This Ain't Your Father's Triangulation

    By Hey Wally on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 6:43pm |

    Not surprisingly, the Left is howling mad at President Obama's perceived capitulation to Republicans in agreeing to GOP demands for a two-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts and a new cut in the estate tax. As much as those two compromises have infuriated many House Democrats and liberal bloggers, the fact that Obama maneuvered past Congress to directly negotiate with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is taken as liberal treason. Obama's genuine frustration with his liberal base seemed to add insult to injury.

    The story has become a myth about making sordid deals in smoke-filled rooms for no greater good than appealing to one voter segment over another. The implied moral of that story is that Obama's grand design is to pursue and maintain political power even at the cost of throwing his base under the bus, and all for the sake of...but now the story trails off into mumbling.

    Many liberals believe that Obama is simply spineless or that he is kowtowing to the American oligarchy, the same corporate interests that all presidents become beholden to in short order. Given some of the president's economic policies and Cabinet-level staffing choices, a credible case could be made. But that  case is neither accurate nor true.

    Crass political motives do not explain Obama's tax compromises. With all due respect, not even political polling explains it entirely. In this case, the White House really is two steps ahead of its critics.

    The tax deal that Obama views as necessary compromise is exactly that. Coming three weeks before the end of the special session, the deal is already under attack in the usual pirhanna-like fashion accorded prominent legislation. Earmarks are being readied and amendments being formulated to strip or add provisions to the final package. There is no guarantee a tax deal won't fall apart in the fray. Of course, if it does, the odds are embarrassingly small that Democrats will get a deal half as good after more Republicans are seated in January.

    Even before January, several million unemployed Americans stand to have their unemployment checks cut off. If that happens (oh, and taxes also rise on the middle class), the clamor for a deal then won't help Democrats stand any taller than they have. And they haven't fast enough, leaving tax legislation langusihing until the current special session. Again, letting it continue to languish until the next regular session won't help.

    It's much easier to blame the president for being a wimp than for congressional leaders or the net roots to take any blame for not pushing the issue before now. That Obama doesn't schedule votes in either chamber of Congress seems not to register when looking to fix blame for the tax deal.

    Echoing liberal calls for Obama's head on a plate (or at least for a primary challenge to the president), Flavius at dagblog had this to say:

    But Obama's self indulgent attack on his supporters had me saying to myself "get him out of there".

    Oxy Mora, commenting on the same thread, distilled it this way:

    The matter of "triangulation" is also contained in the "lecture". Call it what you want Obama is moving to bring the higher income Independents  back into his fold. But in so doing he may actually lose a chunk of his base.

    Yes, he may gain Independent support at the cost of losing some of his base. But why? Simply to trade greater numbers of Independents for the presumably fewer liberals he loses? Hardly.

    Obama actually has a nation to lift from the Great Recession. And just as important, he has an agenda he wants to enact during his presidency. Obama knows there are other fish to fry after a midterm that marked more political and legislative losses than wins—though the president has won a few big set pieces.

    Pretend for a moment that Republicans didn't use the filibuster 140 or so times in Obama's first two years, often blocking liberal initiatives entirely. Now pretend Democrats have 20 days to find 60 votes to pass a better tax package on a party-line vote in a Senate where the Democrats' party line is virtually nonexistent. Obama doesn't have the luxury of pretending to any of this.

    No, this is not a matter of political cowardice, but of surviving poltically to fight another day.

    The reasons Obama cut his deal are many, but they do not represent acting out of a lack of spine. Finally getting Republicans to come to the table was a win for Obama and for liberals, because GOP willingness to cut deals will be sorely needed in the next two years if liberals have any hope of seeing a hint of progress on a host of other prominent issues to come, from energy to immigration to deficit reduction. The GOP has demonstrated amply that it won't come to the table if the public assigns relatively equal blame to Democrats and Republicans for gridlock.

    As a result, and perhaps counterintuitively, Obama actually needs liberals to continue their attacks on him. Those attacks build credibility that he is not only reaching across the aisle, but stretching uncomfortably far to shake on accomplishments vital to the nation. That's just as polls show Independents and liberals want.

    The president knows a few important victories can restore his support from liberals by 2012. But he can't deliver many victories without enabing legislation and appropriations. Obama knows he will need a reservoir of public support if he is to stand firm for Democratic priorities (as opposed to ideologically pure "principles") with a divided Congress. He's seeing the many battles that loom down the road. In politics, two years is both a lifetime and a very long road. With half of Congress up-ended and his favorability ratings at a hushed death chant, Obama is trying to build his staying power. And room to maneuver for the sake of both the country and the priorities of his base.

    Comments

    Even before January, several million unemployed Americans stand to have their unemployment checks cut off.

    Well, Democrats control both houses of Congress until January.  So why not just extend unemploment now, before the Republicans take up their seats.  What are the Republicans going to do in January?  Repeal the unemployment extension?   Of course they won't.

    Finally getting Republicans to come to the table was a win for Obama and for liberals, because GOP willingness to cut deals will be sorely needed in the next two years if liberals have any hope of seeing a hint of progress on a host of other prominent issues to come, from energy to immigration to deficit reduction.

    Haven't you learned anything?  The Republicans have already made it plain that their sole aim over the next two years is to defeat Barack Obama in 2012.  Of course they are willing to "come to the table" when the table is loaded up by cooperative Democrats with delicious and politically free Republican victuals.  You're mad if you think this deal is the harbinger of two years of constructive bi-partisan compromise on natioanl issues.

