A couple of weeks ago I was involved in an off the record conversation with the White House. Obviously, I can’t talk about what was said in any detail or I’d betray a trust. I think it’s fair to say, though, that I came away with the firm impression that the White House had absolutely no fear of a default. It was my impression that they fully expected John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to fold in the face of pressure from Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce (as it turned out, they were completely correct). I felt a little comforted but I was still confused about the mechanism the Republicans would use to fold. It seemed like an intractable problem. They simply couldn’t pass anything that Senate Democrats would support or the president would sign. McConnell’s solution is kind of ingenious. Or disingenuous. I guess both at the same time.
I think the Democrats need to press their advantage here. The Republicans’ fortifications have been breeched. I don’t think the president needs to pillage and loot, but he ought to take advantage of a suddenly defenseless enemy. The GOP wants to get away with raising the debt ceiling while repeatedly voting not to do so. I can get behind a deal that allows them to save a little face, but not this much. I say they should get one vote, not three. They can vote against it and pretend they didn’t want to raise the debt ceiling. But they can’t play this game for another year and a half.
Did they need to be stupid about it though? Saying they were willing to raise the Medicare enrollment age to 67? Who is made happy by that besides David Brooks?
Will idiots like yourself ever learn that politicians lie? That they make up insane proposals to screw with their opponents and have no intention of seeing them come remotely close to reality?
The whole point of the charade was to trap Republicans in a corner on taxes, so the President can pass his modified Bush tax cut plan like he’s been talking about for years now. He’s winning. He’s winning big.
This has nothing to do with entitlements. Heck, it had nothing to do with the debt ceiling. That’s all misdirection.
It’s been all about taxes from the start. In this country, it’s always all about taxes in the end. Stop caring what politicians say about entitlements. They’re all talk, and it’s nothing but a big game they play from time to time. You’ll find out what Democrats really intend to do with Medicare and Medicaid in 2013 and 2014 come rolling around, and hard decisions have to be made about things like IPAB and coverage gaps, etc.
Look dickhead, I know politicians lie. I also know(see 2010!!) that the GOP will turn an issue inside out to their advantage. They can point to that and say that the President is trying to take your Medicare away(from those soon to retire .. or hope to). That’s what you don’t see. I guess Congressional races don’t matter to you. And no one outside of Versailles gives a damn about deficits. But go pat yourself on the back and think that the President is just so much smarter than everyone else. Hope the economy is working out for you better than a lot of other people.
He is much smarter than anyone else. That’s why he’s President and not the most popular lecturer at U of Chicago and a member of the seventh circuit court of appeals/future candidate for the supreme court.
He’s one of the most brilliant politicians we’ve ever seen, having made but one single mistake in his entire career when he thought he could beat Bobby Rush. He’s really, really good, and really, really good for the American people. Not perfect, but good enough. That you refuse to accept this is your problem, not mine.
The only person who’s outplayed him in negotiations is Bibi Netanyahu. Which actually says a lot about Bibi, though more about the wildly imbalanced Israeli-US relationship. And Likud’s time will come.
And if you’re worried about Congress in 2012, don’t be. The President will roll. The economy doesn’t matter. He’s bigger than the economy. Just like the great Presidents ultimately are. The only thing that can stop him is a natural disaster or a terrorist attack the likes of which we haven’t seen before.
But thanks for revealing yourself when you showed satisfaction in a stagnant economy because you think it proves a political point. Pure class.
I don’t think that Bibi has outplayed Obama in negotiations. I think those negotiations are ongoing. And political environment weighs very heavy in any negotiations. The politics environment in the Middle East is slowly changing.
The Palestinian Authority is moving toward recognition of its independence. Israel has a critical decision that they have been dodging for 50 years. Are they going to remain an apartheid state, discriminating based on religion? If it’s a one-state solution, Palestinians are the majority. If it’s a two-state solution, Israeli settlers suddenly become Palestinian citizens subject to Palestinian law.
And one of the expenses that the American people think needs to be cut is foreign aid. Especially foreign military aid.
One upsmanship is not succeeding at negotiation.
Sorry, but you were being stupid for not seeing the obvious.
Whatever gets you through the day, pal!
Politics isn’t about making you happy. Politics is about beating the other guy, so you can then do what you want.
Sometimes, the tool used to make one’s base happy by giving them what they want. That’s pretty rare, though.
Obama didn’t pretend to put entitlement cuts on the table in order to make people happy; he did it in order to make the Republicans look worse and worse as they rejected deal after deal over the proposal to tax rich people.
Politics is about making social decisions. When social decision-making degenerates to beating the other guy regardless of the content of the decisions, the adults in the room have to shut down that sick process.
Progressives tend to be so policy-focused or principle-focused that they overlook the integrity of the process and the need to ensure that integrity. So they go rightly nuts when someone is appearing to desert policy or principle in order to ensure the integrity of the process. A lot of the frustration with the gang-of-six part of the health care debate had to do with wanting a progressive president who would manhandle Congress like the George W. Bush administration did and force a progressive agenda on the country. That would not restore the integrity of the process that Bushco corrupted or appropriated. Of course, doing that allowed the Republicans to grandstand about Obama the tyrant, a pure out lie.
