Editor’s Note: Robert Zimmerman has been a Democratic National Committee member since 2000. He is a partner at Zimmerman/Edelson Inc., a marketing, advertising and public relations firm based in New York.

Robert Zimmerman
CNN Political Analyst

While renowned political pundits, journalists and media stars will try to analyze and spin the "national trends" of the Virginia and New Jersey elections for governor, the controversial and closely watched 23rd Congressional District in upstate New York really does tell a national story, and the results will have a profound impact through the 2010 midterm.

This election began with the Republican candidate, Assemblywoman Dierdre "Dede" Scozzafava, as the strong front runner over the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens, and Conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman. That certainly was not a shock to anyone knowing this Congressional District, which is larger than the state of Vermont. In fact, the last time this region chose a member of Congress who was not a Republican, they elected a Whig!

Let's face it, we are talking about serious voting traditions in this Congressional District.

Then the radical national right-wing movement arrived. Former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin of Alaska led the way, followed by Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota; Dick Armey, the former House majority leader from Texas; former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee; Glenn Beck; Rush Limbaugh; and many others whose conduct and rhetoric brought historic defeats to the Republican Party in 2006 and 2008.

In keeping with the right-wing agenda of defeating moderate Republicans, the leadership was very clear about its goals. "The No. 1 victory will be to defeat Dede," stated Marjorie Dannenfelser, the leader of a group to elect candidates who oppose abortion. She has been joined by leaders of the National Organization for Marriage (translation: against the rights of gays and lesbians) and, of course, the tea- bagger movement.

Yes, their vitriol and attacks did have an impact. Dede Scozzafava withdrew her candidacy as her numbers collapsed. The conservative candidate gained momentum and even the endorsement of the Republican Party.

However, the conduct of these right-wing demagogues is also bringing together moderate Republicans, Independents and Democrats. Republican Dede Scozzafava endorsed the Democrat Bill Owens. The Watertown Daily Times, which serves Northern New York's
Jefferson, Lewis and St. Lawrence counties, switched from endorsing Scozzafava to Owens. In its endorsement, the Watertown Daily Times stated about the Conservative Republican candidate, "It is frightening that Mr. Hoffman is so beholden to right-wing ideologues who dismiss Northern New York as parochial when people here simply want to know how Mr. Hoffman will protect their interests in Washington."

Although New York's 23rd Congressional District is tough for a Democrat, the real story of this election is how this rural region in upstate New York launched a national movement. They have put aside their partisan labels and are standing up to the tactics and message of the extreme right-wing.

President Barack Obama campaigned with a pledge to change the partisan tone and conduct of Washington, D.C. The record number of citizens who are standing up to Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and the extreme right wing in this rural upstate New York Republican Congressional District are helping him keep that commitment.

Robert Zimmerman
AC360° Contributor and CNN Political Analyst

As I spent my rainy Sunday in New York watching all the well balanced, politically correct and diversified panels discuss the arrest of Professor Gates, I was struck by the glaring reality that no one on the panels that I observed was a member of or associated with the police profession.

Yes, there were political pundits, sociologists, media commentators, radio talk show hosts, the occasional academician and the inevitable author or two. Many sounded like they were reciting their favorite scenes from Law and Order as they tossed around phrases describing the arrest and their interpretation of why the charges were dropped. Almost all agreed that they did not know what specifically precipitated the arrest, the reasons for it or how race was a factor. However, there was a conclusion among many that race was a factor. This was a particularly stunning conclusion considering the exemplary career of Sergeant James Crowley. For five years Sgt. Crowley taught a class on racial profiling at the Lowell Police Academy. He was hand-picked for that assignment by former Police Commissioner Ron Watson, who is African-American. President Obama described Sgt. Crowley as an "outstanding police officer and a good man" and said that he has "a fine track record on racial sensitivity."

Racial profiling or biased policing is a well documented, shameful and tragic aspect of law enforcement history. It also exists in many other aspects of our nation's culture and society. In examining this issue, I took the daring initiative to actually speak to a respected member of the police profession on this matter. In fact, I spoke to one of our nation's most highly regarded and successful leaders in policing, Los Angeles Police Chief Bill Bratton. In addition to his present position and serving as the President of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, he formerly served as the New York City Police Commissioner and the Police Commissioner for the City of Boston.

