WHY hasn't the Prez made clear that he'll only consider the debt ceiling on its own...

[polichick]

...even if he has to use the Constitutional option?

Remember what Rahm said? "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

imo the prez has tacitly agreed to use this "crisis" to push the country in a direction the people don't want it to go - but I'm open to hearing why you think he hasn't insisted that the debt celing vote be handled separately.

Note: I don't accept that he "can't" do this - he has veto power, as well as the ability to go with the Constitutional option.



Edit: typo

[chill_wind]

1. Dean Baker had this to say a few days ago

(when the media pundits were all titillated, not about the actual stakes involved, but about him "scolding" and was that the right approach, (frame) they wanted to know? yada yada.)

Pres Obama is not without options. He could lay it out and refuse to blink. He could put a stick of dynamite up their ass#@, light it and walk away:

President Obama doesn't have to frame himself as anything. He just has to take a position and stick to it.

For example, he can say that he will agree to a debt ceiling deal that includes tax increases, end of story. He can then say that if Speaker Boehner will not give him a ceiling with tax increases, then he will have to give him a clean increase in the ceiling.

He then goes back and sits in the White House and waits. If Boehner refuses both options then we get to Aug.2 (or thereabout) and Treasury Secretary Geithner announces that he has to make a payment of some tens of billions on the debt in three and there is no money in the bank. Therefore the government will have to miss this payment.


At that point, the financial markets freak out. The Dow Jones loses 1,000-2,000 points, just like it did the day the TARP was voted down. Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein and the rest of the Wall Street gang start screaming at Boehner and McConnell and tell them that they better get a debt ceiling bill passed, since Wall Street will be wiped out if they don't.

Then Boehner and McConnell do exactly what they did with the TARP. They will round up the necessary votes and pass a clean bill.

In short, Obama doesn't have to worry about framing. He just has to take a negotiating position that makes sense.

http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/president-obama---scolder-in-chief.html


Imagine what a game changer, from there out, that would be for him, for the Party, and for The People.

[polichick]

2. Thanks for that; I hadn't heard it but it's what I would've thought...

Yes, what a game changer! Too bad the prez seems to like the game as it is.

[chill_wind]

3. He could do exactly that.

And that's what we would call balls of steel.

But I don't think he has them.

[polichick]

4. Or maybe he has them...

...and he's using them to take the country in the opposite direction from what the people want.

[chill_wind]

9. Yes. The above merely allows for those who still want to make

a particular assumption about what he wants. Baker is just pointing out choices too many would love to insist he doesn't have.

[pnwmom]

5. Why do you think there will be just as much pressure on Obama in that situation

as on the Republicans? Why do you think he won't be blamed by the media for his intransigence and unwillingness to negotiate?

[polichick]

6. It's not about pressure or the media - it's about a president doing what's right...

...standing with the people instead of using a crisis to join with Republicans in another ripoff for Americans.

Interesting that you gave no reason why the prez hadn't used the approach I suggested.

[pnwmom]

7. I don't think that position would accomplish anything

except Obama being blamed for an inevitable default.

[polichick]

8. Wall Street wouldn't stand for default - it never would have gone this far.

[elleng]

10. Because negotiating is NOT POSSIBLE TO DO in public.

[Ozymanithrax]

11. I think he is a person who believes in consensus...

He will negotiate a consensus that will pass, and it doesn't matter what the public thinks.

Obama is not FDR, Truman, Reagan, or Bush II. He is a community organizer and will find out what his Community will pass (House and the Senate) and do something with them. He has correctly assessed that Republicans are the gate keepers who will limit things.

That steely eyed SOB who treats Congress like his whipping boy is more of a style that Bush II or Johnson used.

[polichick]

12. But there never is "consensus" - just Dems giving in and Republicans calling the shots.

[Ozymanithrax]

13. Consensus is what will pass both houses.

Republicans in our current scheme are gatekeepers of legislation. If it doesn't pass their tests, it will never get voted on.

That is how it looks to me. I dont' like it, but that is how it works.

[polichick]

14. That's how it works unless the prez plays it differently - he could do...

...what the op suggests.

[Ozymanithrax]

15. If he said that at the beginning, it would be a believable threat.

They could have tried different ways to get him to back down, and the Veto would have enforeced his will.

He did not.

From the beginning, he set his course to negotiate solutions. Nothing in his history indicates he has that kind of action in him.

[polichick]

16. So I guess the question remains: Is he just not able to take a tough stand like that, or...

...does he have a different agenda than Democratic voters?

[Ozymanithrax]

17. I think that is a good question.

But we should not confuse agenda with leadership style.

President Johnson used to sit in the crapper and have people sit just outside the door when he talked/negotiated with them. He found it made people uncomfortable and gave him an advantage. I've read one report Where johnson was asked why they were doing it his way, and (according to the report) he pulled his dick out banged it on the table and said because of this. He used that kind of tough, in your face leadership. Obama, from what I've seen, wants to get people in the room and get them to work together to solve problems. Republicans will not give in as much, so he pushes Democrats go with these solutions.

I don't' know if Obama shares an agenda with Democrats. It appears to me he likes getting things done but doesn't have a solid stand on how he does it, only on the need to find a solution. His solution to health-care did not please many people on the left. Once instituted it will be better than what we have, if it works as designed, but it was not the kind of change we were all longing for. His agreement to get an extension of unemployment and a few other things while he extended the Bush Tax Cuts for two years pissed off a lot of people ont he left. He got a solution, but it wasn't the solution the left side of the political spectrum wanted. It wasn't the bold action we looked for after 8 years of Bush.

He is not a warrior fighting for a liberal agenda.

[polichick]

18. OMG, that Johnson story gave me a good laugh - thanks!