    I'm amazed that some people seem to think that Republicans "giving in" on the unemployment insuarance extension represents some sort of compromise.  Do you really think the Republican Party would have pulled the plug on unemploment benefits in this economy, and thrown millions of decent people out on the streets where they could be the subject of endless media stories about cold Republican scrooges?  No way in hell.  The GOP would have caved on that one faster than Sonny Liston.  But they desperately needed some benefactor to help them find a politically safe path out of their own extremist rhetoric.  And Obama has decided he's just the patsy to play that role.

    Don't you realize Rupublican political rhetoric is empty BS?   Look at this election.   All we heard from Republicans for months is deficit, deficit, defict, deficit.   Now just a couple of weeks after the election what do we get?  The Republicans jump at a deal that raises the deficit!   Do you need any clearer demonstration that Republicans don't even really believe the hot air they bellow out into the political airwaves?   I told an acquaintance that the Republicans would ditch the Tea Party rhetoric after taking office and would never dare fiscally contract the economy in the middle of our current near-depressionary doldrums.   Those new House members don't want to run in 2012 as they guys who drove a fiscal stake through the heart of a gasping economy.

    But I did think their cynical turnaround wouldn't come so soon, and would have to wait for a few weeks of angry deficit-mania gesticulation and rhetoric to exhaust itself.  Little did I realize that Obama would help Republicans out by giving them the policy they actually want, but pretend not to want, before they even took their seats.  Now the new Republicans can reap the benefits of fiscal expansion and extended unemployment benefits without even having to explain to their crazed Tea Party nutbase why they voted for it.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 9:48pm

    Well, Democrats control both houses of Congress until January.

    You mean the ones who the Left is fond of calling DINOs—Democrats in Name Only? Yes, that "Democratic control" worked well to secure the Public Option also. Oh, wait...

    Little did I realize that Obama would help Republicans out by giving them the policy they actually want, but pretend not to want, before they even took their seats.

    Those wascally Wepubwicans. They say they want one thing—tax cuts for the rich and nouveau riche—when really what they want is unemployment extensions for the poor. Oh, THOSE Republicans! There aren't many, if any.

    And deficit hawks gone soft? No, not at all. The real deficit hawks make up the new class of Republicans that enter in January. GOP leadership probably figures it's better for retiring Republicans, as a whole, to take the heat for blowing the deficit than for the incoming class to get blamed. Notice that legislation to reduce the deficit is not on the table during the lame duck session.

    But by peering into the devious minds of those wascally Wepubwicans, one can concoct limitless tales along the lines of "Obama gave up such-n-such for nothing real." Except the Republicans haven't been coy about what they are and aren't for. And they are for tax cuts for the wealthy and they aren't for unemployment benefits or government stimulus. Not in early '09 or now.

    Either Obama won something significant in the tax deal—in which case Republicans also capitulated (that is the story from the Right's perspective) or he gained nothing the Republicans didn't want anyway. The latter theory not only flies in the face of Republican rhetoric, but decades of Republican policy and all but the most twisted logic. It reduces everything our government does to kabuki theater, never allowing for the role of principle. It is only a Mobius strip of nihilism.

    Most telling, it also assumes that Republicans will pay no price for agreeing to Obama's tax cuts and the bill's $850 billion price tag. On the contrary, they are paying a similar price to their base.


    by Hey Wally on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 11:13pm

    GOP leadership probably figures it's better for retiring Republicans, as a whole, to take the heat for blowing the deficit than for the incoming class to gete blamed. Notice that legislation to reduce the deficit is not on the table during the lame duck session.

    You're repeating my argument.   Republican leaders didn't want to attack the deficit - not with 9.8% unemployment and an economy choking on household debt and economic stagnation.  They wanted to pump money into the economy, but avoid the responsibility of having to explain to their kooky base why they chose electoral and economic common sense over politically suicidal Tea Party extremism.

    So getting the Republican leadership to accede to something they were eager to do anyway is no deft compromise

    The latter theory not only flies in the face of Republican rhetoric, but decades of Republican policy and all but the most twisted logic.

    False.  Republicans always say they are for shrinking the deficit.   But they almost always vote for growing the deficit.  Reagan and Bush II both exploded the deficit.

    And I'm sorry, but I think you are incredibly naive if you think Republicans were going to follow through on threats to block extension of unemployment benefits.

    Republicans: "We're trying to get a majority of Americans to vote for us in 2012, and our plan is give a tax cut to the richest 1% of people in the country while making millions of people homeless and turning all of the poor widows and orphans into Soylent Green."

    Obama: "I had to give them the tax cut ... but I saved the widows and orphans!"

    What a sap.

    It reduces everything our government does to kabuki theater, never allowing for the concept that anything is ever done out of principle. It is only a nihilist's explanation in a Mobius strip.

    Oh my.  You've caught me red-handed exposing my "nihilistic" view that a large portion of what US politicians say is bluster, bluff and demagogic bloviation.

    Politicans might have principles.  They more often just have interests they are trying to defend.  But they don't try to advance either their principles of interests by just laying all their cards out on the table.  They're poker players.  Now maybe you think poker is a nihilistic game - along with labor negotiations, business negotiations and every other activity where bluffing and brinkmanship are part of the process.

    In this case, the Republicans were holding a bad hand - a dreadful losing hand.   But Obama decided to throw in his cards and split the pot with them.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 11:34pm

    I don't see myself repeating your argument because I don't subscribe to your theory the Republicans want to spend money on things they don't believe in, like extended unemployment benefits, the Earned Income Tax Credit, green technology and on and on. And how does screwing the Tea Party kooks excuse the GOP from having to explain to that base why they got screwed? Moreover, your theory that Obama simply blinked assigns a character motive entirely presumed but not provable since no one can know for sure what another is thinking. It is a view in vogue for its shrill ability to explain what liberals can't seem to decipher: In times of great peril--such as war, economic upheaval, etc.--the goals that must take precedence are those that advance the most basic interests of the nation, not the interests of the president's base. Some liberals have a hard time prioritizing under that distinction. They even may come to think that taking political gambles with the families of the long-term unemployed is a risk made acceptable by their sanctimony. See the comment of Resistance1 (below) for the unabashed version of your views.

    by Hey Wally on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:57am

    “the most basic interests of the nation, not the interests of the president's base.” 

    Basic interest is survival. 

    The republicans will once again prove they are hypocrites.When they cry out for government protection.

     Obama had it right, when he stated he was the only thing, between the banker class and the people. 

    Obama get out of the way 

    Survival should be the banker class’ ’first priority except; their greed has blinded them; while they may think they are secure, the Republican are about to unleash an angry mob, who won’t be listening to reason.

    Republicans will be reaping what they sowed upon the Nation . Pain, anguish, and fear, all because they got greedy.  

    “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself,” and the Republican stupidity is going to exaserbate that fear. 

    Be afraid Republicans, be very afraid. Your survival depends upon it.

    "Let your kingdom come" , because this one is about to destroy itself.


    by Resistance1 (not verified) on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 6:54am

    And how does screwing the Tea Party kooks excuse the GOP from having to explain to that base why they got screwed?

    Because now the Republican leadership can go to their base and say, "We didn't want to do the unemployment benefits extension, but the Democrats forced us to do it by holding the tax cuts hostage."  The Republicans got the benefits extension they wanted and needed politically, which is going to save the new Republican House an incredible amount of political pain and bad press.  But they didn't even have to get in any hot water with the Tea Party to do it.  Obama gave them a freebie.

    Imagine that unemployment persists above 9% during 2011, and above 8% in 2012.  Imagine also that the Republicans had blocked the extension of unemployment benefits, throwing millions of people into welfare, into homeless shelters, into suicide and divorce and depression and family estrangement.  Imagine that for all of these sufferers, the public knew precisely who was responsible: John Boehner and the Republican House of Representatives.   They would all be out on their asses in 2012 as fast as they were voted in in 2010.

    The Republican leaders knew this political disaster was coming.  Isn't that obvious by how rapidly they jumped at this deal without so much as a discouraging word?  Isn't it obvious that they aren't convinced by their own brave talk and cockamamie theories that unemployment benefits are actually causing 9.8% unemployment?  They would have caved on this issue.   And even if they wouldn't have caved, they at least deserved to twist in the harsh political winds for a couple of days as they purportedly prepared to throw millions of people into poverty right before Christmas.

    Here are just two examples of the political pressure that was building on Republicans.   And the stories were from December 1st and 2nd.  That's before the November jobs report came out on the 3rd showing that unemployment had actually risaen from 9.6% to 9.8%:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/12/how-the-gop-stole-christmas....

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/12/two_million_americans_lost_the.html...

    Moreover, your theory that Obama simply blinked assigns a character motive entirely presumed but not provable since no one can know for sure what another is thinking.

    It's not a character "motive".  I'm saying he's a bad poker player.  He was dealt an ace on December 3rd, and then for some reason decided to throw in his hand and split the pot with Republicans.

    It is a view in vogue for its shrill ability to explain what liberals can't seem to decipher: In times of great peril--such as war, economic upheaval, etc.--the goals that must take precedence are those that advance the most basic interests of the nation, not the interests of the president's base.

    So, your view is that the political interests of progressives do not advance the most basic interests of the nation?   Why didn't you just say so?  Personally, I'm a progressive because I think progressive policies would be good for the country.   I wish Obama thought so too.  But it is pretty clear that, just like his former consigliore Rahm Emanuel, Obama thinks the left is a bunch of reetards, and is more interested in the views of conservative economists like Greg Mankiw and Peter Cardillo.


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 7:40am

    Your entire theory, that Obama gave away the farm for nothing in return, is refuted by all the available facts. The facts—not opinion, surmise, inference or conspiracy theory:

    FACT: Congressional Democrats did not take up the Bush tax cuts until the special session.

    FACT: Any extension, partial extension or temporary extension requires a House majority and 60 Senate votes.

    FACT: Senate Republicans, true to form, are 100% unified in demanding tax cut extensions for the rich.

    FACT: Democrats do not and never did have 60 Senate votes supporting extension of Bush tax cuts except for the wealthy. Democrats control 59 seats in the Senate. From Bloomberg News, Nov. 17:

    Michigan Democrat Sander Levin, the current Ways and Means chairman, said initial discussions center on Senate action to pass a tax bill before the House acts. Because of the potential for a Republican filibuster, the vote-counting path to Senate passage is more difficult for Democrats in that chamber than in the House.

    Overcoming a filibuster requires 60 votes; Democrats currently control 59 seats, and at least four Democrats support some version of the Republican position. After Thanksgiving, Republicans will gain one seat when Senator-elect Mark Kirk of Illinois is sworn in to replace appointed Democratic Senator Roland Burris.

    Democrats’ Support

    Conversely, the 41 Senate Republicans would need 19 Democrats to vote with them to win the 60 votes necessary to waive budget rules and extend Bush-era policies that benefit only high-income taxpayers. These include retention of reduced top marginal rates and a 15 percent rate on capital gains and dividends for upper-income taxpayers.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, told reporters yesterday that he is willing to “take a look at” a temporary extension of all the Bush-era tax cuts, even though he opposes extending tax policies targeted to benefit high-income taxpayers.

    And as late as Dec. 1, even Firedoglake put it this way:

    We know that Republicans won’t accept anything less than an extension of all the Bush tax cuts. They might accept an extension that’s temporary, as they’ve had a pretty good time of things with this debate. But they want everything extended.

    On the Democratic side, there’s really no consensus.

    Comments referencing public opinion polls of the tax cuts miss the point. The only polls that matter are the one in the House and the one in the Senate.

    As for pressure building on Republicans to extend unemployment benefits, you citations don't show any "pressure" actually bearing fruit in the form of increased GOP support. Nice try, though, mistaking liberal outrage for Republican votes.

    So, your view is that the political interests of progressives do not advance the most basic interests of the nation?

    No, again nice try. Nothing I wrote indicates they are mutually exclusive, just that they are not identical. For instance, your desire to gamble for a better tax deal might not square with the interests of the long-term unemployed who would lose benefits if your bet (with their lives and livelihoods) didn't pan out. And there is no evidence it would have. Quite the contrary, but keep rolling those dice with other people's money. It's a progressive's perogative, right?

     


    by Hey Wally on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:19pm

    For instance, your desire to gamble for a better tax deal might not square with the interests of the long-term unemployed who would lose benefits if your bet (with their lives and livelihoods) didn't pan out.

    Maybe.  But why not try fighting it out for a few weeks in the court of public opinion before making an Oval Office deal?   Put a plan on the table to extend the cuts for everyone but the rich, and explain how we are going to use the higher taxes on the rich to pay for unemployment benefits and other stimulus spending.  Take that deal to the public and then let the Republicans spend a couple of weeks explaining why they are turning down an extension of tax cuts for 95% of Americans, and thowing the unemployed out on the street, just so they can take care of the extreme rich.

    Let's see how long their "unity" lasts with that unpopular albatross tied around their necks.  You can't be arguing that even when majorities support the Democratic position, we must pre-emptively surrender to the Republicans every time they are united at the outset.  The Obamacrat position now seems to have been reduced to, "We are destined to lose every fight, so we should just not bother fighting at all."

    And Another Trope seems to be defening the view that we should not embark on any political strategy that involve risk, and something less than certainty.   But this country's labor unions would never have won a single strike if they took that attitude.


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:08pm

    Gambling with people's lives isn't a good strategy for democrats either, aside from the fact that is morally wrong to hold people hostage who cannot fight back. Your union analogy fails, and here is why it fails. When we struck as Teamsters we still had some money coming in, because through union dues we have a fund for those purposes, in fact it is called strike pay.


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:22pm

    You can't be arguing that even when majorities support the Democratic position, we must pre-emptively surrender to the Republicans every time they are united at the outset.  The Obamacrat position now seems to have been reduced to, "We are destined to lose every fight, so we should just not bother fighting at all."

    That is indeed the argument, Dan. Very succinctly stated.

    McConnell has him right where they want him. Brilliant tactitian, this Obama - and his apologists suggest we should all just get on our knees and try to see it from their perspective! YeeGads!


    by SleepinJeezus on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 5:18pm

    I wonder if you noticed that Obama ignored the fact that the '99-ers, up to 4.5 million of them were left unaddressed, no extensions those peeps.  Let's see: one in seven of us is on food stamps today; wonder what that'll look like next month?


    by we are stardust on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:19pm

    Food stamps are stimulative for the economy, don't you know? This a a three-dimensional chess move by the Masterful Gamesman. The more people we can get on food stamps, the bigger the stimulus. Don't you get it? Tongue out


    by SleepinJeezus on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 5:21pm

    Thanks for clearing up my muddled thinking, Jeezus.  It proves Wally's point about the dude advancing Democratic priorities, rather than Democratic principles.  Principles are beside the point, a needless incovenience.


    by we are stardust on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 5:44pm

    Why interfere, with the eventual destruction of the Republican Party?

    Sure it's going to be hell, living with these ideologues. When we as a Nation pick ourselves up, from the ashes and the damage done, by these republicans, we can send them back into the wilderness for another 40 plus years.

    Drive the nail into the coffin, called Republican America.

    Instead Obama wants to play Rodney King "can't we all just get along"

    No! HELL NO,  Mr Obama we can't just get along with Republicans or republican-lite.

    So quit propping them up, quit aiding and abetting.

    If your not going to use your army Mr. Obama, do you mind if some other leader takes command.

    Quit trying to run for 2012, you’re not worth the effort.  

    America will change; it's the oligarchy that won't like it

    How many troops are the Republicans willing to sacrifice, to preserve a Republican America? 

    What would happen if you threw a war and nobody came, or if the war was in America?

    A war that could have been prevented, had it not been for the tyranny.  

    I don't need to preach war; I only need to recognize what causes it. What causes civil unrest?

    Are the republicans bent on bringing to fruition, the final battle? Are they so sure, they will be victorious?

    Rule or ruin, I'm afraid they're about to get ruination, or is it they're going to ruin a nation?

    Get out of the way Obama, the republicans will screw this one up, all by themselves, and we can eventually rid ourselves of this menacing, supply side, and voodoo economics.

