a plurality (37%) of voters not affiliated with either party doesn’t know enough about it to take a position for or against. Most voters consistently believe that cutting government spending is good for the economy.

Still, 62% of all voters think Congress is at least somewhat likely to approve some of the president’s jobs plan. That figure, however, includes just 17% who think passage is Very Likely. Twenty-nine percent (29%) feel Congress is unlikely to approve any of the plan.

At the same time, just 24% of voters believe increased government spending is more likely to create new jobs than reducing government regulations on business. Sixty-two percent (62%) think reduced regulation is a more likely job creator. Fourteen percent (14%) are not sure which course is better.

Take it for what it’s worth.

FILED UNDER: Barack Obama, Campaign 2012, Congress, Economics and Business, Politicians, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. Polaris says:

    React to what Jobs bill? So far Obama has yet to put anything in writing and still (contrary to what he’s said in his speach) has come up with any way to pay for it.

    Until he does, the ball is not (yet) in Congress’ court.

    -Polaris

  2. @Polaris:

    The bill is being submitted to Congress today, it will likely be available online later this week

  3. Sam says:

    Obama needs to WRITE a jobs bill

    Yet he wants it passed before anyone can read it.

    No bill should be passed until the work of government has it’s mark on it.
    That is how this government works. Write the bill, read the bill, debate the bill on the 2 floors of the congress, amend the bill as needed.

    If Obama wants this bill passed as written, he needs to move to a country where they accept dictators like he wants to be.

  4. Polaris says:

    Doug,

    That bill has no revenue attached to it. Unlike what the president promised, the bill has no way to pay for itself, thus it’s still incomplete.

    Besides, if it’s more of the same, I think the GOP can reject it on that basis or even simply pass the parts they like.

    Now if *I* were Boehner, I’d pass Obama’s entire bill, and then put a repeal of Obamacare in as well as a key portion of the bill.

    Tell the presdient, “We’ll play ball, but you have to give up Obamacare (which is unpopular and unexpectedly expensive anyway).”

    -Polaris

  5. Sam says:

    “In a Rose Garden speech this morning, President Obama, flanked by teachers, firefighters, construction workers, and police officers, ”

    All union jobs he desperately needs to save in order to get their votes again.

    It is a perverted government where you keep union jobs that then keep union dues flowing into your re-election campaign. How incestuous a relationship he has with the unions.

  6. Sam says:

    @Polaris:

    Any funding that is not coming from cuts this year or next, then it is meaningless!

    Obama cannot dictate (as much as he desires to) what a future congress must fund or cut.

  7. Hey Norm says:

    Mitch McConnell made it clear long ago…the most important thing to the Teavangelicals is defeating Obama. Helping the American people? Not so much.
    Nothing new here.

  8. Polaris says:

    @Sam:

    Any funding that is not coming from cuts this year or next, then it is meaningless!

    Obama cannot dictate (as much as he desires to) what a future congress must fund or cut.

    Oh, make no mistake. I fully agree. However, Obama hasn’t even bothered to use even this classic “accounting gimmick” to make the proposal revenue neutral as he promised. Just how dumb does he think we are?

    -Polaris

  9. Sam says:

    Even the SUPPORTERS of this “jobs bill” laugh when Obama lies about it being paid for.

    This is form the Obama website! TOO FRICKING FUNNY!

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/12/remarks-president-american-jobs-act

    “And the American Jobs Act is not going to add to the debt — it’s fully paid for. I want to repeat that. It is fully paid for. (Laughter.)”

  10. Sam says:

    HURRY to see it on the WH Website before ti gets changed to (applause)

  11. Hey Norm says:

    It’s funny to read posts from so-called republicans talking about debt and paying for things. Where were you clowns when Bush was running up all this debt?
    I can hear you now: “I was speaking out against it then.”
    If everyone of you who claims you were speaking out against it was actually speaking out against it we wouldn’t be where we are today.
    Butu keep ranting…it makes me laugh.

  12. Polaris says:

    @Hey Norm:

    There were a lot of republicans deeply unhappy with GWB’s spending. Don’t think otherwise. Howeer as long as the per capita (or Deficit/GDP) ratio remained stable, it wasn’t considered an emergency. Now it is thanks to Obama who is spending far more with less income (on a per year basis) than GWB ever did.

    -Polaris

  13. Sam says:

    @Hey Norm:

    Defeating Obummer is THE best thing anyone could do to help the American people!

    And we ALL know that the democrats NEVER ever set out to defeat a sitting president, no that never happened !

  14. David M says:

    The responses in this thread don’t even make sense. Where’s the bill? It’s not really paid for? John Boehner has said he will be sending the bill to the CBO, so it exists and we should have an idea of how it’s paid for pretty soon.

  15. Sam says:

    @Hey Norm:

    Where were YOU when the Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Bills?

  16. Polaris says:

    David M,

    Look up the definition of “will” as in future tense as in he doesn’t have it yet.

    -Polaris

  17. mantis says:

    There were a lot of republicans deeply unhappy with GWB’s spending.

    As soon as a Democrat was elected, you were. Before that, not so much. Some principles.

    Now it is thanks to Obama who is spending far more with less income (on a per year basis) than GWB ever did.

    No, that’s thanks to all that Republican spending that you were “unhappy” with. Way to go, geniuses.

  18. Sam says:

    @Hey Norm:

    All anyone who cares needs to do is look at Bush’s poll numbers late in his second term.
    That was not Demonrats saying they were unhappy!

    Geeez, it is not rocket science!

  19. Polaris says:

    @David M: The president’s own people (per AP) said that the bill does not include a funding mechanism. Supposedly he will work out some sort of (different) way to pay for it with the deficit supercomittee.

    Yeah right. Talk is cheap.

    -Polaris

  20. Sam says:

    @Sam:

    Getting thumbs down because I pointed out the laughter at Obama’s lie about it being paid for?

    What a losers you people are!

  21. mantis says:

    Where were YOU when the Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Bills?

    None of them are in Congress anymore, now that Thurmond and Helms are dead (and they switched to the Republican party anyway). A very large number of Republicans who were quite happy with massive spending increases under Bush are still in office. Do you not see the difference between things that happened in the past few years and those that happened half a century ago?

  22. Polaris says:

    @Sam: Get used to it. This is not a conservative site and IMHO for “Outside the Beltway” the people here seem to be pretty much inside the beltway establishment types.

    If you espouse conservative ideas, you will get trashed in the ratings. It goes with the territory.

    -Polaris

  23. Polaris says:

    @mantis: And the Dems have effectively neutered any African American political power they might have once had. After all, if you con 90% (or more..it was 95% in 2008) of a demographic group to always vote for your brand no matter what, then you don’t have to cater to them anymore…and neither does the opposition.

    After all, a (D) canditate knows that he will always get virtually 100% of the AA vote, and the (R) candidate knows he shouldn’t bother trying for any AA vote since he won’t get it anyway.

    -Polaris

  24. mantis says:

    President Obama is again going after tax breaks for oil companies and the owners of corporate jets — this time to help pay for his jobs bill.

    Eliminating provisions that help large corporations and upper-income Americans — which was part of the summer debate over raising the debt ceiling — are to be included as part of the financing plan for the $447 billion jobs plan Obama proposed last week, according to White House budget director Jacob Lew.

    The so called “pay-fors” are likely to revive the debate over whether higher taxes threaten job growth, as Republicans say, or whether wealthier Americans should contribute more to help create jobs and reduce the natioal debt, as Obama says.

    Other proposed revenue raisers have also come up before. One is eliminating certain itemized deductions for individuals who make more than $200,000 a year, and families more than $250,000. Another proposed revision of the tax code would affect the interest earnings of hedge fund managers.

    USA Today

  25. mantis says:

    @Polaris:

    And the Dems have effectively neutered any African American political power…

    Even if your comment weren’t nonsense, what does it have to do with this discussion at all?

  26. Polaris says:

    @mantis: You were the one that brought up “realignment”. I extended that tanget to the consequences. Basically the AA community sacrificed their political power on the “Donkey” Alter and have been paying for that mistake ever since.

    -Polaris

  27. samwide says:

    Kevin Drum, Republicans and Their Demons:

    The big question, of course, is whether Republicans are still capable of playing smart politics these days. Matt Yglesias points us to a Politico story suggesting that many conservatives are already griping about passing even a few small parts of Obama’s jobs bill:

    “Obama is on the ropes; why do we appear ready to hand him a win?” said one senior House Republican aide who requested anonymity to discuss the matter freely. “I just don’t want to co-own the economy by having to tout that we passed a jobs bill that won’t work or at least won’t do enough.”

    ….“To assume that we’re naturally for these things because we’ve been for them does not mean we will be for them if they cause debt, if they [have] tax increases and if they take money from the free-enterprise sector, which creates jobs,” said Texas Rep. Pete Sessions, who heads up the House Republican campaign arm.

