The most recent developments in the debt ceiling "negotiations" are the best example yet of why Barack Obama is either A) not good at the concept of bargaining, or B) secretly brilliant, and still not good at the concept of bargaining.
When John Boehner and The Lipless Tortiose, Mitch McConnell, individually signaled their willingness to consider tax increases – mind you they didn't agree to any, but merely offered what may well have been a false impression that they would discuss the matter – many commentators hailed it as some sort of breakthrough or surprising development. It might qualify as a surprise if one takes the GOP rhetoric at face value, but anyone who reads above a fifth grade level would have realized months ago, well before this subject was even on the public radar, that Barack Obama was and is in a position to get absolutely anything he wants out of Congress here. If only someone had told him.
Of course the GOP is signaling concession on tax cuts. Congressional Republicans are the biggest whores for the banking and finance industry on the planet, trailed closely by Congressional Democrats and the legion of actual whores who service the banking and finance industry. Does anyone think for one second that the GOP would actually risk default when default would hurt their corporate and financial masters far more than it would hurt you and I? And bear in mind that it would hurt you and I a lot.
A default on Treasury obligations would wipe out the GOP's paymasters almost overnight. Did anyone expect that this "crisis" would not be resolved by the titans of Wall Street and the Fortune 500 calling Eric Cantor and John Boehner on the carpet and letting them know that, OK, this has been cute and all, but playtime is over?
This reality casts two elements of this Kabuki theater tragicomedy in high relief.
buy veklury online www.bodybuildingestore.com/wp-content/languages/new/engl/veklury.html no prescription
First, Barack Obama could have dug in his heels at whatever point he chose on this issue…and won. There are no circumstances under which Congress, in a system in which elections are raffled off to the highest bidder and representation is purchased rather than secured by right, would be allowed by the real powers that be to default on the debt.
So optimistically we could say that Obama accepted some big spending cuts to signal that he's the bigger man, that he's bipartisan, and that he can speak to the moderate tendencies of the electorate. Conversely we could say he's a fool who gave away a bunch of things in negotiation when he didn't have to give away a damn thing.
Second, the problem with running on a "throw the bums out!" platform is that the morning after the election, you become The Bums.
buy vibramycin online www.bodybuildingestore.com/wp-content/languages/new/engl/vibramycin.html no prescription
Having wedded themselves to an absolutely insane, dogmatic, irrational, and litmus-test-crazy Teabagger ideology, the GOP has put itself in a position from which any concession will be a lethal self-inflicted wound. Even if the tax increases are token and symbolic (which is likely – something like "rolling back tax breaks for corporate jets" that sounds populist but is effectively meaningless) can you imagine what the Teabaggers are going to do to the GOP leadership? The reason Eric Cantor is trying to play Mr. Tough Guy now is not so much that he is a fanatical believer in Grover Norquistism but that he is thinking to himself "Oh my god I am so fucked" as he realizes that Obama and the GOP's Wall Street masters may combine to force him to accept tax increases of some kind.
The remaining Republican resistance to considering even token tax hikes is not a matter of ideological stridency. It is a matter of intense fear and self-preservation at this point. They're realizing that they may not have a choice in the matter and they can only look forward in horror to what the idiot rabble that elected them are going to do when it happens. Their only hope at this point is that Obama is dumb enough to save them.
Middle Seaman says:
He is plenty dumb to save them.
Xynzee says:
Ditto what Middle said.
I keep wondering if all of this hard line craziness that we see from the R's is some kind of internal tactic to shake out the T-nut crazies from the party. That they realise that the party is starting to lose its grip on reality with their mouth frothing nutcases, and are trying to self correct. What they want is someone to stand up to them and call bulls#!+ on them.
Unfortunately Obama can't seem to find the brass to do this.
Christopher says:
This whole mess puts the lie to Obama as being a "Chicago" politician. If he was, we'd have been finding little bits of Eric Cantor's car scattered all over the Trinidad neighborhood. Don't get me wrong, Eric'd be just fine, but hey, you know, it ain't safe to leave your car just anywheres, Eric.
