Associated Press
House Speaker John Boehner had a strategy: strike a deal with President Obama on looming fiscal deadlines, get it passed, and look like a competent policymaker capable of governing. That plan fell apart last week when Boehner's own allies forced him to scrap the negotiations.
So, the Speaker came up with a new strategy: pass a plainly ridiculous "Plan B," send it to the Senate, dare Democrats to defeat it, and avoid blame when everything fell apart. That, too, crashed and burned when Boehner couldn't convince Republicans to have his back.
Left with no "Plan C," it's come to this: hope the Senate can figure something out.
After a high-level telephone conference call, House Republican leaders called on the Senate to act but opened the door to bringing to the House floor any last-minute legislation the Senate could produce.
"The House will take this action on whatever the Senate can pass, but the Senate first must act," said the statement issued on behalf of Speaker John A. Boehner and his three top lieutenants.
If you're thinking, "Wait, this doesn't make any sense," you're not alone. For one thing, the Senate already acted, passing a bill to freeze lower rates on income up to $250,000, and the House GOP leadership is choosing not to take up the Senate version. For another, there's a Democratic majority in the Senate -- are Harry Reid and his caucus expected to just guess what kind of plan can generate some modicum of Republican support?
Speaker Boehner looked rather pathetic last week when his own caucus -- which he ostensibly leads -- betrayed him and ignored his own fiscal plan, but his new tack adds insult to injury. The nation's most powerful Republican is, in effect, telling the political world, "I tried, I failed, and now I'm out of ideas. Maybe the other party in the other chamber can save the day."
Complicating matters, Senate Dems are willing to make some kind of effort this week, crafting a package that they find reasonable, but they're only prepared to move forward if Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will agree to skip the filibuster, and as of yesterday, McConnell was unwilling to make such a commitment.
There's a reason no one is optimistic about a resolution coming together before Monday.
Looking ahead, keep an eye on four key elements.
1. What does Reid have in mind? If Senate Democrats try to craft a package intended to represent a middle ground, Reid may be in the untenable position of negotiating with himself, making concessions in the dark, hoping the GOP will go along. How far will he go? Will he move the $250,000 threshold preemptively?
2. Will a Senate bill give Boehner leverage over his own members? If the Senate does manage to pass something -- a big "if" -- the pressure on the House will be very intense. The Speaker would be in a position of telling House Republicans, with almost no time remaining, "It's this or nothing." If the GOP chooses the latter, Boehner may be forced to go to Nancy Pelosi, hat in hand, which may in turn imperil his Speakership. If the Speaker fails to pass a Senate compromise, there will be no avoiding public blame.
3. Will McConnell play dealmaker? The Senate Minority Leader isn't adept at public policy or current events, and as recently as two weeks ago, McConnell seemed to be completely lost on the basics of the fiscal debate. That said, he knows exactly how to strike deals -- when he wants to. In this case, however, fearing a backlash back home, the Kentuckian prefers to lay low and do nothing.
4. Are Democrats looking ahead? A week from today, the Senate Democratic majority gets bigger (and more progressive), the House Democratic minority gets bigger (and more progressive), and the pressure on Congress will be overwhelming to resolve the standoff. Don't underestimate the Democratic desire to wait and see how much better the deal may be after the deadline than before it.
Leave a Comment:
Boehner is just a small piece of the puzzle. The real idiots are those who elect ANY Republicans. This isn't about compromise or finding solutions to America's problems. It's all about serving a few wealthy (and I suspect not all American) donors. Boehner is just another cog in the machine. If he really wanted to act the role of Speaker of the House, he would find a compromise that some Dems and most Republicans could accept. But in reality, Republicans are merely using different voices to support their masters. Personal opinions are irrelevant. And they're not being paid to compromise.
I haven't heard any sane talk from the Republicans, although there MUST be some. All I've heard to date is flat out belligerence, the arrogant "Do it my way or else!" I haven't heard any rationale for maintaining upward wealth redistribution, which (as far as I can tell) defines their agenda. What, exactly, are they saying they want? Do they have any ideas beyond obstructing the president? These aren't rhetorical questions. I really want to know what they say their agenda is, and why they support specific points.