    Unless of course, Mr Obama wants to give them mouth-to-mouth and keep them revived, because the puppet masters want it so?  

    2012 ????????  Epithet: America destroyed because of ideology?   

    What is the sacrifice our forefathers were willing to give, or did they expect to be comfortable?

    If we have to sacrifice two years under republicanism to finally see, Unless, Mr Obama would rather the Nation be in bonds and alive, than muster up and expose the wicked, craven, heartlessness of Republican ideology.

    Maybe if our compromising, pragmatic President, had been more of a leader, we wouldn’t have to face the prospect of this dread.

    Don’t do that King George; don’t do that republicans, can’t we just get along?

    NO!

    Figure it out Mr Obama, the Republicans intend to shackle America, but I’m sure you and your rich friends are insulated enough though.  


    by Resistance1 (not verified) on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 11:40pm

    I'm amazed that some people seem to think that Republicans "giving in" on the unemployment insuarance extension represents some sort of compromise.  Do you really think the Republican Party would have pulled the plug on unemploment benefits in this economy, and thrown millions of decent people out on the streets where they could be the subject of endless media stories about cold Republican scrooges?  No way in hell.  The GOP would have caved on that one faster than Sonny Liston.

    A majority of Republican voters and a nice chunk of independents opposed the extension.  Given that the next election is lightyears away and the impact wouldn't happen until the beginning of the new year, it is quite possible that Republicans would have "pulled the plug." And since they would have needed the help of Republicans to get the bill onto the floor, they could have kept it from actually going to vote.    Any assessment of the situation that is based on the premise that the Repubs would have definitely caved on the unemployment extension is built on a false premise.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:22am

    Another Trope, "a nice chunk of independents" appears to be a euphemism here for "a small minority."   According to the Gallup numbers, 71% of independents supported extending unemploment benefits.

    Their poll also indicates that 66% of Americans supported extending the tax cuts when offered a choice between extending them all and letting them all expire.  But as Gallup points out, only 40% of Americans support extending them for all Americans, with 57% in support of either excluding the rich from the tax cut extension or ending the tax cuts altogether.

    So Obama had clear national majorities favoring both extending unemployment benefits and taxing the rich more.  But I guess the Great Reconciler doesn't believe in winning political fights, even the ones in which you are way ahead, and prefers to compromise on every conflict and declare every battle a draw.   Then nobody gets their feelings hurt.


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 7:58am

    The key, however, is how many are in favor of letting them expire.  Which ain't many,  15% at best.  So if there was any clear majority and you want to go with the listen to the voice of the peopel, it would be not to let all the tax cuts expire.  It is within the realm of possibility that the Republicans would created a stalemate situation and stuck to their guns to very end.  Most Americans were not going to know the ins and outs of the situation.  They would have just seen Congress and the WH not getting anything done, and the result was that the tax cuts for everyone expired, unemployment benefits would not be extended, no EITC, etc.  The Republicans might have gambled that the blame for this would mainly fall mainly on the WH and the Democrats, and what negative blowback they did get from the people who were possible voters for Republicans would by 2012 have faded into some misty dream. 

    As the past two years has shown, the Republicans have been consistent in their ability to stand in opposition.  And all they had to do was hold tight for a few weeks.  And if the Republicans didn't blink, then more than feelings would have been hurt.  There are those who were willing to run that risk in the hopes of a more liberal victory, and there are those who were not willing.  The point here is that question was not whether there was a risk or not, but rather what was how great was that risk.   We will never know, of course, because Obama didn't call them on it.  But we can't just use this fact that we will never know to leap to the premise that fighting back would have been risk-free.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 8:56am

    I'm surprised at you, Trope. This is perhaps the most disingenuous argument I've seen all day. It really undermines your credibility in the discussion, leading one to believe you are not beyond pulling "facts" out of your ass to defend your position. It appears to be an act of desperation intended to win the argument despite a lack of personal faith that your reasoning is defensibly sound and well-considered.

    First, there is absolutely nothing I saw in A-Man's blog that could be characterized as "a majority of Republican voters and a nice chunk of independents opposed the extension." The inference that this is a toss-up issue does not comport with the facts as outlined in A-Man's blog. If ever there was a no-brainer issue in terms of public support, extension of UC is it.

    And your comment that "Any assessment of the situation that is based on the premise that the Repubs would have definitely caved on the unemployment extension is built on a false premise" is wholly unsubstantiated. We are told to believe it is a false premise because you say it is. Yet, I know you are aware that there are in fact many substantial arguments to the contrary that have been presented here and elsewhere by respected political analysts with far better credentials than you or me.

    I expect better than this kind of specious argument from you.

    Moving on...

    What you avoid discussing is the pathetically weak way in which Obama allowed the Repubs to establish linkage between the UC extension and the Bush Tax Cuts as his brilliant idea of a reasoned opportunity to hammer out a quid pro quo. Or the way Obama and Congress allowed the Repubs to maintain the linkage between the middle income and the wealthy by deliberating on extending the Bush Tax Cuts rather than ignoring them, letting them expire while promoting a bill to pass the "Obama Tax Cuts" for everyone on their first $250k of income. And so on...

