Politics and Poker

    By Flavius on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 4:32am |

    Supposedly State Senator Obama passed the nights in Springfield playing poker with the Republicans. Which he just did again.

    We don't know the details and there'll be lots I will hate. That's democracy. Elections do have consequences. We lost last fall, and this is the result. The Americans who took a seat at the table, who chose to vote in November, won that hand and are now picking up the chips. That's as it should be. They're entitled to have their views reflected in what the government decides to do.

    And as always, the ones who decided to sit out the hand got what they wanted. Sort of. They chose to allow the other side to win, and sure enough it did.

    The complaint  that Obama wasn't showing leadership (personally I've always agreed with Gene McCarthy's-remember him- view that America was suffering from a surfeit of leadership) either came from kibitzers who didn't know the rules or opponents trying to get him to show his hand.

    In the same situation Bush used to say, "I'm not going to negotiate with myself." That was the only thing he got right. Once there was an "Obama position" that would have been the start of a negotiation rather than the deal. The Republican tactic would have to have  been to insist on something sufficiently worse so he could have been seen to lose.  In Macy's window.

    Instead they folded and he never had to show his busted straight.

    Who's in?

    Comments

    Seems the GOPer's have mastered the bluff strategy. While they will clean the table, they should always be wary fate can deal them a bad hand. Bad in that the Democrats grow a backbone and rip their coveted ideology to shreds.  Since they've set the table, turn around is fair sport so they better be prepared. Their only salvation is it's highly unlikely Democrats will rally around a strong leader type. Feingold, Frank and Weiner would be impressive, but I doubt any has the ambition...the base isn't secure enough to be counted on like the GOPer base. That's the key to it all...a rock solid base one can count on.

    As for Obama's busted straight, the pot wasn't worth the effort...too much has been given away to make the effort worthy of debate. The stakes in this game was nothing more than the GOPers giving him a little elbow room to come back to the game. In doing so, they stand a good chance of being dealt a winning hand that will give them a coup de grace just in time for 2012, while Obama is looking for a hand to keep his head above the water line.

     


    by Beetlejuice on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 5:48am

    Ezra Klein is on the same page as you and quite a different take than Flavius.  I happen to agree with his analysis:

    The substance of this deal is bad. But the way Democrats are selling it makes it much, much worse.

    Boehner, of course, could afford to speak plainly. He’d not just won the negotiation but had proven himself in his first major test as speaker of the House. He managed to get more from the Democrats than anyone had expected, sell his members on voting for a deal that wasn’t what many of them wanted and avert a shutdown. There is good reason to think that Boehner will be a much more formidable opponent for Obama than Gingrich was for Clinton.

    So why were Reid and Obama so eager to celebrate Boehner’s compromise with his conservative members? The Democrats believe it’s good to look like a winner, even if you’ve lost. But they’re sacrificing more than they let on. By celebrating spending cuts, they’ve opened the door to further austerity measures at a moment when the recovery remains fragile. Claiming political victory now opens the door to further policy defeats later.


    by miguelitoh2o on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 1:35pm

    Screw Ezra Klein - just a few days ago he was calling Paul Ryan "courageous", "the kind of politician I fundamentally like".

    http://dailyhowler.com/dh040811.shtml

    Bad pseudo-liberal columnists should be thrown out on their ear. They do more damage than good.


    by Desider on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 2:18pm

    I'm not a poker player, so forgive me if I don't quite got the rules right. But if I understand it, Obama has already been fleeced for $38 billion in spending cuts. And he hasn't yet won anything from the opponents, like tax increases on the wealthy or decreases in defense spending. Meanwhile, he is told to go double-or-nothing in a deal that includes risking Title X funding but that STILL puts nothing at risk from the other side.

    As I said, I'm not a poker player and I don't understand the rules. But if this is poker and Obama and the Dems are my opponent? Deal me in! Baby needs a new pair of shoes!


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 8:46am

    The GOP held 4 aces and Obama had a busted straight. He can't spend a buck unless Congress authorizes it.Despite that he got them to give him more than they wanted and in exchange gave them........nothing.

     


    by Flavius on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 9:37am

    "Despite that he got them to give him more than they wanted and in exchange gave them........nothing."

    Um, Gee, Flavius. Forget poker. Could I perhaps interest you in a little game of three card monte? LOL! With this kind of analysis of what just happened to Obama and the Dems in Washington, you're looking like you would be a perfect candidate.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 9:45am

    Nah, they were both bluffing. Congress couldn't override a veto, and a shutdown would have screwed them both. It's not poker. It's brinkmanship.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 10:02am

    What nonsense - the Democrats have the Senate and the White House.

    Last December they had House, Senate and White House and still negotiated like they had a pair of deuces.

    We have a Republican in the White House negotiating with himself. Admit it, cash in your chips now - ain't gonna get better next hand.

    Grandma was a banker - Obama left hippie mom to go back to grannie and live a pampered life. The rest follows from there.


    by Desider on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 10:55am

    C'mon, Des. It has gotten tougher for Obama. Last year, when he had both the Senate AND the House, he was able to get the Bush Tax Cuts extended. Now, with only the Senate in Dem hands, all he can manage is to reduce the home heating credit for the poor. Doesn't have quite the "oomph!" he was looking for, I suspect, but he'll take his victories where he can. (/snark)


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 11:06am

    Yeah, sadly he doesn't have the votes to gut Social Security this year. Probably will have to wait for an election year, just to prove how bi-partisan he is. I wonder what country we can go to war/not go to war with in the meantime?


    by Desider on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 11:47am

    Grandma was a banker - Obama left hippie mom to go back to grannie and live a pampered life. The rest follows from there.

    Deep. It's like biography by tweet. Can you do all the presidents? I can't wait for FDR.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 11:09am

    Channeling Randy Newman:

    Papa was a midget, mama was whore, grandpa was a paperboy until he was eight-four,

    What a slimy old bastard he was....

     

    President Coolidge came down to Baton Rouge with a little fat man with a notebook in his hands

    Said "little fat man, can't you see what the river has done to this poor cracker's land..."

     

    Sadly Randy stops before he gets to FDR.


    by Desider on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 11:51am

    Nice wheels.


    by quinn esq on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 12:05pm

    "Last December they had House, Senate and White House and still negotiated like they had a pair of deuces."  This only makes sense if one makes the erroneous assumption that all the Dems were of the same liberal ideological mindset.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 11:45am

    No, it makes the assumption that even if there are Blue Dogs in your midst, with a majority you can still negotiatiate like you have a pair of balls/ovaries. Especially if half of those BlueDogs were lame ducks.

