Obama's Waterloo?

[BigSkyBob]

Notice how Obama has been reduced from the POTUS to a bit player in the negotiations over the debt ceiling?

No matter how it eventually plays out, the image of Obama being weak and ineffective in the face of a perceived national crisis will haunt him until election day.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Notice how Obama has been reduced from the POTUS to a bit player in the negotiations over the debt ceiling?

No matter how it eventually plays out, the image of Obama being weak and ineffective in the face of a perceived national crisis will haunt him until election day.

Obama's problem is that he has allowed the TP to corner him and now he either 1) accepts deep cuts to entitlements, 2) signs a short term extention and goes through the whole process again in six months, or 3) allows the US to default.

The real question is:  How did Obama's advisors not see this coming and failed to attempt to get out in front of this 6 months to a year ago?   

[BigSkyBob]

Notice how Obama has been reduced from the POTUS to a bit player in the negotiations over the debt ceiling?

No matter how it eventually plays out, the image of Obama being weak and ineffective in the face of a perceived national crisis will haunt him until election day.

Obama's problem is that he has allowed the TP to corner him and now he either 1) accepts deep cuts to entitlements, 2) signs a short term extention and goes through the whole process again in six months, or 3) allows the US to default.

The real question is:  How did Obama's advisors not see this coming and failed to attempt to get out in front of this 6 months to a year ago?   

The answer to that question is simple enough: Obama has held to the 1995 model. He assumed since Clinton rolled Gingrich, in any showdown he would roll the Republicans in exactly the same way. As August 2nd came closer and closer his posturing and preening to the effect of "bring it on" became increasingly brash.  In a matter of days, it completely turned to crap for him. First, he set a firm deadline for which he was told to "pound sand!" He, then, decided that he could roll Boehner in exactly the same way the Democrats rolled GHWB: put him on record as breaking his no-tax-increases position, and then keep moving the goal posts on him. Boehner simply walked away. After that, the alleged leader of the free world was reduced to being a bit player.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The answer to that question is simple enough: Obama has held to the 1995 model. He assumed since Clinton rolled Gingrich, in any showdown he would roll the Republicans in exactly the same way. As August 2nd came closer and closer his posturing and preening to the effect of "bring it on" became increasingly brash.  In a matter of days, it completely turned to crap for him. First, he set a firm deadline for which he was told to "pound sand!" He, then, decided that he could roll Boehner in exactly the same way the Democrats rolled GHWB: put him on record as breaking his no-tax-increases position, and then keep moving the goal posts on him. Boehner simply walked away. After that, the alleged leader of the free world was reduced to being a bit player.

I can buy that...but more importantly, I think the TP learned the same lessons.  Newt and GHWB were the brash ones back then, but Boehner is smart enough to just play it cool and play out his hand without throwing a fit like GHWB and Newt and now Obama.

McConnell is a potential problem, though...but the TP has him in a bottle as long as they stick with Boehner.

[specific_name]

Obama's problem is, at least in part, that he has tried a Clinton-esque strategy where such an approach has not and will not work. The contrasts in the economy of today versus 1995 could not be more stark. Nonetheless, Obama is a willy politician and I would not count him out because of what appears to be a bad series of moves; he can still unpin himself. All these "Waterloo" threads are exaggerations. Even after August 2nd, money can still be printed and this likely will play out more slowly than the doomsayers predict. No question that it is a bad situation though.

[opebo]

...Nonetheless, Obama is a willy politician...

A 'willy' politician?  Lets tone down on the BBC stereotype!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Notice how Obama has been reduced from the POTUS to a bit player in the negotiations over the debt ceiling?

No matter how it eventually plays out, the image of Obama being weak and ineffective in the face of a perceived national crisis will haunt him until election day.

Obama's problem is that he has allowed the TP to corner him and now he either 1) accepts deep cuts to entitlements, 2) signs a short term extention and goes through the whole process again in six months, or 3) allows the US to default.

The real question is:  How did Obama's advisors not see this coming and failed to attempt to get out in front of this 6 months to a year ago?   

You really think Obama could have avoided this?  The most important goal the Tea / Republican Party has is not solving our long-term deficit problem, it is defeating Obama by any means necessary.  No matter whether Obama had lunged left or right, this crisis would have happened as the debt ceiling was always going to be one of the political footballs his political opponents were going to use.  This is why the right does not want a long-term solution, because it would take away what they perceive as a choice to score political points.  The main strategy of the right for over a decade now has been to never establish any long-term solutions to problems, but to always seek short-term ones that will enable them to refight battles they already won rather that seeking new ones they might lose.

Conversely, the left's primary strategy during this period of time has been to enact new sacred cow programs that might get tweaked later by the right, but would become a permanent part of our political culture.

The political policies of both left and right have served the country poorly these past few years.

[BigSkyBob]

Notice how Obama has been reduced from the POTUS to a bit player in the negotiations over the debt ceiling?

