On the day President Obama signed the $787-billion federal stimulus package into law, U.S. Sen. Jack Reed stood at a Providence construction site to talk about what it all means for Rhode Island.

The federal government had already provided money for the $38.7 million Rhode Island Public Transit Authority construction project. But the Elmwood Avenue site, which reverberated with the roars and beeps of heavy machinery, provided a camera-ready backdrop to illustrate what the stimulus package could produce.

“Barely six months ago, this country was very comfortable,” RIPTA board Chairman John Rupp said at the outset of Tuesday’s news conference. “Since then, we’ve gone from distress to panic to chaos. Now we are moving back to concern, even a little cautious optimism. Part of that comes from the stimulus package that Sen. Reed will talk about today.”

I’m not so sure we’ve moved past the “chaos” portion of this trip, but I’m on board the stimulus bus because we can’t very well stay where we are now.

Reed, a Democrat who sits on the powerful Appropriations Committee, stepped to the podium to say Rhode Island is going to get up to $1.1 billion in federal aid. And, he said, “With this package, we will save and create 12,000 jobs in Rhode Island, helping restore employment opportunities for thousands of working men and women who have recently lost their jobs.”

Reed had to raise his voice to say that last sentence because an Amtrak train was rushing past on nearby train tracks. Without missing a beat, he said, “There’s also money for Amtrak, so Amtrak can continue to operate.”

Reed was ad-libbing, but he wasn’t kidding. The stimulus package provides $1.3 billion for Amtrak. Back on script, he said, “Obviously, the infusion of federal resources will not solve our employment and economic problems on their own. But it will lay the groundwork for private sector growth that will help create and indeed help sustain economic recovery.”

Let’s hope so. If nothing else, the stimulus package has stimulated some interesting debate.

Governor Carcieri wrote to Obama on Feb. 5, calling the stimulus plan passed by the House “deeply flawed.” The Republican governor touted his credentials, saying, “I have spent over 30 years in business — 10 of them in the banking industry — and have been governor for six years.” And he said the House plan was “laden with enormous amounts of spending that have little to do with economic stimulus.”

Carcieri said 70 percent of the money that would come to Rhode Island “is related to fiscal stabilization, Medicaid, and highways and bridges,” and he said, “these are important necessary parts of a stimulus plan to help our state and municipalities through this difficult period.”

He said the other 30 percent was “other proposed spending,” and he said, “I would respectfully urge you to redirect that amount to lower individual tax withholdings.”

Carcieri concluded by saying, “Our children will have to pay the bill for this stimulus. It would be better to give them the money now!”

When asked to respond, Reed noted Carcieri was talking about an earlier version of the legislation. He defended the stimulus plan, saying, “I think all of this has been targeted to moving the economy forward, either by employing people, putting them back to work or providing more resources in unemployment checks so that people can actually get by a little bit better — not much better, but a little bit better — while they look for work.”

Reed said the package is “designed to support the states dramatically. And I presume [Carcieri] would consider all the money going to the state as stimulus.” He noted some of the plan’s strongest supporters have included Democratic and Republican governors.

The stimulus seemed to split the ranks of GOP governors. While governors such as Alaska’s Sarah Palin and South Carolina’s Mark Sanford were critical, California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger and Florida’s Charlie Crist were more receptive.

Reed said economists “on both sides of the political divide” concluded “this stimulus was necessary, that we had to stop the job losses, we had to get people back into the marketplace, that there was a very real fear of even worse job losses.” He said the package represents “a rather rapid response to the most significant problem facing the country, which I think speaks volumes of the president’s leadership and his ability to get difficult things done.”

But he cautioned that more must be done, such as “additional efforts to increase lending by the banking community.”

While campaigning, Obama decried partisanship, and once in office, he tried to gain support for the stimulus package from Republicans in Congress. But the package passed without a single vote from House Republicans, and it received support from just three Republican senators — Maine’s Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe and Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter, whom conservatives deride as RINOs (Republicans In Name Only).

In response to Republican criticism of the stimulus package, Reed questioned the GOP’s claim to fiscal conservatism, noting the national debt rose sharply during President Bush’s administration. “I think after presiding over the economic policies that led us to so much of this,” he said, “their standing to be critical is really diminished. But I think what they did is they adopted a political posture, not one based on a pragmatic analysis of the markets and what had to be done.”

So should Obama keep striving for bipartisanship?

