So those few centrist-luvin' Republicans are having their 15 minutes (and $100 billion) worth of fame, crafting a so-called compromise stimulus package that slices a chunk off the House's $920 billion version, while adding more tax cuts to the plan. And President Barack Obama has blessed their efforts.

He shouldn't have been so magnanimous--at least, not at first.

A nation in trouble elected Obama and his fellow Democrats decisively in the past election. The Republicans were disavowed by the public. So Obama owes them little. True, on the campaign he talked often about rising above partisan rancor. But what do you do when there is a real split in opinion between the parties and the minority party tries to obstruct the efforts of the majority party to address a profound crisis?

Obama was right to invite the GOPers to the table and hear them out. But when it became clear they were only committed to their usual same-old/same-old (tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts), he could have shifted gears and played hardball. He had the votes in the House. And in the Senate, he could have forced the GOPers to use the filibuster--rather than the threat of a filibuster. In that case, he would have a clear debate on his hand, and it would be up to him, as job losses pile up, to convince the public that his course of action (rather than Republican no-ism) was the right one. If the Republicans did succeed in blocking the stimulus with 40 votes, Obama could then bend and work out a compromise with the few moderate GOPers to break the filibuster. But the point would have been made: the Republicans were obstructionists. The end result, substance-wise, would have been the same compromise bill that exists now. But in the meantime, most Republicans would have been put on the spot.

Obama has been reluctant to get tough with the Republicans. He has spoken eloquently about his plan's benefit. And he has taken indirect shots at the GOPers. For instance, in his radio address this past weekend, the president noted,

In the item below, I asked, "Will Obama mobilize his millions," referring to the 13 million or so Amricans who had signed up with his presidential campaign. That is, would he call on these people to help him pass the stimulus package? I was able to put this question to the White House on Friday afternoon. Here's how it went, as I first reported at MotherJones.com:

Yesterday, I noted that President Barack Obama, as he makes the case for the stimulus plan, needs to get out more. That is, he has so far played mainly an inside game, trying to work Washington to get a decent package out of Congress. In doing so,

Obama and his aides have encountered the typical difficulties of Washington. It's hard to find experienced influence-makers for high-level appointments who are not tainted by the town's K Street culture. It's tough to score bipartisan points by working with partisans. It's a bitch to ask Capitol Hill machers to change their ways (of appropriating and legislating). It's not easy to control the message when a cacophonous media focus (sometimes rightfully) on missteps and conflict.

The Obama White House has not followed the gameplan that was so masterfully used by the Obama campaign. It's done little to mobilize the millions of Obama supporters to apply pressure on Congress. (Organizing for America, the continuation of the Obama for America campaign, has a mailing list of 13 million names.)

Joel Achenbach of The Washington Post echoed these sentiments (or noted that I had echoed his sentiments on this point):

I read this excellent David Corn column just now, and once again became aware of my own uncanny and unnatural blogtriloquism.

Corn: "President Barack Obama needs to get outside the Beltway...Obama has the communication skills of Reagan plus communications technologies that the Gipper could not have dreamed of. But he is only now beginning to ramp up."

Achenblog : "Don't go wonky. Keep making speeches to adoring throngs. Just because you finally have a real, executive-type job, and 2.6 million employees under your particular branch of government, doesn't mean you should stop doing what you do better than just about anyone, which is campaign -- or, more precisely, inspire people. You got the biggest megaphone in the world, so don't hesitate to use it. And the Republicans don't have to sign off on any of your speechifying."

Others I have spoken to expressed surprise and/or frustration that Obama hasn't been swinging harder--either rhetorically or by using the powerful populist apparatus he developed during the campaign. A former Clinton White House aide told me s/he was astonished that the campaign mechanisms had been allowed to fade. After all, Obama's political advisers had almost three months after Election Day to figure out how to turn the campaign machine into a support-the-president machine--and have it ready to roll and roar on Inauguration Day. An expert on politics and technology told me that s/he suspects that Rahm Emanuel and others at the White House are just not that into grassroots politics. (David Axelrod, where are you?)

Has Rush Limbaugh finally turned into a liability for the Republican Party? That would be delicious for liberals

One progressive group is trying to use Limbaugh as a blunt object against Republican senators who might vote against President Barack Obama's stimulus package, which passed the House with absolutely no Republican votes on Wednesday. Americans United for Change--which has joined with MoveOn.org, SEIU and AFSCME to air television ads targeting five GOP senators in four states--has launched a 60-second radio spot against three other Senate GOPers, and the commercial's main ammo is Limbaugh. The three senators in this line of fire are John Ensign of Nevada, George Voinovich of Ohio, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

The commercial notes that Limbaugh has declared that he hopes Obama fails, and it asks whether these senators will side with the radio loudmouth or with Obama. You can hear it here. And the script: