"Did Obama capitulate--or is this a cagey move?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

Source: Washington Post

By Peter Wallsten and David Nakamura, washingtonpost.com/2011/07/31

... After weeks of presidential demands for sacrifice by corporate jet owners and hedge fund managers, those taxpayers Πand everyone else Πcan rest easy. That is, unless Obama escalates his push for tax hikes on the rich, as the White House signaled Sunday he would do. Nonetheless, liberals were furious as the terms of the agreement came into focus Sunday, and yet another capitulation by Obama on economic policy threatened to further dampen enthusiasm among the core Democratic voters he will need to win reelection next year. But, for a White House eager to improve its standing with centrist independents who have been fleeing Obama, even a losing deal can be a winning strategy.

Most importantly for Obama, the agreement that was being finalized late Sunday appeared on track to avert a government default. Such an outcome would almost certainly have further weakened the economy and added to the growing frustration among many voters about how Obama is handling it. A default would also have opened him to criticism from Republicans and others that he was a weak leader. The deal also allows Obama to avoid another politically painful fight over lifting the debt ceiling before his 2012 reelection, with Republicans giving up their insistence on a second vote before then. And the president, branded a socialist by many Republicans for his big-spending stimulus program and his health-care overhaul, can suddenly declare himself a deficit hawk as he courts the political middle. Even an apparent capitulation by Obama helps present him to voters as a reasonable compromiser doing battle against rigid ideologues, his aides believe. ...

Look for Obama to take his case to the public, perhaps even harnessing his reelection campaign apparatus to target lawmakers, as he began doing this past week via Twitter. A July Washington Post/ABC poll found that most Americans, including most Republicans, support some tax increases to reduce the deficit and oppose cutting programs such as Medicaid and Medicare.

© The Washington Post Company"
??????v


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/did-obama-capitulate--or-is-this-a-cagey-move/2011/07/31/gIQAhJXGmI_print.html

---

IMO, with Balanced Budget Amendment language gone, and no new debt-ceiling votes like this one until 2013, the long-term consequences of the wasted past seven months will be small (unless US credit is downgraded).

Specific budget cuts have not all been put forth so far, but I expect only a few billion in actual cuts will take place before 2013. But that's when the current Congressional term ends, and new Congresses in 2013 and after are unlikely to be bound by the shemes and plans of the current crew of Republican know-nothings.z

[Me.]

1. Oh Please, Enough Of....

The Cagey Moves, Chess Player Business

[ProgressiveEconomist]

2. Do you see any significant longer-term consequences of tonight's agreement?

I do not. I see jiu-jitsu--letting Republicans show how unfit they are to govern. Obama said a lot of things--abd "made them an offer they had to refuse" on structural changes to entitlements. But what did he actually agree to?

IMO the situation is fluid, and the most dangerous longer-term threats--repeat debt-ceiling vote and BBA--are gone.

[Solomon]

64. Not only that, but he bamboozled them again.

When the Bush tax cuts expire next year it will count as billions in "cuts" to "spending", thus obviating the need to even think about cutting necessary programs.

Keep it quiet though. We need the teabaggers to follow through and approve their "win".

[quiller4]

70. I fully agree. n/t

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

6. Well said!

[mac56]

9. +1

[seeker4ever]

14. Fuck that! I Have to be Scolded by my Parties President and his fucking Lackies?

Bull shit! This guy gets a lolly pop if he manages to NOT act too much like a Liberal... FROM LIBERALS!

Not this one.

[seeker4ever]

15. DUPLICATE

[Me.]

18. You're Talking Out Of Your Hat

And I certainly didn't start attacking him 3 months in so stop with the hyperbole and unfounded accusations. He'd have a lot more clout if he stood up for himself and the people who brought him to the dance. And how much time does it take to learn that this country does not negotiate with terrorists?

[Proletariatprincess]

27. 1+++

[elleng]

22. Yes

[HankyDubs]

26. support is a two-way street

It is our duty to attack leaders who don't support our values, particularly if they rely on our votes. What are we if we are so partisan that we support the president blindly? Republiklans.

[cstanleytech]

28. on the other hand if we dig our heels in to much and whine like little children what are we?

The new democratic tea party federation?
I mean really, its a fine line we need to walk ourselves or we risk being little better than the bitter little children who claim to be tea party members in congress who were largely at fault for this fiasco.

[No Elephants]

33. And by "we" you mean DUers who disagree with you?

[cstanleytech]

42. I mean all of us, we are all democrats here or atleast I assume we are.

We might not agree on every issue and we need to embrace that fact imo rather than driving a wedge into it with comments like yours.

[sendero]

61. We are.

... but Obama is not. That is the problem.

[HankyDubs]

67. if we "whine" and "dig our heels in"

then we will be mocked for a while but in the end we will end up getting large portions of what we want...

[aquart]

29. If he didn't understand the Democratic Party, he shouldn't have run as a Democrat.

[BNJMN]

39. I think he understands perfectly what SOME of the power brokers of the DP are. For instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee#DNC_fund-raising

DINOs feeding DINOs. The heads of the DNC are appointed not elected (by us!)

They decide who gets the money for their campaign, and who will eventually run in the primary and look good in front of the cameras. The whole thing is a shame and campaign finance reform is the ONLY solution, in my humble opinion.

[No Elephants]

54. BN, I was right there with you until campaign finance reform's being the ONLY solution.

If that is so, our collective goose is cooked.

Money is speech and corporations are people. Ergo, campaign finance reform is unconstitutional and no one is going to pass a constitutional amenment to alter that.

I am not at all happy about that, but it is the reality.

[FreeBillClinton]

24. Obama is playing chess; we're the pawns.

[No Elephants]

50. Perhaps you prefer Jedi Master?

These are not the cuts you want.

[No Elephants]

51. Perhaps you prefer Jedi Master?

These are not the cuts you want.

[Kolesar]

62. Wow. Ten words

...and almost one sentence!

[Proletariatprincess]

3. Exactly as I thought this would end....

this has all been political theater. There was never any danger of default. Obama didn't make any concessions that he didn't already agree with. Obama was never on our side. All his campaign rhetoric was just for effect and he was never even remotely progressive.
We will have to wait to see what is actually in this piece of garbage deal and what it will mean to us just like the members of congress who will pass it without reading it will have to do. They have done this so many times in the past, you would think we would learn.
What the people want and what the country needs are irrelevant to this government.

[bitchkitty]

8. +1

[ProgressiveEconomist]

11. "Obama was never on our side" ????????????

[demwing]

65. Please don't pretend you don't understand

I get it that you don't agree, but don't act surprised by the resentment

[seeker4ever]

17. + Infinity

[Downwinder]

5. There is a third choice. Was this the original intent?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

7. IMO, no. This was "rope-a-dope" strategy to frame Republicans as extreme and

irresponsible in the campaign for the Presidency, all 435 House seats, a third of the Senate, and dozens of Governors' mansions.

[Firebrand Gary]

37. I hope that you are right.

I have refrained from attacking the President, but must admit that watching his negotiating tactics have really gotten under my skin. The Healthcare debate was aloud to linger on the vine for far too long and it is the reason he lost the 60 seat majority in the Senate. I can only think that he never really had any intention on passing any other major legislation.

I really want to believe that it was all a part of some grand strategy, but that's a really tall tale.

[BNJMN]

43. But *just* framing the Republicans as extremists isn't really LEADING the nation.

Just sitting back and letting the Republicans and TeaPartiers show the world how ugly their idea of governing is...doesn't make Obama look any more in control.

He needs to stand up and start fighting.
Or rather, he needed to do that...about a year ago.

He may be the supreme master of chess moves and 'Kubuki' Cave ins, but it's not making him look strong in the public eye and he may be 'too smart by half'...as the saying is going.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

57. How do you deal with wackos like the Tea Party House frosh? By acting nuts yourself?

Or by "harm reduction": humoring them, building a case against them, and exposing their craziness to the world, never letting them do any permanent harm?

IMO the Tea Party crazies now are a spent force, having shown their ultimate powerlessness to steer even their own party over the cliff to a BBA and endless repetition of extreme posturing.

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. They are peeing on our legs and telling us it is raining.

