Getty Images
I'm beginning to think an infectious disease is spreading in the nation's capital. Symptoms include memory loss (forgetting everything Republicans have done in recent years), blurred vision (an inability to see obvious GOP ploys), and an uncontrollable urge to blame "both sides" for everything, even when it doesn't make any sense.
The disease has already affected pundits like Bob Woodward, Ron Fournier, David Brooks, nearly everyone on the network Sunday shows, and today reaches the editorial board of the Washington Post. Indeed, the Post's editors seem to have come down with an especially acute case today, as evidenced this bang-your-head-against-your-desk editorial on the sequester, which cavalierly ignores the paper's own reporting, and demands that President Obama "lead" by somehow getting congressional Republicans to be more responsible.
You can almost feel James Fallows' frustration.
In short the facts before us are: an Administration that has gone some distance toward "the center"; a Republican opposition many of whose members still hold the absolutist position that taxes cannot go up at all; a hidden-from-no-one opposition strategy that embraces crises, shutdowns, and sequesters rather than wanting to avert them. [...]
That's the landscape. And what is the Post's editorial conclusion? You guessed it! The President is to blame, for not "leading" the way to a compromise.
The infectious disease -- I'll assume Fallows was inoculated and therefore immune to its effects -- is leading to some kind of bizarre madness in Washington, which is getting worse. It doesn't matter that President Obama is ready to compromise; it doesn't matter that Republicans refuse to compromise; and it doesn't matter that the deficit is already shrinking and that both sides have already approved $2.5 trillion in debt reduction.
What matters, victims of this disease keep telling the rest of us, is that President Obama is obligated to "lead." Lead where? They don't know. Lead to what? They don't know that, either. What would leadership look like, exactly? Apparently, Obama is supposed to use Jedi mind tricks that will make people in the other party -- the party that has nothing but contempt and disgust for his presidency -- do what he wants them to do.
And if the president doesn't do this, Obama is, by definition, responsible for Republicans' opposition to a bipartisan agreement.
This is more than crazy. The media establishment's incompetence is having a direct role in contributing to a broken and unconstructive process.
Greg Sargent gets this exactly right:
The argument now is basically that the president is the father who must make his problem children behave. Only this is worse than just a dodge. Lots and lots of people are going to get hurt by the sequester. Anyone who helps deflect blame from Republicans -- in the full knowledge that they are the primary obstacle to the compromise we need to prevent serious damage from being done to the country -- is unwittingly helping to enable their intransigence.
This will no doubt give headaches to those who've already contracted the infectious disease, but Greg's point is important -- by blaming Obama for Republicans' intransigence, the D.C. establishment is encouraging the gridlock they claim to find offensive.
As Jamison Foser recently asked, "When Party A is intransigent but Party B gets blamed for it, what is the likely effect on Party A's intransigence?" Or as Michael Grunwald added today, "If you were a GOP leader, and every time you were intransigent the Beltway blamed Obama's failure to lead, would you be less intransigent?"
Pundits obsessed with pushing false equivalencies and needlessly blaming "both sides" are convinced they're part of the solution. They're actually part of the problem.
Let's not forget this thesis from Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein -- who've helped offer a cure to this infectious disease -- published nearly a year ago, long before the current mess.
We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.
Our advice to the press: Don't seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views. Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends?
The first step towards recovery from the disease has nothing to do with party or ideology; it has to do with reality and Civics 101. If the media establishment is, as a consequence of this disease, forced to shout "Lead!" uncontrollably, they can at least direct it to those in a position of authority in the party that refuses to compromise, refuses to consider concessions, and refuses to consider governing outside a series of extortion strategies.
Leave a Comment:
I think this has less to do with our current crop of troubles and more to do with shaping Obama's image in history...think about it in 10 years people will be able to go back and pull out editorials and cometary and use that to frame a certain perspective of his Presidency they way they want.
While I don't think the Press and Media in general are actually overt participants but I do think they are complicit in the sense that they are getting played in much the same way they were in the run up to the Iraq war and they should know better
The term you want is enabler but I think that would be too kind and stupidity isn't an effective excuse either.
Fair and balanced , the Faux News excuse, is not what they're doing.
To scared to do their job is.
Guys access is badly over-rated as a journalistic plus unless you want to be a house pet.
I think it has a lot to do with the presses bizarre compulsion to look even handed and blame both sides for everything and the GOP knows it and how to use it
Look at it from the Republican perspective...if you know that no matter how bad you are you are only going to catch at most half of the blame then there is absolutely no reason for restraint.