Chief Bratton reviewed with me the extensive measures that police have aggressively taken to address the issue of racial profiling in the past 15 years. He pointed out that this issue is being confronted through changes in law that make racial profiling illegal and give the Federal government enforcement powers to combat it. In the selection process for new recruits, police are required and trained to look for signs of bias and prejudice. Additionally, new policies and procedures are continually being developed to strengthen supervision, documentation and the investigation of citizen complaints of racial profiling. Many police cars also now have video equipment to monitor police and their interactions with citizens. The police profession has been addressing the issues of race and bias more openly than American society as a whole.

The teachable moment from this experience should seek to raise awareness of racial profiling and bias policing, and the ways to address it. However, the lesson will be lost if we do not also address the dangers of police profiling- the automatic assumption that racial profiling is the issue when an encounter or arrest is made of a person of color by a white police officer.

Robert Zimmerman
AC360° Contributor and CNN Political Analyst

Every human being who witnessed or heard about the spectacle of Governor Mark Sanford's press conference yesterday had to feel extraordinary sympathy for the Governor's wife and family.

Everyone, that is, except for Governor Mark Sanford, Senator David Vitter, Senator John Ensign, former Senator Larry Craig, and former Congressman Mark Foley.

Despite the sex scandals that each one of these right wing "family values" politicians brought on themselves and their families, they have made a career of dividing families. The pain that Mrs. Sanford and her children are experiencing is a salient reminder to many other citizens and families who have suffered as a result of the divisive rhetoric and discriminatory policies of these self-righteous and hypocritical politicians.

These elected officials and their colleagues in the self-proclaimed "conservative moral movement" have used faith to preach fear and polling data to justify prejudice. Throughout their political careers, they have tried to dictate the definition of a moral American and a proper family. They have tried to create laws that restrict a woman's decision about her health and body and have denied personal rights and human dignity to gay and lesbian Americans. These are reflections of the immorality of their movement.

That is the true scandal. Their personal behavior not only traumatized their families, but their official conduct in public office violates our principles as a just and caring society.

Now I know that many will bring up the scandals regarding the personal behavior of former President Bill Clinton, former Governor Eliot Spitzer, former Governor Jim McGreevey and former Senator John Edwards. As wrong and destructive as their behaviors were, these men did not try to dictate to us how we should live our lives, nor did they try to manipulate the United States Constitution to force their own moral agenda on our country.

The Sanford family deserves privacy and prayers during this very difficult period. The American family will survive these demagogues. In fact, this latest scandal can serve as an important call to action in standing up to government officials that use the pretense of "morality" to divide and discriminate against the American family.

Robert Zimmerman
AC360° Contributor and CNN Political Analyst

When I was reviewing the Senate races with a member of the Senate Democratic leadership in October of 2008, I was told that there was good news and bad news. The good news was that we could come close to 60 seats. The bad news was that approximately 10 of the potentially new senators voted like Republicans.

When I discussed this on CNN, Democrats were upset with me for undermining the sacred party unity theme, and Republicans claimed that I was just trying to counter the argument that the Senate would soon become an extreme liberal bastion. That experience just proved to me that when both parties criticize you, you are probably on to something.

Even before President Obama took the oath of office, that "something" came into focus. While the political pundits and media were focusing on the speculation around presidential appointments, the new Democratic majority in the United States Senate cast its first major policy vote on January 15, 2009.

The issue was whether or not to release the second half of the financial industry bailout fund. The vote did not receive extensive media attention and analysis, but was indicative of the new climate on Capitol Hill. President-elect Obama personally lobbied new and senior senators for this vote. Lawrence Summers, director-designate of the White House National Economic Council, made three visits to the Capitol and sent two letters to senators with his assurances that the program would be run with tough oversight and better management. When all was said and done, it took six Republicans to join with 46 Democratic senators in order to give the President-elect the 52 votes he needed for passage.

That vote now seems like ancient history. However, it was a very early indicator of this new Congress and the role it will play in shaping our national agenda. After the Republicans lost control of Congress in the 2006 election, a senior Republican House member said to me that they failed because they allowed themselves to become a shadow of the Bush Administration. As the Republican Congress lost their identity, they lost the Congress. There is no question that this Democratic Congress supports the Obama Administration and its goals. However, they have made it very clear since that January 15, 2009 vote that they are a separate and equal branch of government and expect to be treated accordingly.