As far as I can see , they want THE RYAN BUDGET , and that is such a messed up budget , most of the gop could not even run on it and win in 2012 , Ryan had to RUN FROM IT himself , in the election
But as minority they feel they have some kind of right to shove it down the majorities throats any way , pretty crazy
Republicans today sound like Democrats from the soon-to-be Confederacy in the period between the election of November 1860 and April 19, 1861.
Power, power, who has the power? Not John Boehner. Not the House Republicans who want to do the right thing. Certainly the T.E.A. contingent in the House has blocking power. But the real power belongs to the Koch Brothers. When they say jump, the T.E.A.s jump, but they haven't been told to jump. That is why Boehner says the Senate must lead as it did in the debt ceiling crisis which was orchestrated by the Kochs. If McConnell is able to move, then a bill will be sent to the house that the Democrats and some Republicans will vote to approve. It now all depends on what the Kochs can prevent McConnell from doing.
Right now, the Kochs have the power and we must not forget that!
Dan, I couldn't have said it better. Creating turmoil that could again degrade our credit rating is just a step on the way to bankrupting the government.
Welcome to the shifting "blame" strategy...if the Senate Democrats don't come up with something it will be there "fault".
I am still of the opinion that none of this matters for anything and is all just political posturing and positioning. Congress knows that they don't have to do anything till after the first of the year and then they get to vote in favor of a Massive "Tax Cut".
The Republican base already think that Obama is the Devil and that the Democrats are card carrying commies. This just shows them what they want to see (a dysfunctional government) and keeps the anti-tax crowd happy
Dragoon, it might matter to people this time. The last time we were in a similar position, Bill Clinton agreed to sacrifice the poor to avoid a "government shutdown." The money was drained out of poverty relief programs and redistributed upward (Americans are cool with that, as long as no one talks about the ugly consequences). That money is gone, so now it's necessary to target the middle class. They, unlike the poor, have a measure of power. That makes things a little trickier.
And the Dems get to vote on changing the filibuster rules in the Senate.
A House divided against itself cannot stand and this government cannot endure.
I think that's the point.
Maybe we've reached the point where it doesn't matter. Consider that during a time when our government was redistributing several trillion taxpayer dollars upward, the middle class demanded an end to basic poverty relief (note: AFDC used a mere 6% of the federal budget at its highest - back in the 1970s). We've increasingly become too much like a feudal state where our role is to work to enrich our lords. Just keep working and paying until you no longer can. And those who can't work, or are simply excess people, can go die.
yes.
if you get hurt or sick and can no longer work or produce for the lords! DIE QUICKLY!
That would be LITERALLY , not FIGURATIVELY , as many of us out here are witnessing , when taken with the back drop that poverty relief is about 5% of discretionary spending , while military spending is 69% , it is appalling to here the dems say THEY MUST COMPROMISE , and cut the safety net even more
Hearing mr obama say our side is at fault for not being reasonable was disheartening the other day , the dems pass defense spending without a peep , that would include obama
It really struck me what McConnell said about Senator Inouye,
Because no one could say that about McConnell right now.
Ask not what McConnell would do in a heaven on Earth , rather ask what would McConnell say , and doo in his power about the news hoggin' problem children who regrettably seem to be still living . Least ways thats what can be figgered' from fair and balanced head quarters , US of A . It would be very tough to sugar coat what the senator from Tennessee has to say about matters in the here and now , as Piglet upon meeting a Heffalump notes . Sugaring the coating needs to go on somethinging .
Children we may now take this opportunity to advise the sclerotics on board the "going to the devil express" , starring Boehner et al
Chew Harder
Well now that being said and done it is probably time for a recess . It is a shame that despite all the posing for the nice photographing , that the seniority of the minority , didn't have time to act against the interests of Americans , more often , and more forcefully .
Old Froggy went a courtin'
Yah hunh .
A negotiating primer for Obama, Reid, etc. - three simple phrases to repeat as needed:
1) “Nothing’s agreed on until everything is agreed on.”
2) “Because we didn’t arrive at a deal, the concessions in my last offer are off the table. My original proposal is my only offer on the table at this time.”
[If you're Harry Reid or any other Dem, substitute "the President's" and "the" for "my" in the appropriate places.]
3) “I await a concrete counterproposal from Congressional Republicans, listing specific spending cuts and tax hikes that a majority of their caucus is ready to vote for."