Obama put entitlement cuts on the table to have an honest everything-on-the-table negotiating process and to discover the Republicans’ bottom line. Like most things the devil is in the details and the way the Republicans have corrupted the process is to withdraw when talk turns to the details — thus Eric Cantor. Don’t want any fingerprints on legislation in order to get Democrats to take the whole heat. In process terms, that is an evasion of responsibility and accountability, and would merit immediate dismissal in any other work environment.
Great comment as usual. The only thing I disagree with here is the idea that Obama was only bluffing.
Obama always holds out a hope that the other negotiating party will see reason and join in a compromise. This belief or faith in the ability of the other party to shift, or of seeing a productive shift in one’s own approach, is part of the community organizer’s toolkit just as much as the ruthless aspect of taking somebody’s crap ideas fully into the limelight of public negotiation where they must die like weak bacteria.
It’s the idea that in the end we all share a public space, and it actually serves as a place to change minds (even one’s own) and make progress. In this approach of Obama’s you truly see the definition of the audacity of hope.
if they “fully expected John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to fold” then why the fuck did they agree to all those cuts, put entitlements on the table and offer to raise the medicare eligibility age?
good for them to know that the GOPers were bluffing. but that just makes all the concessions they offered look even worse.
I guess I’m baffled. I can’t understand why this makes it worse at all. It explains it. If you are saying it was unnecessary, I think you should look at the almost immediate cause and effect. Offer made, fold immediately following.
The point is to expose them completely. It’s not like there isn’t a cost to raising the debt ceiling without making significant debt reductions. Someone needs to get blamed for that.
he could have exposed them completely by, you know, just exposing them. back at the beginning when they first said that they would only support a raised debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, obama could have said “cut the crap, boner. we all know the chamber of commerce won’t let you allow the u.s. to default. give me a clean bill and we can talk about spending cuts when we get to the budget. that’s what someone who really knew they were bluffing and was willing to call them on it would do.
instead he had months of wasted time and putzing around when the president could have and should have been focused on other issues. plus, in the process he managed to signal that he would consider crossing a lot of serious lines on entitlements that will come back to haunt him when they negotiate the budget later this year.
I’ll take faux-triangulation over real triangulation every time. His mastery of the politics here has been pretty breathtaking.
upyernoz, I see your point, and even agree partly. For progressives who want to exert maximum leverage on President Obama, it’s important to recognize who we’re dealing with here:
1 – Our first African-American president—which means there are 1001 constraints on his public behavior every day: what he say, what he does, how he says and does it, the inflection in his voice, the expression on his face. If you know what I’m talking about, I apologize for stating the obvious. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, your options are to 1) start to learn and understand or, 2) continue to be frustrated because you’re missing a huge piece of the puzzle.
2 – A former community organizer—which means he has a certain understanding about power (good), self-interest (healthy), negotiation (essential), compromise (ditto), allies and enemies (both temporary). “Cold Anger” by Mary Beth Rogers is a good introduction to the kind of intellectual formation Obama was exposed to in the 1980s. The better you understand that formation, the better you’ll understand him as a public figure. (Again, apologies if you already know this.)
3 – A politician who has consistently placed himself in the center of the Democratic coalition so that he could be a party leader. That’s what he did in the Illinois Senate, the US Senate, and what he’s done in the White House. Best example: Getting every Democratic Senator (from Ben Nelson to Bernie Sanders) to vote for cloture on the ACA.
Again, you don’t have to like it. Just understand it. Obama wants to be in the center of 60% of the electorate, so that he can win 80% of what progressives want. Without that 60% (or something close to it), progressives get nothing. With it, the most you get is 80%. You never get 100%. That’s the “world as it is” (another part of Obama’s intellectual formation, see #2 above).
4 – A masterful political counterpuncher. The political equivalent, dare I say, of Ali using the “rope-a-dope” to defeat Foreman in Kinshasa. There’s a (sometimes fearsome) price to be paid for taking so many punches, but what you call “months of wasted time and putzing around” was the time in which Obama persistently drew out McConnell, Boehner, et al, got them to reveal what they “wanted”, and then finally—after they’d punched themselves out (so to speak)—counterattacked in the last 7-10 days, to the point where McConnell last night said, in effect, “no mas”.
You don’t have to like Obama or his actions and decisions, but if you want to do something about them then it’s best to understand where the man is coming from and what he’s dealing with…particularly if you want to move him in a more progressive direction.
applause
With your permission, I’m going to copy and paste this comment into a save file so I can use it as a club over the heads of every idjit I encounter who trots out the usual tired bullhockey about Obama you’ve so masterfully refuted.
Key to McConnell’s collapse was the position that Collins and Snowe took yesterday.
There are no such figures on the House side. None. Zero. Zip. Even Boehner is not comfortable with being other than uncompromising. That’s why I not sure how fast the legislation will make it through. A lot of Tea Party stomping of feet. And the struggle for the speakership, which I believe is eminent. Boehner is going to need Democrats more than ever if that comes to pass.
Good points.
Tarheel Dem, what are your thoughts on a compromise based on McConnell’s plan—say, two tranches, one immediately, one in spring 2012 that gets the debt ceiling through to, say, winter/spring 2013.