When Obama leaves office and the Conservative media complex starts churning out the inevitable avalanche of books about his administration they will be able to say "Yeah sure he was the first Black President...but look at all the bad things people said about him back then..." and it like so many things the Republicans love to talk about will eventually become "True"
The current Congress gets to pretend they are the "Noble opposition", Obama and by extension Democratic policies can be historically devalued and Conservatives get to sell lot's of books...
If that seems a bit paranoid I am not saying it is a "plan" as such but I am saying that is what I think will happen
Taking in everything that's been previously stated, the fact is "it is about the corporate bottom line". "Journalists" refuse to do their jobs for fear that they may become a statistic in the unemployment line. Fact checking, actually telling the truth of the situation or simply asking John Bonehead "where are the GOP plans or alternative to the sequester" - that's too much like right to ask of "our journalists". It's so much easier to be lazy and blame "both sides for the mess" - and many in the public will eat that up like pablum.
At the same time unfortunately many Americans have either forgotten Civics 101 or weren't paying attention and are therefore unable to answer the basic question "which part of the federal government is responsible for legislation & the purse?"- which falls back to how dumbed down our educational system has become.
The reality is that WE have far too many in public office that are wedded to a failed ideology that they refuse to see and yet because there are those in the body electorate that are also wedded to that same failed ideology - they support them. WE also face the fears of white people becoming a "minority" when they have been controlling the reigns of power for generations; and to top it off, their is a black man as the leader of the free world. WHY do WE think that there should be anything other than gridlock - especially because until you spank those legs 3 yr. olds having tantrums to get what they want every time they want it has become de riguer.
the people won't have too look at the bad things that people said about him, they will look at one fact: he has run up the debt twice as fast as Bush did, and Bush sucked on spending.
Second: When ever someone questions the White house the either become CRAZY or Racists. Bob Woodward was given White House access while writing his book. Now that he didn't fall in line and shut up, he is now being painted by the left media as having a disease. Typical progressive tactic: If you don't like the truth distroy the messenger.
I find it interesting that this week Media matters was suddenly uninvited to the Presidents little propiganda meeting he has with different news outlets. They questions his motives in one of their articles this week and were abruptly un-invited to the press meeting. The only disease going around Washington is that those that work for the White House are pathological liars.
Bush's debt record looks worse when you put the wars on the record, like Obama did. Also, Clinton didn't wreck the economy right before Bush came in, so that's different as well.
It's not "whenever", but people like you and Shooter ARE crazy (and sometimes racist). The coincidence is interesting.
Oh brother. NBC just hired two senior administration officials to be pundits and you all are worried that Obama isn't getting enough praise? Really?
Benen and the majority of the blogosphere hasn't declared the war on the rich loudly enough? The party of free stuff isn't demanding other people pay more for their freebie fix? Worse you're going to declare a national emergency over a lousy 2% cut in spending?
I don't think you guys understand that republicans have had enough of this BS and are getting more and more firm in their resistance to this national greed. But hey, I'm all in favor of seeing how overboard the left can go. Keep up the good work.
Blankman - you keep referring to 2% spending cuts, could you please point to where it's a 2% cut for the sequester, I thought it was 10% across the board?
@Grumpy
He is just a Crypto-Anacharicist...Someone who doesn't understand the concept of Government and because of that would just as well have none at all.
It's a childish "Lord of the Flies" philosophy that can't see beyond its immediate boundaries and stubbornly rejects the whole of human history and social evolution in it's spite.
@Shooter
I was originally talking about the editorial from the post and the press at large, not just NBC, and I think when you look at it broadly you could hardly call it a "Fan Club"
Zora, I don't usually respond to people responding to Airball, but I have never seen anybody use a number as low as 2%. 8-10% is usually what's quoted. Perhaps Airball is lumping in all the stuff that doesn't get sequestered into the denominator before dividing.
I don't think you guys understand that republicans have had enough of this BS
Feel free to leave at any time. Really! We'll help you pack! JUST GO!
The Republicans who favour the sequester over closing a few loopholes for the super rich need to be held individually accountable for their actions and the decisions they take. We should force each one of them to stand up and explain why they are doing this.
They are sent there to work for us, not to play out an ideology.
They are playing with our lives. Hold them to account!
I certainly can't speak for all Republicans but in an attempt to address some of your concerns, let me try. In the past 10 years our population has grown less than 10% while our federal spending has increased almost 90%. (See Data Series near bottom of the page.)