    These two quotes encapsulate the problems facing the GOP: on the one hand, their all but complete addiction to mindless obstructionism as a legislative strategy these days, and on the other, a tea party wing that’s fanatically contemptuous of any ideological deviation. These are very different things: One is a scorched-earth tactical approach to politics and the other is a scorched-earth political faction with no taste for ideological compromise. Either of them alone might be enough to keep the GOP from acting in its own best interests, and both of them together may present a barrier that’s simply insurmountable. Their voices were fairly muted in the immediate aftermath of Obama’s speech, but they’ll gain strength and vitriol as actual legislation starts to become more concrete.

    Given the Sam and Pol tagteam above, I’d say that’s accurate.

  28. Hey Norm says:

    Look at how fast y’all jump to prove me right!!! Thank you! Astounding.
    @ Sam:
    I was 6 when Civil Rights act of 1964 passed. But from what I understand of political history that bill should be regarded as a Northern/Southern issue and not a Republican/Democrat issue. Today’s Teavangelical’s are the Southern Democrats of the early 60’s.

  29. Polaris says:

    Samwilde,

    There is no incentive for the GOP to cooperate with Obama on this “hypothetical” bill or any other. That’s what being an “opposition” party means (and lest you forget the Ds still hold Potus and the Senate making the GOP an opposition partyh).

    -Polaris

  30. David M says:

    @Polaris: I do appreciate you admitting it is to the GOPs advantage to continue sabotaging the economic recovery.

  31. David M says:

    As a reminder to everyone, most economists think this will increase GDP by 1 to 1.5% in 2012, a pretty significant boost that could avoid another recession.

  32. mantis says:

    @Polaris:

    So your answer is it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Thank you.

  33. mantis says:

    There is no incentive for the GOP to cooperate with Obama on this “hypothetical” bill or any other. That’s what being an “opposition” party means (and lest you forget the Ds still hold Potus and the Senate making the GOP an opposition partyh).

    Really? Being the opposition party means never working with the other party on anything, for any reason? Good to know.

  34. rodney dill says:

    The speech was all carrot, we won’t see the stick until the bill is available for reading. The Republicans will need to be cognizant that many will still want the carrot, even if the stick is untenable.

  35. mantis says:

    As a reminder to everyone, most economists think this will increase GDP by 1 to 1.5% in 2012, a pretty significant boost that could avoid another recession.

    Republicans want another recession. They want a depression. They’re salivating over the idea.

  36. samwide says:

    @Polaris:

    There is no incentive for the GOP to cooperate with Obama on this “hypothetical” bill or any other.

    QED

    (Why don’t you explain what that means to the other member of your comedy team?)

  37. Ben Wolf says:

    A further cut in the payroll tax is good fiscal policy. It helps people save more and retire debt more quickly. No it won’t do much of anything for job creation, but it will accelerate an end to the recession: the sooner private sector debt is retired the sooner private spending will resume. Talking about paying for the tax cut through spending cuts is counterproductive, as the money put into the private sector by cutting the tax would be pulled right back out by reducing government outlays.

  38. Polaris says:

    @David M: No. The listed economists in your source are almost all Keynsians who claimed that Obama’s original stimulus wasn’t big enough, AND they are assuming that the entire package can be inserted into the economy all at once AND they are assuming that the Kenysian multiplier works and is an order of at least 4.

    I don’t think you’ll find a consenus of economists on any of those points.

    -Polaris

  39. Hey Norm says:

    We return to the thread from the other day: why are Republicans against tax cuts – their answer for every domestic policy question? A thread in which Jan made it clear she is only for tax cuts because democrats are generally against them. Democrats being for them makes Teavangelical heads explode.

  40. Polaris says:

    @mantis: That’s a bald faced lie. If you’d bother to get out and lurk at the various conservative sites, you’ll find that NO ONE wants a double-dip recession, and most are as scared as anyone else as to what will result.

    However, that doesn’t mean they and the GOP won’t gleefully take advantage over somthing they view (and I tend to view as well) as Obama’s fault to begin with.

    -Polaris

  41. Polaris says:

    @Ben Wolf: A payroll tax cut merely shifts the debt and money around.

    -Polaris

  42. Hey Norm says:

    @ Poliaris:
    Please explain how the recession of ’07-’08 is Obama’s fault?
    Thanks.

  43. Polaris says:

    @mantis:

    Really? Being the opposition party means never working with the other party on anything, for any reason? Good to know.

    Yep. The GOP had the best teachers of all in that basic truth: The Democrats esp from 2000 to 2006.

    -Polaris

  44. Polaris says:

    @Hey Norm: The recession was a side effect of structureal overleveraging especially in the housing market. Why? The modified CRA and government mandated loans to people that couldn’t pay them back…and then creating dummy corps like Fannie and Freddie to cover them. Who was the biggest recepient while in the Senate of Fannie and Freddie money? Barack Obama. Who litigated against Bankers when they resisted having to lend out bad risk loans? Barack Obama.