    What you avoid discussing is that our President (with help from Congressional Dems) has shown all the negotiating skills of a drunken prom queen in the back seat of a 1957 Chevy. It's pretty difficult to effectively work out an honorable compromise when you first allow yourself to be compromiseD by getting yourself into situations that could easily have been avoided. Mitch McConnell schooled him, and McConnell's come away from this knowing he's got Obama right where he wants him. I expect more of the same. Indeed, Obama offers little reason to hope for anything else as we move on to the next Congress.


    by SleepinJeezus on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 9:01am

    I don't know, when a poll says that only 43% of Republicans favor an extension that kind of tells me that a majority of Republican, say 57%, oppose the extension.  And just as one might say of those 57% who oppose there may be a number of them that wouldn't get too upset if they were, there are some of the 43% who if they failed to get extended might not get too upset.  And about 30% of independents do not favor an extension.  This would be about right where on expects about that number of independents to be very conservative leaning independents.  Since people and their opinions are not evenly distributed through the states and legislative districts, it isn't going to far out on a limb to think that the Republicans in Congress saw that in general they could play games with the unemployment extension without it causing serious problems for them in 2012.  The Republicans don't care about what Democrats and liberal independents think or how upset they are.  If they see a path to 51%, they will take it. 

    And while I have seen people say "oh never before in a recession has Congress failed to extend the benefits" offered as the proof, I would like to see some actual substantial argument that would show the Republicans would have definitely, postively caved, that they would have positively, definitely not brought the Senate to a grinding halt on everything.  Because I am not asserting that I know exactly what the Republicans would or wouldn't have done.  I am saying that it was a possibility, and therefore created the risk.  So it would it would be a false premise to assert "they would have caved" and it would be a false premise to assert "they wouldn't have caved." 

    And you're right this could have been avoided.  But the Congressional Dems didn't want to deal with the tax issue before the elections.  In fact they have over a year and half to deal with this and they didn't.  In fact, the past two years has shown that the Congressional Dems to be a loose coalition, especially in the Senate.  It would be this crew that Obama would have to take into the fight and find victory in a few weeks time.  You have been one the loudest in slamming the Dems for being just like the Repubs.  But now suddenly they were going band together to stand against the Republicans?  I don't think so.

    And I am not going on the record saying that the Obama has over the many months leading up to this handled it all perfectly or wonderfully.  And we can argue about how much blame should handed to who for this situation, how much of it was ineptitude, how much of it was corruption, how much of it was situational politics, etc etc etc.  One can go as far as to say that Obama painted himself into this corner, that he no else to blame but himself. Some will say he purposively painted himself into that corner so he could give the Republicans what they wanted because he, too, wanted those same things.  But in the corner he was.  And the question is, finding oneself in the corner - what next?  what risks am I willing to take to get out of this corner?


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 9:50am

    Hey Wally...IMHO, from a reasonable person standpoint, your post is too disingenuous to belief. And I'm not pretending.


    by Beetlejuice on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 4:57am

    Did you say something?

    Thought not.


    by Hey Wally on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:22pm

    Obama "maneuvered" to talk to the Republicans?

    My, he invited them into his office and gave them everything they want.

    Is that eleventy dimensional chess?

    He told Waxman (D) to "take it or leave it". Shouldn't that cause disgruntlement?


    by Decader on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 7:09am

    Well! You certainly wouldn't have him tell Minority Leader McConnell to "take it or leave it!" instead, would you? {{end of snark}}


    by SleepinJeezus on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 9:06am

    You do know that it was Senate Democrats that refused to put the tax bill up for a vote before the midterms, directly overriding the wishes of the White House, don't you?

    Of course you don't.  Not that it would make any difference.  Your brains are so besotted with blame for Obama, and Obama alone, that facts no longer intrude. 


    by brewmn on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:20pm

    Yes, I knew.  I think I may have said it to you once, Brew.  ;o)  Yet I don't think Obama needed to cut the deal he cut.  People often leave out the danger to the SS Trust Fund, too, when they argue against it on the Talking Heads programs.  That's just stoopid.


    by we are stardust on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:45pm

    Curious, why does it make sense to tell someone in the *HOUSE* to "take it or leave it" based on what the *SENATE* did?

    And then Obama made the compromise primarily with the Senate Republicans. When, pray tell, will he consult with members of his own party, rather than insulting liberals at every convenient stop?


    by Decader on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:14pm

    So Obama didn't "maneuver past Congress" as I wrote?

    And sure, it's "eleventy dimensional chess" if you say so.


    by Hey Wally on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:25pm

    "Maneuver" implies some driving skill. I think he just squashed the pedal to the floor and roared on through.

    Even in "Eleventy-dimensional chess" giving up your Queen on purpose second move is usually a bad thing.


    by Decader on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:18pm

    "The Republicans wanted the unemployed AND the DREAM Act kids AND the DADT troops to be turned into Soylent Green wafers, but Obama 3-d chessed them into capitulation..."

    On a serious note Jim McDermott (D-WA) mentioned today on NPR that the GOP wants Obama/Democrat fingerprints all over this taxcut Bill so in case it fails, and the economy is not doing too well in 2012, they (the Republicans) can say Obama's policies didn't work. Of course, as Krugman explains today, continuing Bush tax policies likely won't work.

    If the Bill failed this month under a Democrat controlled Congress, the GOP, in January, would have to draft one and take responsibility for authoring it.

    So its a win-win for the GOP, they get their tax cuts for the rich extended, they know the taxcuts for the rich won't help (they didn't help the last 10 years) and they can claim its all Obama's fault in 2012 when the country is still struggling to recover.


    by NCD on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:45am

    So what are the GOP going to say, "see, tax cuts don't work"?


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:22pm

    Trope, that's a good one.