The Democratic Congress has demonstrated that independence on numerous occasions in large and small ways as well as substantial and political ways. The Administration sought – and occasionally was forced into – legislative compromises on the stimulus plan, budget priorities and energy and global warming legislation. They confronted a bipartisan rejection by Congress for funds to close Guantanamo due to the lack of a plan for the prisoners.

Additionally, 10 Senate Democrats joined Republicans in April to protect more wealthy American families from the impact of the federal estate tax, a change that could cost the Treasury $100 billion over 10 years. A vote on an amendment that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to modify troubled mortgages was defeated when 12 Senate Democrats voted with 39 Senate Republicans Even the Administration's modest, if not token, proposal to cut $17 billion from 121 government programs ran into broad opposition on Capitol Hill.

The Obama Administration has not let these skirmishes and setbacks distract them from their ambitious goals and agenda. Their respect for the role of the legislative branch and a keen understanding of the diverse coalitions that built the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate has enabled them to pass significant legislation.

It also has built an inclusive climate for a discussion and possible formulation of comprehensive health care reform. Over the next several months, the political pundits will fill the air waves reciting their partisan and special interest talking points. However, their sound bites will be drowned out by the tragic realities of the health care crisis in American today – realities that impact both the medical community and the public.

President Obama has maintained the confidence and trust of the American people to lead this debate. Senators such as Edward M. Kennedy, the Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Max Baucus, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee; and Kent Conrad, the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee all have different approaches and proposals to address this crisis. They are working with senior Republican Senators such as Charles Grassley and Olympia Snowe in that mission.

The Democratic Congress has never been more geographically and philosophically diverse. This will produce a climate that defies traditional party politics and those seeking "one true answer." The demand for action by the American people, the diversity of the Congress and, yes, lack of partisan unity on this issue can forge a true coalition for comprehensive health care reform. In fact, that maybe the only way to get it.

Watch an AC360° Report on the health care debate here.

Editor’s Note: Robert Zimmerman has been a Democratic National Committee member since 2000. He is a partner at Zimmerman/Edelson Inc., a marketing, advertising and public relations firm based in New York.

Program Note: AC360° Contributor Robert Zimmerman will be on the show tonight, here are the questions he's thinking about, and we'd like to hear your thoughts about them. Tonight AC360° at 10 p.m. ET

Robert Zimmerman

In this country, can we build a dialogue around the issues we care about or is the divide too great? The people are ready to work together. Will the politicians allow it to happen?

Program Note: Tune in tonight to hear more on the issue when Anderson speaks to Lt. Dan Choi, Army National Guard, who was discharged for being gay. AC360° at 10 p.m. ET.

Robert Zimmerman
AC360° Contributor and CNN Political Analyst

In the contentious battle for the Democratic nomination for president, one of the few issues that united the candidates and the party was a commitment to end the policy toward gays and lesbians in military service referred to as "don't ask, don't tell." This is the policy that requires our servicemen and women to either lie about or hide their sexual orientation in order to maintain their status in military service.

It is hard to imagine that 16 years ago this policy was regarded as an innovative approach to block the harassment and dismissal of gay and lesbian members of our armed services. Though a source of bitter controversy at that time, it was considered to be a step forward. However, it has clearly not accomplished its intended purpose and must end. President Barack Obama made that clear during the 2008 campaign and in his first 100 days in office. He has also been joined by Generals Colin Powell, John Shalikashvili, Iraqi war heroes such as Congressman Patrick Murphy and many others who have served our nation in support of that position.

So what is keeping the Democrats in the closet on this issue while brave gay men and women in the military are being fired for either being forced out of the closet or coming out on their own? Sure the Obama Administration is busy with a very full agenda. That comes with the job. The Truman Administration brought World War II to a victorious conclusion, rebuilt Western Europe under the Marshall Plan and also took the bold and controversial steps to integrate the military during a historically challenging time in our nation's history. The Johnson Administration signed into law landmark civil rights legislation during a very contentious and divisive time for our country.

President Obama enjoys the wide spread confidence and support of a great majority of our fellow citizens. He has used that support for a series of bold and innovative programs to address the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression and two wars. Repealing "don't ask, don't tell" is not a distraction from the Obama Administration's agenda. It is an important step in making our nation more secure. Our military leadership has consistently testified before Congress that our armed forces are being stretched close to the breaking point. This policy has reportedly cost our nation 12,500 courageous men and women at a time when we need them the most. We have also lost Arab translators in the military because of our government's policy on sexual orientation at a time when we have very few translators and more are desperately needed.