Could the Democrats use their leverage in the House to negotiate a deal like that…and would it be a deal worth negotiating?
Excellently stated. Just to add re: u’s proposed scenario.
This is not a movie. Most important is to make it obvious to the voter in the street and the media which only the r’s recalcitrance over time would make clear, not any tough talk on Obama’s part – note, for example, David Brooks’ recent columns. That’s where we know the strategy is working.
Brilliant comment.
I first noticed that counterpunching was what he did best during the primary against Hillary.
Remember “Just words?!?”
Great analysis, massappeal.
I just signed up with a account here just so I could rate this comment as excellent!
And if this is the style of writing and the level of thinking that is indicative of this site I plan to be around a lot more
Well done, well done
It is indicative! welcome, glad you are joining us!
* waves hello *
Glad to see you here too, my friend! It’s a great place to hang out.
you were on point
Geez, the ability of so many progressives in the blogosphere to pick up on the subtleties of political strategy and combat is incredibly limited. Obama has demonstrated, AGAIN and AGAIN, that he plays the game differently and at times counterintuitively. He looks at the board and thinks a number of moves ahead–not impenetrable 11-dimensional chess, just something beyond knee-jerk overreaction. How many times does he have to prove this before a greater number of progressives will give him more of the benefit of the doubt?
Scoreboard. Making progress in this effed up political environment has an extremely high degree of difficulty. I, for one, don’t need to see a leader with a lot of blustering machismo that doesn’t get the job done. Believe me, his very demeanor causes Republicans world of hurt.
This progressive now believes the best analogy is to a four-year game of poker. The chess analogy is so 20th century in the way politics now moves.
He looks at the pot. He reads the other players. He uses all of the poker tactics. As long as he’s still in the game he’s winning. No one hand is a win. And all he needs to transform political discourse in 2012 if for there to be a complete fold of conservative ideology equivalent to that which occurred for liberal ideology in 1984. Instead of the default political position being in the hinterlands “I’m a conservative” (which really is a post-1970s phenomenon. The transformation comes when folks say something else, that is either more diverse, more thoughtful, or self-confessed progressive.
You see. I remember when Southern governors fell all over each other trying to be considered the most progressive. (In actual ideology and accomplishments, that was likely Terry Sanford.) Even Ross Barnett and George Wallace never claimed to be conservatives, just not progressive on desegregation. “Progressive” after FDR was the default political position. And it takes a multi-billion-dollar propaganda machine to keep that position from reappearing. Look at the conservative media investment in moving their message in Kansas, how geographically deep into the countryside it goes, and how nonstop during the day. That’s what’s the matter with Kansas. And a majority of other states.
Tarheel Dem, I would amend that to an EIGHT-YEAR game of poker.
I think from the day he set foot in office he has been thinking of how to transform the country within an eight-year time frame. Health Care Reform without a public option, his thinking went, was what was feasible short-term, and getting it in place and humming would eventually lead towards the possibility of a public option type plan. It wouldn’t fully kick in until what would be his second term. A demonstrably successful stimulus of a size that was feasible at the time could lead to more stimulus if he was able to improve the climate politically to make it possible to pass. I think he knew the midterms would be a lost cause because of HCR and the stimulus, but set his sights on where things would stand in 2012 and his re-election campaign. I thought the deal in December was all about that reality: that in the wake of the 2010 elections, it was not the time to fully engage in the fight to roll back the Bush tax cuts, and it was better for that moment to protect unemployment benefits and punt. So now the Bush tax cuts will emerge as front and center in the 2012 Presidential election, and the battle will be fought under far, far better circumstances.
If he is re-elected, and brings along the House AND wins big enough to hold the Senate (Booman’s pessimism about this notwithstanding), he will have a mandate and hopefully a political environment in which a flurry of forward looking changes are possible.
At least that’s my hopey-changey fantasy. This was never going to be easy, and it would never have been even possible without a really, really smart dude running the show.
Except you only play four years at a time. Folks have to know you’ve won in four years time. So you have to make the others at the table fold by then.
You’re right, and I don’t think he’s taking anything for granted about 2012. In fact, I think he’s operating in 2-year increments: forward the first two years, took his lumps, now maneuvering for 2012. Thus his centrist posturing of late. Congressional gridlock is his friend because it opens up the probability that the Bush tax cuts can simply expire, not with a bang but a whimper.
Obama is a black guy. The ppl you’re referring to (to whom you refer) will never see it.
And that’s probably for the best imo.
This in itself is not a total explanation.
And although I know you don’t mean it as such, it can also be a cop-out.
Obama and the situation in the country are both more complicated than that. That is only one of the things at play.
But I agree with this general thinking. There are a lot of white progressives who lack a deep understanding of what blacks experience in this country and do not see the creative ways in which Obama is trying to move the country beyond that. And style is a big part of that. A style that commands the respect of CEOs and foreign leaders even when they personally hate his guts. And a style that is easily transferable to having white people in Alabama after a tornado feel comforted that they had been hugged by a President of the United States.
