In defense of the White House

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/in-defense-of-the-white-house/2011/03/28/gIQAKtHLZI_blog.html

Posted at 05:51 PM ET, 07/25/2011
In defense of the White House
By Jonathan Bernstein


Barack Obama continues to take heat for his negotiating strategy on the debt limit. Felix Salmon and Paul Krugman argue that it was a mistake by the administration to try to make a major long-term deficit deal with House Republicans. Others complain that White House should have simply refused to enter into negotiations.

But I think it’s important to step back and remember the basics. The bottom line has always been that Republicans refuse to vote for an increase, and they have the votes to make that stick, at least barring the Constitutional and political uncertainties of invoking the 14th amendment or some other similar White House action. So when people say that Obama shouldn’t negotiate, or shouldn’t try to cut an ambitious deal, the question remains: What would have been his Plan B?

Remember, House Republicans refuse to pass a simple debt limit increase. They don’t want to cut a deal with Democrats in general and Barack Obama in particular. Andrew Sullivan says “it’s performance art, not politics.” How do you negotiate with performance art? Especially when you really need to, because you really need to get the deal done?

While I agree with those who say that it was foolish of Obama and Democrats in the 111th Congress to allow this fight in the first place, I also put relatively little stock in this argument. If the fight wasn’t now over the debt limit, it would have happened in the fall over 2012 spending bills, with more or less the same dynamic.

I have no idea what’s going to happen in the next week. One hopes that enough Republicans are only bluffing with their craziness, or can be talked out of their craziness (by who? Who will they listen to?) at the last minute. Or perhaps eventually, if there’s no other way, the president will take unilateral action — the Constitutional option — after all. But the idea that there was some obvious way for Democrats to deal with this situation strikes me as naïve. This isn’t about poor bargaining or fecklessness by the Democrats. It’s about dealing with the consequences of the fact that Americans elected to Congress a whole bunch of people who are either trying to impose fringe policy views despite apparently having no understanding whatsoever of their consequences — or are so driven by opposition to the president that their highest priority is opposing him, regardless of those consequences.

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. "the idea that there was some obvious way for Democrats to deal with this situation strikes me as

naive". Really?

One would think that Democrats would have relentlessly pounded on the GOP and remonded Americans at every turn that the Bush wars and tax cuts for the very, very wealthy have caused excessive debt. In short, Democrats can act like Democrats and let the political chips fall where they may.

[roguevalley]

12. what a piece of tripe this is. there is 80+% agreement to hold the

line. yet the white house doesn't want to be the ugly girl at the dance. they will do anything to be liked including allow 500 people to own 330 million.

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. Great piece. What gripes my ass most, is the biggest whiners on the professional left,

spent the first two years of Obama's presidency telling the American people what a failure he was, or how "disillusioned" we should all feel. Which, in essence, is a form of voter suppression. But what I can't figure is after the election of 2010, and many Dems were sent packing, did they expect the Congress would be more progressive? How exactly would that work? :shrug:

Doesn't it stand to reason that if you constantly tell your listeners, or readers, or twitter followers that Obama sucks, eventually some will buy into that? If they stayed home in 2010, or encouraged others to do so, I think they should all just STFU. :hi:

[Indykatie]

3. Amen to Your Sentiment

Obama has accomplished so much in less than 3 years but it's never enough for some on the left. It's as if people thought he could do it all in his first term....by himself. Democrats stayed home in November so we bear responsibility for the fact that a small group of nuts are running the asylum. I think Obama has handled this brilliantly. Reasonable republicans (yes they are out there)have come to see what has happened to their party in the control of those who are beholden to the tea party extremists. Corporate America is seeing too and won't stand for it for long.

[Armstead]

5. Yes all those horrible progressives are the real problem.

Everyone else is blameless.

[RBInMaine]

8. No, but you can't stay home from elections and then cry wolf. Let's be grown-up here.

[Armstead]

9. You are assuming everyone who ius critical of Obama and the Democratic Party stayed home

If you disagree with the criticisms, then criticize the criticisms.

But don't make generalized assumptions about the actions or non-actions of everyone who doesn't agree with you. I'm sure just as many people who support Obama and the Democrats either stayed home or went out and voted as those who are unhappy with their performance.

[Phx_Dem]

13. It's not just emo progressives. Teabaggers deserve halFthe blame too.

[Dr Fate]

10. meanwhile, swing, independent and centrist voters carried the day!

Our plan to attract them at the expense of liberal malcontents worked- bc if we had not been centrist, we would have lost even MORE votes.

[RBInMaine]

4. Very spot on. Remember, there are THREE branches of government. Obama just can't do whatever he

pleases. If progressives are pissed at what is going on now, they should have god damn well voted in higher numbers in November. Obama said over and again, don't give those fuckers the keys back. Instead, millions of Dems/Progressives stayed home and sulked about impurity (even though they got the most progressive bounty of legislative accomplishment since LBJ) instead of campaigning and voting. So now what do we have?: the TeaRadical RePUKElican Party in solid command of the House and more Pukes in the Senate. And like it or not, to get ANYTHING done in government, compromise is required. If progressives don't like this shit, then quit the bitching and start working like hell to throw the TeaPukes out of the House, keep the Senate, and re-elect Obama. You will NEVER get purity in such a big nation and the Dems being a more diverse party, but what you do get from Dems is one hell of a lot better than what you get from the TeaScum. That's the absolute reality. Make a choice.

[rury]

6. RBInMaine, your post is more than RBI...

It's a grand slam home run!!

[dflprincess]

7. Really?

A mandate to buy corporate health insurance, new wars, and the destruction of the safety net is better when it comes from "Democrats"? How does that work?

[Dr Fate]

11. I tried to tell Emo liberals this back when DEMS had the majority in both houses,

I said to them "Obama can't do all this far left stuff-he is not a dictator-only dictators can get things YOU want done..."

well, now that excuse is FOR REAL, and they still will not believe me.

[Logical]

14. This is BS! MAKE THEM default! The GOP knows we will cave! If we did not....

They would still extend it! We are too scared to call their bluff!
You think if it was reversed the GOP would deal with us? No way! They have more guts than us!