    HE DIDN'T HAVE TO EXTEND THE TAX CUTS - OTHERWISE THEY WOULD HAVE JUST EXPIRED. So quit spreading bullshit. The status quo was expiring tax cuts - even with Blue Dogs, would have been impossible to come up with a supermajority if our brainiac in chief hadn't wanted it that way.


    by Desider on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 11:53am

    Technically blue dogs are only in the House which was never really the problem.  The problem was always in the Senate.  They all should have gone after it before the elections but they blinked (still having some hope they could win in those purple and red places), and the leadership let it slide til after November.  Then the people in their infinite wisdom went gave the Republicans a landslide victory.  The rest is history.

    Just a little of that from December 4:

    Senate Republicans blocked two Democratic measures Saturday that would have eliminated the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy, forcing both parties back to the negotiating table if they want to avert a tax hike next year for all Americans.

    The doomed votes mean Democrats ultimately may need to agree to a deal that runs contrary to their campaign promises over the past 10 years. Rather than eliminating the upper-end tax cuts, Democrats will likely cede to Republican demands to renew all of the Bush tax cuts for several years — a move that many in the party view as a major defeat.

    But if you want to reduce things to Obama being able to just walk in the Senate and make things happen, that is your right as they say.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 12:41pm

    No, you're WRONG WRONG WRONG.

    The tax cuts were expiring. They had a sunset clause. Obama pushed to extend them for a crap extension of unemployment payments and a 1-year sunset on social security contributions that hurt social security's long-term solvency, giving Republicans another stick to poke at it.

    WRONG WRONG WRONG. Read, dammit.

    The bill, which was largely worked out earlier this month between the White House and Congressional Republicans, extends the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans for two years, extends unemployment benefits for 13 months and includes a one-year Social Security tax cut, among other measures.

    ...

    The tax cut package angered liberals in the president's party due to the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the roughly two percent of highest-earning Americans, which comes at a cost of $120 billion over two years. They were also incensed at the level at which the estate tax was set in the measure, which exempts estates under $10 million for couples and taxes subsequent income at 35 percent. 

    Obama could have just let all the Bush tax cuts expire, but he refused to play that hand, and made it obvious he wouldn't play that hand. He then let the budget deal pass to the new Congress, ensuring an even worse result as we just saw.

    Without the deal, middle-income families would become “collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington,” Obama said in televised remarks yesterday. He criticized Republicans for insisting on permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans “regardless of the cost of impact on thedeficit.”

    Yeah, mean Republicans, they just made Obama do it despite being able to say "no" and have Republicans just go away steaming mad. Wouldn't want to do that, would we?

    WRONG WRONG WRONG. A bill had to pass to extend Bush-era tax cuts. Without Democrats joining in, without Obama signing the bill (which they didn't have the votes to override), Bush's tax cuts would have expired. For everyone, but guess what? For the poor it doesn't matter, and for the middle-class it didn't matter that much.


    by Desider on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 2:30pm

    And lost $58 billion from the deal in December:

    http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/04/09/the-ugly-the-ugly-and-the-ugly-a-...

    Way to bargain, cowboy. Another victory like this and might as well fold up the Democratic tent.


    by Desider on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 2:42pm

    When you write that the Congressional Republicans received "nothing" as part of this deal why do you say that?  The content of the spending cuts has, according to what I've been reading, not been determined yet, or in event is not known to the public at this time. 

    Also, do you see any advantages a President has vis a vis Congress in these kinds of decisions, or only disadvantages?


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 12:02pm

    Poker? Sorry, it's all theatre for the benefit of the public. It's just a classic case of the Dem leadership screwing minorities and the poor and blaming the GOP for it. And the GOP being happy about taking the blame credit.

    Here I'm taking a wild guess that the cuts aren't in corporate subsidies but rather in programs for victims of crime, poor students, income security, and so on. Okay, that's not actually a wild guess.

    They've lopped off 80 billion from the original Administration budget, a budget that the dem majorities should have passed during the lame-duck session. But they preferred to spend their time extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Rember how much extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich cost? Hm... 80 billion dollars!!

    Remember that?

    And now, they can stand there being very empathetic for all the pain they're causing lower-income families, but

    "hey, we're one big family and SOMEONE has to suffer for the financial crisis, right? And it can't be the bankers the job creators, can it?"

    In other words, the administration wanted these cuts. They needed them to pay for tax cuts for the top 2%. Because if they didn't want these cuts, they could would have ... passed a budget before Christmas without them. But they both wanted the spending and tax cuts and wanted to blame the GOP for the cuts. So they could keep the votes of the lower class and the corporate campaign funding. Win win win all round. Except for the poor.

    ... Having their cake and eating it. Yum yum yum...


    by Obey on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 11:15am

    Remember when they used to actually be a little bit clever in at least concealing some of their duplicity? These guys aren't even embarrassed in their whoring anymore. And the true believer Dems are only too happy to give 'em a pass. After all, they aren't as bad as the other guys. "They wanted all the same budget cuts we gave 'em," we are told. "But they wanted Planned Parenthood too! See? WE'RE the better option!"

    Meanwhile, stay tuned. They'll get Planned Parenthood, too, (actually Title X funding for reproductive health care) now that it's been credited with legitimacy as a bargaining chip by these asshat Dems.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 11:27am

    As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, what seems to come out of the deal is that there will be an up or down vote in the Senate regarding its fate.  So at least each person can see where their Senator stands on the issue. 

    And lets be honest here, everything funded by the government is a legitimate bargaining chip in negotiations.  The reason Planned Parenthood has a legs as a chip is because there are a lot of Americans who believe it should not be funded.  I say this as someone who lives in Pence's district.  Most of the "People" around here (at least the ones who get out and vote) are quite happy he and others are going after the evil PP, fueled in large part by ignorance surrounding reproductive health care issues and a whole lot of old time religion.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 11:40am

    Doesn't Planned Parenthood just help out sluts and crackwhores who can't keep their legs together? We'll just put a scarlet letter on her chest and lead her to the gallows - these guys won't have any problems putting their names on this tripe - it's part of their brand and platform.


    by Desider on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 11:57am

    Getting back in part to what Flavius' blog was sort of pointing out - there are a number of them who won't have any problems putting their names on this tripe and there will be a number of Americans who not only will go out and vote for them in 2012 but knock on doors, make phone calls, and raise money for these "true god-fearing American leaders."