Brown University political science Prof. James Morone had an op/ed piece in The New York Times on Tuesday, saying that while Obama seems eager “to restore a culture of cooperation in Washington,” it’s not going to be easy because “that golden bipartisan era never existed.”

“Great presidents do manage to push past partisanship — not by reaching out to the other party, but by overwhelming it with a new vision,” Morone wrote. “Franklin Roosevelt did not offer a hand to the defeated Hooverites.” Rather, FDR’s success stemmed from “the collective, social-gospel vision he articulated from the start.”

Likewise, “Ronald Reagan’s fierce attachment to three verities — markets are good, government is bad, communism is evil — also meant little reaching out to the other side,” Morone wrote. “Roosevelt and Reagan reveal the dirty rotten secret of bipartisanship. It happens only when one side is cowed, beaten or frightened. More competitive elections mean more ardent debates. And so it should be. Our government is designed that way.”

Morone concluded, saying, “History, not to mention the Republican rejection of his stimulus package, offers Mr. Obama a clear guide: Pay less attention to the other party and spend more time — much more — persuading America to embrace what you believe.”

But Reed said he expects Obama to keep trying to forge bipartisanship. “This is not a posture that he adopted because someone told him it would be a good way to begin his administration,” he said. “I think he genuinely seeks out different viewpoints. He wants a broad coalition.”

Obama has shown he’ll move ahead whether or not the Republicans get on board, Reed said. “But he’s somebody who, I think, is temperamentally and personally committed to try to lead the whole nation and to get support from across both sides of the aisle,” he said.

On Feb. 3, Obama nominated Sen. Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, to be commerce secretary. But just before Valentine’s Day, Gregg withdrew his nomination, saying, “We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.”

Reed said he was surprised by Gregg’s withdrawal. He said he assumes Gregg and Obama had long discussions and resolved any reservations before the nomination was made. “I presume they had an understanding, and I’m surprised Senator Gregg reneged, frankly,” he said.

Gregg would have become the third Republican in Obama’s Cabinet. His withdrawal came two months after Obama’s first choice for commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, withdrew his name because of a federal investigation into state contracts.

Speaking of federal nominations, Reed appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 10 to introduce Elena Kagan, the Harvard Law School dean who has been nominated to be solicitor general. If confirmed, as expected, Kagan would represent the Obama administration before the U.S. Supreme Court. She is thought to be a leading contender to fill any vacancies on the high court.

“Dean Kagan and I both attended Harvard Law, although as you can tell, she is a lot younger than I, and a much better lawyer, and our time there did not overlap,” Reed told the committee. “However, I have followed her remarkable career with a great deal of pride.”

Critics note Kagan has never argued a case before the Supreme Court, and the only Supreme Court amicus brief she has signed was one challenging an amendment that required universities that received federal money to cooperate with military recruiters.

But Reed, who got to know Kagan while attending events at Harvard Law, said, “She’s an absolutely extraordinary lawyer and person.” And Reed, a West Point graduate and former Army Ranger, said, “She made a conscious effort to help returning veterans integrate into the law school. I think part of it was the value she sees in their service.”

Reed said Kagan would make a good Supreme Court justice. “I think what’s impressive is her temperament,” he said. “She seems innately fair. She is willing to listen. She has an ability to sort of lead from principle but effectively bring people together. That’s a skill on the court that’s very helpful.”

Harvard Law is home to people who are “all very bright and somewhat opinionated,” and “it takes a talented individual to let people feel they’ve been heard but not have it collapse into this constant argumentation,” Reed said. “I think she was able to do that very well.”

Reed said that after the confirmation hearing, senators sounded impressed with Kagan’s “intellect” and “conviviality.” He said, “She was unfazed. She was completely comfortable with the vigorous questioning.” And senators “seemed to enjoy the exchange both intellectually and personally,” he said. “I don’t hear that all the time after these hearings.”

Reed himself has been the subject of nomination speculation, with some wondering whether he will eventually replace Robert M. Gates as defense secretary.

So I had to ask whether Reed has any interest in that position. “I haven’t been asked, and I’ve made it clear that I want to pursue my efforts in the Senate on behalf of the people of Rhode Island,” he replied.

So if Obama asked him to take the job, he’d tell the president he wants to remain in the Senate? “If I’m clear enough, perhaps I won’t be asked,” Reed said. “And I try to be very clear.”

efitzpat@projo.com