Politics is not confined to the bully pulpit, executive orders, and budgets.
good points – I meant mostly from the point of view of underestimating him, but agree with you about both the complexity of situation and of Obama himself. He is such a high achiever, an alpha as we’ve discussed on a recent thread, has confidence in himself (and enjoys his victory laps) but I also think he is a person without malice, something very unusual at the top of the political food chain.
A person without malice. What an intriguing possibility. You may be right. Or maybe it’s enough to say he’s clever enough not to be blinded by- or even distracted from whatever malice he does bear. Politics ain’t beanbag, after all.
To some extent or other, a pol has to pretend to be above the fray, but this president does it so well, so consistently, that hetends to be smeared as overly aloof and unemotional. But for some reason, it never entered my head that underneath it all he may really not be taking the pettiness and worse behavior personally. I still can’t get over the photo of him on the phone congratulating Boner in 2010 on the GOP electoral victories.
They didn’t offer anything; it was a bluff, to make them look like the reasonable compromisers while the Republicans looked like stubborn, ideological fanatics. They knew they could put anything they wanted “on the table” in public, and the Republicans would never, ever take the deal as long it included a trillion dollar tax increase.
By pretending to “bend over backwards,” they made sure the Republicans were in an untenable position.
But cutting SS and Medicare has a life of its own now. Even Nancy Pelosi is on the bandwagon. It’s as if both putative mothers had called called Solomon’s bluff and said, “OK, let’s cut the baby in half.” Now Obama is threatening to stop SS checks altogether on August 2. If he follows through, who will voters blame in the next election? It won’t be Boehner.
Yeah, what Calvin said. Look, I’m not stupid and I know that “nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to,” but I think it reflects very horribly on the WH when they know the people who support them will go batshit insane when they hear leaked details like that. And I understand that there’s a certain role for activists to play, and that the President wants us to play that role (which is why I get really annoyed when I’m told to just shut up and trust the President).
Of course in my deep felt convictions I know the President doesn’t want to raise the Medicare-eligibility age, but I don’t know that he would sell that off for some kind of deal because I don’t know what the President cares about or what his vision for America truly is.
That’s because you’re as crazy as the teabaggers. Stop commenting on politics. You’re nuts, and you have no idea what you’re talking about.
The man has committed more of himself and his philosophy of government to paper than anybody in living memory. It’s not even a question what he believes in.
If you refuse to get that, I can posit several reasons why (none of them charitable), but the point remains. You’re out of your element and you look like a whiny chump who’ll never be satisfied.
You’re the one who can’t even handle the theater, Joe. So perhaps you’re doing a bit of projecting there. Perhaps it is you who should stop commenting on politics.
I despise politics. I hate everything about them. I don’t know how the game sustains itself, and I’ll never understand why some lone actor hasn’t finally lost patience and start dishing enough dirt to blow the whole exercise up. I take no pleasure from being informed about this nonsense. But since it’s slightly important stuff, I persevere.
But unlike you, I don’t live in a fantasy world where everybody is a bad actor out to get you and your retirement all the time. There are such things as decent public servants. They exist. And so I see what’s going on. I don’t like having to watch a brilliant black man have to navigate the waters of bigotry and hatred that he has to on a daily basis because rich thieves and swindlers (who couldn’t give a damn about his struggle or his identity and what it means, which is the sickest part of all this) cynically use a culture of ingrained white supremacy to avoid having to pay a paltry 3% more in taxes. Oh, and not dump mercury in our air and water if they could. Small price to pay for living in the richest nation on the planet, one would think. But so it goes.
Brilliant? If he’s so brilliant, why is the economy still so shitty? If he’s so brilliant, why doesn’t he hire Krugman and Stiglitz as economic advisers instead of people that got us into this mess(Summers & Geithner). You know why people are angry? Because there are millions of people out of work and the rich are getting away scot-free. Because the rich are telling everyone else to bend over and there are very few looking out for the less fortunate.
Anger frequently clouds judgement.
It’s really no surprise, therefore, that the angriest voices in the intertubez have the worst judgement.
When the game is corrupt, how should “decent public servants” act? Should they parade their high-mindedness and hope the public goes along? We have seen from Adlai Stevenson to George McGovern to Jimmy Carter to Al Gore how effective that is.
I don’t know about a lone actor, but over in the UK there is enough dirt coming out about Rupert Murdoch’s operations to take down his whole empire if it ripples through the entire organization (and the managing editor of the WSJ is already a suspect).
The transparency of negotiations (the very negotiations that get progressives upset) between the President and Congress is stunning and so is the obvious game playing. And almost all of that has occurred because of Obama’s style of leadership. And the fact that Obama’s ripped the covers off of, say the sort of dealing that gets legislation like health care reform passed, or the sort of hardnosed backroom negotiation with bluffs and spin and lies and threats. Because of that people are more aware and more disgusted by what they see in DC.
Obama is capable of defending himself politically and capable of taking harsh, even ad hominem criticism. So the poutrage-obamabot exchanges are way beside the point.
You can be offended by the fact that he is lying about his intentions when all he is doing is putting something on the table for negotiation. Demonstrating his openness to compromise in a way that Joe Sphpilk in Weed, South Dakota can understand or Bubba Beasley in Yazoo City, Mississippi. “Golly gee, hun, I guess if he’s gonna raise the age for Medicare he isn’t a tax-and-spend liberal. Whaatttt? Raise the age on Medicare?”