Here's hoping Rahm Emanuel can have one of the boys run down to S. Wentworth in Chinatown 'dere and pick up some nice brass balls, Fed-Ex 'em to DC.
A.B.A.B.D. says:
The past 2 and a half years have been a giant iterated game of chicken, in which Obama has proven, over and over again, that he's going to veer his car off to the side because… well, God knows why the fuck he does it, but the fact is he does. Every. Single. Time.
He doesn't realize that, particularly on this issue, the thing he needs to do is pose as a credible threat—for someone who is supposed to be bright and spent years affiliated with the University of Chicago, you'd think he picked up more about game theory. If he appears willing to crash the economy, an act which will wreak far greater destruction on the oligarchs than on the plurality of Americans who are unemployed/underwater/bankrupt in all but court-recognized status/etc., he could get the tax increases he claims he wants. Instead, he seems destined to become known as The Great Capitulator.
All of this could be solved vey quickly with a few phone calls to Jamie, Lloyd, key Republican donors… Hell, here's a sample script:
"Hi, this is Barack. If you don't start throwing a few more farthings my way, your wealth will evaporate faster than a share of AIG stock in mid-September 2008. Give my regards to John, Eric & Mitch."
wetcasements says:
Story of Obama's presidency: he's always bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Jeff says:
I think it might be time for those of you who think Obama is a bad negotiator or too conciliatory or too weak or whatever to consider that Obama does what he does because he WANTS to, because it is what he BELIEVES. For a while I thought this guy is either really clever or alarmingly naive, but really what he wants is not necessarily what liberals wants. Or maybe he's more interested in doing big things than defending the principles of the Democratic Party.
c u n d gulag says:
Say what you will about Obama, but this time it looks like he definitely played Boner, Yertle the Anti-gay Gay Turtle, and Eric Cant-do Shit , beautifully, and painted them into a very tiny, narrow corner.
Now, we'll see what he'll do with them. Will the cat go for the kill on the little mice he's trapped, or is he going to play with them for a while, and then let them loose.
I think this time, he ain't gonna let 'em loose.
And that traiterous bastard, Grover Norquisling, has had a nice run with that idiotic 'no tax' pledge for about 20 years. But, I think the 'vipers have come home to roost.'
The old Republican idiots in both houses are scared shitless of the Teabaggers primarying them, and the new imbeciles in both houses are indebted to them. So, they're all in on the "TEA – Taxed Enough Already" aspect of the racist, zenophobic, sexist, moronic Bircherites, that is pretty much a collage of what the Republican Party has stood, and still stands, for. And who, if he didn't start it, certainly perfected, and made his fame and fortune insisting on NO new taxes ever? Not EVAH! NO NEVAH!! Not even during a time of "war" NEVAH EVAH, NO-HOW, NOTTA, NO-WAY!!!
Good Ol' Norquisling. And this will all be blamed on him. Somehow, it will all fall on him. Hey, somebody's got to be the fall guy, the sacrificial lamb. And the Teabaggers will demand a blood sacrifice. They'll want Obama, but that won't happen. And after they realize that, it won't matter who. And, since Grover never ran for office, never served in government, just made HIS fortune off its teat, they'll figure out a way to pin this all on him.
If I were Grover, I'd get the fuck out of Dodge ASAP!
And stay out! And I mean, like in another country, in cognito, with false ID, and money stashed, like a guy who stole from the Italian, Russian, Chinese and Jamaican mobs as his main course, and the Yakuza for dessert.
Because if the Republicans agree to any tax whatsoever, even anything so much a tax only on platinum commodes, and warmed golden seats on private Lear jets, the Teabgging idiots will be screaming for blood.