If no one is willing to cut spending...real spending in a smart and substantial way, then someone has to start...many Republicans believe (rightly or wrongly) this is the only way to start.
Lastly, Congress does NOT represent you, only YOUR representative has that responsibility.
Hope this clears up some things.
@RobDon - exactly what programs are you willing to have cut? Rachael did a portion on her show last night that was from a PEW research poll (? I think) that did a sampling and found that even republicans given a choice of 19 items did not want those items listed to be cut.
There are over 300 million people in this nation, and 2.5 bn have already been cut from the budget, so please give specific cuts that you believe need to occur and tell your buddies to do the same. And just to start US all on the path, I'll list a few cuts I believe WE can live with:
1) Welfare (subsidies) to BIG OIL/COAL/PHARMA/AGRICULTURE
2) Close loopholes for corporations that offshore and offshore their banking so they pay NO taxes!
3) Close loopholes for people that offshore (Romney), and start making them pay their taxes!
4) Cut the Defense budget most of that money goes to Contractors who are over-charging and their equipment is useless (F-22 anyone).
5) Stop mortgage deductions on homes over $2 million dollars.
Please feel free to add to the list....
That just plain isn't true and we know it isn't.
Just to keep the truth before us all : http://zfacts.com/p/1195.html
Zora, I wish I knew our trillion of dollars in spending better but I don't. My contention is that money is misused more than anything. Let me provide you with one first hand example.
I use to work for a government agency. We were always given the directive to spend the money we had left at the end of the year to ensure we would be allocated that amount next year...now wouldn't make sense to just allow us to "carry that over" for real needs instead of having to just spend it.
We provided services to other governmental agencies for which we were paid. One such agency had me "bill" them at the end of the year (to use up the funds) prior to providing the services. Dispite dozens of attempts, we never delivered those services, yet we received the payment.
The system in many, many case encourages poor use of resources.
All of your examples, some of which I agree with, are NOT spending cuts, but elimination of tax breaks and loopholes resulting in MORE money for the government to spend.
I say, before giving them MORE money, let's do a better job of doing using the money we are already spending. It would be sort of like giving booze to a drunk.
I read the USDA audit where 2 million dollars was spent on an intern program that hired one intern and the report concluded that the funds could have been used on a more important priority.
I wish I had a simple answer. That is what we pay our government officials to do, unfortunately they are more focused on the next election than the bottom line...
And just how did GWB pay for the 2 wars? The Medicare part D? I believe it was the good old credit card. And off the books. The majority of the spending in the last 4 years has been trying to clean up the financial disaster he left us. Spend some money on our badly needed infrastructure repair puttinf people back to work would mean more revenue which in turn would cut spending. That has been proven.
@RobDon, I get what you're saying. And I also get that our "government" bureaucracy had it's rules written long before either of US showed up on planet. So maybe it's up to US as citizens to push for ways that make government work "smarter" instead of calling for unnecessary and needless cuts. While I get that many offices in the federal government spend unused money at the end of the year - those rules were written back in a day when that was actually a solution to how funding occurred. I agree, government agencies should be allowed to "roll-over" money from one year to the next without the consequences of "having their base funding cut", but right now that's not the way the rules are written. And as I understand it, the government agencies cannot "save" money for future emergencies - that's something that should also be rethought.
But again, you have no ideas for where to cut, yet you still insist on cutting. WE have over 300 million people in this nation, how few people do you believe we need to serve the needs of those 300 million? I mean if you've ever waited in line at Social Security or any state MVA - you realize that more people are needed don't you? And if you've never had to wait for over 1 hr. at either place just to have 1 or 2 questions answered, then consider yourself lucky indeed.
Zora, I think (at least your last post) we are much more in agreement that apart. I do think the bureaucracy makes the problem worse and the "waiting" you described is sad.
That said, we probably disagree on many things with the cuts...I don't think we need much of the Department of Education since most of those services are handled by the states (not that the DOE hasn't provided some value, it has). The states have a vested interest in education it's citizenry and in improving it, too.
I don't think we need most of the IRS. I think most people should be able to fill out their taxes on a one sheet form but the code has gotten so voluminous that it now supports a huge sector of our economy.
Contrary to how the Left like to characterize the Right for political purposes (and the Right the same with the Left), most conservatives are NOT uncaring or unsympathetic people.