Sometimes it takes a 2×4 for people to start paying attention to what matters instead of what doesn’t. “If Obama is putting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table, what are we going to do when we get old?” (Deep in their consciousness, most folks do know that Medicaid pays for nursing home expenses for formerly middle class elderly.)
Briefly in the last week Obama might have accomplished that.
And that is a crack in the conservative infosphere.
Politics is how we make decisions. It is the art of persuasion. There are two sets of folks who have to be persuaded: the public and the actors in government who can make certain things happen. For the past two years, the actors have been operating in the vacuum that they could create whatever public opinion they wanted. Yesterday that changed.
That is an accomplishment. The fact is, what Obama had to do to get it wasn’t pretty to watch. It’s why the media keeps referring to the sausage factory analogy. But people still eat their hot dogs and bratwurst and kielbasa.
<like>
And I also know that Obama wants a deal on entitlements.
Hasn’t he always said so?
Yep, which is why for all I know he would take a deal on those over a clean debt ceiling vote (and I still think that would be his preference, as we could all “take the hard votes at once”). How am I supposed to know what’s being said inside the Chief of Staff’s offices? I don’t. I should therefore take what Obama says at face value and make damn well sure he doesn’t, especially when Republicans control a part of the Congress.
You need to completely stop taking politicians’ words at face value. That’s like trying to understand a program on Telemundo when you are not fluent in Spanish.
And I think trying to get inside their head “knowing what they really believe” to be the same exercise. I didn’t “take his words at face value” when he said he would stop FISA :P.
I’m comforted in my level of understanding. You’re my favorite blogger for a reason, even if you don’t think so.
Here’s what I’m talking about. Yglesias today has a post up and says this:
And that’s what I’m saying by “getting a deal.” Where does the deal stop with Obama? When is “too much giveaway” actually “too much?” I don’t know with him, and that’s why I’ll play my continued role. I do know that he’s a community organizer and that he’s wanted a deal on entitlements.
Which entitlements do you think he wants to take on? I have my own list.
Pensions for ex-Presidents (and vice-presidents if they get them)
Limousine service for muck-de-mucks in DC.
Highly subsidized health care for members of Congress
Twenty-and-out military retirement
Tax credits up the wazoo
Capital gains income tax rates lower than tax rates on wage income.
A long list of corporate writeoffs that small business owners can use to cover personal expenses that wage earners cannot deduct.
Tax exemptions for PACs and religious organizations (including churches, whose contribution serve mainly the fancy building and the pastor’s lavish lifestyle)
But…we have to have a political environment in which we can talk about the nuts and bolts of that.
Where does the deal stop? It stops at where the center of opinion in the country is at the moment. But putting stuff on the table to see what he can get in return is not the deal itself. The end point is the deal. And when the interests of the people are on the block, they let politicians know—loudly. That’s how you determine where the center is. The passion of the public.
And a deal on entitlements means that Social Security and Medicare are no longer political issues in budget debates. That they are indeed in DC what they are in the rest of the country–valuable programs that help people and a settled issue. No more grandstanding on Social Security and Medicare.
And a deal on entitlements means that Social Security and Medicare are no longer political issues in budget debates.
Do you really believe this? The GOP won’t stop till the New Deal is totally wiped out. That’s what some commenters here don’t seem to grasp.
If it doesn’t shut up the GOP, then it isn’t a deal. It’s a momentary pause in a public debate.
As far as the public is concerned, the issue is settled. Just give me my Social Security, Medicare, and if I have to go to a nursing home, my Medicaid. Well, those who are loaded and can afford private care tolerate it among the rabble.
Small business owners don’t like to pay their part of the payroll tax, the unemployment insurance tax, or any other tax. (“Tax is theft” the NFIB has taught them to say.) But that’s because they lust not to have any costs at all–so that revenue equals income. But until the movement conservative got to folks like the NFIB and Grover Norquist started his organization, small business owners understood why they paid taxes even if they didn’t like it. That view can return.
It is instructive that the GOP cannot attack Social Security and Medicare directly the way they go after Medicaid. That shows the continued power of the consensus. The third rail is still electrified, and Eric Cantor laid his butt right on it but will not know it for a bit.
The GOP now must change in order to survive. But that change won’t come until there is a political collapse of conservatism that not even the Great Wurlitzer can rescue. Jon Huntsman might very well turn out to be the future of the GOP. He’s as unlikely as Goldwater was when he first went to Congress. And you don’t have to win the presidency to transform a party (although this is not excluded).
He said so?
Really?
A professional politician said so, so let’s just take him at his word?
Hokay.
How’s this for an alternate scenario: someone who wants a deal on entitlements doesn’t make that conditional on the Republican Party signing onto a Trillion dollar tax hike? And that, rather, that’s the behavior of someone who wants to pretend he wants an entitlement deal, but doesn’t actually want to see it happen?
You forget that the dems have to be on board as well.
Let’s save this comment for posterity.
Look, while so many of you are doing victory laps about Obama-the-great-negotiator in this comment thread there are two minor points you might want to stop and think about.
1) Today the AARP is conducting a huge campaign with its members to fight the social security and medicare cuts that are being discussed in Washington.
https://action.aarp.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1293
The AARP is careful not to name names or parties, but you can be damn sure that the millions of emails being sent around with this link are noting that both parties are talking about these cuts.
The Democratic brand doesn’t stand for much, but one thing we did have was solid support of Social Security and Medicare. The great triangulator himself got that (remember the “Save Social Security First” SOTU after the budget was balanced?). THAT BRANDING IS LOST. The Democrats are no longer the party-that-will-protect-seniors. We are now … what well the hell do we stand for?
Whooo -hooo, time to celebrate!!!! Obama not only WON the negotiation he also pissed off his critics on the left to boot!!!! There is NOTHING that beats pissing off Obama’s critics on the left, is there? To hell with talk about “branding” — I’m sure the voters will figure out that Obama didn’t REALLY mean those proposals. All those people sending out AARP emails will figure it out. Won’t they?
2) The deal isn’t done yet.
That issue is separate from the debt ceiling.
The country gets it, but the politicians in DC don’t yet.
Contrary to current practice, campaigning really is not about marketing–that is, if you want authentic grassroots politics. So “branding” as a concept is a piece of crap. The Democratic brand used to stand for the party of slavery. Big whoop.
Seniors determine the “party that will protect seniors”. That means that they have to have a strong presence in both parties for Social Security and Medicare to not be constantly on the table.
And American parties themselves are floating coalitions (I was going to say crap games) that have not long-term identity. The modern conservative movement in the GOP was born in the idea that there needed to be a permanent identity and a permanent majority in the GOP in order to stop the spread of communism. A hundred years prior to Goldwater’s defeat, the Republican party was founded on “free soil, free land, free labor” and Republicans were abolitionist and early promoters of labor.
The identity of American parties depends on who’s in the tent. If there are progressives in the tent, there will be progressive elements of the platform. If there are feminists in the tent, there will be women’s movement elements in the platform. If there are business managers in the tent, there will be business elements of the platform. If the are farmers in the tent, there will be ag elements in the platform. If there are labor unions in the tent, there will be labor elements in the platform (and intra-party discussion and conflict between business and labor).
The brand of the Democratic Party is the jackass.
The brand of the Republcan Party is the elephant.
Period. Which is why third parties can’t get purchase. They tend to be overfocused. How many socialist parties does the US need and how diluted is their impact as a result? How many progressive parties doe the US need and how diluted is their impact as a result? And why hasn’t in forty years the Green Party become a successful coalition party? They are too tightly branded.
The political tradition in the US is not a parliamentary multi-party tradition; indeed, the Federalist Papers show that at least Madison wanted to avoid standing parties altogether (fat chance). This is not Britain, as the GOP would want, or Italy where shifting parliamentary coalitions can undo a government and spark and election. That is the environment in which the party is very focused in election and negotiates a coalition after the election. In the US if there is an election that shows a competition between principles or interests or platforms, it is the primary election.
About the end of the fight not being here yet, I agree. One hand does not win a four-year poker game.
And yes, even this deal is not done yet.
What we are celebrating is the CW that McConnell backed down.
“And American parties themselves are floating coalitions (I was going to say crap games) that have not long-term identity.”
I think this is one of the most missed points in all of politics, and part of the reason why influential leaders often change the members of the coalition (like a Reagan or Obama, hope no one gets in a huff that I compare the two over this particular topic).
Historically, parties change their identities and priorities if they have any hope of outlasting the generation they rode into power on.
Making the people who support him go batshit insane when they hear leaked details like that is part of the maneuver: “I’m willing to defy the will of my base to get this done – hear them screaming? Are you willing to be reasonable to get a deal done?” knowing full well that Boehner and McConnell couldn’t even hint that they might defy the teabaggers. This is why they gave up and this is why the president could offer the moon and the stars to the GOP – he knew that he’d never have to pay up.
As to future negotiations, times and situations change – yesterday’s offer is null and void as the conditions today are different from the conditions yesterday.
Of course, and I know this. The problem is that there’s never any winking or nudging to allow us to know where exactly the President will draw the line.
Some of us have been trying to tell you that for a long time.
The typical response is to sneer about multi-dimensional chess.
Trying to tell me what, exactly? You think what Oscar said is news to me (or to Calvin for that matter)? We’re not stupid. We just don’t know exactly what the administration is willing to accept in a deal on entitlements, and that makes us uneasy. And no, we won’t “trust” the President.
Trying to tell you that the President was posing for a deal.
Trying to tell you that he wasn’t actually putting entitlement cuts “on the table.”
Trying to tell you that he isn’t out to gut the New Deal – and no, that doesn’t require “trust.” It requires the application of one’s reasoning skills to the copious evidence about his political history.
I reject the idea that he was posing.
Part of negotiating is finding where your interlocutor’s (to use diplomatic jargon) bottom line is. So you put something on the table and you talk about it before agreeing to anything. And on a particular item, those talks can go on for a while.