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:36pm

    Its obvious the tax cuts haven't worked RIGHT NOW! And Obama wants to extend them! That is his plan. Krugman has said any economic boost from this Bill will be small, and  will fade by 2012.

    By Obama not seriously fighting continuation of the tax cuts for the rich, Obama is losing the messaging opportunity to distinguish his priorities for the nation from the GOP, (spend on infrastructure/education vs. cut taxes on the rich) as Robert Reich has pointed out on his website over the last few weeks.

    This may be news to you Trope, but the GOP has never, and will never, declare any tax cut a failure. If it seems a failure it would have been 'worse without it', or 'it wasn't big enough'!

    The GOP will say the Obama/Democrats liberal spending policies are at fault if the economy is still slow in 2012, and if it is in recovery mode they will take full credit for holding fast on tax cuts. 

    Either way the GOP prescription for the nation will be to make the cuts permanent, and/or larger for the rich,with cuts to entitlements to reduce the deficit..


    by NCD on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:59pm

    Yet if they have Obama's fingerprints all over this tax bill then it becomes part of his overall policy. 

    We will see how Obama pivots (if he pivots) on this - but it seems that his strategy will be to challenge the Republicans in the House to figure out a way to pay for the tax cuts in the 2011 and 2012 budgets.  I say let them present their version of small government and then we can have the national debate about those cuts to social services, social security, etc.  We can then finally get some clarity about where everyone stands - do we raise taxes or go down the austerity path.  It will be time for them to walk the walk with their deficit reduction talk and tax cut talk.  I will feel pretty good going into the 2012 elections if the Republicans are talking about actually cutting up significantly SS and Medicare.

    And so by 2012 it won't be the "liberal spending policy" but the "bi-partisan spending policy" since the House has to agree to the budget as well.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:06pm

    Agree with you on the spending cuts, those who voted for the GOP have no concept of what these guys will do to eviscerate federal programs for the poor, and aid to the states for health care, to make sure their well-heeled backers enjoy their tax cuts.


    by NCD on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:24pm

    If the Bill failed this month under a Democrat controlled Congress, the GOP, in January, would have to draft one and take responsibility for authoring it.

    Thank you, NCD, for neatly summing up the cynical thrust of so many comments here. Partisan politics, to some, trumps the damage done to this economy and to millions of Americans who would have to wait on an agreement from a more deeply divided Congress in January.

    Holiday sales constitute up to 50 percent of some retailers' annual business. With two holiday shopping seasons left—counting this one—before the Nov. 2012 vote, is it possible that Obama decided now was the time to remove doubt and bolster the confidence of business and consumers for the economy's sake? Or would it have been better to dump coal in some stockings for the sake of scoring a political point that may or may not be remembered two years from now?

    Tough choice—if you're cynical enough.


    by Hey Wally on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:03pm

    Obama decided now was the time to remove doubt and bolster the confidence of business and consumers for the economy's sake.

    And are you now more confident?  Personally, I now feel like we are facing a generational global slowdown, draconian global austerity regime and organized war of the wealthy against everyone else while stuck with a weak and appeasing leader with a glass jaw.  My confidence is in the pits, and its affecting my economic behavior.  We're in for two years of Republicans running circles around the White House - even though the GOP contols only one of the three political arms of the federal government.  Nobody's job is safe in the Obama-Summers-Geithner economy, which has presented us with the same ghastly 9.8% unemployment rate in November 2010 that we had 14 months previously.

    Steering more wealth from the bottom and middle into the extreme top of the economy; setting up Social Security for a low-cost Republican assault; endless genuflections and pow-wows to appease and reassure the bankers and fat-cat doners.  I feel so damn confident!  I can't wait to spend lots of money and take a bet on robust recovery.


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:31pm

    Most of your dismal record-keeping predates this tax deal. Is the glass only and always bone dry for you?


    by Hey Wally on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 4:06pm

    Partisan politics gave us a War President and 2 unfinished wars, giving the GOP responsibility for the tax cuts they want isn't going to rob us of Christmas.


    by NCD on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 4:39pm

    I was actually feeling reasonably good during the first year - until the public option sellout, the gulf oil spill zombie response, the appointment of the conservative Simpson-Bowles commission, the obsequious fawning over bankers, and then the pivot to austerity in the middle of historically high rates of unemployment put a clearer and more frightening stamp on this administration.

    Of course, the deepening and endless involvement in the eternal war in Afghanistan, and the humiliating and embarrassingly easy capitualtion to Israel's far right government added further fuel to the fires of doubt.  Obama looks right now to be either a weak, well-meaning but dimwitted man in over his head in a brutal and high-stakes game he doesn't understand, or else a self-hating Democrat and supercilious snob who is pursuing destructive and right-leaning policies because he actually believes in them.

    But you know, even after this compromise deal, I really want to make much of a fuss.  But that's before a hole bunch of gloating centrist Democrats, and smug unctious worms like Dana Milbank, came out their comfortable clubs and gathering places to declare victory and congratulate Obama for declaring independence from the left and telling us to fuck off.   That really set me off big time.


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 7:15pm

    Speaking of the oil spill.  That disaster continues to unfold:

    http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2010/12/on-precaution


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 8:55pm

    Dan, I've been collecting articles for a blog about the current info on the Gulf; GWashington has lots of links; I assume there will be more coming.  Scary biscuits.  Hey, Ken Salazar; President Obama: how's this working out for us?

