This is a make-or-break week for me with my own deadline — hence the relative radio silence from me around here. I’ve been trying very hard to reserve a few brain cells on the side to follow the debt-ceiling stuff as I wade through more obscure research. Yesterday, I took time out to watch the Jay Carney grilling discussed in the Corner yesterday. I think it may, in a small way, be a watershed moment. No, not for the country. But for the WH press corps. Carney seemed to be providing a real “Hey I guess you’ve just figured out we’re full of shi…nola” moment.
It is an amazing thing that the press corps has taken this long to really pin the White House down on the simple fact that Obama is the one playing political games here, creating rules for others to follow while not following them himself. The public explanation for why he doesn’t want to put forward a plan of his own makes as much sense to me as the Korean-language instructions for a photocopy machine. All I know is that the White House says it doesn’t want to release a plan because it will be held accountable for having a plan, but no one should criticize the White House for not having a plan because they actually offered one verbally that was full of “specifics” nobody will specify and the Republicans are in the dark about.
Oh, and even though the president insists that if we don’t raise the debt ceiling on August 2 — cats will sleep with dogs, disco will come back, Carrot Top will move into the apartment over your garage, the Chinese will put saran wrap over our toilet bowls — he insists that he will veto any plan he doesn’t like should it actually pass Congress. Of course, saying he will veto a plan makes it less likely to pass Congress and hence prevent Götterdämmerung. So there’s that.
Meanwhile, Obama wants Americans to call Congress to express their support not for an actual approach but for some gauzy, poll-tested, bromides about “balance” and “fairness” and whatnot. Wasn’t this the guy who was supposed to be the next Lincoln? Did I miss where Lincoln offered to settle the issue of slavery by having Americans send vaguely written letters to Congress? Did the Gettysburg Address end with the rail-splitter asking for a show of hands?
Imagine you’re in a burning office building. Obama’s plan for getting out alive: “Okay, you guys break up into different groups and come up with a series of proposals about how we get out of the building. I will then negotiate with each of you separately and then together, and then separately. Then I’ll get on Skype and tell the world what I think of your respective plans and criticize you for their lack of seriousness. I will insist that we have balanced approach of applying both water to the fire and opening the windows, which some say will only provide more oxygen for the flames. But my base says window-opening is essential. Oh and I will blame all of the gasoline I threw around on the lower floors of this building on the guy who moved out two years ago. And I will veto any plan that requires we have a new plan should we get stuck on another floor. And, did I mention this mess was created by the former tenant and….ahhh what’s that smell?
I don't your analogy to Lincoln works. You are saying that Lincoln wouldn't merely ask the people to encourage Congress to do the right thing -- he would force Congress to do the right thing.
Of course, Obama can do this (by either blowing right past the deadline and letting the nautral course of events take hold, resulting in a Republican cave within the week), by invoking the 14th amendment and daring Republicans to whine about it, etc. But I suppose that this isn't what you have in mind. If you want the President to act like Lincoln, you should probably be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's Obama's plan, Eric? Specifics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse(*crickets*)
Yeah. That's what I thought.
Funny, Eric, how you're convinced you know what's in Republicans' minds, but can't answer a simple question like that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile I think it is quite clear that Obama gave Boehner the plan of a lifetime, let's assume for the sake of argument that Obama offered absolutely no plan. None at all.
Why would Obama produce a plan? That would just result in political downside. Obama ends up in much better shape if he just goes right past August 2nd, explains to the country that the Republicans have finally forced their ultimate vision on the country, and if the people disapprove with their vision and would like Social Security/Medicare checks to resume, they should call their Congressperson to let them know.
Clinton's mere THREAT of this resulted in a complete capitulation by the 1995 Republican Congress. Why? Because they weren't stupid. They didn't want to be thrown out of office for a generation. Nor do Boehner and McConnell, who have both said that their leverage dramatically decreases as August 2nd approaches (given that the public will always blame the party of small government for government shutdowns).
Obama ultimately holds all the cards. It would be quite silly to give the Republicans an inch. I do think that from a policy standpoint, Obama should agree to a clean debt ceiling increase (the same increase that they voted for 10s of times in the past), and should not insist on policy concessions like tax increases. But that's as far as he needs to go. Beyond that, he just has to sit back and wait.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf it was so "clear," Eric, and it was "the plan of a lifetime" . . . what was it?
Answer the question. The rest of your word salad is meaningless to it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's a link with some information:
External Link
But it really doesn't matter. What matter's is the results, and Obama can achieve the results without presenting any plan. I would much rather have the result of a clean increase (or a balanced increase), even if someone named DavidJ calls it meaningless.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, wow; that's weak sauce, Eric. Raising the Medicare age by two years is "the deal of a lifetime"?
And yet another attempt at deflection.
Here's some advice, not that you've demonstrated the slightest capability or inclination to be reflective . . .