And if Ol' Grover's found in a wetsuit with an O2 tank, with flippers, holding a speargun, high one meth and ecstasy, with a whirring dildo shoved so far up his ass that it's tickling his heart, and playing Kate Smith singing "God Bless America," hanging in the closet of some "No-Tell Motel" in the DC area, THIS time it's won't be suicide. This time, it'll murder. Cleverly diguised as a closeted conservative deviant accidentally offing himself as he lived out his childhood fantasy of giving Jacques Coustea a hummer, while Flipper shoved his bottle-nose up his ass just like his Daddy did.
Or, Grover, you can go out with some dignity. Commit suicide! But make it seem like a murder. Put on a wetsuit with an O2 tank, flippers, holding a speargun, get high one meth and ecstasy, with a whirring dildo shoved so far up your ass that it's tickling your heart and plays Kate Smith singing "God Bless America," and hang yourself in the closet of some "No-Tell Motel" in the DC area.
But leave a note saying, "I was murdered. It was… It was… Bone… Turtle… Can… Aaaarh!" Fix the bastards!
Either way, you're a goner, Grover.
RIP: Grover Norquist.
Maybe as a final "Fuck You," to you, Grover, Obama could add a headstone tax!
Michael says:
Jeff says: "think it might be time for those of you who think Obama is a bad negotiator or too conciliatory or too weak or whatever to consider that Obama does what he does because he WANTS to, because it is what he BELIEVES."
No kidding. When Obama says repeatedly that he wants to cut Social Security by 10-20% (which is what raising the retirement age is)….. why don't you believe him? Why do you hear him say that, and think that secretly he doesn't want to do that, but is just a bad negotiator?
Obama's politics are somewhere around those of Ronald Reagan. He's left of the Republicans in Congress, but well to the right of any previous Democrat occupying that spot. When he says he wants to cut Social Security, those are his real beliefs. When he says he wants a more secretive government, those are his real beliefs. When he says he wants the United States to be involved in more wars against brown people, those are his real beliefs. When he says he wants the ability to imprison anyone indefinitely on his say-so, those are his real beliefs. Why not take him at his word? Why write these long blog posts on the assumption that he really doesn't want all these things, but is just a bad negotiator?
J-Mo says:
"Congressional Republicans are the biggest whores for the banking and finance industry on the planet, trailed closely by Congressional Democrats and the legion of actual whores who service the banking and finance industry."
This is the second greatest sentence I've ever read. Ever.
nyncboy says:
I second what J-Mo says….also
congratulations on becoming Jon Stewart's newest writer.
Monkey Business says:
It's funny; for a guy that Republicans called the most liberal senator in Congress/American history, President Obama is turning out to be an awfully moderate Democrat.
If he really were a "Chicago" politician, this would have been over and done with months ago. People would have been bribed, threatened, and generally harassed into doing what the President wants.
And the "whores" line killed me. Nice work.
Dobby says:
+1 for the Metallica reference in the title.
Chase says:
I'm with those above who think that President Obama wanted to negotiate big spending cuts — granted, with some attention to revenue — because he wants the bipartisan cover and the appearance of moderation that goes along with it. So, I found this entire post strange. What exactly is it that Obama could have won but now can't? Unless the Republicans force a default, which I doubt he ever had much control over anyway, he'll either come out of this with some set of commitments to make cuts and raise revenue or a clean bill that raises the debt ceiling. I'd much prefer a clean bill, like, I suppose, most of us here, but since this probably isn't what Obama wants, I just don't see him as negotiating badly.
Street Scientologist says:
Given the mountain of evidence that he sincerely believes in a "Grand Bargain" -like so many politicias who will retire to gold plated lecture circuit and corporate board sinecures- one that effectively fucks all of us who don't have such sweet options for ourselves, I am perplexed that so many consistently believe that he is going to fight for liberal, working class interests. His worldview is slanted towards that of David Brooks (whose column he enjoys) and neo liberal econmics as evidenced by his having so many of those sorts working for him. He believes in the debt reduction horseshit as a way tofix things and solve what he sees as a major problem.