I'm with you, Cyclist. Put together a package in the Senate that says (a) keep tax cuts for <$250K and (b) keep concessions to entitlements that are already in the plan. No further cuts. Send that package from the Senate to the House and let them twist in the wind.
I'm so sick of the Tea Party's silly grand-standing, pretending they're being reasonable. I say, push them up against the wall and watch them squirm.
Sorry, double post.
Maybe if we had term limits for Congress, our elected officials would stop being so damn scared about their precious seats and start acting with courage or at least backbone.
One would think these individuals being so worried about their jobs and lives would give them some empathy about the jobs and lives of their constituents.
"Term limits for office" merely means that the inexperienced idiots are more dependent on the lobbyists. Take a look at California to see the idiocy of term limits.
Point taken, TC. Let's leave the experienced idiots dependent on lobbyists entrenched in our government.
The Dems have been pretty united - I think they could pass Obama's original proposal to Boehner (Or a modified version of it), If McConnell gave up the filibuster. Could it pass the House? Hard to say, but the Dems don't need that many GOP reps to pass something.
Now that the GOP is insisting that legislation come from the Senate, if McConnell is seen as the one blocking that path, it's just another nail in the GOP coffin.
McConnell fears back lash so he does nothing? He should fear back lash because he does nothing.
Is Kentucky awake?
Is Kentucky awake?
Please recall that you are talking about a state that thinks The Creation Museum being there is a plus.
Harry should just tell John that the Senate has already passed one and is waiting for the house to act on it.
LOL, i say let John`s a$$ hang in the wind, as no matter what his speaker-ship has been a complete failure. The poor fool had a change to leave a legacy of some good, but he listen to the others who had nothing to lose.
Let me get this straight for a foreign know-nothing: The majority party isn't able to find common ground so they tell the public it's the minority's task to make proposals, so they can turn those proposals down and tell the public: "The minority isn't willing to compromise!"
Meaning: "They don't give us everything we want!" (even though we do not even know what that is)
Did I get it right? If so: You've got a funny country!
That about sums it up.
You might add-in that we also adore liars and think that insanely rich folks are our best national asset.
We have nukes, too.
(/snark)
The Republican Party very clearly, publicly stated, upon Barack Obama first being elected, that their mission would be to do whatever it took to make Obama this a "failed president." They've stuck with that. Early in the Obama admin., I read of an incident where Republicans presented the president with a proposal that they assumed he would veto. Instead, he said, "Sounds OK to me," whereupon the Republicans immediately shot down their own proposal. They made it clear that they have no interest whatsoever in the work of government, but ONLY in trying to destroy this president.
No, Vokoban. The majority party does have a legitimate agenda for dealing with this crisis. The issue that, technically, it is necessary to come up with a set of proposals that can pass the minority party -- and under the circumstances, that simply isn't possible. The minority party would rather see the country destroyed than cede an inch of THEIR agenda.They flatly refuse to compromise on anything, and are willing to destroy the United States if they don't get everything they want. This isn't the first time this has happened. The last Democratic president ultimately agreed to sacrifice the poor to get a budget passed. All of that money is gone, so now the Republican goal is to similarly drain out the middle class. That's a little trickier because the middle class still has a measure of power.
And I thought the majority party in the House of Representatives is the GOP.
No. What we have is a minority that refuses to recognize that it is a minority, and expects the majority to adopt its proposals.
Yes, the majority party in the House of Representatives is the GOP, so technically their attitude is what you expressed at first, but their attitude is based on the refusal to recognize the overall reality expressed in my statement above.
Vodokan... Excellent English, if that is your second language, BTW...
The majority in the House, the Republicans, are the majority only because the congressional districts in Republican-controlled states have been gerrymandered to a ridiculous level... All the Democratic voters have been packed into these small urban areas. while Republicans have more districts which are less populated... The result is, The Democratic voters, which outnumbered Republicans in this last election, elected fewer Representatives than Republicans...
Can the Senate even do this? I thought only the House was allowed to start any fiscal bills by the terms of the Constitution.
Yea. Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 of the Constitution:
"All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives."
Wouldn't any bill started in the Senate thus be unconstitutional?
