If we get Don't Ask Don't Tell repealed I think it's worth caving on the tax cuts

[Hippo_Tron]

We can argue over the tax cuts again in a year or two when they're up for extension again. Don't Ask Don't Tell will probably be law for another decade if it isn't repealed now.

Don't get me wrong. I think this is a fight the President could win if he refused to sign a bill that keeps the tax cuts for wealthy people and took his case to the American people. But the GOP probably wouldn't cave overnight and every day they don't cave is another day off the clock for Don't Ask Don't Tell.

I also think he could have gotten both if the President had decided to have this fight before the election instead of after. But we're here now and unfortunately we can't go back in time.

[msongs]

1. would be nice if obama actually got anything in return for the cave nt

[grumgrum]

2. Not even that. As Pat Buchanin said: "Its a complete Victory for the GOP"

[Atman]

3. I think you are 100% wrong.

$700,000,000,000 DOLLARS for rich people who don't need, in a country which is dead broke...on the hunch that absolutely no one will take up DADT for a decade. You're heart might be in the right place; your head is dead wrong.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. Odds are the GOP is going to control the House for quite some time

Given that they just took a ton of state legislatures and governorships and get to further gerrymander a map that already favored them. DADT repeal isn't going to get passed the House again for quite some time.

The tax cuts will expire again in 2012 and GOP will have less to bargain with because they've already declared Obama's agenda dead on arrival.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. And when we "argue over the tax cuts again in a year or two"

the repukes will use it as a campaign issue in 2012 - "Don't vote Democrat! They'll raise your taxes!!!!"

And, because of the continuing devastation of the economy by the Bush tax cuts, the economy won't be any better off in a year or two than it is today.

You really want to hand them that poison pill?

[Hippo_Tron]

6. If we fight this now we're going to get the same thing "Democrats raised your taxes"

If we think that will be the prevailing narrative then we should just pack up and go home. But I think this wouldn't be the prevailing narrative if the President stood his ground and took his case to the public. I think it would be even more beneficial for him to make this case in a year or two than now when it's closer to the election and people will remember who was on the side of the rich and who was not.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. So the unemployed are not longer held hostage...

now the idea is that gay military volunteers should be the new Nell on the railroad tracks?

[Diamonique]

8. The President wanted to have the vote before the election.

The Dems in congress didn't do it because they didn't want to push their people to cast votes that might hurt them in the election.

I think they should have done it anyway. The election might have turned out a whole lot different.