    So yes, he’s actually suprisingly deep in this.

    -Polaris

  45. David M says:

    Hmmm, in reality I remember the Democrats being adults and actually taking the job they were elected to do seriously. Why yes, there was more Democratic cooperation with Bush than GOP cooperation with Obama.

  46. Hey Norm says:

    Polaris…
    Blaming the CRA and Fannie and Freddie just shows your partisan colors. Talk about Fox talking points. I thought that crap had been thouroughly debunked years ago. Yet here you are…repeating them blindly.

  47. David M says:

    @Polaris: Wow, it’s a like a time warp back to 2008. No one should take the idea that the CRA or Fannie and Freddie caused the meltdown seriously.

  48. Sam says:

    @Polaris:

    I see your right by the thumbs down you got for just a simple statement.

    I guess simple is what these pigressives like.

  49. Polaris says:

    @David M: Really, more cooperation? How many judgeships was GWB unable to fill because the Dems went into oppo mode? Quite a lot as I remember….

    The Dems were anything BUT a loyal and cooperative opposition party and I remember that quite well. However, it was effective.

    Well, turnabout is very much fair play.

    -Polaris

  50. Sam says:

    @mantis:

    Anyone who uses the “where were you when….” line is guilty of intellectual laziness or worse since you ask a question that even you ADMIT you will not believe the answer to!

    FAIL!

  51. Sam says:

    @mantis:

    “Other proposed revenue raisers have also come up before. One is eliminating certain itemized deductions for individuals who make more than $200,000 a year, and families more than $250,000. ”

    Well, the meaning of “millionaires and billionaires” has sure taken a beating!

    I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is huh?

  52. Sam says:

    @samwide:

    I say the historic election of 2010, the failed Wisconsin recall elections, and the possible taking of Meat Tweeting Weiners seat proves YOU on the wrong side of history.

  53. Polaris says:

    @Sam:

    I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is huh?

    Is that you President Clinton? Would you mind taking over for about a year in the White House? The current occupant simply isn’t working out very well.

    -Polaris

  54. Sam says:

    @mantis:

    Lies will never win you elections!

  55. Sam says:

    @mantis:

    On second thought, if you were correct and not lying, the Repubs would WANT Obama to see a second term and all those things would surely be a reality.

  56. john personna says:

    I’m going to take Polaris’ sliding defenses of “do nothing” as indication that “nothing” is what the right wants.

    Be careful what you wish for. You might be judged on having done nothing to stop the slide into austerity.

    This really comes down to a choice between two bad and risky things. Stimulus spending is bad, and risky. Austerity is also bad, and risky.

    People who fault stimulus talk about that, the road not taken, and not the road they are on.

  57. mantis says:

    Really, more cooperation? How many judgeships was GWB unable to fill because the Dems went into oppo mode?

    A lot fewer than Obama, by a long shot. Not to mention a huge amount of executive branch appointments. Republicans only goal is destroying government and the well being of the United States, so they can profit politically.

    I’ll leave Sam and Polaris to their fantastical world of revisionist history.

  58. mantis says:

    On second thought…

    You can’t have second thoughts if you aren’t bothering to think in the first place.

  59. Sam says:

    Ye@Polaris:

    Yes it is me Bill! And I make an announcement on my candidate now.

    I, Bill Clinton endorse for the next President, Michelle Bachmann.
    Here is why!

    http://blog.richardroeper.com/?attachment_id=2408

  60. Sam says:

    @mantis:

    and I will leave mantis to his lies.

  61. Sam says:

    @mantis:

    Personal attacks come to play when you lose the argument.

  62. mantis says:

    Personal attacks come to play when you lose the argument.

    That assumes you have an argument. You don’t. You’re just playing fantasy games where you claim everything over the past 10 years happened as you wish it had, instead of how it really did. There’s no point in having a conversation with people who deny reality.

  63. ponce says:

    Where were YOU when the Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Bills?

    More correctly, when the South voted against the Civil Rights Act:

    The original House version:

    * Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
    * Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)

    * Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
    * Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

    The Senate version:

    * Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
    * Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)

    * Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
    * Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_act_of_1964#vote_totals

  64. Sam says:

    @mantis:

    “There’s no point in having a conversation with people who deny reality. ”

    Then do yourself a favor and STFU fruitcake!

    If your mother never taught you to be civil then go rant against anyone who does not think like you do on Democrat Underground where your kind belongs

  65. Sam says:

    @ponce:
    OMFG! Ever hear of a rhetorical question?

  66. Moosebreath says:

    Sam,

    “Personal attacks come to play when you lose the argument.”