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 12:12pm

    The President's job is to keep the doors open on the cash that congress gives him to keep the doors open.That's the deal. Even kings get that. If the President can't keep the Post Office open because he wants more money (who doesn't?)  Joe Lunchpail will start looking for a president who can.

    The legislature's job is to.... legislate. Committee hearings,drafting bills, votes, even over riding a veto.If it has the votes. All that stuff. . If Joe and Sally can't take Timmy to visit the Statue of Liberty because Mike Pence has something against pap smears , they'd kind of wonder why he doesn't pass a law. Isn't that the way it's done? In fact they'd kind of wonder whether  they really liked their congressman as much as they used to think.

    If the Republicans had passed a clean bill Obama would have been dead in the water.Ditto if he'd "showed leadership" three weeks ago.

    If it was all about numbers as Boehner desperately claimed, Obama's options were to cave now or to cave after more damage was done.Fortunately the Republicans were busy weaving the last few extra strands on the rope to hang themselves. With endless  explanations that the budget process was the efficient way of sticking a finger in the eye of all those worthy middle class planned parenthood women.To the point that Karl Rove, that's right Karl Rove, said they ought to shut up. And Obama didn't cave after all. Because he didn't need to.

    What's the opposite of a Talking Point.?  Shut up Point?

     


    by Flavius on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 12:46pm

    Republicans shut down government under Gingrich, and it was disastrous for the GOP.

    Everyone knows that. 

    Why didn't Obama let them drive off that cliff?

    "Go ahead, punk, make my day. To be honest, I lost count in all the excietment." Why can't we have Clint Eastwood as pres?


    by Desider on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 2:38pm

    Three  reasons.

    o His job is to keep the Government open ,we use it, Which may be the only reason he considered

    o A sample  of one would be too small even if the conditions were identical which they aren't  .

    o And Obama is cautious. . 


    by Flavius on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 2:59pm

    Your view of the President's job is completely ahistorical.

    Most presidents come in and drive the agenda. And Obama has no problem meeting with Republican leaders whether fashioning a health care bill or a sell-out budget, ensuring he gets the part he wants. He does seem to have trouble finding time to talk to Democrats though.


    by Desider on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 1:49am

    He needs votes.


    by Flavius on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 6:48am

    Obi-wan, I really appreciate your hammering on the fact that Obama and too many Dems are using the R's as cover for exactly what they want.  It gets old when too many here assume he/they want something grand for us, and is simply hampered by the mean ol' so-and-so's, when there is so much evidence that it just ain't so.

    Obama turned the hugest corner by buying into the whole deficit sctick and creating the whole Catfood-Commissiom-as-necessary story, IMO.  The media could then run with the whole concept and cover the food-fights that are just theatrical bullshit pitting the Austerity Adults against the what?  Caped Crusaders defending Planned Parenthood?  And maybe the EPA??? 

    From Democracy Now!:

    "JOHN NICHOLS: Yes. The bottom line is this: this is an entirely false construct. The fact of the matter is that we have a government that’s got plenty of money to keep going. This is not a fight about money, it is not a fight about budgets. This is a fight about a gaming of the budget process. We have a group of Republicans who are saying the most critical overspending in the United States, the biggest budget that just has to be addressed, is that of Planned Parenthood, right? It is a—this is a comic lie.

    And the thing that troubles me the most, frankly, is that President Obama too frequently participates in that fantasy. What the President ought to be saying is, "Look, we have sufficient funds to run the country now. This is a game that’s being played, and I refuse to do it. I won’t participate." Instead, he’s sort of gone into a bargaining process with these Republicans. And the fact is, they keep coming back and moving the goalpost. Every time—every time the President says, "Yeah, let’s compromise. I’ll give up another program for the poor," they say, "No, the poor are still eating. And so, we’re just going to have to intervene a little more here." So, I’m very troubled by it. It’s an unsettling process.

    "Unsettling" is pretty freaking weak, but he's right.  Craven, disgusting, perfidious...


    by we are stardust on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 11:40am

    How we confront our budget deficit is an important debate in this country, ie should it be done on the backs of the poor?  I think one will just sideline oneself politically if one reduces efforts to deal with it as just buying into a deficit sctick. 

    Sure a lot of political theater was had by all during the latest process, and PP as one of the key props.  But I think a lot of liberal politicans just go around saying we have plenty of money to keep the government going in the here and now, so just ignore that trillion something dollar deficit over there.  Nothing to see just keep moving along.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 12:02pm

    Giving into the deficit being the major problem now makes it a schtick.  Real unemployment is above 16%, la la la... The Prez gave up on any thought of more stimulus spending, and there were buttloads of good economists recommending exactly which sorts would be two-fers and three-fers, improving the jobs situation AND manufacturing and green energy alternatives, leading to more revenue in the kitty, less dependence on foreign or damaging deep-water oil drilling, lessening carbon emissions, on and on.  But instead we got him agreeing it's the single biggest domestic issue!  Schtick!   

    Yes; we need the debate: he didn't offer to have one; he accepted the framing, which is always bad in politics, but only if you aren't pretty much in agreement, whether by re-election calculus or philosophy. 

    Please remember this salient point, and I gotta go; those tax forms are calling my name:

    He just hired Jim Messina to run his campaign!!!!  Devotee of Jim Baucus, the most conservative Democratic Senator in office, budget hawk, anti-public option dude.  Messina is not worried about the Dems on the left, I'll tell you that for free: he knows how to raise the billion Barack wants.


    by we are stardust on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 12:18pm

    I don't agree with how Obama is exactly framing the issue.  To get back to Flavius' blog - the "people" through their votes kind of sort of said this is the frame that they want.  Had the Dems achieve gains in 2010, then we could be saying they wanted more deficits in the name of the economy.  Or is it that we should ignore how the elections go? One can argue as many have that Obama and many of the Dems have done a piss poor job of educating the public on the issue.  That they accepted the "frame" too early, or had accepted along. But Obama nor any president should be the sole person we are dependent upon to engage in a debate - and given the elections of 2010 we did have many people giving their two cents on the topic, whether bloggers, pundits, or politicians. 

     


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 12:57pm

    Trope. You really could use some facts to go with those grand, overarching statements you drop, like, "The 'people' through their votes kind of sort of said this is the frame that they want." And, "Or is it that we should ignore how the elections go?" 

    Now, I've pointed this out about 10 times already, but what the heck, facts need repetition.

    1. Not all Americans voted in the election. Which means, yes.... the President should listen to those who voted. But also yes... he pay attention to those who didn't vote. Because a lot of Americans didn't vote in 2010, but did vote in 2008. And you know what? As President, he was on the ballot in... 2008. So he should pay attention to the people who ELECTED HIM. 

    2. Since I suspect you'll dismiss that, I'll go to the exit polls, where we look at what people thought they were voting for. This is always useful, because we officially pull lever/punch button/tear off chad for a PERSON, not a grand policy or framework. So if we want to see the voters mental "frame," we probably want to ask them, right? 

    CBS Exit Polls Said:

    Which should be the highest priority for the next Congress?


    		   
    Cutting taxes                            (18%)  
    Reducing the budget deficit   (40%)  
    Spending to create jobs         (37%) 

     

    So. 40% see cutting the deficit as #1. But 37% - very very close - see spending to create jobs. Looks like a dead heat, margin of error to me.

    When we look at the splits, the 37% who wanted to Create Jobs saw 68% support from the Democratic voters, while the 40% focussed on Cutting the Deficit saw only 32% support from dem Dems. 

    So in fact, amongst Democratic voters - who the DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS should be paying attention to, seeing as these were the voters who elected them - it's massively for JOB CREATION. 

    And for the nation as a whole, you actually also need to look at category #3, cut taxes, which - to sane individuals - would appear to also be focussed on creating jobs, NOT cutting the deficit. 

    3. Pew's adjusted exit polls show it even closer, at 39-37-19.

    4. In sum:

    - If Obama is only to pay attention to those that elected him, he should go poll the views of those who voted for him in 2008.

    - If Democratic Congresspeople are to pay attention to those who voted for them, they'll see a mammoth vote for... job creation, not deficit.

    - In fact, even if we insist on looking at the overall results, of one of the most right-wing, Tea Party dominated snapshot single election results - those for 2010 - we see a dead heat between deficit and job creation, and - if tax cuts are included - then a clear focus on... job creation.

    5. Opinion: Someone(s) has bought the talk, the sales job, the patter, the bullshit, from the GOP and Big Business. They folded, in the FACE of both serious economic advice and the will of the people, the will of the voter. Which I find hard to stomach, given that economists like Krugman think this deficit-mania is an appalling way forward (down.) But you know, specific interests must be served. 

    No reason we should fall for the patter though.

    6. As an interesting footnote, there was this Exit Poll question:

    Who is most to blame for current economic problems?

      Dem Rep
    Wall Street bankers (35%) 41% 57%
    George W. Bush (29%) 83% 15%
    Barack Obama (24%) 6% 91%

    Yeah, I can see why we didn't dare go after those bankers, what with the Will of the People and all. 

    Oh wait.


    by quinn esq on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 1:34pm

    Of course one should ignore your first point since it means no politician can ever say that his or her victory means anything, since there will always be people who didn't vote. Moreover, in 2008 we had folks around here vote for Obama and Pence.  Now what should Obama take as these folks saying he should or should not do? 

    Now as you quoted, I wrote "kind of sort of" which was my less than obvious way of pointing out the facts revealed by the poll numbers you posted. 

    I'm not asking for you to fall for anything.  And I'll be the first to say they don't go after the bankers because they want their dough for their campaigns.  And I'll be the first to say that they aren't operating on what they believe to be the "will of the people."   But they are concerned about future elections, and to this extent outcomes of one election have consequences for what the politicians believe they need to do to win the next one, especially in those areas of the country where their party does not have a clear majority of the voters. 

    But here is a question which a big one and to which I have no set answer:  just how does one determine the Will of the People?  By this question I mean does a Representative who wins handily guide their voting stategy based on what they campaigned on and won with, or does he or she look to what the nation of people as whole want?

    And then there is the question of when does a politician have the duty to vote their conscience which is contrast to the will of the people?  Is at any time acceptable?

     


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 2:46pm

    Obama ignored the will of the people throughout his early days, such as making the jobs stimulus much less than he was elected to do, while not closing Gitmo as he'd promised, using feeble excuses to cave.

    And many more people vote in Presidential years than off-year elections.

    And Obama's ignoring public polls on Social Security, Afghanistan, et al.

    So I don't think this is the right time to pretend he's bucking public will to do something better - he's bucking public will to cave to unpopular Republican positions.

    The only real reason Democrats lost last election was because Obamacare was so watered down with unnecessary compromise that everyone recognized a stinking piece of meat that wouldn't even take effect for 3 more years but was already being picked apart.

    And Blue Dogs lost more seats than liberals. Guess what - standing up for liberal values is smart for re-election.


    by Desider on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 2:52pm

    The last time I looked, it was Congress that created the Stimulus so he technically speaking he couldn't have been elected to do that. And if I answer that without being a wiseass, I would point out that what emerged as the stimulus was a result of Congress and the President.  It seems you have given Obama dictatorial powers which he does not have.  During the debate leading up to the stimulus package

    (I would remind you that Obama was also elected on a message of bipartisanship and to be president for everyone not just the ones who voted for him, but that one tends to be forgotten)

    The majority of Americans want to keep Gitmo open.  When Obama tried to begin the process of closing it was Congress that thwarted, including a lot of Democrats who undoubtedly were looking at the poll numbers and the "will of the people."

    I try to not use the basis for whether a politican should or shouldn't do something based on the people stance take in polls.  They are only good as indicators for what is or isn't going to help someone win an election. 

    But in the end I don't think I there's much value in us continuing this discussion when you reduce the results of the last election to only about the outcome of the healthcare legislation.  Moreover, the liberal won elections in districts that were liberal.  The rest basically went to the Republicans.  As far as strategy goes, it a perfect one if the Democrats are satisfied being in the minority for awhile.

     

     


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 3:25pm

    Obamacare was so watered down with unnecessary compromise

     

    Given the fact that Reid didn't really have the  necessary 60 votes those unfortunate compromises were unfortunately necessary.I agree the result  was an election liability But a lot of people will survive 3 years from now who would have died under USNOCARE., And now it's on the books we can start fixing it.  


    by Flavius on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 3:47pm

    Don't mean to butt in, but this gets my goat every time:

    And now it's on the books we can start fixing it.

    Well, it's rather been perfectly designed so that it will be far easier just to make it worse, right?

    It has accelerated cost-inflation in the current waiting period, and deficit scaremongering that the administration is gleefully joining in will ensure that subsidy levels get cut, right? And the absentee anti-trust division isn't doing anything to stop insurers from invading the health care provider space, making the eventual 'exchanges' dysfunctional, is it?

    Not to mention how deferring its inception ensured electoral losses so that the reigning majority will do its best to destroy the legislation and then wrap it around the Dems' necks as a demonstration that Universal Health Care was just an impossible pipe dream.

    I appreciate the laudable optimism, but this whole 'yes-its-imperfect-but-we-can-improve-it' is just an empty talking point, designed to eschew all responsibility for the travesty that is HCR.

    Just my opinion.


    by Obey on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 4:12pm

    It's worse than everything except the alternative : that it hadn't passed.

    But if we had passed an all singing, all dancing National Health Care Bill sooner or later we'd make our old familiar mistake of electing republicans who'd spend 4 or 8 years making it as bad as they could possibly manage.

    So it we can't upgrade Obamacare into the sort of system you and I want we're going to be knee deep in the big muddy when we have to clean up after the next Republican wrecking crew. Which is tautological

    Since one or another of my children have lived in the UK for the last 30 years they've used the National Health As did I when I worked there. So I've gotten used to the pattern  Harold Wilson leaves a good system behind. Maggie turns it into one with the 2 year waiting lists which we're always told about when the media explains why socialized medicine can't work. Blair and Brown turned it into the good  system which took wonderful care of my premature grand daughter.Now Cameron is doing the usual Tory number. 

    I agree that Obamacare led to Novemeber's shellacking. I don't agree Obama could have produced a better sytem.Because of

                                  60

    That's why. He needed 60 real democratic senators. So he got the only bill he could get with the senators he had...

    I'm glad to  say

     

     


    by Flavius on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 11:02pm

    First, your  60 is bullshit and I'm amazed you don't realize it: "On Mar. 25, 2010 the Senate approved the Reconciliation Act with amendments in a 56-43 vote".

    My my my, Obama used reconciliation in the end, which he could have used a year earlier but didn't because that would be too partisan. (And of course reconciliation was what Clinton wasn't allowed to use because Byrd-D complained that was misuing the option. Which didn't stop Bush from using reconciliation to ram through his huge tax cuts.)

    Please cite all those fireside chats Obama gave to the people saying the GOP was being unreasonable and urging his supporters to call their congressman/woman and Senator and support real stimulus for people in need.

    And if he'd done that a year earlier, well then he could done that for the budget that would discontinue Bush tax cuts either by returning the wealthy to original rates by revising, or just letting the whole shebang sunset.

    But Obama always has an excuse even if missing a spine.


    by Desider on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 3:54am

    "Spine" meaning he actually wants something different than what he gets, which is unproven.


    by Desider on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 3:55am

    Oh come on Des. You surely know  the restrictions on reconciliation. In this case it required that Nancy Pelosi  to squeeze out a majority in the  house. 

    Maybe fireside chats would have worked. Who knows. I don't think he's very good at them 

    Anyway ,this blog's getting tired, Like me. See ya.


    by Flavius on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 6:58am

    "Squeeze out a majority in the house" - through 2009, the margin was 255 Dem to 178 Republican. That's a 77 vote spread.

    By the time it passed reconciliation, the margin was down only slightly, 253 to 177, and passed the House 220-211. But by that time, the bill was a stinking fish that had lost much public support, so Democrats in tight election year races began to be reluctant to support it. Especially if the President himself wouldn't stick his neck out for game-changing provisions.

    But it was never about the House, and I presume you could realize that? After all, Pelosi was basically told, "shut up and pass it, we have to compromise in the Senate". More time was spent trying to get Olympia Snowe on board as a token sign of bi-partisanship than in trying to make the bill attractive for left-leaning Democrats or for the public at large.


    by Desider on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 8:57am

    Yes Des. I agree with those details . And 220 is my definition of squeezing out a majority. 

     


    by Flavius on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 10:06am

    Trope. You made your point once, saying that the people said this is the frame they want. You made it again, by saying if the Dems had won more, we could push for more spending and deficits. You made it a third time, by saying that we can't ignore the results of the election.

    So. You were about as clear and firm as you could be - The people had spoken, we had had an election, elections have consequences, etc. That's YOUR line.

    So when I pointed out the results of the 2008 election, and the views of those who voted Dem in Dem-held seats, and the exit polls on all voters from 2010 election, I'd say I fairly much covered the field, and - not to put too fine a point on it - absolutely whomped your position that people clearly wanted that deficit licked.

    But did this trigger an adjustment of your position? HELL NOES! You just shifted off onto some new grounds which protects the President from having to do anything differently, or you wander off into clouds of abstraction.

    I mean, you actually followed up by raising questions about the will of the people and conscience versus their will? Are you daft? It was YOU who trotted out this stuff about what the people said, and how we can't ignore their wishes! But now that it looks like maybe they wanted something else, you start raising questions about the need to put some distance between us and them!! 

    And you throw out stuff like... some people voted for Obama and Spence, so what should Obama do?? Well, how about... that stuff you were JUST SAYING about "elections having consequences" and results that can't be ignored?

    How about from now on, when we debate, you just post this video up instead.


    by quinn esq on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 6:40pm

    Maybe this will clarify: it is up to the politicans to do with what they will will the results of elections in terms of how they allow it to guide their decisions.  In large part, their consequences has to do with what it tells politicans about the next election.  Some politicans are in a position that no matter whatever direction the country is swinging, they can pretty much continue do what they have always done without much of a worry.  Others deal with a constituency that tends to go with those swings and therefore are going to be more sensitive.  

    Obama for instance is probably has his eyes on those swing states in 2012.  The outcomes of 2010 in Ohio for instance probably had a lot more impact on his behavior than the fact that Rep. Weiner was re-elected. It would be nice if politicians didn't concern themselves with being re-elected, nor concern themselves with things like getting majorities by winning swing races and pulling some rabbits out a hat in the races that should go to the other side.  But they do. 

    Probably one of the biggest political stories is simply that after 2006 and 2008, the Republicans doubled down on their approach and stayed unified rather than freak out. 

    And basically all your poll said is that people want more spending and they want the deficit to be dealt with, and as always they want their taxes to be smaller.  So those in "blue" areas talk spending and those in red areas talk deficit, and those in swing areas talk about both.  And all the while they try to keep their big monied donors happy.  The more they can use the elections to back this up their strategy to benefit the well-to-do, all the better.  Even when the results counter that, they will keep trying.  Until the liberals can show they can primary out the conservative dems and then win the generals, not much is going to change.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 7:00pm

    In sum, when you want it to be all about obeying the people's will from the last election, you know, the one in 2010, then that's what it is. But then, when you want something different, then it's all about 2012, the next election. 

    Whateva.


    by quinn esq on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 7:05pm

    No, in sum, sometimes elections will influence the behavior of DC and sometimes not.  You can bet the family farm that if the overall results can be used to support the "elites" it will be.  Other times the results will be ignored (2006 didn't see us get out of Iraq). It's not about what I want or think the ways should be. 

    I am never really about obeying the will of the people since at least at this time in our history we generally have our head up our collective asses, which is basically a result of the desire for solutions without any personal sacrifice (eg the military base or bomb factory etc in my distict has to be closed down).

    I would say that had the Dems stomped the Repubs in 2010, even many of them were "blue dogs," we would be dealing with most of the crap we are dealing with.  In fact, even the MSM might be begrudingly saying how the American public didn't think Obama and the Dems didn't go far enough.  We probably still wouldn't be taxing the rich, but we might be having a debate on the second stimulus plan (still might not get it done).


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 8:07pm

    Using your analogy, perhaps the reason we have our heads shoved up our collective asses is that we are presented with few alternatives. The Repubs tell us that is where our head belongs. The Dems - Obama, in particular, as the negotiator-in-chief - respond by trying to limit just how far it gets shoved.

    Somewhere, there should be someone with a degree of leadership potential sufficient to declare that it's kinda silly to run around with your head shoved square up your ass. But we ain't seeing it from THIS White House anytime soon.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 10:17pm

    So lets say that is the reality.  What next? Where are the ten or twelve new FDR populists?  Should we just call this experiment in democracy a failure and try something different?  Some time people seem to be responding as if the wealthy elite weren't always in control.  As if this is some kind of new thing.  Now of course they've learned over the past 40 years in the US of A that the people are little more manipulatiable then they thought and they're going for broke. And we have to accept that a victory like 2008 that should of given more if there was any true justice in the world isn't going to give some one to one correlation.  Like women in the workplace, we have to succeed three or four times more than our counterparts on the other side of the aisle to get the same reward.  But like women, we ain't going to going back to being barefoot and pregnant just because the struggle is tilted against us.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 10:32pm

    It's not his fault. He's a politician. If when he acted like a douche it actually knocked down his poll numbers a bit, he'd learn to act differently. As things stand, the loyal dem electorate is just ... enabling him. Somebody - Pelosi? - needs to organize some kind of intervention...

    It's a real problem going into the Entitlements fight a few weeks from now, where there'll be a face-off over the debt ceiling. If you've got a leader of the Democratic party who has his whole identity invested in being the "deal-maker", the "coordinator-who-gets-things-done", then he turns out to be a pushover in negotiations, doesn't he? Because, he will always and everywhere want a deal, any deal, more than he cares about wanting a good deal.

    On this budget fight, the GOP got 80% of what they wanted - case in point. On Êntitlements their starting position is a total gutting of Medicaid and Medicare. Which means that, if Obama wants a deal - and he does - then he's going to go 80% of the way towards that GOP goal. Given this Administration's new-found love for private insurance exchanges, the deal will probably involve some transition towards subsidized exchanges for people currently on those government programs. And, if Obama's okay with it, his loyal base will be okay with it. And if they aren't he'll just go find himself a new base, perhaps.

    Dunno, it doesn't bode well.


    by Obey on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 12:13pm

    All that possible Medicare privatization (hadn't even heard of Medicare; oy) will happenfar enough out again to not get the huge block of seniors out in the street with their trollies and walkers, either.

    I deleted a paragraph about mega-bucks buying polling numbers, but I went off track somewhere in my logic, so I'll think about it.  Ack!  I just tried it again; bleary in the eyes.  Later.


    by we are stardust on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 3:01pm

    Obey is on target as far as I see. The GOP/Ryan plan will cut taxes first, making the Bush cuts permanent and bigger, then end Medicare, by sending the former Medicare funds directly to GOP leaning for-profit health care insurance corporations on Wall Street. They usually do things that way, cut the tax rates, on the rich, privatize to enrich their donors and themselves, then say we are broke and can't afford the given gov't program and of course, we can't possibly even consider raise taxes (back to previous levels).

    The problem is Obama has seemed to go along with this all by extending the Bush tax cuts and not reining in or discussing income disparity and malfeasance in our financial system, and his health reform is a potentially fatal public/private setup like Fannie and Freddie, where private corporations make the money, and the government gets the blame, and the middle class pays the bills.


    by NCD on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 11:08am

    You just don't get it NCD. He doesn't want to cut tax revenues, he wants to cut tax rates, and on the wealthy so that they'll work harder and earn more, thus increasing tax revenues. (Just think how much tax revenue we could bring in if tax rates were cut to 0% on the very richest!)


    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 11:11am

    My only point of possible disagreement with Obey's take was that a decrease in approval polling numbers would move him into a different directon, and that with a billion bucks he could sorta advertize his way into a better base, disregarding further critics.  Which leads me to say again that his SOTU speech was the first since 1948 that didn't speak to the issues of poverty in this country; a seriously historical ommission, IMO.

    And yeah, wags call that process 'Lemon Socialism'. 

     


    by we are stardust on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 11:40am

    I disagree. I mean I disagree on whether we disagree.Ha.

    Like I said at the end of my comment, he may well just opt for a more congenial class of base.

    But now, (yes I'm bored) I'm gonna disagree with myself.

    You can have all the campaign cash in the world, and you can move as far right to pick up more conservatives. Bu there are going to be precious few votes there waiting for you if the economy tanks again. Which it will after this and the next set of budget cuts. If you go into an election with 40% approvals you're fucked (think Bush Sr.). Even if your GOP opponent is awfully unappealing, elections are not binary choices. It will, in voters' minds, not be a decision determined by some utility-maximizing function, it will be a referendum on Obama.

