For the Lawrence O' rope-a-dopers - If Lawrence is right..

[Left of the Left]

As you can see from my profile I'm not a heavy poster on these forums. I have posted only a handful of replys and check in on the boards a few times a week. However in my browsing the last couple of weeks something in particular has spurred me into making this thread.

When the reports first started coming out about Obama putting SS and Medicare on the table the reaction for the most part seemed mainly the same, why? Why would he possibly do this. And of course you had the true believers, oh have faith he knows what he's doing. Enter Lawrence O'Donnell. Lawrence said to sit back and be amazed for we were watching the greatest political chess ever played.

All of a sudden the true believers had something to hang onto. Lawrence worked in the White House, he knows what he's talking about! Dont listen to...every report coming out saying otherwise, listen to Lawrence!

Ok, so lets say that Lawrence is right. Let's say Obama made the offer knowing it would be turned down. The question is the following: How could it possibly be a good thing? How could agreeing with the republican argument that SS and Medicare must be dealt with to fix the budget deficit be a good thing?

Lets say that works and instead of teapublicans we have the sane ones in office in a few years and Obama wins re-election. They come to him and say, "Hey we'll let some bush cuts expire in exchange for SS and Medicare cuts." Where's the counter to that? Is he going to turn around and say "Gotcha!"? SS and Medicare do not come off the table so long as Obama is in office.

Obamas supposed goals could have been reached, not only by never putting them on the table, but by actually making the democratic case for how to move forward.

First off, if this was all some elaborate way of getting a clean bill, well heres an idea-DEMAND A CLEAN BILL. Republican intransigence could just as easily be demonstrated by making the case that this was routine and had never been tied before to equal budget cuts. Make the case that the full faith and credit of the US is not something to be played politics with. Make the case that now is not the time for austerity! If they're so concerned with closing the budget deficit, then why wait on repealing the Bush cuts on the rich, do it now! Have Reid pass something in the Senate. Of course it wont pass the House, but that didnt stop the Republicans from passing the Ryan plan, did it? Of course not, it's politics! It's controlling the narrative so the argument happens on your terms. Even if you're the greatest political mind once you choose to navigate on their terms, in the longrun they win-BECAUSE THEY SET THE TERMS OF THE ARGUMENT. It's the difference between fighting austerity outright, and trying to win by saying "No their spending cuts are bad, MY spending cuts are better."

Two final points. First if Lawrence was right, then Obama would be demanding pure tax increases. So what was he offering?

Obama said he had demanded $1.2 trillion in additional revenues over 10 years, in exchange for spending cuts, including cuts to Medicare and Social Security. He said the revenues had been structured in a way that marginal tax rates would not be increased, and no Republicans would be forced to cast a vote that would violate the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which most Republicans in Congress have signed. Boehner said that the additional $400 billion in revenue would have amounted to a tax increase that would hurt small businesses.
http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/22/debt-talks-collapse-as-boehner-walks-obama-takes-grievances-public/#ixzz1St4Ogy00

Yes, he was offering them political cover for anyone violating the pledge. He was not only offering them what they wanted, but the safest way possible of getting it.

Lastly, if Lawrence was right, then Obama and Co knew how this would be received. He knew he would take heat, he almost sounds like he's bragging about it. It would be the best "Adult in the room" moment. So he wants frustration from the Left. His plan calls for anger and outrage. It doesnt call for silence, excuse making, or understanding. It calls for acting like DEMOCRATS.

[Tx4obama]

1. One thing that I haven't seen mentioned during all of this debt-ceiling negotiation talk is...

no matter what happens 'now', it can all be changed if we democrats re-elect President Obama, take back the House in 2012, and gain more dem Senators in the Senate (and/or change the rules in the Senate on the first day of the new Congressional session in 2012 - to where we don't need 60 votes to invoke cloture on every damn thing we try to get a vote on).

I have a feeling that perhaps President Obama might think that the situation will be much different in 2012 than it is right now.