The radicals won again. Not one tax cut. The backs of the middle class are breaking under the burden, while the rich continue to raid the treasury. And those social programs the dems agreed to protect?
"Everything is on the table."

The dems are now trying to pee on our legs and tell us it is raining. When this started, the dems promised to protect social programs. Now, they say they were successful because the debt ceiling is raised. Please.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

13. "Not one tax cut" Don't you mean, "not one loophole closed"? Email the committee members

charged with finding another $1.8 trillion in deficit reducres. Tell them to take away tax expenditures and outright subsidies from Big Oil, jet owners, Big Agriculture, and other corporate welfare recipients. That's what millions of individual Americans and Democratic campaign volunteers will be doing over the next few months.

And don't forget Dubya's 2001 and 2003 extra tax breaks for the wealthy are set to expire automatically at the end of next year.

Look ahead a bit--get some perspecitve on the "political theater" of the past seven months, and things won't seem as dire.

[Voice for Peace]

16. thank you! nt

[Change has come]

25. How convenient.

They were also set to expire in 2010. Just so you know, Dubya, is a term of endearment.

[No Elephants]

35. But Dummya isn't.

:evilgrin:

[No Elephants]

34. At the end of next year = after the election

We have no idea what will happen. After all, the Bush tax cut expired automatically at the end of 2010, but then we got the Obama tax cuts.

[Ghost Dog]

47. Yes. You need to push this from now until that committee

decides.

[paulkienitz]

12. exactly why the next election is about congress, not the presidency

our only hope of fixing this debacle is to elect people who will fix the revenues and undo the planned cuts. Barack will go along if Congress acts mandateful.

[cstanleytech]

30. Wrong.

I get wanting to have a majority in congress but imo its not the federal level where the problem is at really but rather at the state level, the gop right now is gerrymandering many states and they are setting them up so at the federal level republicans stand a better chance at winning.
We cant fix the problem overnight though, its going to take atleast 10 - 20 years but we need to start pouring imo more effort into the state level and fixing the gerrymandering thats been done there or trying to win a federal seat for a democrat will truly be pointless in 10 - 20 years time.

[paulkienitz]

32. on the other hand

I think the GOP underestimates how much harm it's done to itself in this recent debacle, and strongly suspect that 2012 will look a lot like 2008 for their candidates.

[cstanleytech]

44. Voters are fickle though.

For example after the clustersmurf under Bush that the republicans left the country in when they were the majority you would have thought they wouldnt regain a majority in any house so soon but they did.

[No Elephants]

36. It's not either or. We have problems at the state level and plenty at the federal level.

[cstanleytech]

41. Except if they control the state level which they do in alot of the states

they gerrymander the states so badly that the odds of a dem winning the federal election are extremely skewed in favor of a republican winning, how do you think they took the south? They worked for decades to get control of the state level positions and governors offices so each time the census came along they chipped and chipped until many former dem strongholds were done away with and altered to be favorable to republicans.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

59. CRUCIAL insight. As recently as fifteen years ago, there were HUNDREDS of competitive

House districts in general elections. But now there are fewer than 100.

IMO, the primary goal of most politicians of any party is to turn election to office into a 30- or 40-year career. Redistricting over the years could not have produced the current situation without at least complicity, if not active assistance, from Democrats as well as Republicans.

The prevalence of "safe" seats for incumbents--Democrats as well as Republicans--means that the major threat to an incumbent is not a general election but rather a primary fight within his or her own party. Yhe "enemy" no longer is in the other party. That's why infighting within the Republican party and within the Democratic party is so prevalent.

This very thread shows how harsh intraparty infighting can get. For many posters here, apparently the Republicans are not the primary enemy--Obama is. They want to build up their particular factions around Kucinich, Sanders, and other purists, providing the President with political war on multiple fronts, not just against Republicans.

[LarryNM]

55. Absolutely

Obama even said you have to "make me do it".

[loyalsister]

19. I think that's a real possibility

I don't think people realize how bad the BBA could have been. A republican congress and\or president could simply wipe out education with no political repercussions because they HAD to balance the budget.

[BiggJawn]

20. He grabbed the yellow and black handles and yanked them.

He didn't "capitulate", he hit the ejection seat.

I'm so fucking sick and tired of this "kabuki theater/407-dimensional chess/rope-a-dope" bullshit. It may be great entertainment for you all, but it makes me sick to my stomach and I lose sleep over it.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

21. So things are always what they seem, in the heat of the moment?

One thing I LOVE about Obama is that he keeps his cool even when he has to work around intolerable obstacles. I look at the almost-unprecednted things he accompliches--health care reform, consumer finance regulation, the greatest middle-class tax cut in hestory, 99 weeks of unemployment compensation in many states, etc.--and not so much how "purist" his posture while getting all these things done.

IMO Obama is the opposite of Dennis Kucinch, who never says anything to displease his acolytes, but gets NOTHING done.

[BiggJawn]

23. We'll have to agree to disagree.

IMO Obama is a clone of Evan Bayh. Centre-right, DLC, and not a progressive bone in his body.

The only thing he has going for him is that he's not a Christian Reconstructionist or Dominionist like Bachmann and Perry.

[No Elephants]

38. LOL

Health care reform = bailout of big health industry

Consumer finance regulation - Daily Show did a bit on it in the last week or two. Eviscerated. And that's even before the public rulemaking process begins. The agency now headed by a character who does not inspire trust.

Middle class tax cut? You mean as part of the Obama tax cuts of 2010?

[cstanleytech]

49. I have to agree with you for the most part though

still think he is better than the alternative at the time of McCain/Palin, the thought of them in office together still sends a cold shiver down my spine.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

60. See post #59 above

[Kall]

31. Please spare us

Right, it's the patented "Give Them Everything They Want" bluff.

[No Elephants]

40. Well, it's not as bad as it could have been. (Signed, victim of the Shock Doctrine?)

Maybe we can thank Pelosi for that? She seems to have been the only one who drew a line at OASDI, Medicare and veteran's benefits.

[salin]

72. your post title - captures my sentiment to a t.

so the crazies were beat back, and the damage somewhat limited compared to what the crazies wanted. But the win feels like we have woken up to a 'new normal'; not so sure we are ready for it. Also agree per Pelosi.

[The Second Stone]

45. The Republicans look a lot worse

than Obama does. He looks like he will not stand up to bullies, while they look like psychopaths. Let's hope he discovers some back bone to use this temper tantrum against them in the upcoming elections and spends some of his time helping elect sane Congress people. One of the Republican former governors running against him may stand a chance, but none of the other looney tunes do. Of course I thought nobody would elect a former lousy thespian or the idiot son of GHWBush.

This isn't as bad as a default, but it sucks.

[BNJMN]

46. Good cop / bad cop. [nt]

[yurbud]

48. ''centrist independents'' is code for the wealthy

[No Elephants]

52. Maybe it's becoming code for pople who see less and less difference between the Parties anymore?

Everyone, including me, sees Massachusetts as a blue state, but over 50% of registered voters in Massachusetts registered Independent. And then, there's the Brown turd.

[robcon]

53. No it's not. Centrist independents are, for example, many union members

who are fairly conservative on social issues and fairly liberal on economic issues.

[yurbud]

56. I am a union member, and this would not pass muster with any union members I know

[JVS]

58. And how does being slightly liberal on social issues and right wing on economic issues attract them?

[Bettie]

63. I've tried to believe that he was playing a long game

But, I've come to the conclusion that he's just selling us out inch by inch.

He's a Republican, but not a neo-con. He's a corporatist, but not as bad as most.

I'm feeling like I was swindled out of my vote and my time working for his election.

I'll still vote for him in 2012, because he's not as bad as the alternative, but I won't have the enthusiasm I did last time around.

My DH still believes that when he doesn't have to worry about re-election he'll suddenly become the liberal we all want him to be. I don't believe that.

[proud patriot]

66. I remain positive

[Cerridwen]

68. "Everyone Chill the Fuck Out: I Got This"

[mmonk]

69. Neither. He wanted to cut government spending and use it for 2012

to attract voters that will never vote for him.

[divvy]

71. Oh Fuck ...... Not more 8-Dimensional Chess !

The simple answer is usually the right one. He caved and fucked us all.