So as a part of this discovery, he essentially put everything relating to policy or governance on the table and asked that partisan politics on the debt issue cease for at least 15 months. And the Republicans balked at that idea. So both sides leaked their versions of what was on the table. And the President had a news conference in which he clearly stated to the public his bottom line—that the public not have to listen to squabbling over the debt limit until after the 2012 election. And he stated that the Republicans wanted it all; they did not want to meet him halfway. Both true. So no deal.
Now Wall Street knew what their lackeys were doing in the negotiations and knew that Obama has the ace of having to obey the 14th amendment, which would be very bad for business in the short run. So they gave up the kabuki in exchange for keeping closing of tax loopholes off the table. And no doubt there are things in the cuts that would have affected the financial industry regulation that Wall Street gave up to keep their deductions for their corporate jets. Apparently, making the decision was not enough to stop the train wreck. So the Wall Street Journal, the Chamber of Commerce, and Moody’s all went public at roughly the same time.
As for “trust”, Ronald Reagan did have one good line during his presidency. Trust and verify. That goes against a long tradition of radical critical methods of analysis. Which is where the progressive movement often gets wrapped around the axle. Lost in critical analysis and having premature closure on hypotheses.
Tarheel Dem,
When you are serious about trying to strike a deal with the Republicans, you don’t make a trillion dollar tax hike a non-negotiable demand.
That is the one poison pill that they would never, ever accept and, oh yeah, it’s also the one hard line he drew in the sand from the beginning.
Wall Street didn’t convince the Republicans to make taxes their sticking point; that was there from the beginning. It’s the alpha and omega of Republican politics.
I don’t have a big problem with the GOP getting rug burns on their forheads if Obama can bend them over like that – Lord knows the Democrats’ foreheads have been burned to the skull bone…
Except for the fact that it’s a tax hike only in the Republican’s framing of tax gimmes.
In reality, it is a statement that the public purposes that the credit or deduction ostensibly served no longer benefit the public. (In truth, in a lot of cases they never did.)
He was posing? You do realize he’s a DLC Democrat, right? I love how the GOP has somewhat successfully demonized him as being a Marxist hippie despite his being nothing of the sort. In fact, he’s probably too comfortable letting big business have their way. BTW, here is some more Digby for you:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/not-dimes-worth-of-difference.html
Obama is a DLC Democrat? It seems to me that either you don’t know Obama or you don’t know the DLC.
Also, that post by Digby labeled “Not a Dime’s Worth of Difference” was satire, right? I mean yeah so all the budget proposals are going to slash non-security discretionary spending. But there’s the minor little detail that Paul Ryan’s budget kills Medicare while Obama’s proposed budget does not. That seems like more than a dime’s worth of difference to me.
So I can only conclude that Digby (who I admittedly do not read regularly) wrote that post as a joke. Otherwise I don’t know how he/she can say there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between Obama’s and Ryan’s budgets with a straight face.
“…WH when they know the people who support them will go batshit insane when they hear leaked details like that.” Hate to break it to you, but they were counting on it. They know liberals will always act, well, like liberals and help create false hysteria.
In addition, Oscar & NMP, Obama is counting on progressives to be organized around their own interests and, for example, make a lot of noise to protect Social Security and Medicare.
You know the old FDR line, “you’ve convinced me, now go out there and make me do it”.
It’s our job to “make” Obama and the Democrats do the right thing so that they have a bottom line when they go to negotiate with moderates and conservatives.
Repeal of DADT was, I thought, a pretty good example of a skillful combination of an “outside” game by LGBT organizations and their allies pressing Obama, and an “inside” game by Obama and his allies pressing the Pentagon to get it done. We could use more of those.
So you are admitting that those that bitch about Greenwald and Firebaggers are also playing their role as useful idiots?
To the extent that they say “Boo hiss, this is bad policy,” yes.
To the extent that they abjure that message in favor of personal attacks on Obama, no.
So it’s personal when we complain about the shitty economy and say the stimulus was too small? For 14+ million people, it is personal. Unless you want to throw them under the bus.
Try reading my comment again.
“complain about the shitty economy and say the stimulus was too small”
This is a) a complaint about policy, or b) a personal attack on Barack Obama?
C’mon, Calvin, you can do this!
What you don’t get is that the President believes his own stuff. He wants to strike a deal. But then Digby is just shrill:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/rooting-for-mitch.html
“The President believes his own stuff.”
Uh huh. He got to be the first black president of the United States because he’s gullible and always shows his cards.
You know, like all highly-successful professional politicians. No way he’d strike poses for effect.
.
Such as unfolding their game plan …
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."McConnell is just trying to defend the house Repugs, so they don’t have to raise the limit, which would make their base apoplectic.
The President should say something like “..and now they want me to do THEIR job for them, so they can complain about whatever it is I do to continue to solve this nation’s problems. It’s sad. Congress needs to either make the Big Deal or responsibly vote to raise the limit as they always have – this is not future spending, but past spending that requires this. They just don’t want to pay the bills we’ve already run up.”
The Repugs only way out in that situation is to attempt to educate their base post-vote, which would be one of the best possible results of this ridiculousness: a weakened GOP and a stunned, potentially re-educated right wing base.
What does the President get for letting them off the hook with the McTurtle option? Nothing, so.. no deal.
The fig leaf for the GOP is out there, it is the 14th amendment..
