The president stumbled four times over the past week. He made a tactical negotiating error by increasing his tax demand of Speaker Boehner. He compounded this error with his Friday evening press conference and summons. He rejected a bipartisan Reid-Boehner-McConnell offer yesterday. And this evening he said little that would change the positions of dug-in members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
The president’s speech was notable only for what he did not say: “I will veto the Boehner bill.”
The rest of it was effective campaign rhetoric but has little relevance to what happens over the next week.
By not threatening a veto of the Boehner bill, the president leaves the door open to signing it.
The question now is whether 218 House Republicans can vote for and pass the Boehner bill before the president regains his footing.
Perhaps he's just nuts. The evidence mounts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not as though he was "properly vetted", is it?
I've heard it postulated that since Boehner's newest plan is unlikely to prevent the credit agencies from lowering the US credit rating, Obama will happily sign it knowing that he can blame the Republicans for standing in the way of a "real" solution. Is that thinking correct? Is Boehner's latest plan unlikely to forestall a reduction in the credit rating?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe credit rating will go down regardless of the these talks. It's really only slightly related to the deficit talks
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Obama speech this evening was the work of a man so weak that he no longer retains any of the inherent power of his office. I could not believe that the President of the United States of America was on national television making a pathetic plea to the audience to do what he has been patently unable to do - change the position of a majority of the Congress.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was embarrassed to watch the performance of such an empty suit.
"The rest of it was effective campaign rhetoric but has little relevance to what happens over the next week."
I question this assessment of the president's rhetoric. Effective is not the term I would use. He seems to alienate more people with every speech.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think he also made a tactical error in inviting people to call their congressman. I called mine - Randy Hultgren (R-IL). His voicemail box is full. I bet I know what those messages say. "Stand strong against tax increases!" "Compromise on what to cut, not whether to cut" "No tax increase during an economic slowdown".
Great idea, President Obama. I haven't been inspired to call my congressman in a while, but you gave me a good reason.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe so-called deal is a sell-out by Boehner.
The deal supposedly won't raise taxes or involve cuts to the military - but there's nothing guaranteeing that. All the supposed savings of $1.2 trillion are imaginary ones coming from "statutory caps on discretionary spending over the next ten years" - the usual flim-flam. No Congress can mandate any requirements on any future Congress except by amending the Constitution. Even if future Congresses follow through and freeze current discretionary spending, that won't produce any savings. Only cuts produce savings - and there's unlikely to be any true cuts. Moreover, there's nothing to show this freeze is a true freeze. Instead it might be one that accommodates the usual built-in "baseline increases," the percentages by which federal agency budgets are automatically scheduled to be raised by. So the "capped" discretionary spending could rise, and yet still be in accord with the deal. We've been down this same slimy road before.
The deal also throws in a guarantee that both chambers will vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment. That's a worthless concession. Who knows how this proposed amendment would be written? If Harry Reid's involved with it, it might lack any way to enforce it. Besides, Republicans can force a vote now or at any time on any amendment they choose to write. They don't need a deal to do it. What's more, who needs an amendment? If the House truly care about balancing the budget, then they should do so, now, by making real cuts. The Senate might cry and scream, but so what? They can't spend more money if the House refuses to raise the debt ceiling.
Finally, the deal says Congress will appoint a special joint chamber committee to make all the tough decisions… down the road… sometime… maybe. It's all a charade. All this does is let everyone in the current Congress off the hook for having to publicly vote today on tough decisions.
I don't put all of the blame on Boehner. As Speaker, he's agreeing to this because it reflects the majority view of his caucus. I won't forgive Boehner for this disgraceful cave in. But I know what the real problem is: there are too many worthless, unprincipled Republican Congressmen who are only in office to collect a paycheck.
Already I see real House conservatives are refusing to back this deal. There may be enough of them to stop the others from passing it. If there aren't, then expect the Republican Party to be torn in two, with the matter being played out in a nasty fight over the party's Presidential nominee.
I was hoping it wouldn't come to that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama said the debt negotiations are a 3 ring circus. He's right. Obama is the clown, Boehner is the ring master...and Harry Reid is the guy with the broom and shovel following the elephant parade.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUm, you mean the parade of a$$es?...IOW donkeys. The GOP has put forth a plan, a solution. What have the Ds done other than stall and obfuscate?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHope and change gave way to anger and petulance. Now panic is setting in.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOr, as the most brilliant and articulate president, evah, he is getting wee-wee'd up.
I did not see his most recent performance as I would rather pluck out my eyes with an ice pick; but I have read that he, Pepe Le Pew, did a sort of "swing" as he strode down the red carpet after the Declaration of Eternal Debt. I am not sure if it was a golf swing. Perhaps he now thinks he is Johnny Carson.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm getting the feeling that nobody trusts Obama so what he didn't say, doesn't really matter. Either that or he's a blazingly incompetent state senator who voted present 151 times.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Republicans seem to be divided on the Boehner plan, I listened to a little bit of Rush, he sounds like he likes it, Levin seems to think it is awful.
Looking at it, it isn't perfect I would rather have spending cuts clearly laid out instead of another commission to decide it at a later date. Giving the BBA a vote standing alone not tied to anything is almost useless, it won't pass, it will just get people on the record. It will have to be revisited in April probably and that would seem to work in the Republicans' advantage when round two comes. If they pass the commission's $1.1 trillion or whatever in cuts before April I will be happy with it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is strange, I thought I was posting this in the Rich Lowry post about the Boehner plan. How did that happen?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEven if the Republicans can pass the Boehner bill, it won't get through the senate, and the president won't have to veto it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know why he would say he would veto the Boehner plan. The entire purpose of the press conference clearly was to paint himself as the compromising conciliator to the American people. That isn't helped if he comes out with a veto threat right out of the bat.
It is much easier for him to simply let the Senate kill the Boehner plan, go past August 2nd, blame the Republicans, and wait for them to cave as in 95.
It seems pretty clear that the purpose of the press conference was about positioning for the increasingly-likely post August 2nd battle. I can't think of any reason he would have structured the speech that way if he simply intended to sign Boehner's plan, or even if he thought the House would pass Reid's plan. This is clearly about to go to the people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's called, "leadership" in some parts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course, those "parts" have higher unemployment, a dependence culture, and a broken family culture.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor once I agree with you: Obama does not care one bit about the country or its people. This is about political posturing, a re-election campaign, and winning the next battle. You have captured the deceitfulness of the President quite well.
All you've got left at this point in your quiver are some arrows labeled "it's 1995!" and "cynicism". Well Sarah, it's not 1995, and Obama has been trying cynical for months...the more he talks, the worse his numbers get.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother thing The One didn't say, as reported on Cavuto, was that the administration was telling the bankers (you know, the "Fat Cats" so often derided by The One)that they were not going to let the government go into default. So scare all the seniors about not getting their SSI and assuring the financial market that there won't be a default. This is exactly what we can expect from these two-faced novice "experts" in this administration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse