This Way Or That

Who is the real John McCain?

Perhaps it's the fellow who, Kate Nocera of Politico reported, on March 7, 2013

quoted heavily from a Wall Street Journal editorial that slammed Paul’s filibuster on the Obama administration’s drone use, including a line that said “If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in college dorms.”

A few months later, the subject (Ted Cruz) and the object (the Affordable Care Act) woul be vastly different, but the response from the Arizona senator similar.  Asked in September whether he would resort to a "talking filibuster" to defund health care reform, the Texas Repub stated "Yes. And anything else. Any procedural means necessary. Listen, this is the most important fight in the country."

McCain responded

I do note with some interest that most of the people who are doing this are new and do not have the experience that we had when the American people, who don’t like government but don’t want it to be shut down, reacted in a very negative fashion towards Congress for doing so...

I think Sen. Cruz is free to do whatever he wants to with the rules of the Senate. I will again state unequivocally that this is not something that we can succeed in, and that’s defunding Obamacare, because we don’t have 67 Republican votes in the Senate, which would be required to override a presidential veto.

Unchastened, on September 24 the Texas Repub maintained on the floor of the Senate

I guarantee you all of the pundits that we see going on TV and intoning in deep baritone voices, 'this cannot be done,' if we were back in the 18th century, they would be going on, I don't know, maybe pigeon carriers or something, sending messages written somehow in dark ink, 'This cannot be done. You can't stand up to the British army--can't be done. It's impossible. Accept your subjugation. Accept your taxation without representation...

If you go to the 1940s, Nazi Germany.  Look, we saw in Britain, Neville Chamberlain, who told the British people, 'Accept the Nazis. Yes, they'll dominate the continent of Europe but that's not our problem. Let's appease them. Why? Because it can't be done. We can't possibly stand against them.'  I suspect those same pundits who say [defunding Obamacare] can't be done, if it had been in the 1940s we would have been listening to them, They would have been saying, 'You cannot defeat the Germans.

John McCain then responded

I do not begrudge Sen. Cruz or any other senator who wants to come to talk as long as they want to.  But I do disagree strongly to allege that there are people today who are like those who prior to World War II didn’t stand up and oppose the atrocities that were taking place in Europe.

I have an open and honest disagreement with the process. Comparing it to those who appeased, who were the appeasers …is an inappropriate place for debate on the floor of the United States Senate.

It's no surprise that the demagogue from Alaska would show up as the most high-profile supporter of the Cruz crusade.  And it's no wonder that John McCain would jump on his colleague's reprehensible comments.  Before he did, however, he had approached Cruz, who told McCain that he was referring to pundits, not Senators.  McCain would later explain he found that "a distinction without a difference," thereby implying an attack on journalists and the like as appeasers would be acceptable.

John McCain always has had a sort of respect for his colleagues- not necessarily as individuals but as colleagues.  That might account for his most noble act during campaign 2008, when at a town hall event in October he (gently) rebuked a supporter who stated she believed Senator Obama is a Muslim. McCain famously replied "No, ma'am. He's a decent family man [and] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign's all about. He's not [an Arab]."

Senators deserve respect and even some deference, the five-term senator believes. And that might explain why the critic of members such as Paul and Cruz- who have little regard for their institution- and of individuals who labeled then-Senator Obama as an Arab, a Muslim, or a Martian, Thursday told CNN

There’s going to be a fight in our party. There’s a fight in our party..   And that has to be waged. And it’s been there before. It’s also about internationalists versus isolationists. There’s debates that are going to go on in our party. And it’s probably healthy for us to have that debate. But at the end of the day we’ve got to come together.

Some place along the line we forgot Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment.  You know what it was? Don’t speak ill of your fellow Republicans. We’ve done way too much of that.

John McCain: sometimes a critic, sometimes a supporter, of Republicans, but always worshipful of Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6), and always entertaining.



Share |

For A Government Shutdown Before She Was Against It- Or Not


You can't expect most Democratic members of Congress, and even fewer Republicans, to be forthright.  But one of two Repub members is at least almost there.

We might expect it easy for Senators to call out U.S. Representatives, given the animosity of one group to the other.  But it is uncommon, nevertheless. But on Wednesday on Today, GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska stated "This should not be about someone's speakership.  This should not be about the next election. This should be about, really, the future of our country. It ought not be about the politics of the game or whether or not someone keeps their leadership. I want to support John Boener in any way that I can, but we need to be pragmatic."

It remains to be seen whether whatever solution Murkowski favors is "about, really, the future of our country."  Still, it's refreshing to see any Republican, suggesting flexibility, say "I want to support John Boehner, but..."

Honesty in particular escapes one member of Boehner's caucus in the House, unfortunately. When MSNBC's Thomas Roberts on Tuesday interviewed (video, from Crooks and Liars, below) Representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Politico implied the main issue was the nature of the host's question, "Congresswoman, let me ask you though, when it comes to Obamacare: Do you hate Obamacare more than you love your country?"

But more revealing, as they sparred, was Blackburn's response: "Listen to yourself. Just listen to the way you're sounding. My goodness. We didn't want a government shutdown. We don't want a government default.

My goodness, and aw, shucks.  As Politico, as faithful to its style, failed to note, Blackburn on October 1 revealed in the friendly confines of  GOP TV "You know, I think you may see a partial shutdown for several days. But (Fox and Friend co-host) Steve (Doocy), people are probably going to realize they can live with a lot less government than what they thought they needed..."

To be sure, Marsha Blackburn isn't the only Repub who has supported a shutdown of the federal government.  One of the others has been Minnesota's Michele Bachmann, who proclaimed it "just what we wanted." Still, it should be no point of pride to stand arm-in-arm with the woman who has labeled the Affordable Care Act the "crack cocaine of government dependency."   Nor is it of great distinction to support a government shutdown on Fox News and then on MSNBC to deny your support.

But Marsha Blackburn did avoid lying about something else: she never did answer whether she hates the ACA more than she loves the U.S.A.






Share |

And Let's Stop Assuming She Makes Any Sense

Salon's Mary Elizabeth Williams is displeased about Oprah Winfrey's response to legendary swimmer Diane Nyad about God/spirituality at "Super Soul Sunday."    More people should be highly skeptical, and not only for this.  Williams notes that last weekend

Winfrey took strong issue with Nyad’s assertion that she’s “not a God person, but a person deeply in awe.” It’s true that perhaps appearing in a venue with the word “soul” in it might seem an unusual choice for a self-described atheist, but Nyad explained. “I don’t understand why anyone would find a contradiction in that,” she said. “I can stand at the beach’s edge with the most devout Christian, Jew, Buddhist, go on down the line, and weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity — all the billions of people who have lived before us, who have loved and hurt and suffered. So to me, my definition of God is humanity and is the love of humanity.”

Oprah quickly stepped in with some semantic disagreement. “Well, I don’t call you an atheist then,” she said. “I think if you believe in the awe and the wonder and the mystery, that that is what God is. That is what God is. It’s not a bearded guy in the sky.” But Nyad, who knows a thing or two about being undeterred, pressed on, explaining her skepticism of a “creator or overseer.” Later, Oprah, still trying to pin Nyad down, asked her if she felt she was “spiritual,” Nyad replied, “I do. I think you can be an atheist who doesn’t believe in an overarching Being who created all of this and sees over it. But there’s spirituality because we human beings, and we animals and maybe even we plants, but certainly the ocean and the moon and the stars, we all live with something that is cherished and we feel the treasure of it.”

Presumably, Nyad had to cop to being "spiritual" rather than suffering the ignominy sure to come to someone bold enough to deny it. Williams remarks

Even if Oprah seems to have pushed her into saying it, Nyad can call herself “spiritual” if she wants. It doesn’t have to mean the same thing it means to someone who practices a religion. It’s her word and her interpretation of it. And no atheist on the planet needs a believer to tell her that she is wrong, or that she secretly clings to the concept of God after all.

Winfrey evidently stopped short of telling Nyad the latter is wrong about God, though telling an atheist that God exists should be no more offensive than an individual herself professing to be an atheist.  Still, Winfrey's suggestion that the existence of "awe and wonder" is evidence of God's existence simultaneously demeans both non-believers and believers.  One can be overcome by the overarching talent and performance of Peyton Manning and LeBron James without being a deist.  And surely the evidence of God's existence goes well beyond the trite suggestion that beauty in the universe ends the argument.

But neither Nyad nor Williams ought to be surprised that Oprah Winfrey is among those, as Williams suggests, who are "unyielding and unquestioning and determined to make everybody see the world exactly as we do."  Winfrey is the celebrity who in 2008 did "a happy dance" for Barack Obama, breathlessly promoting his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, then was less active following his nomination. In 2012, the sole opponent of incumbent Obama was a Republican, and she fell silent.

In New Jersey, Ms. Winfrey endorsed neo-liberal Newark mayor Cory Booker for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate. However, once he was nominated, she said nothing, as she has about the race progressive State Senator Barbara Buono has run against GOP governor Chris Christie.

To be fair, President Obama also endorsed Cory Booker while assiduously avoiding endorsing Barbara Buono.  To be accurate, that does not count in Winfrey's favor.

Oprah Winfrey's judgement is seriously flawed. But we stand in awe and wonder of the business acumen of someone who amassed a billion dollar-plus empire.  And of her "spirituality."



Share |

Not By Accident


Thursday, Bloomberg News reported

Shortly before President Barack Obama was re-elected, he confided to John Podesta, an informal adviser, a vow he was making for his second term: He would never again bargain with Republicans to extend the U.S. debt limit. 

The precedent, set in the agreement that ended a 2011 budget standoff, “sent a signal that this was fair game to blackmail over whether the country would default,” Podesta, a onetime chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and co-chairman of Obama’s 2008 presidential transition, said in an interview. “He feels like he has to end it and end it forever.” 

The stand Obama has taken on the latest fight over the government shutdown and borrowing limit -- refusing to tie policy conditions to raising the debt ceiling -- is an attempt to repair some of the damage that he and his aides believe he sustained by making concessions to Republicans to avert a default two years ago, according to former top administration officials and advisers...

If Obama makes concessions again to House Republicans over raising the $16.7 trillion debt limit, “he’ll be viewed as a guy who you can hold up,” said Podesta, chairman of the Center for American Progress, a Washington research group with close ties to the administration.

Obama is surrounded by a core group of aides who are mostly veterans of the 2011 debt negotiations, which were followed by the first downgrade of U.S. government debt... 

At the same time, a political breakdown that leads to a debt default carries greater risk over the long run for Obama than for the Republicans. An economic crisis that might tip the country back into recession would tarnish his presidency and the durability of his initiatives such as expanding health care to millions of uninsured Americans and pushing through the most sweeping changes in financial-market rules in seven decades.

“There’s a hell of a lot more at stake for the president of the United States,” said Leon Panetta, Obama’s former defense secretary and Central Intelligence Agency director. “Nobody remembers who was speaker of the House when we went into the Depression; everybody remembers who the president was.”

He added: “Presidents who are successful are ultimately presidents who are able to get it done, get beyond this crisis. We cannot be a country that is constantly facing crisis.”

David Atkins of Digby's Hullabaloo and the Ventura County (CA) Democratic Committee applauds Obama for recognizing his mistake and resolving not to repeat it.  However, he then adds

But let's all stop pretending that the President was playing 11th dimensional chess in 2011. He wasn't. He wanted a grand bargain on the deficit (wrongly) and he thought the debt ceiling negotiations would be a good time to get it. That was an even bigger error that emboldened Republicans and put the nation at risk. Those of us who called it an error were right, his defenders were wrong, and the President is now admitting that and acting on it--much to his credit. 

President Obama may not have been playing 11th dimensional chess in 2011.  But he is now.

You might recall calls from the left in 2011 for the President to make sure the debt ceiling would be raised- without paying a ransom- by invoking the 14th Amendment, whose section 4 reads

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The President, however, chose instead severe budget cuts, which were to have been determined by a commission but, when it failed to come to agreement, were automatically imposed by sequester.   In the current hostage situation, Slate senior editor Emily Bazelon and historian Eric Posner argue

Obama does indeed have the power to declare, without Congress, that he’ll pay off the nation’s debt. Our view is that he can cite his inherent emergency powers under the Constitution once financial markets begin to freeze up. Others have noted that the 14th Amendment provides that the “the validity of the public debt … shall not be questioned,” and have argued that while it instructs Congress, not the president, to protect the debt, the president can act if Congress violates its duty.

The White House will keep insisting it doesn’t want to act on its own because doing so would be politically risky. The president would much rather Congress fold. There is always some residual risk from doing something that hasn’t been done before, so we understand the reluctance. But if there’s no deal by the end of next week and financial markets get wobbly, Obama should just go ahead. He is not shy about advancing executive power in other domains. Why not put the country and the world financial markets out of their misery? Wouldn't the polls reflect support and relief? And wouldn't the American political system be better off if presidents in future can remove this gun from their own heads?

The White House line is that if Obama raises the debt ceiling on his own, the markets would still be spooked. There would be doubt that he actually had the authority he asserted. The whole thing would get tied up in the courts. And if the markets aren’t reassured, then his action would be not only risky politically, but pointless. Some economists share that view. “There would be too much uncertainty,” Stanford’s Darrell Duffie told us. “It would lead to a halt or abatement in trading of treasury bills.”

It’s true that debt issued by the White House would be less clearly kosher than normal debt sanctioned by Congress, simply because it’s new and different, and so less proven. People who oppose the president’s action on constitutional grounds or who might gain from default (like owners of credit default swaps) would bring suit, whereas no one would sue if Congress lifts the debt ceiling.

But lawsuits that challenge the president’s authority to issue debt would almost certainly go nowhere. Most plaintiffs would not be able to show a personal injury from the issuing of new debt. Lacking legal standing, their cases would be dismissed. Those who got beyond this stage would be blocked by the political question doctrine: Courts would dismiss the suit on the grounds that the controversy over the debt is an inter-branch conflict between the president and Congress that is not for judges to resolve. So if some creditors sell off Treasuries or refuse to buy new debt, the smartest investors—the hedge funds and the sovereign wealth funds—would sweep in to make a killing.

Bazelon and Posner concede "If Obama jumps the gun and lifts the debt ceiling before the public has a sense of crisis, he risks being accused of imperialism (and of being impeached)."  However, although articles of impeachment might be filed, there is little chance they'd go anywhere against the first black President, given a likely coalition of a few Republicans with a solid bloc of Democrats. Further, impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate (the latter even less likely) would result in a President Biden who, as an incumbent, would be the favorite to win the next presidential election.  (Were President Clinton removed from office, Al Gore's majority would have been sufficient to prevent even the Supreme Court installing his opponent as President.)

But there is no evidence Barack Obama is seriously considering invoking the 14h Amendment.   And that is because he currently is playing 11th dimensional chess in which the most likely outcome of the debt standoff is, as Noam Scheiber maintains, one in which Obama would

basically give Republicans a trumped-up, impressive-sounding version of what he’s already offered: You guys reopen the government and raise the debt limit, and then I will dispatch my vice president and my entire economic team to negotiate face-to-face with Paul Ryan over a long-term deficit deal every week for two months (or whatever), after which they will report back to me, and John Boehner and I will discuss what they’ve come up with. Obama would have essentially offered no concessions for the reopening of the government and the raising of the debt limit. He will have committed to no cuts and no deficit-reduction targets of any kind. But he will have given Boehner a fig leaf that he can show his rank and file to persuade them that this whole suicide mission wasn’t entirely futile.

Democrats then would pat themselves on the back because they would not have given up anything substantive in the short term, though they will have rendered the GOP's intransigence a success.  Last week, Obama stated- without hint of irony or disappointment- "when you hear government not compromising, we're compromising so much we're willing to open the government at funding levels that reflect Republican wishes, that don't at all reflect our wishes."  He clearly has signaled he is willing to accept that and more through negotiation, once the federal government is re-opened and the debt ceiling raised.