No matter how it eventually plays out, the image of Obama being weak and ineffective in the face of a perceived national crisis will haunt him until election day.

Obama's problem is that he has allowed the TP to corner him and now he either 1) accepts deep cuts to entitlements, 2) signs a short term extention and goes through the whole process again in six months, or 3) allows the US to default.

The real question is:  How did Obama's advisors not see this coming and failed to attempt to get out in front of this 6 months to a year ago?   

You really think Obama could have avoided this?  The most important goal the Tea / Republican Party has is not solving our long-term deficit problem, it is defeating Obama by any means necessary.  No matter whether Obama had lunged left or right, this crisis would have happened as the debt ceiling was always going to be one of the political footballs his political opponents were going to use.

Yours is a denial position.  Having a singular motivation of defeating Obama doesn't explain why the Tea Party is trying defeat what they see as "Rino" Senators and Congressmen in Republican primaries. Certainly, engaging in internecine warfare within the Republican party is a distraction to a singular goal of defeating Obama, unless, of course, they have a larger objective. Questioning their motives is a denial position, especial when your assigned motivation is not supported by the underlying facts. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[opebo]

Nevertheless the True Federalist's central point - that there is nothing Obama could have done to avoid this - holds.

[BigSkyBob]

Nevertheless the True Federalist's central point - that there is nothing Obama could have done to avoid this - holds.

Oh, I'm sure Obama could have bundled repeal of his health care plan in exchange for a debt ceiling increase.

[opebo]

Nevertheless the True Federalist's central point - that there is nothing Obama could have done to avoid this - holds.

Oh, I'm sure Obama could have bundled repeal of his health care plan in exchange for a debt ceiling increase.

Has that been asked for?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nevertheless the True Federalist's central point - that there is nothing Obama could have done to avoid this - holds.

Oh, I'm sure Obama could have bundled repeal of his health care plan in exchange for a debt ceiling increase.

So in order to avoid a fight over the debt ceiling Obama should have become a Republican?

[BigSkyBob]

Nevertheless the True Federalist's central point - that there is nothing Obama could have done to avoid this - holds.

Oh, I'm sure Obama could have bundled repeal of his health care plan in exchange for a debt ceiling increase.

So in order to avoid a fight over the debt ceiling Obama should have become a Republican?

Whether he registered as a "Republican" or a "Democrat" he would still have to favor taking effective steps to balancing the budget if he wanted a debt ceiling increase.

My point is that Obama simply does have "options." While he is loath to balancing the budget, or cut spending, he does have those options.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Notice how Obama has been reduced from the POTUS to a bit player in the negotiations over the debt ceiling?

No matter how it eventually plays out, the image of Obama being weak and ineffective in the face of a perceived national crisis will haunt him until election day.

Obama's problem is that he has allowed the TP to corner him and now he either 1) accepts deep cuts to entitlements, 2) signs a short term extention and goes through the whole process again in six months, or 3) allows the US to default.

The real question is:  How did Obama's advisors not see this coming and failed to attempt to get out in front of this 6 months to a year ago?   

You really think Obama could have avoided this?  The most important goal the Tea / Republican Party has is not solving our long-term deficit problem, it is defeating Obama by any means necessary.  No matter whether Obama had lunged left or right, this crisis would have happened as the debt ceiling was always going to be one of the political footballs his political opponents were going to use.

Yours is a denial position.  Having a singular motivation of defeating Obama doesn't explain why the Tea Party is trying defeat what they see as "Rino" Senators and Congressmen in Republican primaries. Certainly, engaging in internecine warfare within the Republican party is a distraction to a singular goal of defeating Obama, unless, of course, they have a larger objective. Questioning their motives is a denial position, especial when your assigned motivation is not supported by the underlying facts. 

The facts are that there was nothing like a Tea Party movement that arose when Dick Cheney said "Deficits don't matter" back in 2004.  I'll believe that there are more than just a few usefully sincere Tea Partiers if they keep their outrage over deficits going the next time the Republicans have the White House and Congress, be it 2012 or 2024.

The facts are that for political motives alone, the right wants to see another debt ceiling crisis before the next election and the left wants to see another election before the next debt ceiling crisis.  The facts are that both Boenher and Reid have engaged in shady budget math with their plans because they fear the political consequences of honest math.  By the way does anyone have a link to someplace that actually list the details of either plan?

[BigSkyBob]

Notice how Obama has been reduced from the POTUS to a bit player in the negotiations over the debt ceiling?

No matter how it eventually plays out, the image of Obama being weak and ineffective in the face of a perceived national crisis will haunt him until election day.

Obama's problem is that he has allowed the TP to corner him and now he either 1) accepts deep cuts to entitlements, 2) signs a short term extention and goes through the whole process again in six months, or 3) allows the US to default.

The real question is:  How did Obama's advisors not see this coming and failed to attempt to get out in front of this 6 months to a year ago?   

