Glenn Greenwald isn’t buying the idea that Obama showed himself a weak negotiator who fumbled the debt-ceiling situation.
It appears to be true that the President wanted tax revenues to be part of this deal. But it is absolutely false that he did not want these brutal budget cuts and was simply forced — either by his own strategic “blunders” or the “weakness” of his office — into accepting them. The evidence is overwhelming that Obama has long wanted exactly what he got: these severe domestic budget cuts and even ones well beyond these, including Social Security and Medicare, which he is likely to get with the Super-Committee created by this bill (as Robert Reich described the bill: “No tax increases on rich yet almost certain cuts in Med[icare] and Social Security . . . . Ds can no longer campaign on R’s desire to Medicare and Soc Security, now that O has agreed it”).
Greenwald references Matt Taibbi, who is also convinced that Obama is playing a different game from the one we’d like him to play:
We probably need to start wondering why this keeps happening. Also, this: if the Democrats suck so bad at political combat, then how come they continue to be rewarded with such massive quantities of campaign contributions? When the final tally comes in for the 2012 presidential race, who among us wouldn’t bet that Barack Obama is going to beat his Republican opponent in the fundraising column very handily? At the very least, he won’t be out-funded, I can almost guarantee that.
And what does that mean? Who spends hundreds of millions of dollars for what looks, on the outside, like rank incompetence?
It strains the imagination to think that the country’s smartest businessmen keep paying top dollar for such lousy performance. Is it possible that by “surrendering” at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?
It reminds me of when people went on and on about how incompetent the Bush Administration was because of the Iraq debacle, the destruction of New Orleans, and all the rest, when it was clear that the things that they did badly at were things they did not care about. The things they did care about got done. They took control of Iraq’s oil away from Saddam and turned it over to Western oil companies. They effectively locked the SCOTUS into a corporatist-leaning body for the foreseeable future. They saved the banksters from the consequences of their hubris.
Now there’s Obama, the supposed moderate Democrat, and his supposed liberal Democratic Party. This is the repository for all the hope for change? Dream on.
But not much — This seems to have been posted only six or eight hours before his best buddies degraded poor Barry O. More in sorrow than in anger, I daresay.
I award the last laugh provisionally to Comrade C. J. Carville, who wished about ten years ago that he was The Bond Market, because in that case the President might listen to him a little.
Happy pays.
Sorry, Lieutenant, but we’re having a spot of trouble understanding your banter. Could you have another go?
And the entire Democratic caucus, in both houses, ran to the President to stop the deal. They were sworn to protect Social Security and Medicare, and they would die trying, but almighty Barack Obama took them all down.
I agree that the president wanted to cut entitlements, perhaps as much for the symbolic value as anything else — getting ahead of more painful cuts later, maybe? But I don’t buy that he acted alone. I suspect that the Dem caucus has dreamed of cutting entitlements for a long time. They love them, they believe in them, but they also hate them, because they are budget busters, and they hand the GOP a perennial thing to complain about. I’d compare it to Sox management, who loved Manny Ramirez”s numbers but hated his contract, and once they had an excuse, he was gone.
This thing they’re complaining about is, in the case of SS and Medicare, among the most successful and popular government programs ever implemented. The Democratic caucus has their collective head up their butt if they think they gain anything by pretending the Republicans are right. Let them complain; that makes them look bad to every voter who has elderly relatives (coupon-clippers excepted, naturally).
But fiscal responsibility, or whatever we want to call it, is a more powerful issue than we often give it credit for. Regular people do worry about the deficit. Not as much as Paul Ryan does, but it does resonate with voters, I think. To your point, SS and Medicare are much more popular, but when the GOP raises the specter of a bankrupt nation, no one thinks SS and Medicare will be spared.
But he’s the one negotiating with Boehner.
How could Obama overcome Congress in spite of his lack of Prime Minister status? Suggest it to Boehner. That’s all. It doesn’t take a press release or coalition building. Boehner takes it to the Party. Now they know what Obama will take and it’s all over, but the face saving. There are House members that will desert the caucus if it’s expedient.
The debt ceiling negotiations appeared bilateral, but were tri-lateral with Obama and Congress with somewhat different agendas and Congress not completely united.