a personal favorite. great choice

And how many more people have read that post, than would have if it was a mild-mannered suggestion? Drama sells.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't joking, Robert Stacy. But props for trying to take it like a man.

You say that now, but popular consensus on Republicans being obstructionists requires that the stimulus work -- something which no one can predict.

Even though it's a purely political play on their part I don't think it's necessarily a bad one. They're going "all in" so to speak on the stimulus failure, so that in two years they can be the party of small government and private enterprise again. While you might be right, matoko, attitudes like yours are the ones that discourage damage control, the same overconfident mentality that ultimately destroyed the Republican majority. Democrats should learn the lessons of recent history and proceed more cautiously.

Bob, I was under the impression that Yglesias's failure to mention deficit spending was precisely the problem. Douthat's right to point out that seeing this solely as a political opportunity is shortsighted.

I definitely appreciate the fact that Republicans are sleeping in the bed they made, don't get me wrong -- they have totally compromised any claim to bipartisanship, or to limited government spending.

But I think Obama ought to be seeing two prerogatives here. The first is simply practical: whether or not there is a political party actively agitating for limited government spending, that should still be an administrative priority. Part of digging ourselves out of the recession is going to be getting the most bang for our buck when it comes to stimulus. Just because Democrats are supposed to be in favor of "more government" doesn't mean they aren't allowed to use their common sense.

The second prerogative is political. It should be clear to everyone at this point that Republicans tend to run in 2010 on limited spending. They are, in other words, banking on the early failure of the stimulus (which honestly is probably not a bad bet.)

So Obama should take the wind out of their sails by making limited spending a higher priority. If the administration can find a way to pare down spending on its own, say in a few high-profile program cuts (perhaps even cuts from their own bill) under the "it's not working" rhetoric that Obama employed in his inaugural, they can go a long way toward building an enduring majority.

isn't Ross's point more about the ideology of the bill itself? I took him to be saying that, whether or not Republicans are willing to cooperate, it's still not good policy to run up the already-enormous deficit more than need be. I tend to agree. Don't we need to redefine whether a program "works" in light of the recession?

interesting counter-factual. I haven't seen Che either, and as I tend to target my movie-going based more on entertainment value than political statement, its tepid reviews mean I'll probably never catch it.

But in the hypothetical, I'd say that Che owes an accounting, however brief, of its protagonist's darker side simply because it's a long and comprehensive biopic. I'd criticize the omission less from a political perspective (I have no feelings on Guevara politically) than an artistic one -- a character study of that length and scope ought to have something to say about Guevara's violence. The same would apply to a movie of similar length and detail about Sam Adams.

i got you: http://somepolitical.blogspot.com/2009/01/responses-to-ed-freddie.html

I'm going to address all of this point by point some time tomorrow, but I want to disclaim right away: I am not, in fact, Israeli. I'm an American living and working in Israel, and I'll be returning to the States later this year. Just so nobody makes the mistaking of thinking I'm operating with any moral authority or cultural credibility here - I am definitely not.

first response: http://somepolitical.blogspot.com/2009/01/getting-beyond-talk-about-talk-about.html