Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Questions for the “blame it on both sides” crowd
The Morning Plum: Questions for the “blame it on both sides” crowd
Posted by Greg Sargent
White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer and the National Journal’s Ron Fournier got into a fascinating Twitter exchange this morning that sheds light on an increasingly apparent reality: There is a fundamental imbalance between the two parties’ approach to the sequester — and our fiscal problems in general — that many commentators are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid reckoning with or even acknowledging...Pfeiffer criticized David Brooks’ “pox on both houses” column this morning and noted that only one side (the GOP) is not willing to compromise to avoid the sequester. Fournier, who also tweeted a link to Brooks’ column, replied with several tweets arguing that it’s on the President to secure compromise from the opposition, such as this one: “only one side is president. Both sides should be ashamed.”...Brooks’s column, meanwhile, argues that both sides are to blame, because Obama doesn’t have a plan to avert the sequester (which is false). So, some questions for the “blame it on both sides” crowd:
1) Let’s grant Fournier’s premise that a president should do all he can to secure cooperation from the other side. What more, if anything, could Obama actually do to win cooperation from today’s Republican Party on averting the sequester, short of giving in to the GOP demand that we replace it only with spending cuts? Republicans say no compromise to avert the sequester is acceptable. That’s not an exaggeration: It’s the party’s explicit, publicly stated position. What more specifically could Obama do to change this? If the answer is “nothing,” then why are both sides equally to blame?
2) Which side’s approach to averting the sequester, and solving the deficit, do these commentators actually agree with? That is to say, do they think we should avert the sequester with a mix of spending cuts and new revenues via the closing of loopholes — as in the Senate Dem and White House plans — or do they think we should avert it only with spending cuts? Which side’s approach do they agree with when it comes to the remaining $1.5 trillion or so in deficit reduction many experts want to see? Whose argument do they agree with: The GOP claim that the tax debate should be entirely over, because Republicans already agreed to $600 billion in tax hikes, or the Dem argument that we’ve already cut spending by $1.5 trillion, and finishing the deficit job through cuts alone would be so damaging as to be deeply reckless and unrealistic?
Commentators should reckon honestly and directly with these questions. Of course, this would require a serious reckoning with the history of the last four years — and a forthright engagement with the larger question of whether there’s something fundamentally new and different going on with today’s Republican Party — both of which many have also refused to undertake.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/02/22/the-morning-plum-questions-for-the-blame-it-on-both-sides-crowd/
Posted by Greg Sargent
White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer and the National Journal’s Ron Fournier got into a fascinating Twitter exchange this morning that sheds light on an increasingly apparent reality: There is a fundamental imbalance between the two parties’ approach to the sequester — and our fiscal problems in general — that many commentators are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid reckoning with or even acknowledging...Pfeiffer criticized David Brooks’ “pox on both houses” column this morning and noted that only one side (the GOP) is not willing to compromise to avoid the sequester. Fournier, who also tweeted a link to Brooks’ column, replied with several tweets arguing that it’s on the President to secure compromise from the opposition, such as this one: “only one side is president. Both sides should be ashamed.”...Brooks’s column, meanwhile, argues that both sides are to blame, because Obama doesn’t have a plan to avert the sequester (which is false). So, some questions for the “blame it on both sides” crowd:
1) Let’s grant Fournier’s premise that a president should do all he can to secure cooperation from the other side. What more, if anything, could Obama actually do to win cooperation from today’s Republican Party on averting the sequester, short of giving in to the GOP demand that we replace it only with spending cuts? Republicans say no compromise to avert the sequester is acceptable. That’s not an exaggeration: It’s the party’s explicit, publicly stated position. What more specifically could Obama do to change this? If the answer is “nothing,” then why are both sides equally to blame?
2) Which side’s approach to averting the sequester, and solving the deficit, do these commentators actually agree with? That is to say, do they think we should avert the sequester with a mix of spending cuts and new revenues via the closing of loopholes — as in the Senate Dem and White House plans — or do they think we should avert it only with spending cuts? Which side’s approach do they agree with when it comes to the remaining $1.5 trillion or so in deficit reduction many experts want to see? Whose argument do they agree with: The GOP claim that the tax debate should be entirely over, because Republicans already agreed to $600 billion in tax hikes, or the Dem argument that we’ve already cut spending by $1.5 trillion, and finishing the deficit job through cuts alone would be so damaging as to be deeply reckless and unrealistic?
Commentators should reckon honestly and directly with these questions. Of course, this would require a serious reckoning with the history of the last four years — and a forthright engagement with the larger question of whether there’s something fundamentally new and different going on with today’s Republican Party — both of which many have also refused to undertake.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/02/22/the-morning-plum-questions-for-the-blame-it-on-both-sides-crowd/
The media's goal is to skew the debate in favor of Republicans. It's to create the impression that the President isn't trying hard enough to negotiate with Republicans (the hostage takers/economic terrorists).
Think the term "terrorists" is too strong a word? December:
Lindsay Graham: I Will Destroy America’s Solvency Unless The Social Security Retirement Age Is Raised
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/30/1379681/lindsay-graham-i-will-destroy-americas-solvency-unless-the-social-security-retirement-age-is-raised/
