Senior White House Official: 'We Wanted a Fight,' too. Congressional Dems 'Wouldn't Throw a Punch'

[jefferson_dem]

Senior White House Official: 'We Wanted a Fight,' too. Congressional Dems 'Wouldn't Throw a Punch'

Vice President Biden heads to Capitol Hill today to lobby Senate Democrats to support the tax cut compromise, as President Obama faces criticism from congressional Democrats that he should have fought more for the Bush tax cuts on the middle class, and against the cuts for wealthier Americans.

The White House has two arguments for what they acknowledge are "frustrated" Democrats:

1) We wanted a fight on these tax cuts, and Congressional Democrats never took up the charge and held a vote;

2) This is a good deal -- and we weren't willing to let taxes go up on middle class Americans, or to deprive the unemployed of insurance benefits, just to prove a political point.

"We wanted a fight, the House didn't throw a punch," a senior White House official tells ABC News, pointing out that for months before the 2010 midterm elections, President Obama was making the case against the Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans. "The House wouldn't vote before the Senate, and the Senate was afraid they'd lose a vote on it."

"It was like the Jets versus Sharks except there weren't any Jets," the official said. "Senator Schumer says he wants a fight? He couldn't hold his caucus together."

<SNIP>

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/12/senior-white-house-official-we-wanted-a-fight-too-congressional-dems-wouldnt-throw-a-punch.html

Actually, this Senior White House Official appears to be right. See this thread for evidence - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x544619

Greg Sargent makes the case here, as well:

In defense of White House on Bush tax cuts
By Greg Sargent

With everybody beating up on Obama's handling of the Bush tax cuts fight, it's only fair to note one crucial thing in the White House's defense: It isn't Obama's fault that Congressional Democrats punted on holding a vote on just the middle class tax cuts before the election. Indeed, the White House appears to have wanted just the opposite.

As many commentators have noted already, the failure to do that vote left Dems with precious little leverage in the current lame-duck showdown over the tax cuts. As David Leonhardt argues today, Dems "had their chance to win on this issue." Before the election, forcing Republicans to vote on just the middle class tax cuts would have thrown them on the defensive. Now they can basically run out the clock.

It's important to remember that the White House is not to blame for this. My understanding from the reporting I did at the time is that White House officials repeatedly signaled to Dem Congressional leaders that they wanted the vote to happen. Nancy Pelosi, too, wanted it to happen. But she and Steny Hoyer ultimately deferred to moderate Dems who feared such a vote would allow Republicans to paint them as tax hikers. Dem leaders also worried that they might lose the vote, though it's unclear why this should have mattered: It still would have forced House GOPers to make a tough choice before the election.

It's also key to keep in mind that when the possibility of the vote was still hanging over the elections, Dems were on the offensive. They were winning. As Ezra Klein reminds us, Republicans were clearly caught in a bind. House GOPers like John Boehner and Dave Camp were actually saying they might vote with the Dems. That was a clear signal that Dems held the cards at the time. Yet they punted anyway. Now Republicans are in a stronger position: Dems have been "shellacked," Republicans are no longer facing an election, and the tight timing of the lame-duck session has given the GOP more leverage.

You could argue that the White House could have been more vocal about their desire for a pre-election vote or pushed Dem leaders harder to make it happen. But the White House was right to grant Congressional leaders the leeway to chart their own course. And at a certain point, it's tiresome to hear Dems blame the White House for their own lack of spine or leadership. Amid the roar of criticism of the White House, let's keep in mind that they aren't to blame for a key aspect of the Dems' current predicament.

<SNIP>

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/in_defense_of_white_house_on_b.html