Hofstadter's Paranoid Style at Work in Today's GOP?

Yesterdays post took a look at two real life examples of how Republicans, since the 1980s,  have built their party on fear and intolerance of the 'other' to fragment the American electorate and use the slim majorities their tactics fostered to shape the direction of political discourse for some three decades. As the nation has entered a new century, the GOP has held on to their political playbook but have been forced to face new electoral realities as the party has fallen from power and the Democratic Party has ascended to controlling both the presidency and the congress. With so few elected political leaders in positions of power, a power vacuum has confronted the Republican's leadership apparatus. The party is still controlled by the conservative-business-evangelical triad that has held power since Reagan; but having been subjected to crushing electoral defeats in the 1998 and 2000 election cycles, a new type of 'public' leadership has emerged to assume the face of the Republican Party.

A number of recent political commentators have drawn on historian Richard Hofstadter's essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" that highlighted the effects of fringe groups that influence American politics to compare present day affairs with those that invoked "...the ghosts of McCarthyism and the more immediate significance of Barry Goldwater's candidacy for president of the United States. The Hofstadter commentary "was particularly concerned about assessing "how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority."

 

Rush Limbaugh

Of course, today "... right-wing radio hosts and cable news commentators like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh give voice to the new millennium's paranoid impulse, "many observers of the American political scene readily suggest. A great deal of attention has gone into examining "the competing forces in American political discourse and how fringe groups can influence — and derail — the larger agendas of a political party. He investigates the politics of the irrational, shedding light on how the behavior of individuals can seem out of proportion with actual political issues, and how such behavior impacts larger groups."

Glenn Beck

Geoffrey Dunn has commented: "Indeed, the paranoid style often rears its ugly head during transformative moments in American history - from the advent of Jeffersonian democracy and the onset of the Civil War, on through to the New Deal presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt and, a generation later, the election of John F. Kennedy. Come now the transformative election of Barack Obama, and the paranoid style has once more found fertile soil in America's political landscape."

Dunn further observed that: "In his essay, Hofstadter was careful to distinguish clinical paranoia in an individual from "paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people." ... The paranoid tendency, Hofstadter contended, is "aroused by a confrontation of opposed interests which are (or are felt to be) totally irreconcilable, and thus by nature not susceptible to the normal political processes of bargain and compromise."

Members of the John Birch Society

Drawing further attention to the influence of fringe groups in American politics Arthur Goldwag observed: “More than half a century ago, the John Birch Society raised an alarm that Dwight Eisenhower wasn't the genial war hero and popular president he seemed, but rather "a conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist conspiracy." Bill Clinton, we were told in the 1990s, ran illicit drugs out of an airport in Mena, Ark., when he wasn't bumping off a long list of enemies and associates who knew too much about his other nefarious activities (Monica Lewinsky accepted, of course). The so-called 9/11 Truth Movement accuses George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Israel, the Federal Reserve and the real estate industry -- virtually anyone except Al-Qaida -- of orchestrating the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, much as conservative journalist John T. Flynn indicted Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1940s for treasonously sacrificing Pearl Harbor. A not inconsiderable slice of today's electorate (and many of its elected representatives) believe President Barack Obama not only harbors an implacable hatred for white people -- and is seeking to euthanize their grandparents -- but that he's not even an American citizen.”

David Greenberg

David Greenberg, a professor of history and media studies at Rutgers has a different take on the 'paranoid over usage phenomenon.' Greenberg contends: "Richard Hofstadter's classic essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." ... "is often invoked without giving much attention to the essay's actual content" ... "It's hard to deny that the title recommends itself"... "Lately, from the rise of Sarah Palin to the spring's "tea parties" to the "birther" frenzies and health care town halls of this summer to the Joe Wilson contretemps, allusions to Hofstadter have never seemed more widespread... Today's ultraconservative activists exhibit many core elements of the style that Hofstadter identified: the penchant for 'conspiratorial fantasy,' the apocalyptic stakes imagined to be involved in policy debates, the imperiousness to rational persuasion. Nonetheless, Hofstadter's thesis ought to be used carefully and sparingly, Greenberg contends ... "Hofstadter's contribution to The New American Right was "The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt," which actually makes more of an effort than does "The Paranoid Style" to identify the sources and hallmarks of ultraconservative thought that is "situated these individuals within a rapidly shifting culture. Contributing to their frightened, aggressive, and bitter disposition were, among other factors, the "the growth of the mass media of communication," the "long tenure in power" of liberals, and the feeling during the Cold War of "continued crisis" rather than the periodic involvement in world affairs that the United States had enjoyed before 1939."

Greenberg cogently adds: "Ironically, the historical portion of Hofstadter essay, though seldom cited these days by journalists, was groundbreaking, though not very controversial. It traced the tendency in our political culture, on the left and right, to see all-powerful conspiracies devoted to subverting the American way." 

Greenberg continues discussing Hofstadter's most valuable insights raised by his essay: "Hofstadter identifies real aspects of a familiar right-wing type, from the hyper-competence he ascribes to his conspiring enemies ("he is a perfect model of malice; a kind of amoral superman") to his taste for pseudo-pedantry ("McCarthy's 96-page pamphlet McCarthyism contains no less than 313 footnote references, and Mr. Welch's fantastic assault on Eisenhower, The Politician, is weighed down by a hundred pages of bibliography and notes"). And as countless admirers have noted, some of Hofstadter's language about the right of that era—from anti-fluoridation cranks to John Birch Society members—perfectly describes today's extremists. To wit: "The old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals; the old competitive capitalism has been gradually undermined by socialist and communist schemers; the old national security and independence have been destroyed by treasonous plots, having as their most powerful agents not merely outsiders and foreigners but major states—men seated at the very centers of American power." Direct links between the Goldwater-era conspiracism and today's are easy to find: the right's criticisms of President Obama's health care reform, for example, carries the distinct whiff of Ronald Reagan's early-1960s alarums against "socialized medicine." 

Greenberg chastens: "Those who talk about being frightened today or act as if Obama is the first president to suffer the slings of what Franklin Roosevelt called "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror" would do well to note that on the back cover of my 1996 reissue of The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays is a quote from Hofstadter's sole equal among his generation of political historians, Arthur Schlesinger:
 

"Recent months have witnessed an attack of 

     unprecedented passion and ferocity against the 

             national government. … Unbridled rhetoric is having 

consequences far beyond anything that 

    antigovernment politicians intend. The flow of 

     angry words seems to have activated and in a 

  sense legitimized what the historian Richard 

             Hofstadter called the "paranoid strain" in American 

                                            politics."

"Schlesinger," Greenberg explains "published his comment in the Wall Street Journal on June 7, 1995.

"The "paranoid" style did not return suddenly this summer," Greenberg correctly observes: "On the contrary, Hofstadter was surely correct when he wrote that while "it comes in waves of different intensity, it appears to be all but ineradicable." 

Richard J. Hofstadter

Joe Wilson, Heckling Republican Congressman from South Carolina and His Fellow Members of the GOP Didn't React in Such a 'Grand' Style to President Obama's Speech on Health Care Reform

"President Obama sought to reframe the contentious debate over health care on Wednesday, asking a divided Congress and a skeptical nation to reach consensus on legislation to expand coverage to millions of Americans and lower costs through an ambitious overhaul that has eluded lawmakers for generations."

Photo: Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

 

"The speech was an effort by Mr. Obama to regain his political footing on health care, the centerpiece of his domestic agenda. After months of insisting he would leave the details to lawmakers, he presented his most detailed outline yet of his own plan, which he said would provide "security and stability" to those who have insurance and cover those who do not, all without adding to the federal deficit."

Photo: Doug Mills/The New York Times

At 8:40 pm, last night, during President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress about his health care program, the American people were given yet another example of the ongoing deterioration of relations between the nation's two political parties.



"You Lie!" shouted Representative Joe Wilson a Republican back bencher from South Carolina in response to the president's remarks about illegal aliens. President Obama had just "vowed to lawmakers that his health-care reform proposals would not provide benefits to illegal immigrants."

"Murmurs of "ooh" filled the stunned chamber. Nancy Pelosi's chin dropped. Obama moved on to the next sentence in his speech, about how no federal money would be used to fund abortion. "Not true!" came another shout."

Wilson's breach of decorum was imitated by other Republicans: "There was booing from House Republicans when the president caricatured a conservative argument by saying they would "leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own." They hissed when he protested their "scare tactics." They grumbled ... when Obama spoke of the "blizzard of charges and countercharges."

"Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina, leaning forward, received criticism for yelling, “You lie!” at the president."

"Democrats said, according to Carl Hulse of The New York Times that "it showed lack of respect for the office of the presidency and was reminiscent of Republican disruptions at recent public forums on health care.

“I was embarrassed for the chamber and a Congress I love,” Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said Thursday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “It demeaned the institution.”

"Biden said that he had not spoken to President Obama since the speech. But, “knowing the president, I’m sure he accepted the apology,” The Associated Press reported.

"After the speech, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff who sat a few rows in front of Mr. Wilson, said he immediately approached senior Republican lawmakers to encourage them to identify the heckler and urge him to issue an apology quickly.

“No president has ever been treated like that. Ever,” Mr. Emanuel said.

Carl Hulse also reported in The New York Times that: "Other Democrats said they did not want to dwell on the outburst or allow it to overshadow what they saw as an effective address by the president. But they also said it bolstered their contention that some Republicans were not interested in constructive dialogue, and they noted that Democratic plans specifically barred coverage for illegal immigrants." 

After the speech, Carl Hulse reported that: "Republicans also said the heckling was out of line. “I think we ought to treat the president with respect,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, “and anything other than that is not appropriate.”

"Republicans held up their own version of a health care bill in protest on Wednesday night during President Obama's address, in which he vowed to cap costs at $900 billion. Mr. Obama made clear in his speech that he would have little tolerance for Republicans who were determined to defeat him. "I will not waste time," he said, "with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it."

Photo: Luke Sharrett/The New York Times

"And the House Republican whip," Carl Hulse reported that: "Eric I. Cantor of Virginia, told ABC on Thursday: “Obviously, the president of the United States is always welcome on Capitol Hill. He deserves respect and decorum.” He said that Mr. Wilson’s apology “was the appropriate thing to do.”

By Thursday, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the House Democratic leader was calling for Representative Wilson "to apologize to the House," Carl Hulse reported.

Later Thursday, Congressman Wilson's office released a statement that read in part: "This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the president’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the president’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility.”

Richard Simon of the LA Times reported that: "House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, a Democrat from Wilson's home state, said that he planned to push for a resolution expressing disapproval of the incident unless Wilson issued a public apology on the House floor.

Simon also added that: "Rob Miller -- the Democratic challenger for Wilson's House seat -- raked in 14,000-plus contributions totaling more than $500,000 since the Wednesday night outburst, according to the House Democratic Campaign Committee. The committee also has cited the shout-out in a fundraising appeal: "Calling the president of the United States a liar in front of the nation is a new low even for House Republicans."

"Robert Oldendick, Simon added; "a political science professor at the University of South Carolina, on Thursday described reaction within the state to Wilson's outburst as "surprise and strong disapproval."

"But whether it will hurt the lawmaker at home is uncertain," explained Simon in his reaction to Oldendick's assessment.

"There are 14 months for people's memories of this to fade before the election -- although I'm sure they'll be reminded by opposition campaign ads," Oldendick said. "While the reaction here has been pretty strongly negative, I don't get the sense that Wilson will be severely damaged.

"And he may, over time, be able to turn this mistake into his 'passionate opposition' to a plan that he felt was so wrong," Simon quoted Oldendick.

"For Mr. Obama, the speech was a go-for-broke moment; there is no more dramatic venue for a president than an address to a joint session to Congress. For many Democrats, the speech evoked memories of a similar health care address by President Bill Clinton, 16 years ago this month. Mr. Clinton called for "security, simplicity, savings, choice, quality and responsibility" - the same broad themes Mr. Obama evoked Wednesday night."

Photo: Doug Mills/The New York Times

The Bizarre Things Cons Will Say to Celebrate the Protection of the Status Quo

 

Sherman, aka David Brooks, under Dr. Peabody's directions, attempts to engage the lever that controls the Way Back Machine

It is truly touching and really adds to the feeling of 'we're all in this mess that we Republicans created and now we are ready to move on by blaming our misdeeds on the Democrats and President Obama' speak out for the best interests of the American nation when such noted voices as the ever-resourceful David Brooks make their opinions known.

It is truly heartwarming to read the right wing lackey, David Brooks offer his assessment of President Obama's challenge to keep independent voters in line.But wait a minute; is there an election looming, do the Republicans have any less than daffy solutions to the nation's health care crisis ready to present to the nation and become legislation that creates a groundswell of public support and bi-partisan backing that it would need to become law?

No.

Brooks is such a mastermind of cogent political analysis. He has easily figured out the reason for Obama's "failure of leadership.' It is simply the dead weight that Obama must carry around his skinny neck that goes by the distinction of being the "liberal leadership in Congress." However inappropriate and untrustworthy the liberals might seem, Brooks points out that they are even worse. You see, it is according to Brooks extensive use of referencing his opinions with examples of a Congress out of control and in the throes of existing only for the benefits of staying in power and filling their legislative bills with layers of pork barrel spending; all the while, the president has been consumed by his own demons; his blind devotion to increasing spending and consolidating power in the hands of the chief executive.

But just wait a plutocratic and evangelical moment here!. Mr. Brooks has done too good of a job in his research. In fact he has acted in such a blatantly heavy-handed manner that he has pushed too had on the lever that controls the Way Back Machine and has actually landed several years earlier, right in the midst of the post-1992 presidential era of George Bush!

I am shocked and dismayed that Mr. Brooks has made such a careless mstake without even realizing it!

It seems Brooks is oblivious, either intentionally or by some cosmic misdirection of time when he disregards his error and gleefully proceeds by diminishing President Obama's popular appeal, getting it confused with the public support of  the half-wit who got us into the pickle jar that Obama and the Democrats are now trying to extricate themselves from without destroying the nation.because of the mind-boggling series of blunders perpetrated by Mr. Obama's predecessor - some sort of a Marlboro Man reject who never quite grasped the significance that he was the president of the United States for eight years.

Nevertheless, in Brooks impeccable approach to providing political commentary he stabs deeply into the flesh of Obama like some modern day Brutus thrusting his sharp and pointy knife of contempt for Obama's brave attempt to right the ship of state that had been left to drift along on the uncertain currents of the last eight years.

Proud of his "reasoned" analysis, Brooks unleashes the equivalent of his Shiva, destroyer of political interventions: "Anxiety is now pervasive. Trust in government rose when Obama took office. It has fallen back to historic lows. Fifty-nine percent of Americans now think the country is headed in the wrong direction."

Brooks continues his outright assault by gleefully adding: "The public's view of Congress, which ticked upward for a time, has plummeted. Charlie Cook, who knows as much about Congressional elections as anyone in the country, wrote recently that Democratic fortunes have "slipped completely out of control." He and the experts he surveyed believe there is just as much chance that the Democrats could lose more than 20 House seats in the next elections as less than 20.

"There are also warning signs in the Senate," opines Brooks. "A recent poll shows Harry Reid, the majority leader, trailing the Republican Danny Tarkanian, a possible 2010 opponent, by 49 percent to 38 percent." Brooks is only too happy to add his glum assessment: "When your majority leader is down to a 38 percent base in his home state, that's not good."

Brooks pounds away, stressing that: "The public has soured on Obama's policy proposals. Voters often have only a fuzzy sense of what each individual proposal actually does, but more and more have a growing conviction that if the president is proposing it, it must involve big spending, big government and a fundamental departure from the traditional American approach."

Brooks is gushing with a litany of vindictive, 'I told you so's! In his most absent- minded Maoist proclamation, he chortles of  a triumphant moment for Republican ideals; that given enough rope, Obama and the Democrats have hung themselves from the rafters of big government they have created and now flail about kicking into the empty air about them as their 'socialist'  populism draws down on them and tightens the noose about their neck and takes the breath out of all that phony Obama optimism.of just a few short months ago.

Overtaken by his overblown assessment of Obama's inevitable demise Brooks turns to some highly questionable analysis: "Driven by this general anxiety, and by specific concerns, public opposition to health care reform is now steady and stable. Independents once solidly supported reform. Now they have swung against it. As the veteran ( and highly partisan Republican operative who poses as a legitimate student of public opinion, the so-called) pollster Bill McInturff (who) has pointed out, public attitudes toward Obamacare exactly match public attitudes toward Clintoncare when that reform effort collapsed in 1994."

Hooray, let us all rejoice in the triumph of traditionalist, Republican protected maintenance of the status quo!

Certainly things can only get better if we don't allow them to change!

But if anything one might argue that Brooks represents, he knows how to count votes and he is clearly afaraid that the Democrats might use their significant numbers and simply push through health care without (gasp) consulting with Republican obstructionists. The very idea that the Democrats might yet achieve health care reform based on the rule of their majority smacks of an un-Americanism that every minority Republican fears most.

Brooks warns the Democrats that such a legislative move would be suicidal for the majority party. Just because they have more members on their side of the aisle in the House and Senate does not give Democrats the right to act as a ruling party!

In his own very perverse way; Brooks portrays himself as attempting to save the Democrats from themselves and from their duty as the majority party to engage in legislative efforts to effect political change that benefits all Americans. Brooks answer is for the Democrats to simply do nothing and work to maintain the status quo; something the Republicans have worked tirelessly for decades to succeed at.

Just to lighten the mood of his absorbing and cogent political analysis, Brooks interjects a bit of levity by seemingly warning the Democrats that it would be wrong to increase the public debt. However, Brooks inexplicably fails to mention the Republicans expert ability to turn Clinton's surplus of 1992 into a deficit for no apparent reason other than to accomplish the feat. Now if Brooks had mentioned that sleigh of hand trickery by the Republicans, he might have better succeeded in pulling a real belly whopper but he failed to do so and in turn condemned himself to the realm of political punditry.

Into which he quickly steps to provide this bit of advice: "This is a country that has always been suspicious of centralized government. This is a country that has just lived through an economic trauma caused by excessive spending and debt. Most Americans still admire Obama and want him to succeed. But if he doesn't proceed in a manner consistent with the spirit of the nation and the times, voters will find a way to stop him.

"The president's challenge now is to halt the slide. That doesn't mean giving up his goals. It means he has to align his proposals to the values of the political center: fiscal responsibility, individual choice and decentralized authority.

"Events have pushed Barack Obama off to the left. Time to rebalance."

One has to admire brooks persistence which he maintains to the very end of his commentary; and that is; ignore the squawkers on the left and maintain the status quo as practice by the Republicans when they held the majority and Obama will be able to stay in office for another four years beyond the end of his current term.

And for good measure, Brooks fails to add, Obama should work harder to keep the public from acquiring a complete grasp of reality by terrorizing the population and creating evil doers and a world filled with America haters; oops, there goes that over aggressive hand on the lever that controls the Way Back Machine!

The Need For a Democratic Solution for Health Care

With the passage of the last several months, it has become crystal clear that Congressional Republicans will stand together in their sole capacity as a status quo supporting party, and will vote together as a block against health care reform. For the Republicans, their only agenda item will be to frame President Obama's primary domestic issue as a threat to the nation. An example of this party-wide intent has been sounded by Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina:: "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

With such hyperbole in Washington having been established as a part of the capital's political landscape, "Senate Democrats are preparing to push through health care reforms using parliamentary procedures that will allow a simple majority to prevail in their chamber, as it does in the House, instead of the 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster that Senate Republicans are sure to mount," according to a New York Times Editorial. In other words: "If the Democrats want to enact health care reform this year, they appear to have little choice but to adopt a high-risk, go-it-alone, majority-rules strategy."

Now is clearly the time for the Democrats to use their Congressional majorities and ignore the Republican whining and push ahead by taking advantage of their superior numbers and passing the legislation themselves.

The New York Times Editorial succinctly argues: "Delay would be foolish politically. The Democrats have substantial majorities in the House and the Senate this year. Next year, as the midterm elections approach, it will be even harder for legislators to take controversial stands. After the elections, if history is any guide, the Democratic majorities could be smaller."

President Obama's attempts to make health care reform  a task shared through realistic solutions provided by both parties were level minded and fair. But without the Republicans willing to give an inch toward compromise; bipartisanism was doomed to failure from the very beginning and it is time for President Obama and Congressional Democrats to move on and legislate.

The Times Editorial suggests: "The Democrats are thus well advised to start preparing to use an arcane parliamentary tactic known as "budget reconciliation" that would let them sidestep a Republican filibuster and approve reform proposals by a simple majority.

The Democrats decision to take the reconciliation approach is full of risk. The Times explains: "Reconciliation bills are primarily intended to deal with budget items that affect the deficit, not with substantive legislation like health care reform. Senators could challenge as "extraneous" any provisions that do not change spending or revenues over the next five years, or would have a budget impact that is "merely incidental" to some broader policy purpose, or would increase the deficit in Year 6 and beyond." The most significant question to be answered is "how much of the proposed health care reforms could plausibly fit into a reconciliation bill? The answer," the Times explains; "seems to be: quite a lot, though nobody knows for sure".

The Times cites: "Knowledgeable analysts from both parties (who) believe that these important elements of reform will probably pass muster because of their budgetary impact: expansion of Medicaid for the poor; subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance; new taxes to pay for the trillion-dollar program; Medicare cuts to help finance the program; mandates on individuals to buy insurance and on employers to offer coverage; and tax credits to help small businesses provide insurance."

The Times proposes: "Even the public plan so reviled by Republicans could probably qualify, especially if it is given greater power than currently planned to dictate the prices it will pay to hospitals, doctors, drug companies and other providers, thus saving the government lots of money in subsidies."

The Times correctly points out that: "Greater uncertainty surrounds two other critical elements: new rules requiring insurance companies to accept all applicants and charge them the same premiums without regard to medical condition, and the creation of new exchanges in which people forced to buy their own insurance could find cheaper policies than are currently available."

The Times elaborates: "Republicans claim that they want to make medical insurance and care cheaper and give ordinary Americans more choices. But given their drive to kill health reform at any cost, they might well argue that these are programmatic changes whose budgetary impact is “merely incidental.” Democrats would very likely counter that they are so intertwined with other reforms that they are “a necessary term or condition” for other provisions that do affect spending or revenues, which could allow them to be kept in the bill."

The Times continues: "Nobody knows how the Senate parliamentarian, an obscure official who advises the presiding officer, would rule on any of these complicated issues. But if he were to take a narrow view and eliminate important features, it could leave the reform package riddled with holes — perhaps providing subsidies to buy insurance on exchanges that do not exist, for example. Thus there are plans afoot to use a second bill to pass whatever reforms will not fit under the rubric of reconciliation, but those would be subject to filibuster and would have to depend on their general popularity (insurance reforms are enormously popular) to win 60 votes for passage."

The Times argues that: "Another hurdle is that the reconciliation legislation covers only the next five years, while the Democratic plans are devised to be deficit-neutral over 10 years. The practical effect is that the Democrats will almost surely need to find added revenues or budget cuts within the first five years."

The Times points out: "Another Senate rule, which applies whether reconciliation is used or not, requires that the reforms enacted now not cause an increase in the deficit for decades to come, a difficult but probably not impossible hurdle to surmount."

The Times concludes: "Clearly the reconciliation approach is a risky and less desirable way to enact comprehensive health care reforms. The only worse approach would be to retreat to modest gestures in an effort to win Republican acquiescence. It is barely possible that the Senate Finance Committee might pull off a miracle and devise a comprehensive solution that could win broad support, or get one or more Republicans to vote to break a filibuster. If not, the Democrats need to push for as much reform as possible through majority vote."

Democratic National Committee Produce a Video From News File Footage That Belittles the Republicans and Portrays Them as the Party of No

With a great deal of 'heavy lifting'facing the Democrats in the the House and in the Senate beginning after today and continuing throughout the upcoming week, Republicans have acted like a party without any leadership in charge and whose stock answer to Democratic proposals for legislative solutions to the many problems facing the nation has been to simply say no. Calling the Republicans the party of no originated with Democratic attacks on the GOP and have now spread to the elite media of newspapers and in particular on cable news programs.

The problem facing the Republicans as they try to pry themselves out from under the daily attacks they are suffering from calling them the party of no is that the Republicans have simply failed to produce any reasonably viable legislative proposals that can stand as alternatives to Democratic ideas. The Republicans failure to bring anything of substance to the legislative deal making table has severely damaged the GOP's image across the nation so that they are now commonly referred to as the party of no.

The stock in trade example of how the Republicans react has been to deny that the Democrats can legislate the nation out of the Republican-created economic disaster that has gripped the American economy around the throat. The next step for the GOP is to exclaim that the only way to get America's economy moving again is to apply more tax cuts to the upper reaches of American's income brackets -- in other words, give more tax breaks to the richest of the rich is how the Republicans propose to help America.

The lack of an overall party strategy set by a coordinating Republican Party leadership is most apparent when the Congressional Republican's approach to the impending Democratic legislative agenda is exposed. In the Senate, Mitch McConnell and his lieutenants have decided to attempt to tie up the Democrats proposals with a series of time-wasting amendments. Inthe House, on the other hand, the Republican House members went out odf their way to promote a news conference this past Thursday to proclaim their own series of solutions which were to be found in a glossily bound booklet that would prove to the nation that President Obama's claims that the Republicans did have a plan of their very own! and it would be revealed to Americans on March 26th, thus upstaging President Obama and the Democrats.

Carl Hulse, chief congressional correspondent of The New York Times, reported that Representative John A. Boehner, the minority leader, was grilled by reporters on Capitol Hill because the blue 18-page “recovery” pamphlet that the Republican leadership released was short on figures, spending or revenue details."

Mr Hulse provided his account of the Republican's bravado as amazingly explained by Mr. Boehner, the House Republican leader: “Wait and see next week,” said Mr. Boehner, who evidently is not all that impressed with budget documents anyway.... It’s just a bunch of numbers,” Boehner said.

So in retaliation to Mr. Boehner's belittlement of the Democrats plan as "just a bunch of numbers" the Democratic National Committee has now released a Web video that runs the gamut of news coverage of the Republicans’ event on Thursday, poking some fun at the number of zeros presented in that plan.

The truth of the matter is that the Republican's have gone beyond merely ridiculing themselves with their faux budget that contains nothing of substance; particularly no numbers that would show their plan to be a viable alternative to Democratic proposals; they have done so with a straight face and will not back down from a smoke and mirrors approach to solving the nation's economic problems.

I believe the Democrats have already won the battle to establish their legislation as the law of the land after they put down a surely disorganized Republican opposition leaving Mr. Boehner no alternative but to cry over his certain upcoming loss to President Obama and the Democrats.

American Public Growing Tired and Dissatisfied with Wall Street Abuses as Obama Goes on the Offensive

Americans across the nation are voicing their anger at Wall Street, in particular against AIG as President Obama is waging a battle for the support of the nation to make changes in the way Wall Street executives conduct themselves.

