Budget talks: This is getting nasty

Agreed. Dems should not accept this, but it won't matter if entire GOP votes for it.

I don't see why these guys continue to be so scared of the anti-tax cult.

 

Dems only have a 53-47 majority after their losses last year.

Ben Nelson (Nebraska) and Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) are very conservative. Nelson and Jon Tester (Montana) represent fairly conservative states (somewhat less so in Montana's case, but it's hardly a liberal hotbed either) and are up for re-election next year. And Joe Lieberman just likes being a thorn in the Democrats' side.

So that "majority" isn't what it appears.

 

AP's saying they aren't even close to an agreement right now. Perhaps the finger in the wind test told the president not to accept such a deal.

 

I think that is the difference too.

If they just expire with no vote, there's nothing to hold them to. The Pledge is to not vote for higher taxes.

But if you vote for a deal that includes letting the Bush/Obama tax cuts to expire, then you've "violated" the Pledge.

 

You have to have 60 votes to get anything through the Senate anyway. So whether it's 59 or 50 with the VP breaking the tie, doesn't matter much.

 

All these "pledges" are so fucking stupid. Situations change, and there are reasons (perhaps even beyond political expendiency!) that you might vote for something at one point, and vote against it at another, or vice versa.

If Grover Norquist really believes that his "pledge" isn't violated if everyone merely doesn't vote to extend the Bush tax cuts, he's either gotten the message that the majority isn't buying his message anyone, or he's just a damn fool. Inaction can be the same as action. If you don't vote to extend the Bush tax cuts, whether through an actual vote or not having a vote, you have, in essence, voted to raise taxes. I suspect Norquist is sensing the pitchforks and torches being readied, and would like to avoid seeing them outside his office.

YF, I know that no vote at all gives alleged political cover, but someone could just as easily ask, how come you didn't submit a bill to extend the cuts?

Anyway, to quote Ralph Waldo Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. And we've got a Congress filled with little minds signing stupid pledges.

(Aside on Emerson: when Bon Jovi's "Bad Medicine" comes on, I sing: "Thoreau is like RALPH EMERSON/RALPH EMERSON is what I read/oh oh oh/Shake it up/Just like RALPH EMERSON...")

 

NPR sums it up up to this point, with a soundbite from Obama: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/07/21/138582060/obama-gang-of-six-plan-is-endorsement-of-balanced-approach?sc=fb&cc=fp

 

Re-elect no incumbent. Sooner or later, the message will sink in.

 

Much easier said than done.

Of the 435 House seats, maybe 15-20% of them are seriously contested. The others are safely in the control of one party (due to gerrymandering, Voting Rights Act requirements in drawing districts, etc.) and/or home to a deeply entrenched incumbent whose seniority allows him to earmark Federal money to their district. While voters rail against government spending in the abstract, they don't complain when that money comes their way.

It's not much better in the Senate. Once a Senator has been elected twice, he/she is very hard to defeat due to the perks of seniority, fundraising, etc.

Also don't forget that incumbents at all levels usually (not always, but usually) have the backing of the party establishment. That means they have tie-ins to the establishment's money sources. The more money you have, the more you can blanket your constituency with TV ads. And since most voters are not finely tuned into the details of politics, a constant barrage of captivating TV ads shouting your message is a necessity.

 

There's all that, but incumbents are also incumbents for another reason ... voters sometimes actually like them.

In Indiana, Dick Lugar could drag a 15-year-old dead girl corpse around on a leash and declare it "his bitch" and he'd still get 60 percent of the vote.

Hell, I don't even mind Lugar, and I'm no Republican.

 

This is all just political posturing to see which side can win the PR war, focusing on the 2012 elections. If Obama seriously wanted this fixed he would have offered a legitimate plan with specific cuts and tax increases (enough of calling them "new revenue," they are tax increases. Why do we have to play the word games here? I think everyone is smarter than that). Both sides are worried only about either making the other side look bad or making their side look good. Watch, the can will get kicked down the road in the nick of time.