And Democrats are poised to fall in line. Once the therat of either a continued government shutdown or a debt default is removed,  Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) told ABC's Jake Tapper Friday, a larger budget deal (likely to include cuts to earned benefits and "tax reform") would be "something we should consider. We should consider everything now," That is no Blue Dog Democrat or neo-liberal but one of the Senate's stalwart progressives.  (Think Grover Norquist suggesting a willingness to accept higher taxes on corporations.)

President Obama will have gotten another shot at a Grand Bargain.  He would be far from the wisest man in the room, but the smartest, most clever guy of them all.



Share |

Greatly Exaggerated


"One irony," Nate Silver writes, "is that while the House has been the focal point for GOP intransigence on the shutdown, Republican candidates for the Senate may have much more at risk, since the race for that chamber is much closer and contains a much higher proportion of competitive races."

Though ironic, Republican Senators are far more concerned than their colleagues in the House (contradiction in terms, there) about the political fallout from the course the GOP has chosen, as Silver understands probably better than any of us.

Responding, presumably, to glee on the left over poll numbers for the GOP which are historically low, the justifiably famed sabermetrician and psephologist also argued on October 10

The most recent Gallup poll shows a much sharper drop in Republican favorability ratings than in those for Democrats, which could presage a shift in the generic ballot.

But measures that put the parties head-to-head are much more valuable. I'll be more convinced about the electoral downside for Republicans if and when we see such a shift in the generic ballot, or, say, in a number of Senate races around the country. 

This didn't stop Rachel Maddow, who that evening remarked

We have found something this week on which our nation can agree. The American people agree that it would be bad for the nation to go totally, catastrophically bankrupt all at once, so that we all have to move out of our houses and take up living in yurts and milking goats. The American people agree that that, even though it might be fun for a weekend, is a bad idea for the country as a way forward.

In a new poll released just this happening by NBC and "The Wall Street Journal," nearly two-thirds of Americans say that Republican doubts aside, failing to raise the debt ceiling would be a, quote, "real and serious problem." Ten days now into this government shutdown, the same survey from NBC and "The Wall Street Journal" finds that Americans are also really quite clear about who they`d blame for this mess.

They blames, by a margin of 22 points. It is not close. And that, of course, is not good news for the Republican Party.

Now, to be fair, it`s not like it`s roses for anybody, for things to be this bad. Look at this. President Obama is about six points above water, his favorable/unfavorable. So, his positive ratings are six points higher than his negative ratings. The Democratic Party is actually underwater by a single point. Their positive ratings are one point lower than their negative ratings. OK.

Look at this. House Speaker John Boehner, whose Republican Party is blamed for the shutdown, he`s at minus 25. The Tea Party movement, they`re at minus 26. The Republican Party, the entire Republican Party, checks in at minus 29.

That`s the end of the world. That`s terrible! That`s 28 points south of the Democrats on the favorable/unfavorable scale. That doesn`t exist in two-party states.

The Republican Party has never polled lower than they are polling right now in the history of this poll. Why do people dislike them so much right now? Well, in the same poll, 70 percent of people say Republicans are putting own political agenda ahead of what is good for the country.

These are horrifying, finger vision numbers for Republicans, these numbers in tonight`s brand-new NBC/"Wall Street Journal" poll. And these arrived on top of yesterday`s Gallup numbers, which were also historically bad numbers for the Republicans.

The Gallup survey, over the last 20 years, shows that in the past 20 years, Republicans have really never been as unpopular as they were in that moment, in December 1999, when they voted to impeach President Clinton. I mean, nothing could compare to -- December 1998, sorry. Nothing could compare to the plunge in the polls they took there in December 1998, right? Nothing could compare to how bad that was, until now.

Now they are even worse than they were then. Americans disliking the Republican Party right now more than they ever have in modern history. And maybe this avalanche of seriously bad news for the Republican Party explains more than anything else why we may have started to see the very beginning of the beginning of the start of the beginning of the end of this crisis today. Maybe? Hopefully. Possibly.

Hopefully, yes.  Maybe, not so much.  In a post so insightful none of it should be cut, Steve M. of No More Mister Nice this week blogged

The conventional narrative right now is that the government shutdown and debt brinkmanship are doing tremendous damage to the GOP, as seen in that new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, and that's why Republicans are talking to the White House. But if there's damage, it's not going to be to the Republican Party -- it's going to be to just one versionof the Republican Party, the one that brought us to this crisis. As I told you even before the shutdown began, the Republican Party as a whole never gets the blame it deserves, because the mainstream press responds to every GOP failure -- Watergate, the 1995 government shutdown, the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the Iraq War, the 2008 financial collapse -- by quickly announcing the birth of a new Republican Party that utterly expunges the sins of the old.

It's happening again.

Look at this gushing story about Paul Ryan, from the front page of today's New York Times. Ryan emerged from the shadows this week, and we're clearly supposed to regard that as wonderful news, because he's serious and thoughtful and just, well, dreamy. He's a hard-liner and a moderate! An ideologue and a conciliator. A floor wax and a dessert topping:

Representative Paul D. Ryan may have temporarily receded into the Capitol shadows after his stinging vice-presidential defeat in November, but he remains a powerful presence among House Republicans, earning the respect of hard-line conservatives for his budget blueprint and the trust of anxious moderates for his pragmatism.

Now, the impasse that has shuttered much of the government and steered the nation toward a default has offered the Wisconsin congressman a new opening to reassert himself -- and suddenly a man who seemed in danger of being eclipsed as the face of his party has re-emerged as essential to its rescue.

"I want to get to a budget agreement," Mr. Ryan said bluntly on Thursday, after House Republican leaders latched onto his plan to offer a short-term increase in the debt ceiling as a way forward on deficit reduction and tax reform talks. "We think this takes us in the right direction."

Mr. Ryan, 43, has immense credibility with conservatives for his "Path to Prosperity" budget, which proposed politically risky Medicare changes and deep tax cuts. Moderates see Mr. Ryan, who has broken with some conservatives over immigration, as a lawmaker with some flexibility. In many respects, his standing exceeds that of the party's titular leader, Speaker John A. Boehner. Perhaps most important, Democrats believe that when Mr. Ryan drafts a plan, he can actually deliver the votes. They hold no such confidence in Mr. Boehner.

"He's still the intellectual center of Republicans in the House," said Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma, who serves as Mr. Ryan's bridge between the House Budget and Appropriations Committees. "He's a guy who commands universal respect in the conference and the trust of leadership, and he has credibility with the other side." ...

I'll stop there. Are you getting the heavy-breathing quality of this? The romance-novel words -- "powerful," "reassert," "bluntly," "immense"?

We're supposed to ignore the fact that the Republicans are still shutting down the government. We're supposed to ignore the fact that they're still talking about a very brief respite from debt blackmail. A manly man, both tough and gentle, has taken the lead, and we're all supposed to swoon. 

The mainstream press always does this -- always tells us that the GOP that just drove the car off the cliff two minutes ago isn't the real GOP. When the party's problem was seen as racism, Marco Rubio was declared to be the real GOP. When the problem is seen as "Washington," Chris Christie is said to be the real GOP. For now, it's Ryan. And if the current talks break down and Ryan gets some of the blame, it'll be someone else. The Republican Party is never at fault, because the Republican Party is endlessly malleable, in the mainstream press's view.

The "liberal" media loves Paul Ryan, who opposes Medicare and Social Security.  And Chris Christie, who opposes women's health care.  And Marco Rubio, who- oh, heck, who knows what Marco Rubio is (other than not being a son of refugees from Castro's Cuba)?  And what it loves most is a Repub (almost always a Republican) whom it can plausibly label "fiscally conservative" and socially moderate.  No one knows exactly what that means, but that's the beauty of the phrase, aside from enabling the media to imply that the GOP is not thoroughly saturated with right-wingers dedicated to the proposition that those who have should get more, with extra points if they take from those who have little.




Share |

Snake Oil Returns

Interviewed by Salon's Joan Walsh, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi commented

Again, we want this to be a year [debt-ceiling extension]. That it’s six weeks, it’s ridiculous. But if we can help them do both, open the government and protect the full faith and credit of the United States – well, we reserve the right to do both. But six weeks is not a good thing. I mean, these are both “No’s” – shut down government, and lift the debt ceiling for just six weeks – it’s not like one’s good, and one’s a bitter pill. No. They’re both bitter pills. It’s all bad. But we’ll see what we have to do. And one thing they know about us is that we’re responsible. And they think that we’ll hold them in good stead, that they can be irresponsible and we will save the day. So I think that we have to think about the long term in all of this.

Asked then whether "could being the 'responsible' party actually be irresponsible, because it keeps them coming back and asking for more," Pelosi responded "That’s exactly right. We’re enablers. We’ve become enablers. We can’t be that anymore."

Can't be, but may be.

A scheme to lift the debt ceiling briefly, then enter into negotiations to effect "modest reforms to entitlement programs and the tax code" was proposed earlier this week by none other than House Budget Committee Chairman Pompous Paul Ryan and quickly became the official position of the GOP caucus in the lower chamber.  With stinging criticism, Charles Pierce finds Ryan's

"budget" is a naked blueprint for a plutocratic dystopia. He trotted it out in 2010 and was laughed at by, among other people, the laff riots at the CBO. He ran for vice-president and the Democrats hung Ryan's zombie-eyed granny-starving around Willard Romney's neck -- where, it must be said, it fit like a tailored short. Ryan and his economic snake oil was resoundingly rejected by the entire country, and now people are lining up to help him peddle it again.

Nonetheless, Pierce laments, The New York Times (a fixture in the "liberal media") gushed (and not on the editorial pages)

The fact that Mr. Ryan's plan quite obviously made no mention of the health care law as a bargaining chip quickly drew him scorn from some on the right, but to Democrats and more moderate Republicans, the sidelining of the health care fight immediately gave the plan credibility.  

Pierce issues a challenge:  "Find me," he says, "the Democrats who believe this. Find them and bring them to me. (For that matter, find me 'moderate Republicans.')"

There is, of course, no more moderate Republicans in Congress, except those meeting weekly in a telephone booth (anachronistic reference, admittedly), with room to spare.  But there might be one very important Democrat open to the idea.   Representatives of Republican leadership and of theWhite House met Thursday

In addition to ending the shutdown and increasing the debt limit, under the proposal Congress and the White House would explore ways to ease across-the-board federal budget cuts that began taking effect a year ago, and replace at least part of them with benefit-program curbs that have been included in recent presidential budgets. Officials who described the approach did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss private conversations.

Politico reported Friday that National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling

reiterated that the president will not negotiate with Republicans under the threat of default but that once this is out of the way, the White House stands ready to negotiate a budget deal — large, small or medium.

“If you essentially reward a faction of our government for saying they will put the country into default if they do not get their policy concessions, what that would do is essentially sanction that kind of negotiation or extortion and ensure that it continues and becomes a routine part of our form of governing," Sperling said.

And late Friday afternoon CNN revealed

Carney and Boehner spokesman Michael Steel issued identical statements that the two leaders spoke by phone and called for talks to continue among all parties.

At the same time, Carney reiterated that Obama opposes negotiations on broader budget and deficit reduction issues during a shutdown and under the threat of a possible first-ever U.S. default."Because budget negotiations are complicated business and each side has principled views, they should not be conducted under the cloud of the government being shut down and they certainly shouldn't be conducted under the threat of default," he said.

President Obama refuses to reward the GOP temper tantrum- until it ends and at that point, he has hinted, he'll be ready to entertain the kind of ideas Ryan pitches.  Few rank-and-file Democrats are intrigued by Ryan's plan, and "moderate Republicans" is largely a fixture of the Beltway imagination.  Nevertheless, President Obama appears comfortable that, as Pierce explains, "Paul Ryan's 'credibility' depends on nothing except his willingness to find mendacious sales techniques with which to pitch the destruction of every bit of progressive Democratic economic accomplishment back past the New Deal and all the way back to the Progressives of the early 20th century. This never has changed."