It is imperative for Congress to act on repealing this policy. However, President Obama does not have to wait. He could issue an executive order to review this policy and order the military to stop investigating and prosecuting soldiers during this review. Ultimately, Congress has the responsibility to take action, but the executive order would be a critical step in moving this process forward and protecting our men and women in the service.

This is an issue that speaks to the moral principles and values that define our country. Our nation has evolved in the 16 years since "don't ask, don't tell" was implemented, especially after September 11, 2001. The question remains whether those in the Democratic Party's leadership positions who are hesitant to act will realize that Al Qaeda is the threat to our national security not the gay and lesbian men and women who have the courage to fight them.

Editor’s Note: Robert Zimmerman has been a Democratic National Committee member since 2000. He is a partner at Zimmerman/Edelson Inc., a marketing, advertising and public relations firm based in New York.

President Obama met with CIA workers and Director Leon Panetta, left, in Virginia on Monday.

Robert Zimmerman
AC360° Contributor and CNN Political Analyst

After thoughtful deliberation, President Obama released memos from the Bush administration revealing brutal CIA interrogation tactics. These memos, authored by leading officials in the Bush Department of Justice, made every attempt to create a legal rational to engage in nothing less than torture. Despite the use of bureaucratic language to justify their intent, there is no question these memos were an exercise to excuse tactics like "stress positions" that were employed by the Nazis in World War II or water boarding used by the Khmer Rouge in Phnom Penh Cambodia. In fact, these memos have the temerity to actually point out that other countries that behaved in a similar fashion, like Indonesia, were engaging in torture.

While President Obama deserves great credit for releasing these memos in the face of strong opposition within his administration and with minimal deletions in the documents, he has not ended the debate. On the contrary; he has started it. The questions that need to be addressed focus on whether the release of these memos compromise our ability to combat terrorists. We also have a right to know what, if any, measures should be taken to hold those who authored these memos, as well as those who attempted their legal justification, accountable. In short, the answers to those questions reflect the core values and the guiding principles that define the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress' commitment to transparency and accountability.

Vice President Cheney and his colleagues in the Bush administration have claimed that America has been compromised in its battle against terrorists. The same cast of characters who misled us into the war in Iraq, ignored the threat of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, lied to us about our progress in the Iraq, deceived us about the cost of the war and did not properly protect our soldiers in battle or care for them when they returned are expecting to be regarded credibly in this debate.

On numerous occasions national intelligence officials in the Bush administration testified before Congress that they could not say whether the United States was creating or capturing more terrorists through the war in Iraq and our government's tactics. That seems to sum up the success of their strategies. The record and conduct of the Bush administration over the past eight years sacrifices the credibility of those individuals in this discussion. Someone should read them their Miranda rights before they comment further.

That leads to the next question: Should the individuals who devised these tactics and authorized them be held responsible? Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff, stated that the Obama administration opposes any effort to prosecute those in the Justice Department who drafted the legal memos in question. The White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress have not even shown any interest in supporting Senator Patrick Leahy's proposal for an independent commission of inquiry, which would offer immunity in return for candid testimony. Congressman John Conyers, Senator Carl Levin and Senator Dianne Feinstein have also called for investigating aspects of these abuses.

However, we should establish the facts before making a decision about whether to prosecute. Our nation will not be paralyzed by documenting the facts and demanding accountability from individuals such as Jay S. Bybee, Steven G. Bradbury and John Yoo, the lawyers in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel who are at the center of composing these memos. Jay Bybee now has a lifetime appointment as a federal appeals court judge. If he is impeached, the republic will survive. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and more senior Bush administration officials, including Vice President Cheney, also played a critical role in the decisions around those heinous acts and have much to answer for as well – not just to the American people, but especially to those who served in our military in the war against Al Qaeda.

The history of our nation has taught us that our strength comes from our respect for our system of justice and trust in the principles set forth in our Constitution. The need for the Democratic leadership to support a congressional investigation is not about partisanship it is about preserving the very values that distinguish our country and defines its greatness in the eyes of the world.

Editor’s Note: Robert Zimmerman has been a volunteer for the Democratic National Committee member since 2000. He is a partner at Zimmerman/Edelson Inc., a marketing, advertising and public relations firm based in New York which does not represent the DNC.

Robert Zimmerman
AC360° Contributor and CNN Political Analyst

In the dramatic courtroom showdown between Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson in the film 'A Few Good Men,' Nicholson, in the role of Col. Nathan Jessep, famously declared to Lt. Daniel Kaffe, played by Cruise, "You can't handle the truth." As I sat in the movie theater in 1992 (yes, there were no DVD's at the time but it was a talkie and in color) awed by that powerful performance, I would never have imagined Jack Nicholson to emerge as a political prophet in 2009. Yet that dramatic line – a challenge to confront the truth - has special insight and wisdom now.

As the Obama administration faces an economic crisis of historic proportions, we hear a self-important refrain from too many political pundits, members of the mainstream media and the political establishment. The public will not be able to "understand," "get their arms around," "grasp" or "appreciate" the "financial stabilization plan," the "mortgage plan," the "economic stimulus program," the "small business loan program" or the "public-private investment program to buy toxic assets." You get the point. Take your favorite pretentious sound bites and place them into a sentence of your choice.

I will be the first to acknowledge that I do not get all the details of these plans. I am also willing to bet that not too many financial experts on Wall Street understood a lot more than the rest of us. And, of course, we know all too well that many members of Congress did not even bother to read the economic stimulus legislation. However, I do not doubt for a moment that the American people get it.

Our frustrations with the role of the Obama administration and Congress over the AIG theft of our tax dollars in the form of bonuses, the culture of misconduct and entitlement on Wall Street and the failure of Congress to draft legislation that protected our tax dollars from bailout abuses can consume us. However, the solution will not be found touring the homes of AIG executives who looted us. It will be found by demanding greater accountability on the part of our government.

The Obama administration has taken important initiatives to do just that. President Obama, to his credit, acknowledged responsibility for the disgraceful AIG bonuses. That may not sound like a lot, but let's not forget President Bush telling the American public he could not think of a mistake he made as President. The administration has offered bold proposals and has taken ownership for resolving this economic crisis. Some will argue that the Obama agenda creates an uncontrollable deficit and that it is social engineering. Others will argue that more tax dollars have to be spent and the banks need to be nationalized. These issues will be debated and ultimately resolved.

The truth that our government and political parties have to "handle" is that we cannot begin to resolve the economic crisis unless we have more than a few good men and women who are prepared to bring Congress, Wall Street and Main Street together. Our country requires that we rise to the challenge, and our history has proven that we can do it.

Editor’s Note: Robert Zimmerman has been a volunteer for the Democratic National Committee member since 2000. He is a partner at Zimmerman/Edelson Inc., a marketing, advertising and public relations firm based in New York which does not represent the DNC.

Robert Zimmerman
AC360° Contributor and CNN Political Analyst

In politics, hypocrisy often passes for hyperbole. However, when the discussion gets into the trillions of dollars, hyperbole just doesn't cover it. Hypocrisy puts it in the proper perspective. I will be the first to recognize that neither political party is above hypocrisy, and I have never failed to call my party on it.

However, these past several weeks, hypocrisy has climbed to the height of our national debt, and with the same speed. Which brings me to the self-righteous and divisive comments of the Republican Congressional leadership, their colleagues in Congress and, of course, Rush Limbaugh. Even the unabashed A-Rod would probably cringe at this level of hypocrisy.

With the exception of three senators, every Republican member of Congress voted unanimously against the economic stimulus package, claiming they were not included in the process and that their ideas were ignored. In the epitome of political chutzpah, more than 20 House Republican members issued press releases announcing how the stimulus package would help their districts - never mentioning that they voted against it. Republican Congressional priorities such as providing tax breaks for business investment and job creation, expanding tax breaks for working families with children, putting projects on the Internet so that Americans can track the implementation, fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax and reducing capital gains for small businesses were included in the economic stimulus package.

Nevertheless, the Republicans who fought successfully to have their proposals included still voted the party line in opposition.

The omnibus spending bill recently passed by the House of Representatives met strong Republican opposition, especially over the issue of Congressionally designated projects, or "earmarks." The only reason the debate over earmarks can take place is because the Democratic Congress changed the rules from the days when Republicans controlled Congress. The new rules require that earmarks be publicly disclosed and that members of Congress be held accountable for sponsoring them.

It is also worth noting that while the Republican members of Congress protest this bill as "wasteful," approximately 40 percent of the spending on earmarks went to projects requested by the Republicans. And when Republicans controlled Congress, they got 60% of the earmarks (as is traditional for the party in power), and kept those earmarks secret. You don’t hear them talking about that today.