@RobDon I'd agree with some of what you wrote, but I still don't believe that the DOE doesn't serve value. And if you believe that "states" handle teaching their populations so well, we'll talk again in 25 years because Texas re-wrote their history books and those kids won't know squat about history (& biology from what I'm hearing). Frankly there need to be federal minimums to education. The United States is what 17th in math & science in the world, really, that's sad. It was said before the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq at least 45% of Americans could not locate those places on a world map, again that's a travesty and it should be an embarrassment to all Americans.
I do think that the tax code could be more simplified, and yes many of those loopholes for the top end need to be closed. I think Americans really aren't aware of the vast nature of our income inequality in this nation, simplifying the tax code helps to change that. While I can't say that the left characterizes the right as uncaring or unsympathetic, I would say that the actions/rhetoric of the right denote that they are neither caring, sympathetic for "others" and that they actually lack knowledge of how the government or the economy runs.
Not to mention that the republiCons in Congress have surely NOT furthered dialog about the issues in this nation.
@#RobDon That spend-it-or-lose-it thing happens in every bureaucracy. The end of the year is a big time for optional equipment purchases. That's when you buy the lathe that will save your technicians from having to waste time/money to rent or contract out. The one exception used to be R&D. My Dad actually got chewed out for turning a profit when they put him in charge of his division's unit. Bean-counters are universally reviled by "people who have to do the actual work." Often unfairly, and often not.
Another symptom: Forgetting how the Constitution works. The sequester is a legislative issue. The president is the head of the executive branch. Whatever is or isn't done about the sequester, it's Congress that is or isn't going to do it.
Yeah, because the President played no role in it and although he holds the office of the most powerful man in the world, he is completely blameless and helpless.
Dude, you need to read the Constitution yourself. Then read my comment a few more times. Then think about it. Then get back to me if it ever dawns on you that all I'm saying is that the most powerful man in the world doesn't get a vote in Congress. I'm not sure if you'll ever see why that's relevant, but it's actually pretty crucial in this particular case.
If he's so powerful, then how has Boehner blocked so much of what he has tried to do? Your sarcasm has the not-so-unique quality of being fallacious as well.
Reductio ad absurdum, Robdon.
And Congress is doing exactly what the Constitution has provided for. Republicans are going to say "no" for the next two years, because they said "yes" earlier. Don't like it? Too bad. The party of free stuff has gotten greedy and it's time to say "no" like you do to 2yr olds. Deal with it.
What damn "free stuff" do you keep referring to? You keep saying the talking BS OK just can't name them. Your repeated talking points give you less credibility than you would normally have, which is very little.
Shooter, so....when the economy eventually falls into a Recession, can I quote you on this when you inevitably say that it's Obama's fault we are in a recession??
Yeah...didn't think so. Republicans are free to say "no" all they want to; as long as they (and you) realize that you don't get to absolve yourself of any (or all) of the responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
Additionally, reflexively saying "no" to everything is something that a 2-year old child does...So, really, who is being a child in your ridiculous scenario depicted above? The President, Democrats...or the real children, Republicans?
M. Peters
You know I am begging to think that hooter (because he's only one boob) is in actuality the E-Trade baby. It would explain a lot, don't you think?
When has the party of wifebeaters and child molesters said yes to anything at all under this administration? WHEN?
If the Republicans refuse to follow how can the President lead?
That is the challenge of leadership (although I don't particularly agree with your characterization). That is why coaches get fired when their team does not perform.
WOW, and the award for the worst analogy ever goes to. . . A coach and his team are not "two coequal branches of government." A coach can demand that a player do something and punish said player for not performing i.e. benching him until he falls in line. Obama cannot take the congress out of the equation here by benching them to get them to fall in line. You've got to be kidding me with this one are you even trying?
It is the principle of leadership that is illustrated here, not all the specific dynamics. Your point is very valid. Often leaders are faced with combative constituents and or team members. President Obama is on tour now attempting to shame or force voters to pressure Congress who disagrees.
I don't think it will prove a successful tactic but nonetheless, that is what he is doing. The President, as the highest elective leader of our country, has tools and resources at his disposal that other leaders in government do not.
No, it is far from a perfect analogy, but it does illustrate leadership quite well. Seldom will you here a college say after 3 losing seasons, you know the coach was great, it was the players fault. But, your point is well taken. Hope you see that it still illustrates the need for effective leadership. If you "lead" but no one follows, have you really "led?" I would say, no.