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/12/this-week-in-gulf.html

    The site administrator at MyFDlL also has this squib:

    http://my.firedoglake.com/rayne/2010/12/12/watercooler-bp-oil-spill-claims-process-subject-to-wide-interpretation/


    by we are stardust on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 9:18pm

    Well I gotta say one thing Wally, you got one firestorm going on here that I missed somehow.

    The left needs to get these things out in the open, and you sure managed to do that.


    by Richard Day on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 3:55pm

    Wally is talking about coal in the stocking DD. That is serious stuff.  I hope you and everyone on the left realizes as much.


    by NCD on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 8:10pm

    Has anyone besides me wondered if 'Hey, Wally' is a pseud for another major Dagblogger?  Perhaps even a master of pseuds from Cafe days?  Shorter: Stardust entertains suspicions.  ;o)


    by we are stardust on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 8:44pm

    No, not a master of pseuds...

    What's the matter, you can't argue on merits, so instead thinking of going ad hominem? Put your suspicions aside and deal with my pen name's writing. Or can't you refrain from emulating Eddie Haskell?


    by Hey Wally on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:23pm

    When coal in the stocking refers to being out of work and having your unemployment benefits end with no job in sight, a mortgage to pay, kids to feed and clothe...yes, it's serious stuff.


    by Hey Wally on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:33pm

    In order to sustain the rage against the deal, it is imperative that one sustain a belief that the unemployment benefits were never in any real danger.  None of us will ever know how it would have played out had there been the fight some claim to have wanted. Those who believe there was a serious risk of a Republican stalemate can't provide scientific evidence to definitively prove this was case.  At the same time, they can't prove the coal wouldn't have shown up in the stocking.  So this will have a tendency to lead to a lot of supeficial snide comments in both directions rather than a serious attempt to deal with the dynamics of the situation.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:35pm

    'Hey, Wally'.  Whoooo arrrrrrre youuuuuuuu?  Here's James Kwak, Simon Johnson's compatriot at Baseline Scenario....The Moderate Republican Stimulus:   (not saying that you agree with folks like Kwak, but you should: he's more moderate than Johnson, even...)

    http://baselinescenario.com/2010/12/13/the-moderate-republican-stimulus/


    by we are stardust on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 9:25pm

    I'm a liberal Democrat, with plenty of scars to prove it.

    I could ask who you are, but I'd rather argue a case on policy merits, not the person behind the argument. I hope you'll respect my privacy, just as I will stipulate the personhood of a Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young lyric.


    by Hey Wally on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:13pm

    That's Joni Mitchell :)

     


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:15pm

    Yes, but CSNY performed it at Woodstock in Mitchell's absence. Their cover is the one I recall, although I'll concede Mitchell wrote it.


    by Hey Wally on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:31pm

    Asking if you are a pseud whom we know otherwise is hardly ad hominem.  You have only responded to some of the critiques on the merits of your arguments, I notice.  I just hate thinking we're being jacked around a bit, Wally.  And I don't know the reference to CS & N.  You do seem a bit Eddie Haskell, itf that's what you're implying.

    Don't exactly know what anyone means any longer by 'liberal Democrat', either.  They seem to come in so many shades and colors.  ;o)


    by we are stardust on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:55pm

    Star, it's not me, I'm hardly a major blogger. As for the labels, I don't know what to call myself. I was thinking of getting a car bumper sign reading "I am not a Republican" and drive around north Dallas with it just to see how many flip-offs I get. Just rambling here, but a neighbor of mind said he had just participated in a "live nativity scene, with animals and everything" It takes all kinds, doesn't it. I wouldn't know whether to be Joseph or one of the Wise Men, or maybe an ox., or a pseud. ;o)--by the way, is that like "over and out"? ;0)


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:32pm

    There are only two bumper stickers worthy of stickin' on a car, by my lights.  One is 'Come the Rapture, Can I Have Your Car?"  and "Nuke the Whales".  Both twisted, but in wholly different directions.  The former didn't get me the finger, but it did get outraged Chrisitanists waiting for me to get back to my parked car, wantin' to have a word, please.  ;o)

    John Irving said in Owen Meany that 'a Joseph' is really an asexual man, and I make it a point to believe almost everything Irving tells me.  ;o)

    The verbiage and argument style Wally uses seem familiar; I admit I felt weird when there were folks at the Cafe blogging under three or four different pseuds, though if pressed, I couldn't say why exactly.  Maybe buying into them as discrete bloggers: shorter: feeling foolish.   


    by we are stardust on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:42pm

    Well here you go, Mike Bloomberg and friends want you:

    http://nolabels.org/

    Must admit I certainly am sympathetic to the narrative they are pushing, partly because my experience in forum world has convinced me that labels cause a lot of problems and misunderstandings and don't seem to have much benefit. Even in our country's history it seems most of the successful "solidarity" movements have revolved around single issues, not ideologies where it's "us" v. "them." When things get to the point of solidifying into"us" v. "them" is when the solidarity thing starts to fail (unless someone manages to build a huge machine out of a label, of course, but they all ideology has disappeared by then anyways.) People shut down to really hearing what the other is saying just because he/she holds the label of an other, they just play the "us" vs. "them" game.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 8:33am

    Artsy, that  is a very perceptive notion (oxymoron?) . The single issue distinctiion fits right in with my current obsession, to break the banks up into competitive units--a movement that would cut across ideologies. I think the biggest supporters of smaller competitive units would be junior officers who would see their general manager credentials broadened.  


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 8:46am

    Latest Comments