Then there's Rush. Sure, Rush has 20 million listeners a day. Ann Coulter is on many best-seller lists, and for that matter, I'm sure Larry Flynt sells a lot of magazines, too. What does it all prove? That there's always a market for pandering to some people's base instincts. Exploitation, fear, prejudice and vulgarity unite these people.

What's shocking is that any of these characters could ever gain acceptance or even leadership in our political process. There is, however, no doubt that Rush Limbaugh not only has achieved acceptance but is recognized as a leader in the Republican Party.

The Conservative Political Action Conference was not just a meeting of the conservative base of the Republican Party. It is the Republican Party today. Contrary to the conventional wisdom of political pundits, Limbaugh's speech did not build the movement by rallying the base. It further isolated the Republican Party from the mainstream of America. In Republican Chairman Michael Steele's apology to Limbaugh, he said to CNN, "I respect Rush Limbaugh, he is a national conservative leader, and in no way do I want to diminish his voice." Michael Steele's failure to diminish Limbaugh's "voice or his leadership" only damages his own.

Barack Obama's election to the Presidency and the support he has maintained demonstrates that the United States is committed to addressing the defining issues of our time. Although the nation has moved beyond the hypocritical and partisan political games of the past, the Republican Congressional leadership and Rush Limbaugh revel in it.

On second thought, perhaps A-Rod wouldn't be embarrassed by their conduct or hypocrisy. It occurs to me that he and Limbaugh have a lot in common; neither is capable of shame, and, ultimately, both are corrosive to America today.

Editor’s Note: Robert Zimmerman has been a Democratic National Committee member since 2000. He is a partner at Zimmerman/Edelson Inc., a marketing, advertising and public relations firm based in New York.
Robert Zimmerman
AC360° Contributor and CNN Political Analyst

Perhaps it is the result of Valentine's Day and President's Day falling on the same weekend. But I cannot help wondering if President Obama's bipartisan game plan will lead to a very smart strategy, unrequited love or a fatal attraction. It is certainly not an affair to remember. Sorry for that but the Oscars are coming up.

While the media and pundit community obsess about whether the Obama Administration's strategy for bipartisanship is smart or successful, it is just as critical to explore the partisan strategy of Republican Congressional leaders and their members.

As the nation demands solutions for our critical and historically challenging economic problems, there is an outcry for our President and Congress to put the bickering and partisanship aside and change the tone in Washington. Mr. Obama campaigned on that theme and has pursued the bipartisan message in office. And his approval ratings are at record numbers: the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey put his approval rating at 76%. Other polls have Obama's approval ratings in the mid- to high 60s. Those strong ratings have given political confidence to newly elected conservative Senate Democrats from very Republican states to support his agenda. (Yes, if President Obama's numbers drop their support for his proposals could drift.)

The President's high approval ratings might also isolate his Republican congressional opponents. During the height of the debate about the stimulus package, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. reported that three out of four poll respondents said that President Obama is doing enough to cooperate with the Republicans in Congress but only 39% felt that congressional Republicans are cooperating with the President. In addition to three out of four Democrats supporting the bill, 51% of independents and 32% of Republicans also favor it.

While response from independents and Republicans at the grass roots may not appear overwhelming, it bears serious reflection. With the exception of Senators Collins, Snowe and Specter, the unanimous opposition from Republican House and Senate members demonstrates their disconnect from the mainstream and from a third of their already very limited base.

Now we all know the response from the Republican Congressional leadership. They claimed that they were not brought in as partners or included in the process. Their feelings were hurt when they were reminded that they lost the election. Now, I get a kick out of a good spin as much as anyone, but I need Dramamine to go with this one.

Yes, it was widely reported that the Republicans were courted with cocktails and a Super Bowl party which prompted some Republicans to say they were treated like a cheap date. The media did not report with the same attention that the Democratic congressional leadership cut almost $100 billion dollars from the economic stimulus package in an effort to earn more Republican support. I cannot speak for Republican dating habits, but $100 billion dollars certainly trumps flowers and chocolates if you want to say I care.

The Republican members of Congress were part of public hearings starting in October before three different Congressional committees on the stimulus package. They were given numerous opportunities to present amendments and a number changes were made in this bill including additional tax cuts and direct spending. They participated as much as they chose to. Of course, when the House Republican Leader John Boehner urged his members to oppose the President's plan even before he spoke before the entire House Republican conference, it did not take two-time NFL Coach of the Year Bill Belichick to figure out the game plan.

