Budget talks: This is getting nasty

Let me clarify what I was getting at ... Of course the hard left/right isn't all that interested in substantive compromise. What I am feeling is that in this three-piece dance -- the President, Boehner, Reid -- you can get any two together, but you can't get all three. Boehner and Reid could put something together, but I am getting the sense the President's terrified at what they might come up with. Same for any other combination. Reid can't get the votes for a President-Boehner compromise, and you'd sooner shit a yellow posthole digger than see Boehner get behind a President-Reid deal. My best guess is that, eventually, the President's going to wave the flag and sign whatever Boehner and Reid cobble together, then try to figure out a way to get that off the radar come 2012.

 

Beat me to it on both points. It kills me that some people prefer bullheaded to compromising, and then treat it as though sheer force is the only way anything substantial has been accomplished in Washington. We keep seeing that facts don't matter to these people, only their perception and passion.

 

I think you're right, although I would clarify that you have to throw Cantor's name in there as well. I think that if Boehner wasn't so worried about being voted out as speaker yesterday if he presented a deal the Tea Party hated, Boehner and Obama would have hammered this out long ago. After all, Boehner was around for the political pummeling Republicans took for the '95 shutdown. But there are 84 Republican freshmen, none of whom remembers or cares about '95, and all of whom got elected as Tea Party darlings.

It's interesting to note that old establishment figures like Mitch McConnell have been the ones warning that default would "destroy the (Republican) brand."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-mcconnell-risk-20110713,0,4560042.story?obref=obnetwork

Meanwhile, you have freshmen like Joe Walsh, Mr. Fiscal Responsibility even though he has a long history of foreclosures and failing to pay tax liens, who double down even when it is mightily apparent his district is not behind the idea of default:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-25/-crazy-freshman-finds-his-tea-party-stance-on-debt-makes-backers-nervous.html

 

It's interesting. Independents want a mix of cuts and raised revenue by a 2-1 margin according to the WP-WSJ poll over the weekend. Blame for the mess has also leaned toward Republicans (though Democrats get blamed too).

The point is this: If a moderate does not like the deal the tea party is pushing through and puts more blame on the Republicans than the Democrats for the deal being passed, they are not likely to say "Well, we don't like their politics and we hold them responsible for a bad deal, but boy we're going to vote for them because they know how to get things done."

 

If it was Clinton, he would have gone on the offensive out of the gates then came out the other side looking like a compromiser. And it would have been a compromise.

I don't think the Tea Party is an immovable negotiating force. I just question the negotiating tactics of the other side. Where's the bulldog?

 

As the country is held hostage by Tea Party stupidity, Romney keeps his eye on the ball:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-and-the-other-deficit/2011/07/22/gIQAz46MXI_story.html

 

The only thing Obama could do -- and maybe should have done -- was show up in some Tea Party-held swing districts and use his bully pulpit to explain, over and over, why his deal on the debt ceiling was right for the country, and perhaps hope that put some pressure on Tea Partiers to back off. But I would argue that Tea Partiers ARE an immovable force. They won't listen to Boehner. They won't listen to their non-Tea Party constituents. So why would they listen to Obama?

 

If a moderate believes that revenue increases need to be part of whatever deal is concocted and finds there is none, why shouldn't he blame Democrats for caving on that point?

Also remember that George W. Bush got re-elected in 2004 in large part because he was perceived to be tougher and stronger than John Kerry was. Hell, Max Clelland, who lost limbs while serving in the armed forces, lost his Senate seat in 2002 because, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, he was perceived as weak on national security because he voted against one of the many anti-terrorism measures that came up for vote during this time.

Obviously, the state of the economy will be the biggest factor next year and the party in power is usually credited/blamed for this. But even this plays into the weakness-toughness factor too because a still-rotten economy makes Obama look both incompetent and impotent - a younger and somewhat more likeable Jimmy Carter who looked helpless while the dreams and hopes of Americans got flushed down the toilet.

 

Would a bulldog work against the Tea Party? They believe what they want regarding debt-ceiling issue, among other things. A more aggressive approach would seem to just make them dig their heels in further, and fire up their base even more.

I don't think the Democrats handled this perfectly, far from it. But the Tea Party seems like a unique beast.

 

One question I've never gotten the answer to - why is it always conservative pundits and political figures who have made it big in talk-radio and other "newsertainment?" Why can't progressives find their own Laura Ingrahams, Michelle Malkins, Sarah Palins and Rush Limbaughs?

 

Yes, suburbia, except that Ronald Reagan isn't walking through that door. Plus, Obama didn't have all his helicopters crash a la the Iran hostages rescue when bin Laden was killed. And, a candidate has yet to emerge who votes believe would do any better at managing the economy.

It's like Ragu has said about the economic view toward America -- right now things are so bad in so many places, America wins the battle of least worst. I suspect Obama is benefiting from that, uh, bounce. Certainly, once it becomes more common knowledge that Romney's private business experience was as a job destroyer, people will trust him a little less on the economy.

 

Also, if default isn't the problem Tea Partiers says it is, it's because of America's least-worst status.