7. Have you read the Lofgren article (the GOP staffer)? He puts it in a nutshell--
the GOP goal is to completely wreck Americans' confidence in, and goodwill toward, Congress and their government. They know they will not be singled out, it's all "Those assholes in Washington suck! Throw them all out, they're all dysfunctional!" and then the GOP runs in elections on feeding off this sentiment.
6. What would you have the Democrats "do" that would have mitigated
the hostage holding?
Cause I don't think the 14th amendment would have sat well with most.
I don't understand why folks don't understand that the GOP was in a position of leverage.... because they don't give a shit about this country, so they never cared what would happen if they didn't get what they demanded (which they didn't anyways)....
Pres. Obama and Democrats cared, and weren't interested in playing russian roulette just to say....."see there...how strongly we fought".
Guess it depends what you want to believe folks truly care about.... But I don't believe a complete meltdown of the economy would have helped you one iota....and wouldn't you want politicians willing to take a hit as long as you didn't become a statistic to them?
15. What Obama did though was to let Republicans frame the whole debate
First, he gave in to them by continuing the Bush tax cuts.
By doing that, he tied both arms behind his back. Now, he could not point out how absolutely ridiculous it is to demand $2 trillion in spending cuts when you just gave $2 trillion in tax cuts to the rich.
He couldn't do that, because his name was on the tax cuts too.
Then he decided to fight, not just with both arms tied behind his back, but standing on one foot too.
He conceded their terms of the debate. He agreed that spending needs to be cut. Then he even agreed that spending needs to be cut on social security and medicare. Thus surrendering the club the Democrats had been using to pound Republicans with, that Republicans were trying to end medicare as we know it.
So instead of pounding Republicans for pretending they care about the deficit while they cut taxes for the rich. Instead of informing the public that spending cuts mean lost jobs and slower economic growth, and that right now we need more spending to create jobs, Obama went into the fight with his arms tied and hopping on one foot. No wonder he got his butt kicked.
No wonder we think, "Obama doesn't even WANT to win one for the masses. He's not even trying to fight for our side."
It is a basic strategy of football that you want to give your opponents the ball deep in their own territory, say, on their 5 yard line. Not in our territory, and certainly not in the red zone (the last twenty yards).
Yet Obama begins the negotiation, NOT by demanding a clean debt ceiling bill, but by conceding $2 trillion in spending cuts while asking for a mere $200 billion in tax increases. (no, I don't have the exact numbers, but remember it was spending-taxes by a 4-1 margin.)
Yes, probably there is no way he would have gotten a clean debt ceiling bill, but if you start out fighting for that, and if you strengthen your position by saying that Republicans are wrong about the need for spending cuts, instead of agreeing that they are right, then you may finish by conceding $500 billion in cuts. If, OTOH, you start out conceding $2 trillion in cuts, as well as conceding the whole debate, then you end up with a huge Republican victory.
And a big loss for the American people.
And THAT, is why I would say that Obama, and by extension the Democratic Party that unfortunately he was picked to lead, really WAS part of the problem.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.