A trial balloon does not require a direct quote. In fact...

[Zenlitened]

... it really wouldn't be a trial balloon *with* a quote. It would be a policy proposal.

This demand, "show me where they said they're cutting!", it really makes no sense in this context, of the WaPo article and its fallout.

In fact, it suggests a degree of naivete, IMO.

If this was indeed a trial balloon, then the process worked exactly as it should: the idea was floated, it was shot down, and the President never had to attach his name to it.

All very pragmatic. All very practical. And all in keeping with the *reality* of the way things have been done for a long, long time.

Pragmatism. Practicality. Realism. Aren't these the very qualities we are told are most esteemed in today's political climate? Why are they not similarly valued in this case?

[Tennessee Gal]

1. Wait and see?

Is that what you are suggesting? Don't jump to the wrong conclusion?

[Zenlitened]

3. No, I'm suggesting exactly the opposite.

Sorry for not making that more clear. I thought that was implied when I wrote:

If this was indeed a trial balloon, then the process worked exactly as it should: the idea was floated, it was shot down, and the President never had to attach his name to it.

:)

[Tennessee Gal]

4. Gotcha!

I hope you are correct.

[Lisa D]

2. So anything can be a trial balloon

as long as somebody says it is?

[leveymg]

5. A trial balloon, yes, but one so G-d awful that the fact that it was raised caused alarm.

So, no. Not how the system should work. Not pragmatic, practical or realistic. But, it opened a lot of people's eyes to the Third Way policy circle around Obama. If we don't see a major head roll, this was indeed an indicator of where they corporately wanted to go.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DevonRex]

7. IOW people can say Obama really wants to do xyz and call it a trial balloon

[bemildred]

8. In other words if you allow speculation, people will speculate.

If you are specific, you avoid all this unpleasantness.

[Telly Savalas]

19. He has been specific on Social Security

but there are people whose objective is to make things foggy, and they'll continue to speculate no matter what the facts are. You see a lot of that on cable news networks and their worshippers here at DU.

[Raven]

9. Trial balloon?? I didn't vote for a guy who was going to stick his

finger in the air. I thought I voted for someone with a moral compass who could make a decision on what was righ without testing the voting waters.

[lunatica]

10. It's possible they leaked this to show the Republicans what the reaction would be

Politicians are nothing if not manipulators.

[Zenlitened]

24. Could be. That's the "beauty" of this sort of thing: no one's fingerprints on it. - n/t

[Palmer Eldritch]

11. So, anyone, including a Repug can spread a rumor and you would assume it was a WH Trial Balloon?

That makes a whole lot of sense.

:sarcasm:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. This was the Hindenburg of trial balloons.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. The 'show me where he said it' posts are willfully playing

word games of the most childish sort, a denial of political reality. It is a tawdry tactic used by people who are fearful they are about to be standing behind policy they loathe for the sake of a politician.

[Bluerthanblue]

14. or maybe they don't like putting words in other people's mouths.

and like to have people back up their assertions with credible facts.

That's one thing I've always appreciated about DU. People here demand credible, reliable sources.

It's pretty childish to ignore those who point out the difference between assumptions, and facts.

Those making an accusation have the burden to prove it, or it is nothing put speculation.

Where's the proof?

"an unidentified source" isn't good enough. Not for many of us who don't like to judge others before they've done anything.

[Palmer Eldritch]

18. All they're asking for is real evidence. Perhaps, you have some?

You can't really expect us all to buy what your selling based on a hunch, can you?

[Zenlitened]

20. Not trying to sell you anything. Trying to educate those who do not know what a trial balloon is.

Please note that I said, "If this is indeed a trial balloon..."

:)

[ZombieHorde]

15. You make some good points, but I have a small problem with one thing.

"Pragmatism. Practicality. Realism."

Politically speaking, these words have almost no meaning, or maybe they have absolutely no meaning.

[bemildred]

16. They mean "I'm right and you are wrong" is what they mean.

Basically, a disguised insult.

[ZombieHorde]

17. You just may be right about that. nt

[Zenlitened]

23. Yep. Thinly-disguised, at that. - n/t

:)

[Zenlitened]

22. Yep. But they have been used by some as a way to frame the debate...

... in quite a cynical way.

By implying that anyone who voices a criticism of the Obama administration, or express regret that more ground was not gained on a particular issue... the implication is that these people are emotion-driven, utopianist, out of touch.

A more subtle way of calling people "whiners." But not much more subtle.

[AtomicKitten]

21. A trial balloon would indicate a conclusion, but the talks are still in progress.

[Zenlitened]

25. I disagree. I don't think a trial balloon indicates a conclusion at all. Not at all.

I guess, instead of "trial balloon," a more contemporary way to phrase it would be, "throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks."

Again, I'm not saying this definitely was a trial balloon. Just commenting on what seemed to be a lack of knowledge about this age-old move in the dance (dirty dancing?) of politics and journalism.

:)

[AtomicKitten]

26. It's the WHO of 'throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks' that hasn't been determined.

I have read everything, and I mean everything I can get my hands on regarding the current negotiations. I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that the "balloons" or however you want to characterize it aren't coming - and certainly without anything in the ballpark of certainty - from a reliable source privy to the process. As far as I can tell, they are unsourced rumors coming from dubious sources for reasons as questionable as wanting a scoop to good old fashioned shit-stirring. LOL.

[Zenlitened]

27. Well, yes, but the question of "who?" is entirely separate from your claim that...

... a trial balloon would indicate a conclusion has been reached. Exactly the opposite is true: trial balloons go up *before* conclusions have been reached.

In any event, I think the WaPo story is pretty much superseded by Pres. Obama's news conference today. (Link to official WH transcript below.)

In that conference, he seemed to confirm WaPo's premise that he himself is pushing to put everything, including benefits, on the table. For example, per the WH transcript:

...all of us agree that we should use this opportunity to do something meaningful on debt and deficits. And the reports that have been out there have been largely accurate that Speaker Boehner and myself had been in a series of conversations about doing the biggest deal possible so that we could actually resolve our debt and our deficit challenge for a long stretch of time...

...What I emphasized to the broader group of congressional leaders yesterday is now is the time to deal with these issues. If not now, when?

These comments, and similar statements throughout the conference, appear to confirm one aspect of the WaPo reporting:

...Obama plans to argue that a rare consensus has emerged about the size and scope of the nation’s budget problems and that policymakers should seize the moment to take dramatic action.

Lint to WaPo story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-...

What is not confirmed is the talk of actual cuts to Social Security and Medicare, talk that originated (most recently) in the WaPo article and continued in a rather spirited discussion on DU and elsewhere.

However, it is not ruled out by today's news conference, either. In one instance, Pres. Obama appeared to confirm suspicions that benefit cuts are a possibility. Again, per the WH transcript:

And so, yeah, we’re going to have a sales job; this is not pleasant. It is hard to persuade people to do hard stuff that entails trimming benefits and increasing revenues. But the reason we’ve got a problem right now is people keep on avoiding hard things, and I think now is the time for us to go ahead and take it on.

This was part of an answer to a reporter's question about the $4 trillion size of the deal the President favors.

It should be noted that Mr. Obama referenced Social Security, Medicare, Head Start, student loans, medical research and infrastructure before making the statement excerpted immediately above. And in other instances he spoke only in terms of strengthening programs like SocSec and Medicare, and declined to answer for now a follow-up question seeking specifics on SocSec changes.

Again, my post was intended to merely to shed a little light on the historical uses of trial balloons, rather than decide which interpretation is wrong and which is right.

That discussion, as we see elsewhere on the site, remains ongoing. :)

Link to official White House transcript:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/11/press-conference-president


Edit: "trillion" not "billion"

[AtomicKitten]

31. To be clear, from what I've read I don't think it is a trial balloon.

The "who" I referenced included sloppy journalists/provocateurs who have put out some badly sourced tidbits that fuel the "what if" discussions.

Politically, strategically it appears Pres Obama has outflanked the GOP, to what end I don't know. There is a lot of reporting out there that is contradictory and there's plenty of straight-up hysterical speculation.

Since I don't know what Pres Obama is up to, I'm focusing my attention on Congress. I am looking to the Congressional Democrats to hold the line on Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. I and I hopefully many others are petitioning Congressional Dems to vote no on any detrimental changes to the social safety net. Together they are the backstop, just in case. :)

[JoePhilly]

28. Unbridled hysteria doesn't require a direct quote either.

[Zenlitened]

29. Apperently, neither does intractable denialism. I don't think either is healthy. - n/t

[JoePhilly]

30. Personally, I'm anti-knee-jerk, you?

[Zenlitened]

32. Funny you should bring that up. Care to explain?