You really think Obama could have avoided this?  The most important goal the Tea / Republican Party has is not solving our long-term deficit problem, it is defeating Obama by any means necessary.  No matter whether Obama had lunged left or right, this crisis would have happened as the debt ceiling was always going to be one of the political footballs his political opponents were going to use.

Yours is a denial position.  Having a singular motivation of defeating Obama doesn't explain why the Tea Party is trying defeat what they see as "Rino" Senators and Congressmen in Republican primaries. Certainly, engaging in internecine warfare within the Republican party is a distraction to a singular goal of defeating Obama, unless, of course, they have a larger objective. Questioning their motives is a denial position, especial when your assigned motivation is not supported by the underlying facts. 

The facts are that there was nothing like a Tea Party movement that arose when Dick Cheney said "Deficits don't matter" back in 2004.  I'll believe that there are more than just a few usefully sincere Tea Partiers if they keep their outrage over deficits going the next time the Republicans have the White House and Congress, be it 2012 or 2024.

The facts are that for political motives alone, the right wants to see another debt ceiling crisis before the next election and the left wants to see another election before the next debt ceiling crisis.  The facts are that both Boenher and Reid have engaged in shady budget math with their plans because they fear the political consequences of honest math.  By the way does anyone have a link to someplace that actually list the details of either plan?

Again, the fact that the tea party movement has targeted what they believe are "Rino" members of the House and Senate strongly suggest that you are were wrong to claim that the motivation for their actions is a singular desire to defeat Obama.

[krazen1211]

You really think Obama could have avoided this?  The most important goal the Tea / Republican Party has is not solving our long-term deficit problem, it is defeating Obama by any means necessary.  No matter whether Obama had lunged left or right, this crisis would have happened as the debt ceiling was always going to be one of the political footballs his political opponents were going to use.  This is why the right does not want a long-term solution, because it would take away what they perceive as a choice to score political points.  The main strategy of the right for over a decade now has been to never establish any long-term solutions to problems, but to always seek short-term ones that will enable them to refight battles they already won rather that seeking new ones they might lose.

Conversely, the left's primary strategy during this period of time has been to enact new sacred cow programs that might get tweaked later by the right, but would become a permanent part of our political culture.

The political policies of both left and right have served the country poorly these past few years.

They could have passed the debt ceiling increase last december rather than dealing with their special interest legislation like the DREAM act.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You really think Obama could have avoided this? 

They could have passed the debt ceiling increase last december rather than dealing with their special interest legislation like the DREAM act.

And you don't think the battle simply wouldn't have lasted from then to now?  For that matter, the House could have passed a debt ceiling bill anytime between then and now.  The House didn't even bother passing the the Cut, Cap, and Evade Act until this month.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Again, the fact that the tea party movement has targeted what they believe are "Rino" members of the House and Senate strongly suggest that you are were wrong to claim that the motivation for their actions is a singular desire to defeat Obama.

I said that was their primary motivation, not their only motivation.  If the Tea Party is truly interested in cutting spending, I'll welcome it, but so far I've only seen an awful lot of talk about the need to cut spending from tea partiers, some talk about dollar amounts, and precious few specifics on what Federal activities they would eliminate to achieve the dollar amounts they mention.  From what I've seen of actual proposals, they remain largely in favor of borrow and spend.

[krazen1211]

You really think Obama could have avoided this? 

They could have passed the debt ceiling increase last december rather than dealing with their special interest legislation like the DREAM act.

And you don't think the battle simply wouldn't have lasted from then to now?  For that matter, the House could have passed a debt ceiling bill anytime between then and now.  The House didn't even bother passing the the Cut, Cap, and Evade Act until this month.

Well, no, because the battle would not have existed. At most there would have been some grumbling about the lame duck congress that went away after a while.

Reid willingly chose to punt the debt ceiling into this Congress. Wonder if he regrets that now.

The House of course has passed at least 1 debt ceiling increase, and perhaps 2 tonight, and at least 1 budget. On all 3 accounts they have done more than Reid has.

[BigSkyBob]

Again, the fact that the tea party movement has targeted what they believe are "Rino" members of the House and Senate strongly suggest that you are were wrong to claim that the motivation for their actions is a singular desire to defeat Obama.

I said that was their primary motivation, not their only motivation.  If the Tea Party is truly interested in cutting spending, I'll welcome it, but so far I've only seen an awful lot of talk about the need to cut spending from tea partiers, some talk about dollar amounts, and precious few specifics on what Federal activities they would eliminate to achieve the dollar amounts they mention.  From what I've seen of actual proposals, they remain largely in favor of borrow and spend.

The reality is that the Boehner is having problems lining up support for his bill because it fails to cut spending enough in the short run sufficiently to satisfy deficit hawks, not beceuse it embraces borrow-and-spend. Yes, Boehner may very well be in the borrow and spend camp, but, the Tea Party is not.