If i understand correctly,
The bill that passed in the Senate is to keep the Middle Class Tax Cut going for incomes <$250K and allowing the tax cut for incomes above that to expire "naturally", and not by any legislation for a tax increase needing to happen.
This is how the Senate was able to originate it.
Alright, I was hoping something was wrong with my interpretation. I at least hope that Boehner understands some portion of his job, and wasn't telling the Senate to do something unconstitutional.
At this point, I think Boehner feels that's the least of his worries. Republicans only care about the Second Amendment, and trying to tack on amendments for Personhood and against same-sex marriage.
This has been something I have been wondering about too - Pres. Obama is supposed to be a Constitutional lawyer - the Tea publicans are supposed to want to follow the constitution - so why couldn't Pres. Obama drop the whole thing in the House's laps and tell 'em to follow the words of the Founders that they are so fond of?
Also, I am wondering if we go over the fiscal cliff and the house and senate cannot follow the letter of the Constitution, is it possible for American citizens to file a lawsuit against house and senate for breach of contract? Or some other law infringement?
There is only one element to consider on a bill that teapubs will even let come to the floor and that element is to cut and/or gut everything for the average American and pour on tax cuts and loopholes for the stinking rich. Oh, I forgot, blame it on the dems when the American people pitch a beyatch about it.
Phenner, it's simply the continuation of upward wealth redistribution that we've been watching for years. Now that the poor have been drained, all the money pulled out of basic poverty relief programs, it's necessary to turn to the middle class.
Oh, I know. It's been the middle class that's been hit on for the last 30 years.
Is the "fiscal cliff" threat a rerun of the Republican's threat of a government shutdown back in the 1990s? That one went very badly for Republicans, since people did see it for what it was -- a handful of right-wingers trying to blackmail the president by threatening to bring down the country if they didn't get their way.
Have they decided what their "way" is?
Party First , Country waiting in line ...
So, as it appears this morning, Boehner and all have no possibility of passing anything in the House because the House can't pass anything. Period. So, where's the "bargaining" supposed to take place? It seems that the hostage has already been withheld, forgotten, disrespected, and now is to be killed, and then--and only then--can any meaningful negociations take place? Remember, it's the American citizenry that is the hostage to all this. And, the House Republicans and TeaPottiers have only themselves to blame. I'm not the President, but I think it's time for a bit of forceful public negotiation: 1) a 20 minute prime timer in which the Chief Executive of this nation goes before the citizens and brings up recent history; 2) then in his speech, the recently-reelected popular President summarizes in great detail the points of his plans to save the economy, the middle class, to protect seniors and the poor, and to do away with corporate welfare; 3) nearing the end of this heartfelt, serious presentation, the screen goes to a slow roll of the names of those House members who have refused to listen to any logic, to any pleas for bi-partisanship, to any demands for 'country first', and the President reads aloud their names--slow roll call of the 'soon-to-be-dead'. Opposition has, for too long, gone un-noticed, especially by the voters who mindlessly put this opposition into office. Tell'em what you'll do, tell'em why you're doing it, tell'em who's in the way. Make the case for your plan, Mr. President. The nation will listen, and then ask ever so forcefully, for the voters in all districts to contact their House members--maybe several times in person!-- and pass your plan on the very next day's vote. And, finally (OK--the 20 minutes just became 30), make evident the COST of not passing your plan. Then, after the vote, we'll know who is leading, we'll know who's obstructing, and we'll know the damaging consequences. ALL of us will know. We can't permit the obstructionists to continue to lie like the snakes they are. And--I do mean 'lie' in every sense of the word.
I think we all can agree on this point: If any one of us was doing our job like these elected folks are in Washington - Democrat - Republican - Independent - we would most likely be fired. I've never had bosses that didn't expect you to 'get the job done', and at least to offer solutions, when none is readily clear - these folks fail in all areas of competence and devotion to getting their job done. Regardless of your thoughts on the results, having no results is simply not acceptable. I am hopeful that all of us remember this when it comes time to allow them to continue in their rolls or to fire them and hire new folks - Let's not forget that WE are the management over them, and obviously we're doing a bad job because they are unmanagable and are not getting anything done. What amazes me is we all simply watch and wonder - scary! ...and don't think their 'entitlements' are threatened, or their pay-checks...