Also, he genuinely believes the sort of Grover and Elmo work together establismentarianism that means doing ass backwards things because the Very Serious People who don't know their asses from their elbows say its important.
bb in GA says:
Glad to see that you think there is merit in the position that Rs have to answer to the T party or die.
That's been my drone tone for the last year or so. The Rs will disappoint and they will be primaried. Who knows, Sexy Sarah or Ron Paul might even go 3P let BHO do the electric slide back to the WH.
I have to giggle with the Rs being pilloried as Wall Street puppets when the Ds' puppet strings are only a silly millimeter longer. All that W street $ went to the Ds and BHO last go 'round.
//bb
Elder Futhark says:
Well, this all has not been entertaining enough, and really that's all it's been.
And, I don't think the term "oligarchs" is strong enough. I prefer "those motherfucking cocksuckers".
Please make a note of it, my pretties.
Hawes says:
There's a logical inconsistency in this piece. You first assert that Obama didn't have to give up anything, because there's no way the Banksters would allow their minions to default.
You then go on to note that the GOP leadership has this Frankenstein's monster in the Tea Party that it can't control. The Teahadists aren't bound – apparently – by the traditional GOP allegiance to Wall Street or the basic rules of governance or even accounting.
A negotiation betyween Obama and Boner would be easy and straightforward. But Boner is dealing with the Louie Gohmerts and Paul Brouns of the world. The real conflict is between Boner and Cantor.
The presence of large numbers of certifiable idiots in the GOP caucus makes any negotiation fraught with unknown dangers.
bob_is_boring says:
"Second, the problem with running on a "throw the bums out!" platform is that the morning after the election, you become The Bums."
That's funny; that's Orwell's critique of Communism, too. Not his fault for being pre-Foucault, though.
Power structures are a bitch; the kicker is that they effectively define reality, too.
acer says:
@Christopher:
Back when I harbored some optimism about the Obama Admin (I think it was in early Nov. '08), I was psyched about Rahmbo joining the team. It signaled an intention to do some of the LBJ-style arm-twisting I never thought Barry could handle by himself.
I suppose I bought into the right-wing line about Obama being a Alinsky-reading stealth radical. (There was much in his own writing and rhetoric to support this.) I'm now convinced that a) he's living up to his responsibilities as he sees them, or b) he's still treating the GOP the way he wants to be treated, gosh darn it. There's really no third explanation.
Jared Lessl says:
Hawes, I don't see the problem here. The GOP is stuck between their Tea Party image and their actual owners. Obama wants to roll back as much of the New Deal as he can while looking like he's being forced to by Republicans. They both really want all the same things.
But! The whole "Obama's a foreign-born muslim communist" thing means that Republicans are contractually bound _not_ to have straightforward negotiations with him. They've fought him even when he's trying to deliver things they want, no strings attached. They do it because they operate under the belief that any non-Republican government is illegitimate, and amicably dealing with it, no matter the topic, would lend it legitimacy they aren't willing to provide.
The end result is that Cantor and Co. will demand as many cuts as they can to appease their Tea Party demographics, knowing full well that they'd have given in even if Obama stood firm (or even made demands), because ultimately they answer to Wall Street. But instead of actually making productive use of this position of awesome superiority, Obama's giving away the farm and blaming the GOP for it.
He's not spineless. He's perfectly capable of standing up to opponents and not budging. In fact he's been doing that from day one. It's just that all his opponents have been liberals and progressives.
acer says:
@c u n d:
Not sure I share your optimism, but I'd give my left nut to watch Norquist become a Greenspan-style bagman for all of this.
And that post was worthy of Tarantino.
c u n d gulag says:
acer,
Thanks – high praise, indeed!
Liebchen says:
I. Great post, great comments, in all. We are all hosed, but the Republicans will not enjoy the fallout from their "success."
II. Ed, I tried to find a way to email you off the board, but couldn't. You're a college perfesser. Try not to write things like "it would hurt you and I" OK? I mean, really, would you ever say "it would hurt I"? Please don't detract from your insightful blog with such pseudo-educated-sounding crap.
anotherbozo says:
"And bear in mind that it would hurt you and I a lot."
Ed, me think you've been reading too many student papers.
Grumpygradstudent says:
" Ed, I tried to find a way to email you off the board, but couldn't. You're a college perfesser. Try not to write things like "it would hurt you and I" OK? I mean, really, would you ever say "it would hurt I"? Please don't detract from your insightful blog with such pseudo-educated-sounding crap."
I am continually baffled by the fact that people who are totally cynical about our prevailing power structures are nevertheless slavishly dedicated to arbitrary rules of grammar. The Office of the President of the United States isn't worth the dribble of piss off my cock after I take a leak, but damnit, you had better not use a subjective pronoun when you should use an objective one! That's just blasphemy!
Liebchen says:
@ GrumpyGus: Not blasphemy, just ignorant-sounding.
Like I said: You wouldn't say "it hurts I" so why in hell would you say "it hurts you and I"?
There are reasons for these conventions. The thing is, when I read stuff like that it makes the stream of thought that the author is trying to convey have a hiccup. This is the "detraction" that I was referring to (I could also have said "distraction" since that was the resulting effect.)
When I want my court papers to be taken seriously, I had better state my case clearly in a manner that doesn't cause the judge to think "WTF?" while reading them. The same goes for Ed's truly marvelous blog.
muck says:
Wow. There are still people who think Obama is a bad negotiator. umm.. yeah.
daphne says:
Thanks all who beat me to the "you and I" groaner. I call it pseudogrammar – trying to sound correct without knowing the rules. The result is ironic.
grumpygradstudent says:
The reasons for these conventions are for pretentious assholes to be able to recognize who is beneath them so they can more effectively subjugate them and disenfranchise them. It's a vehicle for perpetuating class distinctions, nothing more.
JohnR says:
"Their only hope at this point is that Obama is dumb enough to save them."
Methinks it's a safe bet at this point. Note that the previous is not "Me thinks", which would, of course, be grammatical heresy and subject to the Full Torquemada plus a dozen Hail Marys as penance and expiation.
Anyway, why does everyone seem to assume that 'Intelligence' and 'Stupidity' (or 'Dumbness', if you'd rather) must be antithetical?
10:1 that Obama decides to himself that the risk to the country requires that he, after talking some nice tough-sounding talk to salve his conscience, walk the Norquist/Tea Party's walk. We are so porked.
bb in GA says:
@grumpy
"The reasons for these conventions are for pretentious assholes to be able to recognize who is beneath them so they can more effectively subjugate them and disenfranchise them. It's a vehicle for perpetuating class distinctions, nothing more."
May I play Captain Obvious here?
The purpose of language rules is to facilitate communication.
Today, the American English language is a rapidly (relative to about 400 yrs ago) evolving medium of communication.
I understood what the Fearless Moderator was trying to communicate.
Replicate that as many times as there are readers and viola (or cello)! To quote GWB: "Mission Accomplished."
We are always in tension between that language evolution and having a cultural Tower of Babel moment.
//bb
My says:
@grumpygradstudent:
Grammatical conventions are "a vehicle for perpetuating class distinctions, nothing more"?
I must call bullshit. As opposed to, "Me gosta' caw boo-shit," not because I'm trying to be classist, but because I'm trying to follow the basic fucking rules. A slippery slope to ignorance. Don't get me wrong, I'm a class warrior all the way (in the upwardly direction), but implying that correcting people's grammar is classist is, I submit, in almost all cases ridiculous. Do you feel the same way about mathematicians or engineers being sticklers for numbers? What about doctors? Or should we all just relax our way into some sort of horseshit text-speak?
Am I overreacting? Probably, but it drives me nuts that there are myriad people in this world who call themselves professionals, leaders, et al who can't craft a simple sentence, write an email that isn't riven with spelling/grammar/punctuation/etc. errors, or speak in a manner that reassures the listener that they aren't a closet moron.
Xynzee says:
@(whispered) everyone but C U: nobody make any sudden moves at start edging towards the door while acer distracts C U, and we might get out of here safely ;)
That was a seriously funny though disconcerting writing.
Off topic: So the correct way to write that would be: "you and me" or "us"?
Edible Complex says:
I think you're a little bit off about Obama having the advantage in this situation. Obama probably has a number of advantages over the GOP, but there's one thing they have that he doesn't and never will: A swelling wave of batshit crazy looming up behind him. There's a domineering portion of the GOP electorate who don't understand the need to compromise in this situation and don't want to. At this point enough of the GOP is so ideologically worked up that they're incapable of not seeing Obama as some sort of anti-christ; they literally think dealing with him is like dealing with the devil, and an ability to compromise as some sort of moral impotence.
No matter how close to dead we get, there will always be a strong republican incentive to shut the whole thing down for the sake of not being the one to let Obama "win". I don't think they're going to let us go by without a deal, because they have other incentives motivating them to make this happen. But this incentive will cause them to risk a lot more to push things closer to the edge. Democrats have to look like they're willing to compromise for the greater good to get elected, republicans have to look like they're willing to go to war.
The upshot of all this is that the republicans look like they're willing to let the whole thing fall apart if they don't win more of the points (they*have* to look that way to get re-elected). And if you look willing to let the world fall apart if you don't get what you want, people are apt to just give you what you want.
Lock two people in two separate rooms, and tell them that they'll be killed if they don't give a total of one hundred thousand dollars. If one of them manages to convince the other he's willing to die before giving up more than fifty bucks, the sane man's going to pay up ten times out of ten. Obama is a sane person.
Jake says:
The way I think Obama sees it is that the public failed him in losing a democrat majority in Congress. Obama's Thinking November '08 "Wow I've got 4 years to really shake things up!" 2010 "Wow – I thought the public wanted change and now they've fuckt me. I guess all the American public wants is for me to play ball with these cocksuckers…so I guess I will." I think every day he goes to a press conference thinking "America – this is what you voted for." but blaming your constituency is typically not the best way to get re-elected. The President never went to the people and said, "I know there are people out there that believe in me. And I NEED them ALL to go vote in these particular areas in Nov 2010 so I have the tools I need to get things done my way." The people reading this blog understand that this ENTIRE debt ceiling business be a non-issue if it were a democratic Congress, but the average US citizen thinks there's one election every four years and they did their part in 2008 and Obama has fuckt up his chances for making real change. The President needs to realize that the general public may require some hand holding when it comes to civic responsibility. Instead of using political clout to have news agencies warn about the remote possibility of terrorists surgically implanting bombs in their stomachs how about they remind the American people that they should register to vote or give a short civics lesson during the national news so people out there know who to hold accountable for what.
Mike says:
I'm not so sure. I think the GOP is splintering into two factions. One faction (Boehner/McConnell) has indeed been pretending to threaten default, but understands the ramifications to their corporate masters, as you say.
But the other faction (Cantor/Bachmann) is seriously willing to risk default, either because they don't understand anything about economics, or because they think that destroying the economy is their path to victory in 2012.
The prevailing view has been that "of course we won't default" but I wouldn't be sanguine about that.
Bernard says:
utter nonsense that Obama is weak in any way. Obama has been doing exactly what he wanted.
with loons like Cantor, Bachmann, Obama can play the far right against the Gentrified Right. Kabuki theatre, for our entertainment, willing players all.
Full of Theatrics and all for the Wall St. crowd. Nothing but scripted thievery. Obama comes out looking like a hero for controlling the Republican Crazies. and Middle Class America loses once again, nothing to help Middle Class America. under the guise of "Bipartisanship." Charismatic BS. watch for the details. lol
Nothing to see here folks, move on.