A Speaker’s Spin

[babylonsister]

Posted with permission.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/a_speakers_spin031246.php

August 02, 2011 8:00 AM
A Speaker’s Spin

By Steve Benen


A few hours before the House approved the debt-ceiling agreement with relative ease, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) sat down with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley to talk about the deal. There was one exchange that stood out.

Pelley: You were unable to get your own caucus behind your bill a few days ago. Do you intend to remain Speaker of the House?

Boehner: I do. When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I’m pretty happy.

Boehner’s comment was, of course, seized on by many progressive critics of the plan as proof of just how one-sided the deal really is. After all, the goal was to reach some kind of compromise. How good a deal could it possibly be if the smug House Speaker is bragging about getting 98% of what he wanted?

I share much of the frustration about the agreement and won’t even try to deny the fact it leans heavily to the right. But I’d also caution against taking Boehner’s comments at face value.

For one thing, they’re wrong. It’s a conservative agreement, but the Speaker wanted “Cut, Cap, and Balance,” and then the slightly watered down “Son of Cut, Cap, and Balance,” over the course of the last two weeks. The deal approved by the House yesterday stinks, but it’s not CC&B, and it’s not 98% of CC&B, either.

For another, Boehner is just spinning furiously. Note the context: Pelley was asking whether the Speaker actually expects to keep his gavel given his recent setbacks. Boehner wants to make it seem as if he got 98% of what he wanted so he doesn’t look like a weak and hapless Speaker following a process in which he did far more following than leading.

Boehner needs to look strong now, so he can start to wash off his recent embarrassments. His half-hearted boasts should be taken with a grain of salt.

As for the bill his chamber approved last yesterday afternoon, the measure is headed for a Senate floor vote around noon. Passage does not appear to be in doubt.

[Pholus]

1. It'd be nice to think that BUT....

Initially it looked bad that it was going to be 4:1 cuts to revenue increases. What happened makes me pine for that loss instead of the one we got.

It ended INFINITY to ZERO on the same metric. Sorry, while the Boner is a lying sack he's telling it like it is. He could NOT have done better since his core constituency pays NOTHING on this deal.

What you people CONSISTENTLY MISS is that the other side has their list of goals and then their list of crazy demands.

They know how to negotiate -- you MOST CERTAINLY do not. You have lost the game every round and you can't seem to figure that out. You think that the compromise was impossible and you squeeked it out -- you're just being a chump.

See it works like this:

You start MUCH higher than you actually want and you fight like a demon possessed. That way, when you get bargained down a bit to some compromise you still got what you wanted.

And the way you guys have been acting, they've been getting MORE than they wanted because we're STARTING on their desired end right-leaning position and then we're giving them even more to compromise.

Stop playing their game cause it's rigged.