Just my two cents.

[mucifer]

2. I think people will see the destruction as caused by President Obama

The media will portray it that way. People will say things were never this bad even under bush. We will get a more right wing government and everyone will say
that it all started under Obama.

[teachthemwell15]

37. That's my fear also.

And those seeds for that blame are being planted as we all speak.

[Vinca]

3. That's our only real hope, but if Democrats stay home we're toast.

Forget the presidential election, it's obvious having supermajorities in the House and Senate are far more important than anything else.

[Tx4obama]

4. Well, not really

If we don't have a democratic president in the White House then a republican president can veto what the Congress passes.
And we REALLY do not want any republican president to be able to appoint any Supreme Court Justices to the SCOTUS or any Federal Court Judges to the Court of Appeals or District Courts.

We need to have a liberal majority in the Supreme Court ASAP - and that can only be accomplished by having a Democrat in the White House.

Getting ALL the democrats out to vote in the presidential election is VERY important because all the other dems (House and Senate) will ride on in on Obama's coat tails.

[Vinca]

6. A supermajority in the House could overturn a veto.

[Tx4obama]

8. That doesn't solve the problem of the SCOTUS and Fed judges.

We still need a Democratic president to appoint NON-right-wing Justices and Federal Court judges.

[Vinca]

30. Those also have to be approved by the Senate.

[TrollBuster9090]

9. Also, all the Republican presidential candidates have said they'd "grant waivers" for all 50 states

from the Affordable Health Care Act. That's an executive power loop hole left in the health care law which would allow a Republican president to de facto strike down Obamacare without having to go through Congress.

Few people realize just how much "stealth power" a president has. People accused Bush of being "the Great Deregulator" who deregulated the financial sector, allowing the melt down. Defenders of Bush counter by saying "what regulations did he remove?" The answer is NONE! He didn't deregulate by removing regulations. He "stealth deregulated" every regulatory agency by staffing them with people who didn't believe in regulations. He put Wall Street executives in charge of the SEC, who stayed in their offices playing with paper clips while Bernie Madoff and Goldman Sachs were fleecing their own customers, unchecked. He stacked the FDA with people who didn't believe in testing drugs or food, he stacked the EPA with people who believed in letting the oil industry ignore the environment etc... He stacked the Justice department with people who looked the other way while Texas re-districted their congressional seats, giving an advantage to Republicans. The list of partisan appointments that a president can make is pretty long. We can't afford to underestimate just how much damage could be done by a Republican president. Even one who is supposedly counterbalanced by a Democratic Congress.

[Tx4obama]

11. Thank you for posting your additional comments regarding this issue :) n/t

[Nay]

16. Your statement also reveals that presidents do indeed have a great deal of power, which certain Dems

here claim Obama doesn't have. How often have we heard here that Obama is "just" the president, he actually doesn't have all that much power to do much of anything? It's said every day on these boards. The rest of us scratch our heads and say to ourselves, Jeez, how the hell did Bush get all his dastardly shit done? Well, you've explained exactly how he got things done, and we can see that Obama has no intention of getting any progressive stuff done by using these or any other tactics. He, instead, is basically giving away the store to the pubs, who must be stunned at their luck to get this guy as president. The rest of us are stunned, too, but not with happiness.

[sunwyn]

5. Anyone who took Daddy Norquist's pledge over the well being of ALL Americans

have broken their oath to defend and uphold the Constitution if the United States. They are a bunch treasonous villains who loyalty lies with a lobbyist. Talk about giving away your power. I agree that as long as Obama plays by their rules, we are all fucked.

[Vattel]

7. Early on O'Donnell's theory wasn't that crazy.

At this stage of the game it is wildly implausible.

