Budget talks: This is getting nasty

So, to avoid a second vote if the cuts can't be agreed to, the WH agrees to "across the board" cuts?

All to get this past the 2012 election.

How is that not an even bigger win for the GOP?

 

The litigation resulting from the extraconstitutional measures in this proposal will be massive. Across-the-board cuts? Yeah, sure, right until doctors stop taking Medicare patients, and generals start going on TV to say we're abandoning the troops. This thing is a win for neither side. Those of either party who vote for it will rue their decision by Christmas.
Obama won't get a primary challenge, but he'll be amazed how few people show up to vote in Democratic primaries. This is always an excellent early warning sign of an incumbent about to be smushed.
Likewise, Republican party nominees will either have to endorse this deal or repudiate it. Endorse it, you're screwed. Repudiate it, you're basically calling for McConnell and Boehner to lose their jobs. That'll go over well with people you have to work with if elected.

 

The excellent early warning sign of an incumbent about to be smushed is a primary challenge.

The only incumbents to lose re-election in modern times all had primary challengers. Gerald Ford got a challenge from Reagan and lost to Jimmy Carter. Carter got a challenge from Ted Kennedy and lost to Reagan. Bush I got a challenge from Pat Buchanan and lost to Bill Clinton.

What reason is there for voters to turn out for a primary if there are no challengers to the incumbent?

 

If anything this debate has proved is how little working with the other side matters now.

Getting elected and governing have always been two distinct things.

And I'm still unclear how the Congress can vote to spend money and then when the bill comes due, tell the President not to pay it. Raising the debt ceiling isn't for future spending, but for expenses already incurred.

I'm also unclear why the debt ceiling even exists in the first place. The New Yorker did a recent excellent summation as to why it is so pointless.

 

If there's ever been a more out-of-date avatar in the history of this board than the one Jay is showcasing, than I must have missed it.

 

Ahhhhhh....it was a METAPHOR!!!! Dude, I was so tired last night I probably didn't know what he was trying to say. Now, back at work again at a lovely MLB ballpark, everything makes sense.

 

I completely agree with you here, and think this was a completely unintended bonus for the Republicans. Now, when granny can't get that liver transplant, the Repubs will scream "OBAMACARE!!!!!!!" I am a conservative and want conservative politicians, but I am kind of feeling sorry for the liberal dems. What the hell were the Dems thinking?

 

As Mr. Gee said, the president with the best chance of getting his agenda implemented is one who acts like a dictator. Who knew George Bush would be an innovator?

 

On election eve of 2008, Michael Gee was more sure than anybody here that Obama would lose, so his sureness that he'll be "smushed" in 2012 is pretty good news for the Democrats!

 

How tempted must Hillary Clinton be to cash in her frequent flier miles and go for a coup in the primaries?

 

She'll be VP.