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Leadership can exist without worthwhile followers. The problem that arises is that Boehner and his ilk think that THEY are the leaders, when they are not. Too many chiefs, not enough Indians, to use a phrase of my grandfather, and Boehner needs to take off his feathers and follow.
grumpy, there is a part of me that agrees with you (and I think part of leadership academia), but there is also support for my position. I first heard the concept as it relates to teaching. If a teacher "teaches" but the students do not learn, then did the teacher really teach? My contention is "no."
Leadership is not a list of actions or activities but is an effort that produces results. Without the results, all you have are the activities and efforts...even if it was sincere.IMHO.
And, yes, your grandfather was wise, too. My grandmother often said similarly, "there are too many cooks in the kitchen."
So let me get a little bit of liberal thought process straight.
Bush, at fault for everything, including Obama's failed presidency.
Obama, not at fault for anything, ever, period.
Got it.
No coach in history has ever had a team who ignored everything he told them, did the exact opposite of everything they were asked, didn't even show up most of the time for practices or games, and continually spouted off to the press about how bad a coach he was.
Wouldn't you take your case to the fans if your team did that?
Rob, if someone has decided that they are absolutely going to refuse to do what someone else has asked them to do, who's at fault? What do you want the president to do to be a leader? It seems that to repubs, their idea of leadership will be if the president simply caves and gives them everything they want. Oh, wait, he has done that, taken repub ideas that they supported earlier, and they have decided that they suddenly don't agree with them. Let the GOTP dig their own electoral graves, because the rest of the country sees them as little more than a bunch of irrational, whining brats that couldn't govern their way out of a wet paper bag.
@Really? -
Obama's failed presidency? Let's see; my 401(k) is worth 4x now what it was when Bush left. We have many more employed now than when Bush left. We're in fewer wars now than when Bush left. OBL is dead now; Bush "didn't much care" what was going on with OBL.
The only way I've benefitted from Bush's years in office is that I work in a (non-government) regulatory job that came about because of changes to my industry while Bush was in office. Yet you righties keep blaming Obama for too much regulation.
I could go on all day, but you'd never get it anyway.
Republicans aren't the ones yelling Gimmee! at the top of their lungs. They also aren't the ones demanding huge new debt while planning to never repay it. That sounds much more childish then quietly saying "no" to excess.
I'm thinking the left is so wrapped up in fantasy land that they have no idea what they are doing, or how they are appearing. Here's Obama decrying the 1% while frolicking with them in million dollar resorts. There's Obama selling access to the 1% for more money. How about Ms Obama taking million dollar vacations every opportunity in posh and expensive venues? How about Obama reserving the right for his people to bear arms but not the hoi-polloi? Or perhaps sending the drones out to spy on Americans with warrantless surveillance and wiretaps, and video on private property?
And yet, as said above, Bush was responsible for everything and Obama is responsible for nothing. The left has abdicated any sense of propriety and debauched itself in privilege. It is past time to say no, and say "hell no" /rant.
KJ, I want to know what you are investing in to get a 400% return in 4 years! Please, do tell.
Here's Obama decrying the 1% while frolicking with them in million dollar resorts.
I suppose you would rather The President of The United States, took vacation time kicking it with some brothers down in the hood!
robdon and shooter are on a real roll LMAO , Benen just makes you 2 look like the stooges trying to paint a house with crayolas , the more you accomplish , the more idiotic you end up looking in here , just like your election losing party
I still want to know about the 400% return in 4 years...that not "idiotic" is it? :(
OK, drive by. First, Democrats aren't shouting Gimmee at the top of their lungs. Want to back that up with something other than bullsh*t?
Two, when Obama goes out to play golf he doesn't go to the local public links for good reason. It's stupid on your part to pretend otherwise. Don't be stupid.
Three, Obama got most of the money for his re-election from small donors, not the million dollar fat cats like the Koch's, Adelsons, and so on. You know, the guys who were willing and able to spend $60-100 million on the election.
Fourth, Michelle Obama taking million dollar vacations at every opportunity? Surely you jest. Prove it or STFU.
Fifth. What rights has Obama taken away or reserved for his friends concerning gun control? Has one single gun ever been confiscated? Ever? Who are Obama's "people" that you are referring to? All those "blahs" out there? And you claim that Democrats are racists.
Sixth. Can you point out even one single instance of Obama ordering drones to spy on Americans with warrantless surveillance and wiretaps on private property? I'm assuming you're referring to this happening in America, not overseas, as you tacked on that part about private property. Where is your proof, drive by? As I recall, the Patriot Act, which allowed wiretapping without a warrant, occurred on George Bush's watch. A direct violation of the Constitution he swore to uphold, and for which he should have been impeached.