Wake up AMERICANS!
The fruits of nepotism and oligarchy , sweeter and sweeter to an ever expanding waisted fantasyland , and a grey and greyer to an America run into a gulch and bled , bleeding , blogged dryer than a Jack Benny quip .
Confused: Both "sides" are not at anything close to equal fault. It's truly tiresome to have to read posts like yours, it shows at least an indifference to documented history.
Well - don't read it then my friend...you are the indifferent one I believe...just so I choose to point out the obvious - you choose to be mean-spirited - therefore I would place money on the fact that you my dubious commenter are a Republican - ha-ha - got-cha' - didn't I - oh and just so you know - I'll write more so keep on a-reading!!!
To me it's "obvious" that you have failed to account for fillibusters and blatant obstruction when you claim both sides should be "fired". Barbara Boxer represents me in the Senate, and IMHO she does a terrific job, she truly represents my interests and beliefs. Sure, you can say I am "mean spirited" to voice my indignation over your post, but it's so tiresome to hear your sentiment when all objective evidence points to a right wing united against progress of any kind.
At least you recognize that you are indignant! Bottom line on these clowns in Washington - work together and get it done. If not, you will be replaced...
There's no excuse for no-action, if you are tired of reading about that than sit back and watch as the country stalls for no reason other than stubborn, non-states-man-ship amongst the folks we ourselves elected to act in our best interests...
I will be voting for new folks next election and hope others will too -
Please - comment elsewhere with your derrogatory and negative spirit!
Rupugnicons held the debt limit hostage last year as a political tactic--they had already passed the budget and they then turned around and tried to regain leverage by putting the full faith and credit of the United States under threat. In the end they had to strike a deal to get themselves out of the corner they had just backed themselves into. That deal didn't seek to solve the major economic issues we face--in fact it would exacerbate the problem. Now they are faced with the fruit of their labor because they've backed themselves into yet another corner.
As a Manager, one skill you must have is the ability to assess the motivations of your people and identify those who are prone to blowing-up your business. So you can choose between the party that has paid the debt down and created jobs, or you can choose to fire the ones trying to blow-up the economy. The fact is that only the Democrats have a record of paying the debt down. Couple that with the millions of jobs this administration has created over the last four years and you can see why the public decided to give them the keys to the White House again.
You say "Regardless of your thoughts on the results, having no results is simply not acceptable." But then Repugnicons want results that put people out of work in hopes of growing the economy because of lower taxes, as if there is far too little profit taken by business owners in the current economy. And trust me when I say that I am taking the most kind approach to explaining the economic vision of the Repugnicon party.
I would choose no results to those results any day of the week. You see, the rest of the country doesn't want to "starve the beast" even as they may believe it spent too much in during the Bush administration. We may all want the debt to go down, but we want to do it by growing jobs and the Repugnicons want to do it by throwing people out of government jobs--by reducing revenue. We've been willing to play your little debt game to an extent to get something going but the Repugnicons in the House and Senate have played a blocking game instead of working to solve problems. Their tactic of trying to make the winners of the election adopt the economic plan of the losers is failing and they want to blame the winners for that.
If your focus is on blame and not solutions then you can hardly be surprised by the lack of results. In the end the Repugnicon's are focused on placing blame instead of working for a compromise and getting something done. The American people have already spoken to the type of policy they want and what the Repugnicons are trying to force down our throats isn't it.
It is high time the Repugnicons passed the kinds of policy that America voted for.
Confused: It's very apparent you would like me to "comment elswhere", and it's quite obvious why: your assertations simply don't stand up well to scrutiny. Republicans consider anyone spouting your nonsense to be allies, because they and their nine percent approval rating need company down at the bottom. You cry there is "no excuse for no action" while the House Republicans are not even in session, and the Senate Republicans block everything. This comment board does not fall for your propaganda, either elevate your game or accept the pushback.
Con-Con --
The Dude has been commenting ably and responsibly here long, long before you deigned to visit. His responses to your screed are as measured and thoughtful as they usually are, while yours are non-specific at best.
What is the great "it" you think is the job that needs to be done? Individuals in Congress differ, and so do their constituents; one party is more than willing to fight the battle of ideas within the rules of the game (and it has become a 'game' rather than a serious responsibility), while the Other Side just hangs onto the ball and whines.
The "plague on both their houses" approach brought us the Tea-vangelicals with their wholesome and well-reasoned legislative records. (Sorry, but those adjectives are intentional SNARKS.) The decisions before responsible voters are still far more complex than "throw the rascals out!"
MaddowBlog is not your usual partisan blog, with personal smears escalating until some break point is reached. It is *your* style that is "derrogatory" (sic) and "negative", not that of the Dude.
The small subset of Americans who regularly debate and discuss here are most definitely awake. Just because many will disagree with you does not necessarily mean they are wrong.
Please re-think your approach.
Suppose . . . just suppose: Now that Boss Beohner and the Boys in the House have scared the bejeezus out of the market by walking off the job, quitting what they elected to do (taxes, deficit ceiling, etc., AKA the 'cliff') - now just suppose that Boss Boehner announces a miracle plan. And just suppose that 15 minutes before the annoucement a whole bunch of his 'money buddies' get a tip to jump back into the market . . . . just in time. Is anybody watching??
I don't understand what's happening in the House or what has been happening for two years. Why does Speaker Boehner feel compelled to satisfy 100% of his caucus to make a deal? I can't recall any other speaker being held hostage by their most extreme members. Why are the more moderate members of the Republican caucus not reaching out to Nancy Pelosi and saying, "Hey, let's make a deal." 75-100 Republicans could easily find something they could agree on with most Democrats, so why do the 13 most firebrand Republicans get to determine the entire House of Representative's fate?
Schqueaky Wheels .
PhillyCooke-
The practice of Republicans not putting a bill up for a vote without having enough vlotes for it to pass without Democratic help started under Denny Hastert.
Well, there's your problem right there.
The "majority by the majority" rule was first implemented by Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert, on the advice of that wonderful believer in democracy, Tom DeLay.
It was never the rule before and is used by the Republicans to stop anything they don't want.
I thought that the senate cannot produce revenue generating bills?
And wasn't it the Republicans that wanted the Constitution read before the opening of the House last year?
Fabrizio,
They're not talking about new taxes - they're talking about extending what was supposed to be a temporary tax cut. If they do nothing, we go back to higher tax rates that were in place before. Letting the lower rates expire, even if only for the wealthy, is not technically a tax increase.
they're talking about extending what was supposed to be a temporary tax cut.
The Democrats have cried for the past years that these temporary unfunded tax cuts along with the wars were the reason we are in this predicament. NOW everyone wants to make these cuts permanent....and they are still unfunded. Of course people will say that the tax hike on the wealthy will pay for them. OK, that's cool, but then that what is supposed to reduce the deficit? The tax on the wealthy to fund the "Bush era" tax cuts for everyone else is a zero sum game and will do nothing for deficit reduction. Now what? Even more spending cuts? It seems all this debate and/or compromise leglislation will do very little to the actual reason for this - deficit reduction. Laughable that so much attention and posturing is being spent on something that may knock $100-200 Billion off our annual Trillion dollar deficits. Cool...now we will only have deficits of $800 Billion a year. What an accomplishment!
Not me, skip. I've said many times on here that we survived the Clinton tax rates before, and we would again if we went back to them. Do I want to pay higher taxes? Of course not. But how else are we realistically (along with spending cuts) going to eliminate the deficit and reduce the debt to a manageable level? I'm willing to give up the Bush cut until things are under control, and maybe then we can talk about tax rates that are somewhere in between - neither too low nor too high.
Yes, a temproary tax cut passed in reconciliation 51 to 50, with Ben Nelson voting yes to make it "bipartisan". I say end the top rate tax cut, and lower the rest a point or two at the most. This will allow for some teacher, cop, and firefighter hires or saves, and get us going again. We will never make a true dent in the deficit without more employment and more revenue.
Republicans haven't supported new taxes to pay for anything in decades but they have supported trillions in spending and trillions in tax cuts (and trillions of dollars of debt). For a Grand Deal to be made, they'd have to raise taxes and be responsible. But how do they do that when they've demonized being responsible?
Since the republican party can't govern on any issue, we're watching a major political party collapse right before our eyes.
It really is pathetic -- and frightening -- to realize that the economic well-being of some 250,000,000 Americans (not to mention the other 95% of the world) is mostly in the hands of a stumbling John "The Drunkard" Boehner.