Share |

The Grand Pivot


The beauty of listening to Democratic Senators and Representatives close to President Obama is that you get to hear Obama unfiltered.  The President, a master of words and phrases, did not get to the Oval Office by letting people think he did not share their concerns.

The President, of course, was sufficiently wise not to telegraph his intentions to progressives when he opened his news conference Tuesday with

This morning I had a chance to speak with Speaker Boehner. And I told him what I've been saying publicly, that I am happy to talk with him and other Republicans about anything -- not just issues I think are important but also issues that they think are important. But I also told him that having such a conversation, talks, negotiations shouldn't require hanging the threats of a government shutdown or economic chaos over the heads of the American people.

That's the way to do it. Throw a bone to liberals and moderates by vowing not to negotiate with "the threats of a government shutdown or economic chaos over the heads of the American people."  (And for good measure, don't say negotiation won't occur, only that it shouldn't require.a government shutdown.)

Fortunately, we have other, less subtle, Democrats to translate. And so it was that Illinois' Senior Senator and Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin who, Jake Tapper reported Wednesday, remarked

There are conversations under way as to what we will discuss, you know, what we will negotiate over, what things will be on the table. But what we said is – open the government, pay our bills and let's have this honest conversation....The president is trying to establish a standard of conduct that is reasonable and bipartisan and puts everything on the table. I think that's the way to approach it.

Durbin sometimes seems to speak for his bud from Illinois, who on Thursday hosted a meeting with Durbin and colleagues Chuck Schumer and Patty Murray, also members of the leadership.  And with Majority Leader Harry Reid who, following the meeting, stated "The government should be open.... If that happens, we'll negotiate on anything,"

All that awaits is for Republicans to take yes for an answer, which Paul Ryan in his op-ed Monday in The Wall Street Journal encouraged when he wrote "We have an opportunity here to pay down the national debt and jump-start the economy, if we start talking, and talking specifics, now. To break the deadlock, both sides should agree to common-sense reforms of the country's entitlement programs and tax code."

The best way to cut spending, claims Ryan, is to "provide relief from the discretionary spending levels in the Budget Control Act in exchange for structural reforms to entitlement programs." ("Structural reforms to entitlement programs" is more politically correct than "benefit cuts to the earned benefits programs of Social Security and Medicare.") Howie of Down With Tyranny explains

Ryan and his establishment cronies want to jettison the whole Obamacare aspect of their jihad and go after what they and conservative Democrats (New Dems and Blue Dogs and plain old corporate whores) call entitlements and what normal people see as earned benefits, i.e.- Social Security and Medicare. Ryan's whole raison d'être has always been fulfilling the old GOP dream to cut these anyway.

Digby observes

Just because a bunch of mushy no-labels losers are getting together means nothing in itself. And just because Paul Ryan has decided to try to talk sense into his loony Tea Partiers and persuade them that they can make the Democrats do their dirty word for them if they play their cards right, doesn't mean they will listen. They never have before.

But the idea that the President did something wily by refusing to defund Obamacare is pretty funny. If anyone's done anything wily, it's the Republicans who deployed Nixon's madman theory and seem to have persuaded the Democratic establishment that if they just pretend a "deal" to cut Social Security (and God knows what else) isn't a vindication of their shutdown strategy, the crazies will never do it again. I eagerly await the Democratic victory dance.  They really know how to cha-cha-cha.

House Speaker Boehner probably did not orchestrate the good cop, bad cop strategy with Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, but it appears to be playing out that way.  This doesn't mean, of course, that Barack Obama isn't himself "wily."  He has always wanted to undermine Social Security and Medicare through negotiations with the Boehner, though of late he has avoided the term "grand bargain."  Now that Democrats have stood as one against negotiating over "Obamacare," the President may have set Democrats up to accept reductions to earned benefits.   He is, as usual, thinking a couple of steps ahead of everyone.

Share |