Seventh. I'll start holding Obama responsible for things after he cleans up the mess made by the last Republican administration (which may take awhile) and when he gets a Congress that is willing to work with him and implement some of his policies, instead of obstructing every thing he does. Just because Bush has been out of office for four years doesn't mean his legacy doesn't still exist. I'm surprised you even know the word "debauch", but then I think of the Bush years and realize you had plenty of time to learn.
Finally, do yourself a favor. Stand on one leg, tilt your head to the side and hop up and down for about ten minutes. You'll feel light-headed at first, but later you'll feel a lot better for having gotten all that cr*p out of there. No thanks necessary for the advice.
He's been ask to back his statements (talking points) up many times. Never has. Don't hold your breath. And we all know he will never STFU. Or contribute anything.
Just a thought; who owns all the media? Google it and try
not to be too amazed at the few and their position of power and wealth. Do you
really expect anything other than what we have?
Go read the history of the Weimar Republic, 1931-33. In 1931, the Nazis received enough votes to have a significant presence in the Reichstag. They then began doing everything possible to gum up the works. This led to another parliamentary election, in which they ran against the "do nothing" Reichstag, promising to make things work if they were elected. That increased their numbers and Hermann Goering was made President of the Reichstag since the Nazis were now the largest single party (though not a majority). They continued their obstruction for the sake of obstruction, now aided by the leadership, leading to a third election and further disarray. We all know what happened on January 20, 1933.
As a German friend of mine who lived through that period once told me, "The Nazis weren't voted into power by Nazis, they were voted into power by conservatives who believed Hitler when he said he was one of them, a lie they discovered too late."
Also take a look at the operation of the US House and Senate during the period 1856-60, as the South instituted the same tactics of obstruction and unwillingness to negotiate.
These Confederate scum masquerading as "conservatives" and "Republicans" are taking us in a direction that historically leads to catastrophes.
Once the German Zealots gained control of the country, Englands Pime Minister Chamberlin tried to negotiate but since they were Zealots he ended up appeasing them.
Now our media suggests that unless the President does not appease our current set of Zealots he is not leading.
So let me get a little bit of conservative thought process straight. Obama, at fault for everything, including two failed Congresses. Republicans, not at fault for anything, ever, period. Got it.
See, Really?, ridiculousness can go both ways.
You can lead a Republican to the facts, but you can't make him think.
Don't forget his epic ability to go back in time and cause the recession with his policies! Or how he held the gun to Bush's head and forced him to fake up the justification for Iraq. These crimes cannot be forgotten.
Good thing everyone here is infection-free! Isn't it odd how the problem seems to be with everyone else!
Robdon, what should the president do? I'm curious seriously what has he failed to offer that shows this is his fault? Please provide objective facts that demonstrate he refuses to try and come to a deal.
"Just do as the GOP says and no one gets hurt"
Except the poor, the women , the gays, in short everyone but old rich white men.
I think there's a nostalgia on the Beltway media's part for the days when Presidents threatened senators and representatives with monetary loss to their states and districts in order to secure their votes. We hear endlessly how LBJ and FDR would never stand for these Republicans' actions. Even the movie LINCOLN shows a president who chose an "end justifies the means" strategy to get what he wanted. This president, at least publicly, refuses to employ those oldtime tactics. Maybe, the Sequestor cuts should first be applied to those states with Republican Senators and Representatives who refuse to budge in order to change the Beltway media's condemnation of this President. Maybe that's really their definition of leadership.
tigerarmy, I will give it a try but let me be clear, this is NOT all the President's fault or his doing by any stretch.
The President, instead of eliminating loopholes FIRST to raise revenue, chose to raise the tax rates. Why, because he thought he had a better chance at doing BOTH by starting with the rates. That makes sense, and as a tactic, I can see the logic. He was "fighting" (politically) with the Republicans.
Now, he wants to make the loopholes part of this deal. (I don't agree with Woodward that Obama has moved the goalpost.)
Both sides agree there needs to be spending cuts. Real cuts. Why isn't the President just working on that first? He has said in the past, when it was politically advantageous to him, let's first do what we agree on and then work out the rest. (Remember wanting to extend the Bush tax cuts to the 98% first?)
So, that's where he could start...something like, here is 800,000 billion in cuts we all can agree on, let's do that AND then work on the loopholes. But, he won't...why? He would lose the leverage he has on eliminating the loopholes.
