Maybe that was just for show. One can hope. But if not for show, there were two disturbing lines from President Obama in his late afternoon news conference.
In any negotiation the parties must meet halfway, he said, yet he added that he had met Republicans "halfway on taxes and more than halfway on spending." Why the latter offer? Why would the chief victor of a national election ever concede more than 50 percent of anything in any negotiation? And for heaven's sake why would the losers receive, in toto, 51 percent?
Second, as the president indirectly lectured his base that no party ever gets 100 percent of what it wants, he was speaking over the heads of a party that indeed insists on 100 percent of whatever it wants--even subsequent to an electoral thrashing--or the country gets it, so to speak.
But, as noted, perhaps this was all just for show. One can hope. The quite possible alternative is too frightening.
The very best way to continue the demolition of the GOP is to paint them as totally bereft of principle or ability to negotiate in good faith or really care about the country.
Spending is the big issue for the GOP, so saying he was willing to go more than halfway and being reasonable on taxes just makes the GOP look even worse. And most of the spending he is talking about are cuts already agreed upon including savings on interest.
I believe the current polls show roughly 60% of the country will blame the GOP if we go over the curb. His goal is to make it 90%
Posted by: japa21 | December 21, 2012 at 05:08 PM
Not that I want Obama to be our Bush, but he could have taken some lessons from his predecessor and be more willing to use his election win to drive a hard bargain.
The chained CPI thing doesn't make any sense to me - and this is rare with Obama, for me. Normally even when he's not following my preferred path, I can understand why's doing it his way - Biden promised no changes to SS. Durbin said it shouldn't even come up since it doesn't drive the deficit. Reid and Pelosi likewise. Why offer it at all, much less 2-3 weeks from the cliff when all the wind was at his back? I still don't get it.
Normally I think the drama queens on the left seem foolish when they curse Obama's most recent betrayal. This time...while I wouldn't use their hyperbole about how he's a secret Republican sell-out fraud wuss, I do share the underlying frustration.
Posted by: Turgidson | December 21, 2012 at 05:14 PM
Turgidson, Obama did not offer the chained CPI, Boehner was pushing for it. And all that was ever mentioned is that it was one of the things being discussed. At no time was it ever confirmed that Obama was willing to go it.
Posted by: japa21 | December 21, 2012 at 05:23 PM
American voters are going to be worrying and talking about this over the holidays. President Obama maintains his strong hand as long as he continues to make it crystal clear to the public and maintains the popular media narrative that HE is being the reasonable one -- MORE than reasonable -- because he puts real American people ahead of politics. This was *obviously* for show. Jesus. WTF, PM??
Posted by: Beulahmo | December 21, 2012 at 05:28 PM
^Nor has it been refuted; and the way Obama has characterized his offer when speaking publicly makes me think it was part of the offer. That, plus the congressional Democrats' reaction.
I'm sure Boehner did push for it. I don't think that part of it has been made sufficiently clear in the public back and forth. The inevitable cuts we sane people will have to swallow will go down easier if the GOP is made to own them and own the label of "party who wants to fuck over the poor" for posterity.
We shall see. Maybe this whole rejection/Plan B meltdown thing has reset the playing board. I'm still annoyed that SS is even discussed in any way other than "No, SS has nothing to do with anything, leave it alone." I don't see Obama's angle in making (what appears to be from the reporting) such a big move from his strong initial position.
Posted by: Turgidson | December 21, 2012 at 05:32 PM
I do agree with your last point. There is no need to be discussing SS at this time.
Posted by: japa21 | December 21, 2012 at 06:28 PM
PM? What is going with you?
I am picking up on the negativity, and my guess is that when every piece is dedicated to what the Rethugs are about, it indeed rubs off in the end.
This blog is usually drippingly sarcaustic and uplifting at the same time but of late,...not so much!
Posted by: caribbeanobserver | December 21, 2012 at 06:37 PM
Steady now Boss. I think Japa has this nailed. What I just saw was a president conveying how he bent over backward to negotiate in good faith with the Republicans in the full knowledge that there could be no big deal. There was never one to be had. There might be a smaller deal, driven by popular pressure on individual congressmen to pass the middle class tax cuts. If that gets done the rest of the sequester can come for all it matters. In fact it may be the only way to trim military spending and that certainly needs to be done. The red herring of the Chained CPI change is nothing more than that. The changes it makes are so minute and so remote as to be entirely irrelevant. It actually is good policy and a more accurate method of making the calculation. It was only a face saver for the Republicans and they refused it.
Posted by: Peter G | December 21, 2012 at 07:34 PM
Please read www.andrewsullivan.dailybeast.com. "Enough" is the title of his piece and he is so right!
Posted by: sueme | December 22, 2012 at 08:10 AM
"In any negotiation the parties must meet halfway, he said, yet he added that he had met Republicans "halfway on taxes and more than halfway on spending." Why the latter offer?"
Precisely so that he could say that he had met them more than halfway. He knew it wouldn't make any difference to them, but it makes a difference to a lot of "moderate" voters.
The president offered them something that he knew they wouldn't take. He hasn't given them anything.
Posted by: priscianus jr | December 22, 2012 at 08:33 PM