Yes, it is true that the Republicans are activating their base in this debate but it remains a very narrow one. It is also true that they have found their voice. However, that voice appears to belong to Rush Limbaugh. The Democrats capitalized on Rush Limbaugh's statement that he wants President Obama to fail. They argue that he articulates the thinking of the Republican leadership. Those Democratic claims sounded particularly exaggerated even to a Democrat like me. However, the conduct of the Republican members of Congress and their leaders in response to the economic stimulus debate only helps make the Democratic Party's case.

If the Republican Party and its members in Congress have any hope of broadening their base and appeal, then Limbaugh's script and his relationship with the Republican leadership could be their fatal attraction.°

Robert Zimmerman
AC360° Contributor and CNN Political Analyst

The question is whether we trust our government to put in place an economic program that truly provides a plan for growth and the beginning of a recovery or will just result in a short term benefit for those special interests that have controlled and paralyzed the government in the past.

Contrary to the warning label on Viagra, if this stimulus lasts less than four hours then you should call the doctor and most certainly your elected officials demanding their retirement.

The debate over the stimulus bill reflects a well deserved lack of confidence in both parties and their ability to govern beyond their narrow agendas. Last fall, the Bush Administration came to Congress demanding immediate action to address the very real credit crisis and the need to bailout the banking industry. Of course, if the Bush Administration could solve a crisis like they profited from one, then they might have left a different legacy. The profiteering from the Iraqi war and Hurricane Katrina relief was outmatched only by their ability to use the bailout legislation to rescue their friends on Wall Street.

The Democratic Congress produced the TARP legislation (referred to as the bailout) that, contrary to their stated intentions, allowed banks to horde our tax dollars and buy healthy financial institutions, instead of requiring that our tax dollars be used by the healthy banks to make loans and stabilize failing banks.

As we know all too well, the legislation did not meet the promise of capping bonuses on Wall Street. While Senator Claire McCaskill was calling Wall Street executives idiots on the floor of the Senate, many were wondering who the idiots were who wrote the TARP legislation in the first place. The greatest failure of this legislation was its failure to address the cause of this crisis: the bad mortgage loans and the foreclosure crisis that resulted from it. As Senator Christopher Dodd, the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, stated on November 22, 2008 "We have to comeback in January to stiffen the bill." Well, stiffening their spines might also be required.

As our country and the Congress wonder where our money went in the bank bailout, President Obama has to address the defining domestic issue of his Administration and our nation - putting Americans back to work. After a number of political setbacks in the cabinet confirmation process, the President has begun to regain control of the message.

While pundits debate the play by play, they are losing site of the game plan and the larger issues. The key legislative challenge is bridging the philosophical divide in Congress before addressing the partisan divisions. The new Democrat senators elected in 2006 and 2008 who put the Democrats in the majority are from conservative Republican states. Many are more conservative than the handful of Republican moderate senators. The unanimous support that President Obama received from the Democratic members on the stimulus package did not come easily. First of all, it is almost a psychological impossibility for Democrats to vote together. It should not be taken for granted. Let's remember that in the early January vote to release the additional $350 million in TARP funds, only 46 Democrats voted for it. It took then President-elect Obama personally calling a number of the new Democratic lawmakers and 6 Republican senators to deliver the 52 votes to get it done.

Although it would be welcomed, the issue is not whether President Obama receives strong Republican support. It is about convincing the nation that he is reaching out to the Republican members of Congress and that he is trying to change the climate in Washington. If the Republican leadership chooses to be an obstructionist party instead of an opposition party, they will have to explain that to the electorate.

As this tortured process advances, we can take pride in seeing our system of government work. Congress is operating as co-equal branch of government. Many members of Congress told me that the Republicans lost the Congress when they became regarded as a shadow of the Bush Administration. The Democratic leadership is determined to cooperate but not to be regarded as co-opted by the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration, in turn, has been respectful of the role of Congress and not making the mistake of appearing to bully or dictate to them. As this legislation eventually passes the Senate, moves on to the Conference Committee and then back to the Senate and House for final approval, there will be setbacks, tense negotiations, recriminations and finally a stimulus package. There will be more Republican votes for it than expected.

Even more important than that, there will be a sense that our elected officials are demonstrating leadership in a defining crisis of a generation.