Didn't mean to get long winded. I generally dislike loooonnng posts.
If cuts are what the repubs want, it is incumbent upon them to specify those cuts. If little Timmy wants Santa to bring him a new skateboard, he has to tell Santa he wants it, not hope that Santa will figure it out for himself. Why doesn't Ol' Orangie say what he wants to cut? Because he knows that every single thing he wants is hugely unpopular with the voters, right or wrong. Talk about a lack of leadership! Grow a spine, repubs, or shut your mouths. The whining is getting tiresome.
Republicans are just fine with a 2% cut across the board. No one needs to lose a job or constituents to lose services. Cries to the contrary are admissions of incompetence and deceit.
Uffdaguy, you are correct. No one wants to get too specifics about cuts because it alienates voters. Sort of like trying to cut back on the family budget, someone is going to be "less" happy.
So if they want cuts and are too spineless to actually propose what they want to cut, they should just keep their mouths shut and stop whining. We need cuts, certainly, but not the draconian austerity plans that folks like Ryan have been proposing. Europe has shown us exactly what happens when you do that....massive unemployment, and the "confidence fairy" never makes the appearance that the deficit hawks promise.
The thing is that the beltway has decided "compromise" means Obama needs to eliminate his request for revenue and "compromise" by finding a balanced all spending deficit reduction. The beltway has accepted the republican stance as the requirement, i.e. no revenue is where we start from and the only acceptable compromise is what spending should be cut.
I'm still not understanding the need for all this drama. Obama got revenues, the cuts will be coming shortly, what's the problem here?
Well Shooter part of the problem is people like you who keep posting comments about a 2% cut when in reality, under the assumptions required by the STA, the sequestration would result in a 9.4 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding and an 8.2 percent reduction in non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding. The sequestration would also impose cuts of 2.0 percent to Medicare, 7.6 percent to other non-exempt nondefense mandatory programs, and 10.0 percent to non-exempt defense mandatory programs.
So, a man that the GOP has reviled as, basically too black to be president, is supposed to sit down and gently nudge these racially challenged men to compromise? They don't even believe he's legitimately the president.
The GOPers are also exceptionally lazy. They don't want to present anything at all and Boehner is now saying all legislation has to originate in the Senate, even on things where the House is supposed to be where they start.
WHY the MSM is on the GOP's side when it isn't really a side at all except for its rejection of Obama's legitimacy is beyond belief.
Don't be a racist.
Hey, drive by, what about what Jim said is racist? Don't most Reptilians think that Obama is a black, Kenyan, Muslim, Fascist, Socialist, Communist non-citizen? Don't you ever look at polls, drive by? The majority of Reptilians are racist, and proud of it.
shooter. When you name the other presidents that have had go go through all the birther BS and all the GOP filibuster BS, then you can say they arent' race related. Please name them.
I will be perfectly willing to accept the framing that "Obama isn't leading" as soon as he's given the power to fire members of the U. S. House and Senate.
Until they become his employees, one must assume that they have power of their own and the free will to use it. They have as much responsibility to "lead" as does the President.
Josh Marshall just posted a new piece, illuminating the hand being played by the Democrats, it will be fun watching the blithe and insular provincials who populate both houses of congress and their enablers the beltway talking class, as they side with Barack Obama when the chips and cards are finally all on the table.
Has Texas and other States been enjoying the effects of Global Warming with these Blizzards? Texas had up to 70-mph winds in this Blizzard. Big Oil State of Texas is getting a good wake-up call just wait until spring comes. Surely Texas a long with other States will be getting a lot more excitement happening with those severe thunder storms in Spring. Of course, let’s not forget about the droughts too that will help create a food shortage.
Sorry, Deb. We can't worry about crisis like climate change right now. We have more pressing business, like filibustering a nomination, harping on the debt ceiling again in March, defending the rich, and getting the answers to Benghazi repeated to us.
Signed, A Do Nothing Congress Because Obama Won't "Lead" (actually, we just don't want to follow and you can't make us)
It is definitely clobbering time for the media and that SF meme; both sides do it.
I have never before witnessed such a gravy train of bullsh!t from the media.
If the mainstream press publishes lies and deceipt as "one side" instead of putting it to a truth test, then we are all paid an incredible diservice. Especially if news is only gotten at one source, as in Faux. It's an alternate reality that nobody seems to be interested in investigating. The question "Is it true?" doesn't seem to be entered into the equation and the deceipt is now portrayed as fact. Boehner and his band were on break last week, resting from their do-nothing and blame others philosophy. He has the gall to tell someone else to get off their ass??