You may get your jollies from using rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies on people who don't know any better, but all it takes is a basic knowledge of the facts on the ground and a little discipline to keep from being distracted in order to tear right through it.
Why not just make points you can actually defend instead of saying things you know you can't and then trying to hide a non-answer in a flurry of nonsense?
And this is probably WELL beyond your level of competence at this point, but why not actually develop an internally-consistent set of actual principles and argue from them? "Democrats awesum, Republicans sux" is all you have at the moment, and that's just cave man thinking. That's not a principle. That's just a mob-mentality slogan.
Seriously, if you want to play in a league beyond scatterbrained college freshman, it's what you need to do. Do you have it in you to do it? I haven't seen that you do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGo easy on him, DavidJ,
Eric is most likely working out of Bangalore in an outsourced Media Matters Troll Centre.
It's punishment enough his cubicle is next to hughman's.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe deal went well beyond increasing the retirement age.
But regardless, let me put it this way. Maybe you don't think it was a deal of a lifetime. But it was the absolute best you were ever going to get. When Republicans are in power, Democrats aren't goign to support anything they do. The backlash to unilateral Republican spending cuts will easily put the Democrats back in power, and they will just repeal every line before they even take effect. (That's one of the beauties of the Ryan plan -- it takes effect so long in the future that Democrats would easily be able to repeal it beforehand.)
As for the deficit, we will get 4 trillion dollars of deficit reduction when the Bush tax cuts expire. Obama will say no to any extension of the tax cuts for the rich, and Republicans will retaliate by not extending them for the middle class. Boom. 4 trillion in new revenue (with Republican cover to boot, since they were the ones that refused to extend the tax cuts for the middle class alone).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEric, let me join David in asking the question. Where is the Obama plan? The "link" to Obama's plan was an "according to sources" report that Obama was negotiating on one point relative to Medicare.
Again, where is the much vaunted Obama plan? What is it. Where can we review and analyze it?
Really, please answer the question
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon’t waste your time arguing with a Progressive; they have a group-think mob mentality. Reason is not in their DNA; they would rather protest and bang cow-bells.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEric, notice that none of those "sources" are named? Ya wanna know why? The White House would denounce them as liars and call the idea "absurd" and just "another GOP talking point."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Obama ends up in much better shape if he just goes right past August 2nd"
Oh, well as long as Obama is in good shape. No sacrifice is too great for Our Dear Leader, right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...the public will always blame the party of small government for government shutdowns"
So do you think "the public" will ever accept REAL spending cuts to the degree that will get us out of the hole?
If the answer is no, then why have a 'small govt' party? If the answer is yes, then when do we cut? Apparently the time to cut is NOT when we're against the wall with a deadline, but rather when there's no such pressure? Does that jibe with how we know politicians behave?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEric & others: "Why would Obama produce a plan?"
Umm...because that was what he was elected to do? Because that is his job? Because he campaigned to fix things (I seem to recall a lot of talk about "hope and change")?
I understand the question is rhetorical, but it gets to a fundamental problem with this presidency: never mind all the hard decision-making and governing, just keep squeaking by so he can stay elected. Meanwhile, the country falls apart.
It's leadership from behind in action. Leadership from behind is not leadership.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Obama should agree to a clean debt ceiling increase (the same increase that they voted for 10s of times in the past"
That casual behavior is EXACTLY why we have a crisis today. If they had taken the ceiling seriously 10 years ago, we would not be in the mess we are in today.
Yet, you want them to continue, as if today were just another day.
If not now, when?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Why would Obama produce a plan?"
Because that's what Leaders do, Eric. Honest it is.
The rest of your claptrap is all about politics. It happens to be wrong (as events will prove and have already proven--seen a poll lately on Obama's favorability?) but it is still politics.
How many campaigns have you run, may I ask? And will you PLEASE please offer your services in doing so to every Democrat running for the Senate and House in 2012?
After all, while it will be a short career and your guys will lose mightily, you could potentially score a gig as a "Democrat Strategist" on Fox News and get to spout this kind of sillyness in prime time so we can all, not just NRO folks, enjoy listening to it.
And laughing.
OH, are we laughing!
Spread the mirth around!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLove that closing paragraph!
As we say here in the Granite State, Jonah: yowah pen is wicked shaahp this mohnin'!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJonah: You reserved all the right brain cells for the debt ceiling stuff, as your comments fairly and accurately summarize the White House plan - which is to offer no plan while insisting it has the best plan and threatening to veto any other plan. And you did it in an entertaining way, which is very much appreciated.
While the debate rages on, I'm waiting to hear about the "good deal" the President claims Rep. Boehner walked away from. If it was such a good deal, why hasn't the President shared the details with us? It's hard to imagine a guy who loves to take credit passing up the opportunity to take credit for the "good deal" he offered Rep. Boehner.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusei.e. Obama "double-speak"
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse