Campaign Diaries

The Senate leadership finally called for a cloture vote, and the stimulus bill advanced past its first most important test by a 61 to 36 margin. As expected, only three Republicans voted in favor of the bill (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter), as did all 58 Democrats.

The vote is already being described as a disappointing one for the Obama Administration and a victory for partisanship. But let us get one thing straight. It is nonsensical to say that the stimulus bill did not enjoy a “broad consensus” because it only won the support of three Republicans. Had a 61-36 vote occurred in the 110th Congress, during which Democrats only controlled 51 seats, would it have been described in similar terms? Should Democrats pretend like they did not pick-up eight seats? And should they feel sorry for doing so?

American voters sent to Washington 61 Senators who voted in favor of the bill; they also sent 36 Senators who voted against it. That constitutes “broad consensus.” Put it another way: Voters put Democrats in a position to only need minimal support by Republicans, and we should keep that in mind all the way until the 2010 midterms.

That said, many Democrats are first to forget this and went very far in undermining the stimulus bill. Sure, the bill needed some Republican supporters in order to reach the necessary 60 votes. Yet, there is quite a difference between the behavior exhibited by those Senators willing to talk with the GOP and those damaging the very strength of the stimulus bill and undermining Democratic talking points.

Take Nebraska’s Ben Nelson. His primary objective was not to help bring Republicans aboard; in fact, he shared their concerns and was undecided himself. He played an integral role in criticizing the bill’s spending before the centrist caucus even convened, and he pushed for the cuts to educational spending, health care and state aid just as much as Collins or George Voinovich.

Of course, in Nelson’s words, those were not cuts, they were just “adjustments downward.”

Take Mary Landrieu, who was the only Democrat to vote against the high-profile Murray Amendment that would have increased funding for mass transit. (Two Republicans voted in favor of the amendment, that failed narrowly.)

Take Missouri’s Clare McCaskill, who insists that these cuts needed to be made to pass the bill. Her constantly updated and groundbreaking Twitter feed suggests, however, that she was not heartbroken to have to give up billions in state aid:

Proud we cut over 100 billion out of recov bill.Many Ds don’t like it, but needed to be done.The silly stuff Rs keep talking about is OUT.

Nelson, Landrieu McCaskill are not acting like Democrats trying to pass a bill by convincing the necessary Republicans to support it. They are acting as members of the centrist caucus, a group that does not share the priorities of the rest of the Democratic caucus and is often closer to Republican concerns than those of Democrats. All of them campaigned and won as such centrists (and in Nelson’s case, he probably would not have been elected otherwise), so we certainly cannot blame them for deceiving us.

What I find objectionable, however, is that this group and its priorities are presented to us as automatically good just because they are centrists, as if centrism entailed such a non-ideological and pragmatic stance as to be infallible. There is rarely any consideration of the centrist’s caucus policy positions; as long as they are supported by Senators from both sides of the aisle, how could they be bad?

People like Paul Krugman remain to rain on the post-partisan parade: “What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their house?” Krugman asks in his latest devastating column. “A proud centrist.”

(It is fascinating how Krugman has become such a voice of authority that those he attacks feel like they have to defend themselves from his criticism even without being prompted to do so (see McCaskill’s Twitter feed). Centrist Senators are being asked about Krugman’s columns by journalists who typically do not elevate any liberal writing on such a pedestal.)

After its final passage tomorrow, the stimulus bill will head to the conference committee, where representatives of the House and the Senate will try to reconcile the two chambers’ versions. Liberals are hoping that some of the programs cut out in the Senate will be reintroduced at the conference committee, while centrists will try to keep reining in spending. The Obama Administration’s position will be crucial.