The most outrageous situation facing Americans is that "the reality is that no matter what we do now, tens of trillions of dollars in wealth have been lost. All that's left is simply an elaborate exercise in settling up the accounts."

What angers Americans the most is "that the hundreds of billion dollars of taxpayer funds that have been put at risk to keep AIG and Citi from failing and taking the whole financial system down with them."

The only useful purpose all of this public anger is having is that it is helping to let off some collective pessure that has building for years on the way Wal Street has been conducting it's business practices. It also aids in the coalesce of political pressure for reform of the political checks and balances that keep Wall Streters in check. And with the renewed call for stricter regulations comes the hope that in the future Wall Street finaciers will be forced to "think long and hard the next time they get the urge to take excessive risks with other people's money."

One of the most tangible forms of protest being waged by angry American took shape on Capitol Hill today when House members decisively authorized "a near total tax on bonuses paid this year to employees of the American International Group and other firms that have accepted large amounts of federal bailout funds, rattling Wall Street as lawmakers rushed to respond to populist anger."P

Angry Democrats and Republicans authorized a nearly 90% tax "on bonuses for traders, executives and bankers earning more than $250,000."

The hast to restrain the bonuses by Housemembers who have waged vigorous battles over the limitation of compensation for Wall Street executives, demonstrates the high degree of tension being brought to bear by the bailout. On the Senate side, lawmakers are expected to consider a tax on executive bonuses that will differ with the measure passed by the House, which will effect final pasage of the bill.

President Obama urged congressional members to come up with a “final product that will serve as a strong signal to the executives who run these firms that such compensation will not be tolerated.”

In a cautious and measured response, President Obama Mr. Obama said he believed legislators were “responding, I think, to everybody’s anger” but that the best way to handle the situation was “to make sure you’ve closed the door before the horse gets out of the barn.”P

Members of Congress voiced their displeasure in terse statements: “As A.I.G.’s recent actions remind us, it is unconscionable that companies dependent upon the largess of the federal government for their very existence should in turn pay irresponsibly exorbitant bonuses to the rapscallions partially responsible for the current recession,” Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, said.

Wall Street executives called the legislative actions reckless and ill-conceived. And many bank executives threatened to pull out from efforts to right the nation's economy.

Even senior Republican leaders backed the stringent measures: “It is an extreme use of the tax code to correct an extreme and excessive wrong done to the American taxpayer,” said Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, senior Republican on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, who backed the measure despite reservations.

"But experts on constitutional and tax law said it was likely the House bill could pass muster. Numerous court rulings have upheld retroactive tax provisions, particularly over short periods. The House bill applies back only to Jan. 1, 2009. The measure is also strengthened by the fact that it does not apply to just one company or group of individuals, and does not take aim only at past bonuses but also bonuses to be paid in the future, experts said.

Democrats Begin Concerted Attack on South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford

Having reached the saturation point with their attacks on Rush Limbaugh; the Democrats are turning their attention toward other critics of the administration and launching new television attack ads against some equally reprehensible members of the GOP. The focus of the Democrat's ad campaign has been to bring light to the Republicans opposition elements against President Obama's economic stimulus plans.

The Democratic National Committee has been rapidly assembling ads that focus against "Republicans who haven’t warmed to the mega-stimulus or to President Obama’s budget outline," The New York Times reports. "If the “Party of Rush” won’t stick, then Republicans can be known as “The Party of No,” according to the D.N.C., although frankly, the Democrats would prefer the two labels weren’t mutually exclusive."

The New York Times Reports that the Democrats, in opening a new round of attacks against members of the GOP: "Opening up a new line of attack against Gov. Mark Sanford," The Democrats have confronted "the South Carolina Republican who has been perhaps the most vocal among Republican governors in rejecting aspects of the federal stimulus package."

The New York Times explains the DNC strategy: "In this new ad teeing off the economic crisis, the Democrats cite South Carolina’s unemployment rate and peg Mr. Sanford as a sort of Grinch. It will run in Columbia, the state’s capital, on cable television next week."

Gov. Mark Stanford's Communications director, Joel Sawyer, responded:

“Governor Sanford continues to believe that problems created by too much debt will never be solved by more debt. It’s time to put the partisan politics aside and for people who supported this stimulus legislation to start shooting straight with taxpayers on who is paying the bill for all of this spending.

"This so-called ’stimulus’ represents a federal predatory loan, the cost of which will be borne by future generations who will never have a chance to vote from office the very people who are saddling them with unprecedented spending and guaranteed future tax increases.”

The Democrats are particularly angry with Mr. Sanford's comparison of President Obama's economic policies "to those of Zimbabwe this week in the way" Gov. Stanford "views money being tossed around" by the Democrats. Stanford's "remarks set off another round in the exceptionally public feud with Representative James Clyburn, the No. 3 Democrat in the House who is from the Palmetto State."

The New York Times reports that: "Mike Schrimpf, communications director for the Republican Governors Association, issued a statement later today: “The White House’s attack machine is trying to distract from the fact that, while Republican governors are being fiscally responsible by carefully reviewing how the so-called stimulus bill impacts their states, tax-and-spend governors like Jon Corzine are enacting massive tax hikes on middle class families. … President Obama should heed his own campaign promises and call on the D.N.C. to stop attacking Republican governors for actually practicing the sort of fiscal responsibility that President Obama only campaigned on.”

The New York Times also reported that: Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, released a statement: "After years of losing elections here, the D.N.C. should know better than anyone that spending lots of money to try and brainwash S.C. voters with misleading ads will not work. South Carolinians are worried about the economy and their jobs, but they have little faith in Nancy Pelosi’s desire to spend our way back to economic success. Instead of wasting George Soros’ fortune bashing conservatives like Mark Sanford who are right to question further deficit spending, maybe the DNC should focus on some other state where they have more friends."

The New York Times also speculated that: "Given that other governors, like Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Rick Perry of Texas, also are among those debating large aspects of the stimulus package, it’s quite possible similar ads will turn up down the road against them."

The New York Times explains: "As far as responding to this type of political advertising, the national Republicans have not begun a similar effort perhaps reflecting a political party that is still trying to regain its footing after considerable losses."

The New York points out that: "But when it comes to being labeled the “party of no,” or the party of no ideas, several top G.O.P. officials are fighting back. A spokesman for Representative Eric Cantor, the Republican minority whip who is from Virginia, circulated statements made by the White House this week in which ideas that Republican lawmakers submitted to the administration were well-received despite the criticism that came recently from the president. The G.O.P. lawmakers continue to stress tax cuts over spending to aid small businesses, in particular."

The problem with the so-called GOP counterattack is that it relies on policies that put the country into the economic conditions it currently faces; and to simply repackage those 'ideas' as productive and well received counter proposals to Democratic policies is a ploy that goes well beyond stretching the truth of the GOP's modus operandi since Reagan.

Democrats and Democratic Groups Continue To Attack Limbaugh

American's United for Change have released an ad that asks "Who's the Leader of the Party's Leader? And later this week, the liberal group will release another ad.

"Democrats are engaging in a concerted campaign to link the national Republican Party to conservative talk-radio show host Rush Limbaugh, an effort that will ramp up over the next few days in the form of another round of television ads and an increased rhetorical focus on the issue from Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine, according to sources familiar with the plans."

Limbaugh is an easy target and is being pummeled with increased intensity. "Rush is the bloated face and drug-addled voice of the Republican Party," said Paul Begala, a longtime Democratic strategist who rose to prominence during Bill Clinton's presidency. "Along with lots of others, I intend to continue to turn up the heat until every alleged Republican either endorses or renounces Rush's statement that he hopes our President fails."

As part of the coordinated effort, Tim Kaine called Limbaugh "the leading force behind the Republican Party, its politics and its obstruction of President Obama's agenda in Washington" as DNC officials explained that the Limbaugh critique would escalate.

Chris Cillizza reported: "The ramping-up of the "Republicans equal Limbaugh" strategy began over the weekend when White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," argued that the talk-radio host "is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party."

At this afternoon's White House Press briefing; press secretary Robert Gibbs took a sharp jab at Limbaugh's ample midsection when he answered a question about the Democrats concerted attack against the talk show host and replied: “I’m a little surprised at the reaction and the fervent reaction that Mr. Limbaugh got from CPAC. I’ve encouraged members of the press to ask Republicans whether they agree with Mr. Limbaugh’s adage that he hopes that the president’s economic ideas fail. I was a little surprised at the speed in which Mr. Steele, the head of the RNC, apologized to the head of the Republican Party.”

Gibbs' remark pitted Michael Steele, the actual head of the RNC, who is turning out to be nothing more than a figurehead against the defacto head of the conservative ideologues who control the GOP via the commands of Limbaugh.

"The strategy has already proven effective as Limbaugh and Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele spent the day sparring following a television appearance in which Steele called Limbaugh's show "ugly" and "incendiary". Limbaugh went after Steele on his show on Monday and the chairman quickly backed down, offering his apologies for what he described as a misunderstanding."

"National Democratic strategists believe that they have only begun to mine the Limbaugh vein, maintaining that while he is a potent force -- and much beloved by the GOP's conservative base -- he is widely disliked by independent and swing voters. In a recent poll by Democratic survey firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, 44 percent of Republicans felt warmly toward Limbaugh while 32 percent expressed "cold" feelings. Compare that to the broader swath of all voters where 58 percent felt coldly toward Limbaugh and 21 percent felt warmly."

National Democratic leaders feel convinced that by raising Limbaugh's incendiary remarks to the point where they become common knowledge among everyday Americans is "the best way to keep Republicans in a permanent minority status is to keep Limbaugh" the face that represents the GOP.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele has become the latest high-profile Republican to grovel in abject humility before radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh. Tell me if you agree that this spectacle -- one of the nation's two major political parties held hostage by one large man with a microphone -- is embarrassing and almost sad.


Eugene Robinson explains: "Steele, interviewed on comedian D.L. Hughley's CNN infotainment show, said two things about Limbaugh that are hard to refute: that he is an entertainer, and that some of the sentiments expressed on his show are "ugly." Hughley was pressing the RNC chief on Limbaugh's diktat that right-thinking conservatives must do what they can to ensure that President Obama fails. Steele wasn't ready to sign up for that program."

"At least he wasn't until Limbaugh took to the airwaves to set him straight," Robinson continued. "Limbaugh reminded Steele that he had offered help, in the form of air time, during Steele's failed 2006 run for the Senate. He peremptorily explained to Steele what the duties of the RNC chairman should be and ordered him to stick to those tasks -- suggesting, in effect, that as far as the public dialog is concerned, the Republican Party's first African American chief should be seen and not heard. (Those are my words, not Limbaugh's; his were more circuitous, but also more high-handed.)

Within hours, Steele had apologized humbly for saying anything bad about the Big Man. This was no surprise," Robinson explained; "really. Since the election, Republicans have been falling over themselves to to apologize for any offense, real or imagined, they might have given to the radio host who claims to have 22 million listeners. Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia -- who was bold enough to note that it is easy for Limbaugh to throw bricks from his perch while Republican leaders in Congress had to, you know, actually write legislation and marshal votes -- apologized even more profusely than Steele.

GOP Uses Jindal Speech to Attack Obama's Stimulus Plan

PART1 Jindal's Response to Obama's "State of the Union Address"


PART2 Jindal's Response to Obama's "State of the Union Address"

Transcript of Jindal's Response to Obama's "State of the Union Address"

Prior to last night's "State of the Union Speech" by President Obama; Professor Jeffrey Sadow, a political scientist at Louisiana State University, predicted that after having observed Bobby Jindal for the last several years, said of Jindal: "He will have a lot of positives and not many negatives ... He has a tendency to talk rapidly so, as long as he doesn't get too excited, he'll do fine."

As it turned out Jindal gave a horrible showing for himself.

Long seen as a front runner for the Republican nomination for president in 2010, Jindal has come to represent a Republican Party that is truly in the process of remaking itself in order to present a stiffer challenge to the extremely popular President Obama and his large majority of democratic cohorts in the Congress.

"Jindal grabbed US media attention over the weekend by vowing that he would not take part of Obama's $787bn stimulus package destined to go to Louisiana.

"The amount, to increase unemployment benefit, is relatively small but it allows Jindal to stake out an ideological position against Obama on the biggest issue facing the US today; the White House plan to buy its way out of recession."

Although he is always quick to deny it; Jindal "... has been criss-crossing the country since late last year to build up support for a presidential race, and has included a visit for the first time to Iowa, where the race will formally begin. He is also touring to show he is capable of raising the millions needed to fight for the presidency."

So last nights performance had a great deal riding on it for the 37 year old Governor from the state of Louisiana. In other words, a stellar performance would have boosted Jindal popularity as well as his ability to raise huge sums of cash from GOP donors.

Jindal was born of parents "... from the Punjab but Jindal, whose given name was Piyush but which he switched to Bobby, was brought up in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He was educated in the US and at Oxford university. He was a member of the US House of Representatives before becoming governor of Louisiana, the first person from a non-European background to do so in the southern state.

"He was born and raised a Hindu, but converted to Catholicism and also has links to Protestant churches. Unusually for a Rhodes scholar, he believes in creationism, a viewpoint that increases his appeal to Christian evangelicals.

"Jindal's politics are firmly on the Republican right: he is opposed to abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage and the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling.

"One of the most controversial incidents from his past was a claim to have witnessed an exorcism, though he has since partly rowed back on that."

So the pressure on Jindal, to come across to the public as a Republican version of Barack Obama, was intense as his rise has been carefully choreographed by a "... Republican party, (that) for so long (was) dominated by wealthy, old white men, is taking seriously its efforts at a makeover. The party that last month chose an African American, Michael Steele, as its first party chairman has come to regard Jindal, who is of Indian descent, as one of the front-runners for the party nomination."

But less than twenty four hours after his huge chance to gain fame and fortune as the GOP front runner for 2010; criticism is freely flowing in Jindal's direction.

“A lot of Republicans I am speaking with were expecting this would be like Obama’s moment in 2004” when he spoke at the Democratic National Convention and gained immediate national fame, said David Johnson, a Republican strategist who advised Bob Dole in 1988. “He bombed out.”

Philip Klein of the “American Spectator” added his own biting criticism when he said of Jindal, he “seemed more like a high school student giving a valedictory speech than a potential future leader of the party.”

Fox News curmudgeon, Brit Hume said: “The speech read a lot better than it sounded. This was not Bobby Jindal’s greatest oratorical moment.”

All of the reviews Jindal received were less critical. One time RNC Communications Director, Carl Forti sought to tamp down the criticism by saying Jindal must still be looked at as a viable candidate. “People are watching him right after they watched Obama, and Obama may be better than Reagan,” said Forti. “I’m sure that affected people’s opinion.”

Republican strategist, Terry Holt, who worked as a spokesman for George W. Bush; said: “I am very cautious to take away too much from a single performance. My sense is it’s a difficult position to be in” appearing after Obama gave such an effective speech.

Those comments pretty much summarized the execution of the speech by Jindal.

The other important aspect to consider about Jindal's party-backed response to President Obama and the Democrats was Jindal's use of sharp criticism against Obama and his stimulus plan that the offered to the American people much of the same old same old, the GOP is famous for.

Jindal praised the merits of small government that Republicans stand for; except those who sat in the Whitehouse for the last eight years: "Instead of trusting us to make decisions with our own money, they passed the largest government spending bill in history with a price tag of more than $1 trillion with interest," he said of Democrats. "Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line and saddle future generations with debt."

Taking a direct swipe at Obama, Jindal complained: "we appreciate his message of hope, but sometimes it seems like we look for hope in different places. Democratic leaders in Washington, they place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you, the American people."

Jindal's best Reagan impression came off as tired and flat when he referred to President Obama's warning that the country must take quick and decisive action on the economy or "our nation will sink into a crisis that, at some point, we may be unable to reverse." That's where Jindal weakly exorcised the GOP's Reaganesque spirit to weakly say: "A few weeks ago, the president warned that our country is facing a crisis that he said we may not be able to reverse," Jindal said. "Our troubles are real, to be sure. But don't let anyone tell you that we cannot recover. Don't let anyone tell you that America 's best days are behind her."

Jindal's criticisms deviated very little from those overused and tired phrasings and decades old rhetoric used by congressional Republicans who have failed to live up to their pledges of bipartisanship.

So it was not unexpected that Jindal called the stimulus “irresponsible.” He continued the attacks he started a few days ago when he said Obama's plan is a tax inflater and deficit creator. Jindal complained that the stimulus was "... no way to strengthen our economy, create jobs, or build a prosperous future for our children.”

“The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens,” Jindal said in arguing that the stimulus plan and other proposals by Obama to revive the nation’s economy rely too much on government spending and taxes.

Jindal turned again to Reagan when he repeated that government does not bear all the answers to all of the problems facing the nation. Jindal argued: “It comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government,” he said. “We oppose the national Democrats’ view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington, to empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and create jobs.”

Once again demonstrating the Republican's lack of new ideas Jindal said: “Washington must lead. But the way to lead is not to raise taxes and not to put more money and power in the hands of Washington politicians. The way to lead is by empowering you -- the American people.”

Bloomberg News reported that Jindal "... said Republicans have put forward plans to create jobs by lowering income-tax rates, cutting taxes for small businesses, strengthening incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment and hire new workers, and stabilizing home values by creating a new tax credit for homebuyers."

Jindal followed up by saying: “These plans would cost less and create more jobs” than Obama's plans.

On the topic of bipartisanship, Jindal said: “You are looking to your elected leaders in Washington for solutions,” he said. “Republicans are ready to work with the new president to provide those solutions.

“Where we agree, Republicans must be the president’s strongest partners. And where we disagree, Republicans have a responsibility to be candid and offer better ideas for a path forward,”Jindal said.

Finally, Jindal admitted that Republicans became careless with their fiscal responsibility to the federal budget: “You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility,” Jindal said. “Republicans lost your trust -- and rightly so.”

The Washingtonian Chess Master

The leader of our nation, it was decided more than two centuries ago, should not hold the supreme rank of King. The title of president, the founding fathers decided, would be sufficient and capable enough to meet the many dangers and opportunities that the fledgling nation would face in years to come.

After 43 attempts to fill the office of the presidency with occupants capable of negotiating the chess board of national and world affairs successfully; few have lived up to the potential they guaranteed to the American citizenry as they campaigned and later took the highest office in the land.

Each occupant brought certain strengths as well as weaknesses with them as they struggled with the mundane tasks of everyday affairs combined with the imposing tasks that required decision making on a grander scale; which combined tactical maneuvering and dexterity with a well conceived notion for strategic planning .

Why is this an important point to consider at this moment in American history?

Mainly because the challenges that face our current chief executive stand apart from those moments in our collective past when decisions were made that seemed to involve a less vexatious confluence of troubles that linear thought could sufficiently address with a high degree of certainty that appropriately favorable outcomes would result.

President number 44, Barack Obama, finds himself participating in a much more complex competition against seasoned opponents that as a matter of their demeanor for the competition at hand must contend with their once pre-eminent esteem that their party commanded; now severely shattered and weakened, and with their future viability as a party uncertain and their tactical positions at bay; the Republicans are in a much more obviously weakened state that nevertheless still makes them formidable adversaries in search of retribution.

President Obama must deal with experienced and opportunistic antagonists as he labors against national and international conditions that require a great deal of skillful adroitness.

Mr. Obama will find that the Republicans are still skillful in their tactics of strike and retreat; leaving Obama and his fellow Democrats to answer questions that divert them from their task at hand: bringing unemployment under control and struggling against the strengthening pressures of the undeniable effect toward deflationary momentum that will surely impose its draining and enervating effect upon not only our nation; but the global economic system that the United States provides it's long standing role of sustained guidance and leadership.

Such were the tactics of Republicans in recent days. Attack and retreat; keeping the Democrats off balance as the economic stimulus staked its way, first through the House, where Democrats emboldened by their superior numbers constructed a bill that merged tax breaks to satisfy their Republican opponents with a wide range of job producing initiatives that an astute observer would have to go back nearly three-quarters of a century to find similar ambitions.