The GOP leaders just have to ‘discover’ that it requires them to raise the limit and that by doing so (the trail balloon has already flown), they “defend the constitution from a President that wants to backroom-deal instead of just reading the founding father’s intentions”, etc.
Right. Because the Founding Fathers wrote the 14th Amendment.
Oh wait! They’re fuck-ups made a Civil War and the 14th Amendment necessary.
Stop it! You can’t bring actual history into it or it will confuse their base.
Raise the 14th and they’re liable to argue (through a living document interpretation of Section 4) that there currently is an insurrection in government as exemplified by the willingness of some to crush the U.S. under massive amounts of debt, that the U.S. could conceivably cease to operate (=revolution successful) if the debt is allowed to constantly increase with no real limits.
Just playing devil’s advocate
nah man, pillage. break their back.
anyone who’s ever seen a vampire movie knows you finish it off with the stake and the garlic.
What Brendan said, plus decapitation, submerge the whole under running water, and then burn the remains.
Mongol General: Hao! Dai ye! We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair.
Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
Mongol General: That is good! That is good.
“A couple of weeks ago I was involved in an off the record conversation with the White House. Obviously, I can’t talk about what was said in any detail or I’d betray a trust.” Aka switchboard operator 1. You nor anyone in the media and bloghesphere has had intimate conversations with anyone in the President’s inner circle who knows what he’s thinking or strategizing, and you never will. It’s why liberals are always left guessing and prematurely howling about everything. It doesn’t take someone “in the know” to know the President was selling wolf tickets. It just takes common sense. It reminds me of the lead-up to the Iraq War when an overwhelming number of Americans, including Democrats, believed Sadam Hussein really had weapons of Mass Destruction when most Black folks knew he was just selling wolf tickets. I don’t know if it’s ‘mothers wit’ or centuries of Black folks having to outfox overseers and racist employers and cops and such, but we have a keen sense of knowing when someone is just posturing, common sense white folks seem to lack. Black folks knew what the President was doing, which is why we didn’t freak out. Seriously, you people really just need to learn to calm down and stop looking for sinister plans and see what is right in front of your damn faces.
“wolf tickets” – I like that. Sums it up.
Eh, three more opportunities for the GOP to complain about some problem they have no intention of fixing by voting for some bill that has no possibility of passing aren’t going to make any difference. That’s what they do every day, and in the end the additional kabuki in McConnell’s plan isn’t going to be any more consequential than their vote to save the incandescent lightbulb.
It sounds like everyone is presuming McConnell’s solution is a done deal. That may be a little premature.
I agree. You have to count noses on the House side first, even among the Democrats.
This.
Don’t interrupt them while they’re taking their victory lap. What could possibly go worng? 😛
But their defeat is right in the jaws of victory!
Right there, in the jaws!
C’mon, man, what could happen?
😉
A permanent end to the debt ceiling law would restore responsibility to Congress in its tax legislation and appropriations.
I would ask for that first. And say why it’s a PR dodge of accountability. Take on the whole Congress. It’s institutional, not partisan.
And it would make the Blue Dogs breathe a sigh of relief. They can vote against the permanent repeal of the debt ceiling law knowing that if it passes they will never have to face the “he voted for raising the debt” charge when having voted on taxes and appropriations in such a way as not raising the debt but not prevailing.
It’s not like the Republic was born with a debt ceiling law. It was passed in 1917 to keep Woodrow Wilson from spending too much on World War I. Ninety-four years of theatrics is enough.
FRA 0 1 USA
FRA 1 1 USA
FRA 1 3 USA
All of this blah-blah-blah over something hat has been perfectly clear for years.
” The WH Knew They Were Bluffing?”
Of course.
How did they know?
Because the fix was/is/and always will be in.
I pinned this quite specifically in a recent post here, Gov’t Shutdown? My Ass!!! More Media-Driven Foofaraw.
Most of the above comments and the original article?
Fish at a poker table mouthing plaitudes about “luck” and “tactics” while the pros play the odds, read the tells and walk away wealthier than when they sat down.
Dry the fuck out.
AG
Damn AG, you nailed another one 😉
I was on the edge of my seat for weeks.
I can let my fingernails grow back.
Hell, we’ve got to bloviate about something to relieve the tension.
I’m not sure whether that’s supposed to be a joke or not, but I’m going to treat it as if it was meant at least semi-seriously.
Bloviating does nothing but ramp up the tension. Look away instead. Look away the way you would if someone was making an embarrassingly complete ass of himself. (‘Cuz they are, y’know. In a sane world people wold be rolling in the aisles at this dumbshow.)
You be bettah off in the long run.
Bet on it.
I did.
Bet on it, that is.
And now I’m AAAAAAWWW better!!!
Yup.
Bet on that as well.
Later…
AG
Why not pillage? The GOP has emptied the coffers. Why not press the advantage? It may not be bipartisan, but it would help keep the foxes out of the henhouse for longer.
Maybe you haven’t noticed this, but the Democratic caucus in Congress does not resemble a Viking raiding party or a Mongol horde. That’s the answer to your “Why not” question.
Pillage is probably Congresspeak for a small drug store.
More like a herd of Caspar Milquetoasts, actually.
Yup.
AG