    That - sadly - is human psychology, however much Obama-supporters bitch about it.

    There will be a vast untapped reserve of voters seeking another option, meaning some kind of third party option is going to happen. The question for progressives is, where is it going to come from? If they don't get their own ass in gear, it's going to be another third party corporate conservative, as an alternative to ... two other corporate conservatives.


    by Obey on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 12:04pm

    I disagree with you disagreeing with me diagreeing with yourself...or something.

    What I meant was using the bucks for spinning like mad for the win.  By the by, on the White House website Dan Pfeiffer actually use Win the Future when (not)describing what the budget deal actually IS.

    And yes; I had forgotten how soon the cuts will affect massive amounts of people, just as commondities rise and rise.  Grocery shopping here already is hard; and combing the sales circulars doesn't help much.  Here is the tulies I'd say stuff we buy is up about 50%, and it will be good if people like beans.  And gas is already $3.75, which I know is low for Europe, but here is tough if you have to have it. 

    'Progressives get their ass in gear.'  Wellllll...there's a thought.  Who are they again?   ;o) 


    by we are stardust on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 12:35pm

    In ArtAppraiser's recent blog on Libya, he linked to a column by Ricks which linked to a research article - The Analogical Mind by Keith Holyoak and Paul Thagard.  The subject of which analogy or analogies we choose to make sense of complex human situations, such as the goings-on within the Beltway, is an interesting one to me.

    Poker and other forms of gambling is differently a common one used to discuss negotiations, political or otherwise.  Yet I don't know how effective it is in this case.  The main dynamic in poker which is associated with the negotiator is each side has knowledge about their own situation which the other side is not privy to.  In the budget case, the closest this comes into play regards the knowledge about one's opponent's willingness to risk the political blowback that would come from being blamed for the shutdown.

    I think the previous election showed a general desire in the public for government to deal with the deficit.  Yet as poll after poll shows, there is no specific line item on the budget that the public can agree should be whacked in the name of balanced spending.  Taxing the wealthy is the closest thing out there, and why this won't happen has been discussed a bit here at dagblog and elsewhere.

    One facet to the budget negotiations which needs to be taken into effect is that it isn't about two sides: the Dems and the Repubs.  As when the Dems had both the Senate and the House demonstrated, there is much more diversity within the Democratic party then in the Republican party.  So if we are to use the poker analogy, we have to design one in which not only is there multi-player teams, but also where players can switch teams during any given hand. 

    Since the President is technically not involved in the actual budget vote, his role in the poker game is to move from player to player, team to team, trying to convince them they have a stronger or weaker hand than they believe, at the same time not always knowing which team the player is playing for.

     


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 11:30am

    David Dayen is shaking his head:

    This comes at a time of 8.8% unemployment, when many economists believe additional fiscal stimulus is needed to prop up a nascent and still-fragile recovery. But Washington has gone into austerity mode. You had a Democratic President last night touting the “largest annual spending cut in our history,” as if that were something of which to be proud. Yet it’s undeniable that this cut sets the country backwards and puts it on bad footing for the additional bigger spending fights ahead. To quote Brian Beutler: “That the focal point of policy on Capitol Hill is on what should be cut — and not when to cut, or whether cutting is even wise — illustrates just how brief the progressive moment lasted after Obama’s election in 2008. It also represents a colossal failure of government.”

    Indeed, the boasting about “historic” cuts coming from Democrats, after months of rhetoric where they said these same cuts would eliminate jobs and hurt the economy, was tough to take. I don’t have Mark Zandi’s home phone number, but he said previously that cuts of $61 billion would cost the country 700,000 jobs, based not really on where the cuts went but simple macroeconomic projections. So this $38.5 billion cut will cost what? 400,000 jobs? 500,000? From a self-preservation angle, this is lunacy: 

        "Right now, the economy is weak. Giving into austerity will weaken it further, or at least delay recovery for longer. And if Obama does not get a recovery, then he will not be a successful president, no matter how hard he works to claim Boehner’s successes as his own. Clinton’s speeches were persuasive because the labor market did a lot of his talking for him. But when unemployment is stuck at eight percent, there’s no such thing as a great communicator."

    DD Has the list of cuts so far.  Didn't check if it's similar to what Obey posted In the News, but probably.


    by we are stardust on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 11:57am

    Black unemployment is up to 15.5%. I'm waiting for when they have a Wikileaks moment and cut-and-run for a real black progressive. Maybe Donna Edwards should primary Obama.


    by Desider on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 12:04pm

    Now you've gotten me imaging those leaks, LOL!  Arrrggh!  Didja see the Iraq news I left on your blog?  Gotta go for now...might take breaks here and there, but the sainted IRS be callin' mah name...  Er: how DO they manage to get blood out of turnips, anyway?  


    by we are stardust on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 12:22pm

    She's too smart .


    by Flavius on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 1:02pm

    I've noted there is literally nothing out there as to the details of what is cut, the FDL article mentions the $2.5 from transportation, and nothing much else in specifics.

    If you Google any variation of words on this budget there is nothing, there is nothing at the White House web site, nothing at the NYT, no hard details at all. I suppose it will come out next week. This from and administration and Congress that have pledged openness and transparency.

    At close to $40 billion, and considering a rough 50K a job, this would eliminate the money for 800,000 jobs, and many more due to the lost wages not being spent. 

    This cut doubled over a year (this is a 1/2 year cut) would therefore cause the loss of perhaps 2 million jobs.


    by NCD on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 2:48pm

    This video clip from Dylan Ratigan Show makes your point about the lack of details of the cuts.  So, the nasty details aren't for our delicate sensibilities? (After the five minute mark.)

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42499702#42499702

    The whole clip does respond to some of the points brought up in this thread, though.

     


    by wabby on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 7:36am

    Yeah; sorry.  I'd just buzzed down DD's piece, and hadn't noticed that the bullet points weren't $ specifics but comments and links.  The WH has this by Dan Pfeiffer, but it's nothing in detail.  Spin and grin.  No one has anything but that link that I found this morning.  But the Talking Head shows will be full of it (pun intended); David Plouffe is ubiquitous.  How does he spin this positively, and when will the Sunday shows grasp that they are irrelevant to promoting any meaningful debate?

