Begala states that the strategy of the GOP is to deny, delay, and do nothing. He paints the GOP as denying the country is as bad off as it is. Of course this is highly subjective. Are things bad? Of course they are, nobody is denying that. Were they as bad in December as the news media was painting things? Well, that’s debateable. But Begala doesn’t like debate, he likes to make the other guy look bad, so he frames anyone who wants to debate as being out of touch and dangerous. Nevermind the truth, we’ve got work to do!

Begala then moves on to showing how the GOP is delaying the help this country needs. He quotes Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Nebraska) as saying “Let’s slow down. Let’s take our time. Few things are going to be as important as this.” Begala then asks “Generally that’s good advice. But with the economy losing 19,000 jobs a day, is delay really a wise strategy?” Unfortunately, it’s a purely rhetorical question and Begala wants us to assume the unquivocal answer is “no”. But maybe delay is a good strategy, not just for the GOP but for the country. After all, the generally objective Congressional Budget Office is saying the stimulus plan as presently constituted will cost taxpayers over $300K per job created, and will be worse for the economy than if the government did nothing. If the CBO is controlled by any party it’s the Democrats, so you would think Democrats might listen to them and think “Maybe we should take a few days to think about this…” but Begala’s got a better plan called “Do something now! Anything, but it has to be now!” But why do it now? How are you so certain that doing anything, regardless of what it is, is better than doing nothing? Why don’t we just pay every Republican voter 10 million dollars and print more money to do it? What, Mr. Begala, you say that’s a bad idea? Well, you yourself said we have to do something right now, didn’t you? Why not that? If it’s a bad idea, then you admit we shouldn’t implement bad ideas, right? Well, Republicans think this stimulus package is full of bad ideas, so how can you criticize them for delaying it when you would advocate the same type of delays if it were the Republicans proposing a package with elements you disagreed with?

Begala then claims the GOP isn’t doing anything and that they want to let families fail. He describes the GOP message as “You’re on your own. Write if you get work. This befits a party which has high-ranking members who deny the effectiveness of the New Deal.” and then asks “What’s next, denying that the federal government put a man on the moon?”

Actually, Mr. Begala, there is plenty of evidence in circulation to suggest the New Deal didn’t work as intended, but actually prolonged the Great Depression. In fact, it might have just been a short depression without anything “Great” about it or any capital letters if it weren’t for the New Deal. And we’re still paying for the New Deal today. Do we really want to repeat those errors and saddle our children and grandchildren with more of the same type of mess FDR left us? There’s also plenty of evidence to show that when you allow people and companies to fail, they learn not to fail. But that when you provide soft landings for them you actually increase the likelihood of failure in the future. Yes, letting your 3-year old child touch a hot stove hurts, but you know he won’t do it again, and it might save him from a far more damaging experience with fire in the future. I agree, if you only look at the short-term, it seems cruel and heartless, but in the long-term the child is better off. But hey, pure politics is all about the short-term anyway, right?

Finally, Begala gets to talking about bipartisanship. Of course when voting goes down party lines it’s the GOP that is partisan, not the other side. As I recall, I believe the definition of partisanship requires two parties. But Mr. Begala’s definition of bipartisanship appears to mean “Agree blindly with everything the Democrats want or we’ll call you a partisan.” On the other hand, he go to great lengths lauding Obama’s bipartisanship, and what does he give as examples? Inviting the GOP for drinks, having them over for a Superbowl party, and removing a few of the most controversial, embarrassing, smallest, and meaningless parts of the stimulus package. It’s an old sales tactic–always quote a higher price than you want so that you can come down on price and the customer feels like they’re getting a deal while you still get what you want.

But I have a proposal to solve all this. A way that everyone can be bipartisan, and we can get rid of the delay and nothing getting done. How about we pass those parts of the stimulus package that everyone agrees on so that something can be done right now, and then debate the parts people disagree on? If I recall correctly, everyone agrees on the tax cuts in the bill. The GOP is obviously for tax cuts since they always are, and the Democrats must be for them too since they wrote the bill in the first place. So it’s win-win.