I see House Republicans biding their time so they can get a new Speaker to deal with this. I see Harry Reid doing what he always does and not letting anything of consequence happen in the senate as far as the filibuster goes. We are going to be subject to two more years of stupendously bad government at the end of which we will of course vote the same way we always do, forgetting all previous BS, and hope that this time the campaign promises will finally be kept. I didn't get born this cynical, I was taught very diligently.
See Item No. 4 in Steve's posting. That's the key element. Obama, Reid and Pelosi know that McConnell will not cave because he is going to be "primaried." Boehner can't cave because he will be toppled as Speaker. Odds are that McConnell and Boehner will be challenged in any scenario. After January 1, the Democratic majority in the Senate will be larger, the Democratic minority in the House will be larger, the filibuster will be on the line and any legislation passed will be "tax reduction." McConnell's refusal to forego a filibuster focuses on the filibuster. Boehner's inability to herd his cats focuses attention on the craziness of the Tea party. Obama, Reid and Pelosi are making the right noises, sounding earnest and reasonable, and waiting. They are holding the cards this time.
I don't understand McConnell or Boehner's thought process:
If McConnell acts in good faith for the nation, voters will oust him? Really?
Or is it if he acts in good faith for the nation, the rich will oust him?
Or if either acts in good faith with Obama, their party will oust them?
Their constituents are how many rungs down on the priority ladder?
Obama has to make sure that his state operations are well-oiled and ready to go in 2014. We all need to pay attention to the mid-terms. Even with the gerrymandered districts that gave the Republicans the House majority, the Dems picked up seven seats in 2012. Surely they can target 18 seats to take back the House. But beyond that, they need to take back some state legislatures and governorships, since that is where the battle is really on, against the ACA, women's right, abortion, same-sex marriage, gun control, etc.
Here's a concept. Work on 2012 business now. It may be hard, but concentrate on the here and now and do your job. Yes, it may be very difficult to work with some of the other employees that got elected with you, but do you current job. I am tired of hearing and reading how all of this will play out for the two parties in future elections. It is getting to the point that every piece of legislation is crafted and gauged on how it will play to the parties political bases for their future employment. Well we just had an election a month and a half ago and you were "hired". Now do your job in 2012.
Just think, Skip, if you were rich, they'd listen to your excellent message.
Just think Skippy: everybody here has you on "ignore author" so you're shouting into the wind. Which means you're a typical wingnut moron loser.
Hi TC. Nice intelligent comeback as usual. I have yet to see anything that amounts to more than a grade school putdown from you ever. Oh wait, I think you said you write for Hollywood so that makes total sense. Seems "ignore author" still gets responses. :) And of course you and needmorejava seem to agree that Obama and Congress should ignore the current stuff and campaign perpetually. That will solve a lot. I thought the Republicans were the obstructionists, but if everyone - Republican and Democrat - are just working on their next election, that is just as much an obstruction. Apparently the job descriptions for POTUS, VPOTUS and Rep and Senator is "work on the next election"
Skip, what thread are you on?
The election is over, Obama is trying to move on...unfortunately he's dragging a couple hunnard rocks with him.
I was responding to trainerbarry's comment on how Obama should ensure that the state political machines stay prepared for 2014:
Obama has to make sure that his state operations are well-oiled and ready to go in 2014. We all need to pay attention to the mid-terms
That's the comment right above mine. (#23)
You must remember Skippy, it's Republicans who aren't capable of multi-tasking, not Democrats! I have no doubt President Obama can take a few moments to plan ahead for 2014, while still managing to do his job quite competently.
Unlike Speaker Boehner...
OK thanks Dougie. So basically everyone, including President Obama are just professional politicians - always on the campaign trail.
I think the "John Boehner Is Bad At His Job" Hypothesis is now an established scientific fact.
Is it really necessary to wait for another congressional election to get rid of Boehner and McConnell, along with their supporters who want to stay the course of national and economic ruin? True, most Americans are on the give-me-more-more-more band wagon of economics, but do we really wanton greedy at the top to get even richer at the general public's expense?
Fiscal responsibility starts at home. Where are the teachers? Most are probably seeking tenure of some sort.