The Republicans, playing to the creation of a populist backlash; failed in their efforts to sway popular opinion to march alongside their party against these suddenly F.D.R.-like, New Deal emboldened Democrats. Polls showed the public to remain unequivocally loyal to the House Democrats proposals.

However, the main stream media, desperate for headlines; sensed a story full of stereotypes and boisterous oversimplifications that they decided to run with. The 'political combat' trope pitted Republican pleas to the common man against Democratic manifestations of largess resulted in easy to write or broadcast stories portraying Obama and the Democrats of overreaching and abandoning their new politics of responsibility and truthfulness. And the Democrats, intent on doing the heavy lifting of complex, big ticket item legislative work, ignored, for the most part, the charges being levied against them and for a few days seemed oblivious to the attacks brought against them by their accusers without mounting a vigorous defense at least in the eyes of the Republicans and the main stream media.

That's because the Democrats had their sights set on something more important to the well being of the American people; they were dead set on getting the economic stimulus bill legislatively completed and placed before the president for his signature of the bill into law.

So Republicans used soundbites and "common sense" objections to the Democrats efforts with tales aimed straight at the hearts of the most easily swayed of the American citizenry. The GOP spoke into the main stream media's cameras and claimed the stimulus was so expensive that if a dollar a day was set down on the day of Jesus Christ's birth, we would still be putting dollar bills down today. Another Republican, Senator John Thune of South Dakota; easel chart at his side, spoke from the well of the Senate on another day and preforming to the cameras, claimed that the Democratic stimulus was so oppressively expensive that if the monies were broken down into $100 bills and stack one upon another, it would create a stack of $100 bills that would reach some 39 miles into the sky. That was a great main stream media story that ran endlessly on newscasts and talk shows in a seemingly endless loop. Then finally, as if that was not enough mulling over the ridiculous; Senator Thune showed up again with an easel at his side and cameras over his shoulder recording a new, meaningless claim: take $100 bills and attach them end to end and they would circle the Earth an 'amazing' 39 times! Quite the showman, Mr. Thune showed himself to be to the American people!

But the Democrats and Obama were undeterred, they kept working toward their goal of creating an economic stimulus bill.

Then came the stories of Democrats as tax cheats with soon-to-be Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner and some other lesser appointees. And the tale of Mr. Daschle's limousine service added kindling to Republican charges of Democratic examples of skirting the rules.

Meanwhile it seemed as if President Obama was saying too many nice things about his Republican opponents and courting them for votes that in the end; the GOP would never deliver to Mr. Obama's victory that would make a much more satisfying victory for the Democrats.

Additionally, the president was being lured into a pincer attack as moderates called for a greater outreach by Obama "even as Republicans on Capitol Hill were attacking his economic package with the kind of venom usually reserved for the handiwork of Satan."

All sorts of charges were being leveled against Obama by the main stream media in search of more stories and by the Republicans who were struggling to create their own sense of political identity; even claims that 'the honeymoon' with the American people was over despite the president's continued high standings in the opinion polls. What was a young and inexperienced president to do?

Obama knew he simply had to weather the storm and keep his eyes on the prize provided by the passage of the economic stimulus bill.

Mr. Daschle steadfastly owned up to his mistakes and withdrew his name from consideration to head the office of the secretary of health and human services; saying in unequivocal terms what Americans had never heard over the span of eight years during the rule of the former-Bush administration: “I’ve got to own up to my mistake.” And instead of embarrassing Mr. Obama, Americans showed their support for Daschle's decision by maintaining the president's impressive poll numbers.

Mr. Obama also gained more adulation from the nation when he went before five major news anchors; took the blame for Geithner and Daschle by openly admitted his mistakes 'as a dumb move' for not vetting his people better.

The president had learned an important rule of the 'chess-like' match he is engaged in; the power of the truth!

Still not satisfied that he commanded enough support from the American people to maintain their affirmation through what will be a very arduous and long road to remaking America; Mr Obama boldly headed for Elkhhart, Indiana to meet the people in a campaign-like atmosphere of a town-hall meeting where a populace resides who are being hit especially hard by unemployment and home foreclosures.

To the assembled crowd; the president made his point in no uncertain terms to an audience desperate for good news when he said: “Endless delay or paralysis in Washington in the face of this crisis will only bring deepening disaster. I can tell you that doing nothing is not an option.”

Obama had traveled into the heart of a once strong and irrepressible part of the country that was rich in it's, until 2008, support for Republicans and had come out the victor as his speech was meet with encouraging and passionate support throughout his appearance.

Bob Herbert assesses the early press reviews of Obama by keenly observing: "There is always a tendency to underestimate Barack Obama. We are inclined in the news media to hyperventilate over every political or policy setback, no matter how silly or insignificant, while Mr. Obama has shown again and again that he takes a longer view."

After two years of campaigning for the presidency and after just a few weeks as president, Obama displays a tremendous sense of purpose that artfully combines tactical decisions made in light of strategic goals.

He knows how to use his power and is undeterred by typically ridiculous Republican claims; first coming from Michael Steele, the new chair of the R.N.C. who could not contain his glee when all of the Republicans in the House voted against the stimulus and he praised them for: “The goose egg that you laid on the president’s desk was just beautiful.”

Or the uncalled for and derisive remarks that: “This bill stinks.” made by Senator Lindsey Graham; commenting on the stimulus legislation. One would rightfully expect something more insightful from a senior Republican Senator who once held a position of great power and influence with John McCain, the GOP standard bearer who could have been our current president had he been elected.

And finally, Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions praising and suggesting the GOP should be "picking up pointers from the Taliban" and continuing his remarks by indicating his sincerity that: “Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban.”

Anyone with a shred of understanding of how Republicans conduct politics in this country realize that the hopes for Obama failing made by Rush Limbaugh resonate clearly and decisively throughout the GOP today: it is their ticket back to power if Obama should fail.

But in President Obama, the Republicans have an opponent who sees the game of Washingtonian chess, several moves in advance of the current skirmish being waged. He clearly understands how to engage the Republicans at a tactical level that retains his strategic goals and advantages over the GOP.

Partisan Democrats who have had to endue Republican hogwash for over thirty years have demanded more immediate action from Mr. Obama and some have even felt a sense of betrayal that the man they elected has failed to produce the promises he campaigned on. But it's still very early in his presidency and many more skirmishes and battles remain ahead of the president. The nation needs more jobs and more spending to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure; something that increasing tax cuts will never be able to provide for or repair.

But most importantly, Obama has won his first victory against a recalcitrant Republican party that was used to doing things their own way for more than three decades and the president is now one for one in victories against the GOP who might not have voted along with him but had to acknowledge Mr. Obama's solid work for bipartisan support.

Mr. Obama has left the Republicans in the unenviable position of only being able to criticize the Democrats while Obama and his party have more than $800 billion to create an America that conforms to a Democratic image of what this country should represent and how it should get there! Quite an accomplishment for such a young rookie president and a party that has been out of power for far too long.