    “Then do yourself a favor and STFU fruitcake!

    If your mother never taught you to be civil then go rant against anyone who does not think like you do on Democrat Underground where your kind belongs ”

    Nice to see you admitting you’ve lost the argument.

  67. Sam says:

    @Moosebreath:

    My my my! I posted such IN REPLY ONLY. You will never find my post that does such a thing unless in reply to the same!

    There is a difference.

    I will not get into a fight with one arm tied behind my back as much as those likeyou would prefer.

  68. doubter4444 says:

    @Sam:
    If you don’t like it here, go away, then
    Whining about “getting a thumbs down” is pathetic.
    Really.

  69. ponce says:

    OMFG! Ever hear of a rhetorical question?

    Sam,

    A rhetorical question is not the same thing as a lie.

    You should have gone with the standard excuse Republicans use when they’re caught lying: “I was only joking!”

  70. WR says:

    @ponce: Or “that was not meant as a factual statement.”

  71. Ben Wolf says:

    @Polaris: A payroll tax cut does not “shift debt around”, it’s an increase in financial assets transferred from the government to the private sector. Offsetting the tax cut with a spending cut is what shifts money around to largely no gain. It doesn’t work the same way book keeping does for a family or business.

  72. mattb says:

    @Polaris:

    How many judgeships was GWB unable to fill because the Dems went into oppo mode?

    Funny… going to the data actually suggests something rather difference than Polaris’s world view:

    Bush II’s success % for Justice Approvals: 86.8% (better than his father)
    Obama’s success % for Justice Approvals: 42.8%

    (sources cited available in this graphic: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/TFQGe6zCpnI/AAAAAAAAFGg/5ynk1es-ZlE/s1600/congressionalnomineesgraphs1.png)

    You’re so right… it’s totally apples and apples…

    Oh, and for extrapoints, it’s not like the republicans have radically increased the number of filibusters in the past two years to block legis… oh… wait http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/a_single_shot_at_senate_reform.html )

  73. mattb says:

    Quick follow up on that “Dems voted down all of the Bush Judicial Nominees…” — fun fact, Bush II (GW) had a higher success rate than President Clinton (Clinton had 82% success … GWB came in with 86.8%)…
    (http://www.americablog.com/2010/07/judicial-confirmations-plummet-under.html)

    In fact, crunching all the data Bush’s success rate doubles Obama’s in just about every level of judicial nomination (along with being approximately the same if not better than Clintons):
    source: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/judicial_confirmations.html/print.html

    Who’da thunk… especially if one listens to right wing radio.

  74. Racehorse says:

    @Hey Norm: The southern democrat leaders of the 50’s and 60’s were great leaders.

  75. An Interested Party says:

    What a losers you people are!

    I guess simple is what these pigressives like.

    Such comments from the same person who was whining on another thread to Doug about the comments policy…hey hypocrite, check out a mirror before you are tempted to call other people anything…

    And the Dems have effectively neutered any African American political power they might have once had. After all, if you con 90% (or more..it was 95% in 2008) of a demographic group to always vote for your brand no matter what, then you don’t have to cater to them anymore…and neither does the opposition.

    Ahh, so you are saying that most black people who vote are simply stupid? Interesting…

    Yep. The GOP had the best teachers of all in that basic truth: The Democrats esp from 2000 to 2006.

    Yet another lie from the supposed scientist…or are you really a grifter? If the Dems had really put up ironclad opposition from 2000-2006, Bush never would have gotten his tax cuts or his disaster in Iraq or his 2 Supreme Court Justices, among other things…

  76. Rob in CT says:

    @mattb:

    How about that. A complete demolition of the claim made about the allegedly disloyal oppo-Dems. Like you, I recall the Dems being distressingly accomodating during the Bush years (especially early on). The facts, shockingly enough, appear to support that.

    It’s about manufactured grievance, folks.

    Add to that the claim about the Civil Rights Act is also silly (illustrated nicely by Ponce). It was mostly a North/South issue, though the Dems in the South paid an electoral price for what their party (the Northern part of it) did. Racist Dems? Yep, sure were, no question, particularly in the South. They largely became Republicans. The Democratic Party overall voted in favor of Civil Rights.

    I’ve heard that one many times in the context of “it’s the Dems who are racist!” It is *always* followed quickly with an assertion that the Dems are keeping AAs down now (via welfare and other programs that allegedly prevent them from bootstrapping) coupled with a reference to the % who vote Dem (this is the Consie version of What’s the Matter with Kansas). And, like clockwork, Polaris delivered.

    That this stuff is demonstrably untrue simply doesn’t register, because the narrative is emotionally satisfying.