    Oh--and it's closer to $80 billion; why oh why didn't Dems pass a budget before the midterms?

    Transparency: since the initial flurry of Obama-declassified docs, this administration is arguably less transparent than Bush's administration according to those whose specialty it is to keep track.  I'll go grab a link that may prover pretty embarassing to the WH and Elena Kagan through the NOW release of FOIA docs at the SG's office.  Ooopsie.

    http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/04/07/solicitor-general-email-foia-shows-white-house-stunt-fail/

     


    by we are stardust on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 8:23am

    "Tis so, sadly so and well put.  There is so much truth in trite expressions that the perfect is the enemy of the good thing now makes even more sense to me.  I hate these "both sides" things, suggesting equivalencies, but this one works for me:  both sides have people within their ranks who do their cause no good.


    by Barth on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 2:17pm

    We lost last fall, and this is the result..

    That about says it all for me!

    America receives the government it deserves.


    by Richard Day on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 4:43pm

    Elections do have consequences.

    Yes.

    Interesting that how it ended up is Boehner and the establishment GOP got nearly their opening bid at the start:

    .....These lingering tensions became evident almost immediately after the GOP took office, when Republican leaders sparked a revolt in the caucus by proposing only $32 billion in cuts current spending levels. After a meeting with angry freshmen, many of whom rode Tea Party support to victory, Boehner relented and eventually upped the package to $61 billion....

    from Benjy Sarlin @ TPMDC, April 9

    Had the Blue Dogs in the House that lost still been there, there's no way that would have happened. There'd be a much lower amount of cuts, if any at all. It's all about bargaining with the Tea Partiers now instead of with the middle of the roaders. A lot of the negotiations will get dragged way to the right now. instead of dragged to the middle.


    by artappraiser on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 5:42pm

    Eggsactly. A DINO is better than ANY repub, but not to the purists. My contention has been that only a moderate dem could win in some of those areas...a lib had no chance at all. And better a moderate dem than than ANY repub, but especially than the nut jobs that are in there now. I can only hope that some people will come to their senses and realize that their vote in Nov. was childish and rectify it next time...if it isn't too late.

    Those cracks are going to get awfully full of the people falling through them.


    by stillidealistic on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 6:17pm

    I think you missed the part where Blanche Lincoln won the primary, but lost the general, despite having lots of DCCC money pushed her way.

    Most of the DCCC money supported Blue Dogs. Most Blue Dogs lost. Therefore, most DCCC money supported losing candidates.

    Meanwhile, liberal/progressive Democratic candidates had to suck hind tit. Rahm's wisdom. And still lost a number of elections only barely. But being Rahm means never having to say you're sorry - now he's mayor of Chicago so you all can still, in his words, Go F--- Yourselves.

    And it's pretty obvious that the Republicans have figured out that a Republican is better than a Blue Dog, so no matter how hard a Blue Dog tries to act like a Republican, come November they'll be rejected. So why go in for a suicidal strategy?


    by Desider on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 9:04am


    by MrSmith1 on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 6:49pm

    Tales from the game--an excerpt:

    ...in the Oval Office. Mr. Boehner, a Republican heavily outnumbered in the room by Democrats, was demanding a provision to restrict financing to Planned Parenthood and other groups that provide abortions. Mr. Obama would not budge.

    “Nope. Zero,” the president said to the speaker. Mr. Boehner tried again. “Nope. Zero,” Mr. Obama repeated. “John, this is it.” A long silence followed, said one participant in the meeting. “It was just like an awkward, ‘O.K., well, what do you do now?’ ”

    That meeting broke without an agreement. But while Mr. Obama may have held tough on the abortion provision, he and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid had already made a broader concession — agreeing to tens of billions of dollars in spending cuts that would have been unthinkable had Republicans not captured control of the House from Democrats in midterm elections last year....

    in full @

    Concessions and Tension, Then a Deal, New York Times, by David M. Herszenhorn and Helene Cooper, with contributions by Jackie Calmes, Carl Hulse, Jennifer Steinhauer and Jeff Zeleny.


    by artappraiser on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 3:16am

    Just think! If Boehner would have just asked for something like selling off the National Mall to the highest bidder, Obama could have refused to go along with that, too! Damn Boehner! He deprived poor Obama of a chance to claim an even BIGGER win as the Prez was engaged in giving away tens of billions in tax cuts and gaining nothing in return.

    What am I missing here?


    by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 6:27am

    The Americans who took a seat at the table, who chose to vote in November, won that hand and are now picking up the chips. That's as it should be. They're entitled to have their views reflected in what the government decides to do.

    You know ... fiddle that first sentence around a bit and this is pretty much the same conclusion Democrats have been using to explain cramming Republican policy points into every piece of legislation they've passed since 2008 (except Lilly Ledbetter, I suppose). Seems odd that prior to 2010 establishment Democrats didn't feel - or at least certainly didn't promote - the idea what you articulate here applied to Democrats. Even after what can only be described as far more sweeping wins than the GOP saw in 2010. Seems a bit of a double standard with GOP ideology always taking an upside in the formula.

    Imagine if Democrats invested the same energy in promoting the idea DEMOCRATS (including all progressives and rationals and most independents) are entitled to have their views reflected in what the government decides to do as they have invested in hyping GOP legitimacy ...

    This isn't poker. It's politics. Perhaps that's why Obama keeps losing (or alternatively, he keeps winning and is actually playing for the other side). There aren't hidden hands as you propose; it's about guts. Obama doesn't demonstrate any. Nobody in the world holds more cards than the POTUS. Period. Assuming good-intent, Obama has gotten his ass kicked non-stop since he took office. Not sure how this deep understanding of  "the rules" governing a game neither of us have played directly was acquired but to me you seem off base. Specifically, you don't appear to understand power even in the most rudimentary forms. Bush pretty much definitively proved your view of how things really work is dead wrong - it's one reason he vexes you so; you could never beat his approach sitting in an arbitrary box called "the possible" your party crawled into sometime around 1989 and refuse to climb out of. It's a problem which persists for your party today. The refusal or inability to proactively wield power to achieve clearly stated objectives doesn't mean the office of the POTUS became impotent - it only reflects on the officeholder (and advisers).


    by Lazy KGB (not verified) on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 3:15pm

    Latest Comments