[TrollBuster9090]

10. O'Donnell was a little over the top. Obama isn't playing three dimensional chess.

He's playing a game that's something between ROPE A DOPE and PULLING A HOMER. At the moment the GOP is badly divided, and in self-destruct mode. I'm a little concerned that this is the best the Democrats can do against a gang of prattling monkeys. I fear what will happen when the Republicans get their MOJO back and start running sane candidates again. You know, people who don't sound like rejects from the John Birch Society.

[Tx4obama]

12. Hopefully the GOP won't run/find any until after the 2012 elections :)

And even then they will have a lot of damage control to do to counter all the insanity that has been coming out of their party for the past three years.

As much as I dislike the Republican Teaparty, in the long run, 'it' has helped the Democratic Party, in my opinion.

[Fuddnik]

21. I'm glad I switched cable this week, and now get Keith on Current.

No more Larry.

[quiller4]

32. It is all the more plausible now because there really is not

time for any other solution. You only get to a clean bill by running out the clock on everything else. A clean bill can be done in minutes not days. In the 1980s and 1990s we twice had presidents veto limit lifting legislation only to have a clean bill to sign on their desk in less than 45 minutes time.

[Poll_Blind]

13. A few hours before President Obama gave his frustrated speech about Boehner walking out, he....

...was at a rally of some sort, a town hall. I was watching it live and there was a moment (and this is just a few days ago) right at the end where he was asked by a gentleman with cerebral palsy, in the kindest possible way, not to forget that people who are on social security really, really need it. The guy was much more eloquent and tactful than that and he was so eloquent and indirect, everyone there including the President got exactly how direct the point was.

The gentleman had referenced Obama's father in law who suffered not from cerebral palsy but maybe multiple sclerosis or something like that- I forget. Anyway, the president started talking and I could see he was fishing for an answer, even while he was talking, that would be a little more satisfactory for the crowd's consumption. So he talked and talked a bit more.

And then, and this is how I recall it, anyway, he kind of faltered and dropped into another thought entirely. He started talking about how he had a copy of the Emancipation Proclamation on the wall of the Oval Office and he wasn't sure how many people had read it carefully but that, in fact, it didn't free all the slaves, just some of them. He elaborated on this, explaining that the document didn't free everyone, going so far as to define that there were some places where it was absolutely fine to continue having slaves. And then he kind of looked up, maybe realizing where he was after being lost in some inner thought, briefly, and explained how if it wasn't for that document, that imperfect thing, other, more perfect things could not have come.

And I think I'm putting it a little prettier than he did. As for me, I was slack-jawed. In the context of the question and his answer heretofore, it basically sounded like he was explaining that $650 billion in Social Security cuts were on the table because they were laying the groundwork for some more-perfect thing, yet to be imagined.

The president ain't foolin', IMO. This is no Epic Bluff. Even using these things as chips in a bluff is unconscionable. But it's not one. We're all going to find out soon enough, anyway.

PB

[localroger]

14. It's not chess, it's poker

And the reason Obama couldn't simply demand a clean bill is that he wouldn't have gotten it, and it would have looked like he was the petulant intransigent jerk holding up the proceedings by refusing to negotiate.

Poker has been used as a model for strategies that have been applied to both politics and war. In such bluffing games, an important strategy is misrepresenting your position. If your position is strong, you want your opponent to think you are weak so he will overplay; if you are weak, you want him to think you are strong so he won't press his advantage. I think Obama knew weeks ago that no deal was possible, and he exploited that to make the Republicans reject all their own ideas and come out of the process looking like fools. There was never any risk that any of the stuff he put "on the table" would actually pass, because even in the unlikely event he was wrong about the Republicans his own party would block it.

This has not only split the GOP down the middle, it has split the party off from its long marriage with the powers of wealth and privilege, which are rather ticked off at this point because they do not want the uncertainty and chaos of a national default. It is a win for the Democrats at every level; nothing was actually given up, the debt ceiling will be raised unconditionally, and enemy is in total disarray.

And we were actually a part of that strategy. Had the Republicans surprised Obama by accepting his proposals, he could have walked it back under the roar of our own outrage (and the more practical inability to deliver the Democratic votes in Congress).

I don't think Obama ever really wanted the "grand deal." What he wanted was for the Republicans to reject a deal that should have been sweeter than anything they had a right to expect. He has now exposed their real strategy, which was always to reject anything he might offer, and he can now cite this intransigence instead of looking like the intransigent one himself when he simply ignores them.

[mattclearing]

17. THIS!!!!!

Thanks for pointing out the two most obvious reasons why Obama knew he would not have to actually follow through on this deal.

1. Republicans won't take a deal from Obama, and certainly weren't willing to close major loopholes to raise revenues.

2. Congressional Democrats won't agree to entitlement cuts.

Obama has laid the foundation for a case to drum Republicans out of office nationwide.

[rug]

18. I think it's this.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Nope. Obama is a Hamiltonian Democrat and wanted exactly what

he put on the table. He is not this jedi master poker-jitsu ninja chess go master Larry makes him out to be. He is a Chicago School FreeMarketeer, a New Democrat, a Hamiltonian Democrat, and they really do want to transform us into a low wage feudal corporatacracy, and in fact between them and their reaganite buddies in the other half of the duopoly that has ruled since 1980, they have pretty much succeeded in getting us there.

[dgibby]

23. Bingo!

Thanks-I was going to post this, but you saved me the trouble.

[woo me with science]

27. Finally, the simple truth.

Adding madfloridian's link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1540315

[Vattel]

41. a bit over-stated, but basically correct

[Left of the Left]

25. I covered your points

Ultimately if no deal was desired the smarter, safer approach would be to demand a clean bill.

The flaw in your reasoning is that you think its something Obama is doing that would force them into passing a clean bill, it isnt. If you are correct then Obamas maneuvering would only be helping his political standing, as far as "Adult in the room" politics goes.

If what would force them into passing a clean bill is the risk of default, even in the scenario you laid out, then that's just as easily achieved by demanding a clean bill. For it is the threat of default-not anything Obama is doing, that is forcing their hand.

to make the Republicans reject all their own ideas and come out of the process looking like fools.

But that only applies if the public is knowledgeable. Reublicans rejected their own ideas in healthcare, if the ACA fails who will be hurt by it the Democrats or Republicans?

Also another point. So much is excused by posters like you "Oh he has to make them look like children." I think if you look at polling and see approval ratings it's clear the american people know just how unreasonable the republicans are, there really is no need for that anymore.

[Tippy]

15. K&R....I think Obama is coming into his own

During the Health Care Debate he really got beat up on, but he got a bill, since that time he has learned a lot. I don't think he had a clue that the color of his skin was going to come into play at any time. We all wanted to see immediate change...but change takes time. Several times I was close to losing faith but it remains in tack, thank God. The old saying is true, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."
Abraham Lincoln.

It is also true that.....
"All solutions generate new problems"
Murphy's Law

[madmom]

20. Color me confused here, but...

who says it will NEVER come off the table? If Obama says it's off the table, what makes you or anyone else think it's not? Just because repugs claim it is means nothing, look at all the other bogus claims they've made. It could simply be said.. no you turned it down so it is no longer offered! Look at the things boner was "supposed" to have offered on the revenue side, now repugs say on no .. no taxes, whats the difference?

:shrug:

[dgibby]

24. "The only bottom line that I have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next

election."This is a direct quote by Obama in his news conference following Boehner's announcement that he'd pulled out of the negotiations with the WH. I take him at his word. It's all still on the table.

[Left of the Left]

26. I could be wrong, but

How "petulant" and "unreasonable" would it make Obama look to take back an offer that was made, and which he has said publicly a few times he is willing to make. I mean if the rope-a-dopers are right he did it to show the republicans pull away, so now he will be the one to pull away? He's going to rope-a-dope himself?

[madmom]

28. Nope..offer made, you refused..offer no longer there..what's so

hard to figure out about that, they didn't want it, end of message. If they didn't want it in the first place why do we HAVE to keep offering it? We don't! We move on, that part of the deal is over. As for Obama seeming to be "petulant" and "unreasonable"...so what the repugs do that with every breath they take.

[Left of the Left]

35. reading comprehension

look into it

[madmom]

36. nothing wrong with my reading comprhention..stop clutching your pearls!

[Left of the Left]

38. ..I guess you didnt look into it

.

[madmom]

44. ..

:eyes:

[The Wizard]

22. Let the economy totally melt down

and let the chips fall where they may. This shit is getting old. I love the sound of Teabaggers squealing when the Social Security checks don't come. The Egyptians got it right.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. Hmmm...

The President DID demand a clean deficit bill!!

The TeaThuglicans voted it down!!!

Welcome to DU!!!

[mzmolly]

31. "Let's say Obama made the offer knowing it would be turned down."

What offer? There are no specifics on any so called offers. There is rumor. Keep that in mind. If Lawrence O'Donnell is correct, there is never a deal until it's a done deal. That means there was no firm "offer" - only discussions. There is no loss involved, in inviting discussion. There is only a political gain in appearing "reasonable" and willing to hear the other side.

I think what happened is that Obama offered to reason with Republicans. He found that Republicans would say NO to anything, and upped the anti, ultimately calling their bluff. Remember, one of Larry O'Donnell's key points is that if Obama is for something, Republicans are against it. Even if they had a different opinion, the previous week. ;)

I don't know if Larry O is correct or not. But I hope he is.

[falcon97]

33. The difference in saying you're going

to do something and actually doing that thing is.....gargantuan.

[CrazyBob]

34. "by actually making the democratic case for how to move forward"

I agree. In fact, thats ALWAWYS the right answer. Momentary cleverness is no substitute for consistent, sustained effort in this direction.

[quaker bill]

39. A lame analysis

How do you sit across the table from Speaker of the US House of Representatives Bohener and get that dillweed with all that "power" to admit that he has almost no control over his caucus?

In short, "I will give you what you say you want, all you have to do is get the tea party wackaloons to signoff on eliminating a few politically unpopular perks for the CEO set..." At some point Speaker Bohener had to admit that he does not have the pull to get it done.

Even this evening, Bohener is still pleading with his own caucus for unity.

Obama is playing, not to convince the tea party, but for the 50 to 80 non tea party repugs who do not want to hose the economy and harm their buddies on Wall Street. If they hook up with the Dems on a reasonable plan to avoid default, Obama - Pelosi win the day. At that point, Bohener has a real mess on his hands.

The point people keep missing here is that they speak of giving things to the repugs as if they were a unified body. They aren't. Obama cannot give the tea party contingent anything, they won't take anything he offers simply for the point of not doing so. What Obama feels he can exploit is the Reagan conservative remnant who have voted for revenues and have passed many debt limit increases. The Dems only need about 25 of them to get the job done.

Doing it keeps the country running and has the fringe benefit of blasting a large broadside hole below the waterline of Bohener's "majority", an excellent thing to do in the run up to an election. This is the trap, and Bohener is scrambling and pleading to avoid it. If Obama can pry it open, there will be primary challenges all over the right wing universe, and this could not happen to a more fitting group of people.

[BumRushDaShow]

40. +1 n/t

[Samantha]

42. Never let them know what you are thinking, unless of course

someone in Washington is leaking to you. It occurred to me as I listened to Lawrence O'Donnell that was exactly what prompted his giving voice to this scenario. It was an effort (and deliberately by someone in the current administration) to plant a seed of hope in President Obama's base (read he knows this deal will never be made). This is just a theory, a possibility, not a fact. But leaking in Washington is indeed a fact.

I have respect for Lawrence O'Donnell's political savvy, but I am not all too sure he would have voiced this theory in particular had he not been prompted. And he does have a lot of connections.

Just food for thought.

Sam

[libmom74]

43. k&r