So...is the Post doing their 'normal'? The Obama's aren't part of our 'village' so he isn't 'leading'? They start this crap every time they think a President isn't paying enough attention to THEM and their 'concerns'? This is the media at it's worse. Not a flippin' MENTION today of Boehner's 'neglect' to remind the 'voters' that there isn't actually a sequester bill from the House. No mention that the President HAS signed into law spending cuts. No...what we HEAR is OMIGOD! HOLY CRAP! The GOP 'gave in' on 'raising taxes' and now it's the PRESIDENT'S TURN. OMIGOD! HOLY CRAP! The President isn't sitting down with Congress who went on a ten day vacation...but but but the PRESIDENT went on a THREE DAY VACATION. OMIGOD OMIGOD he's not LEADING!!!!!
But the Congress conga line is following a leader...$$$$ cha cha $$$$ cha cha $$$$
If the DC Press seemingly have a problem pinpointing our current sequester woe, and its origins, it is because they can't grasp the fundamental change that has the Republican brand squarely in the cross-hairs of American Middle Class anger!
They're still operating as if Tip and Ron had a relationship beyond the political battlefield! Hey DC Journos - Tip and Ron are dead, and so is a balanced approach to reporting that finds fault with both parties, when it is only one that has Gone Wild! -Kevo
The reality and common sense the Beltway elites must suspend, the evidence in front of their faces they must ignore, the blatant double-standards they must apply, the false equivalencies they must draw, and the logic pretzels they must twist themselves into to provide the Republican Party political cover is really a sight to behold.
And some people still wonder how we got into Iraq.
Trees, Forests and Termites:
Just as the powerful virus corrupts -- the mold that inhabits -- the bacteria that infects -- the cells that grows -- the tumor that forces man to continue waste efforts to feed the power virus, there is no cure in ignoring the virus of power that will cause the extinction of man.
Senate's self-appointed rules and as well as those of the House's leader, makes void all discussions of all issues when all issues are subject to the abuse of those rules.
In effect awful a lot of people are wasting an awful lot of time looking introspectively as to the why and wherefores of one specific issue (e.g. Judicial Appointment). Searching endless for some rational basis of this one example of abuse, hoping, pleading, wishing and wallowing itself doubt, to the point of exhaustion.
Entirely missing the possibility that there might be more that only one issue adding up to the most certain confusion that having two or more issues when we can only focus on one at a time. This confusion forces even the most civil and conscientious mind in indeterminate state. This is like never having seen a tree before, the reporter ties to figure how it works, but does not look up ward, to see that there is a second tree. There the reporter would be dismayed that it was one tree that was wasting his time. Later on reflection, past press time the reporter looked at that second tree and mistakes it as being the same as the first tree. The reported failed to notice that the rest of the forest having more trees that you can count. The reality is that political forest has many species of trees and for particular forest there might be 12 species.
So it might be that a dozen or so species of political problem might be a very serious infection capable of decimating the forest.
The abuse of its rules makes the Constitution's grant of infinite self-determined power given to the Senate/House, the obvious root cause of the problems of a government that is ironically under savage attack by politicians who claim not to member of a club that would have them as members.
Politicians elected are to that very Government that they oppose and have been sabotaging for decades. If it is the end of government that politicians seek then as that government withers on the vine should not its demise also sweep politician into the same compost heap.
Just as the powerful virus corrupts -- the mold that inhabits -- the bacteria that infects -- the cells that grows -- the tumor that forces man to continue waste efforts to feed the power virus, there is no cure in ignoring the virus of power that will cause the extinction of man.
Can we not say what we see when all we see is source of the problem?
The power virus rots the head?
Yes, because the GOP are acting like spoiled brats, the Democrats should be the adults here. And adults don't reward temper tantrums.
The impact of the sequester is being grossly under estimated by many of our politicians. The reason is they have not personally experienced the psychological impact of uncertainty and lost jobs. For the politician, it is an abstract problem, and the resulting consequence is evaluated as an abstract. That doesn’t even come close to the reality of the pain.
Take a company that fires two-hundred employees out of one-thousand. The math says that the company will experience a twenty percent loss in production. The reality; there will likely be a thirty-five percent loss in production. The remaining work force is also adversely impacted. The remaining workforce is realigned. A shift- change may be required. That is fine on paper, but now there is no one to watch their kids. Those not fired worry about being fired soon, or having their shift changed soon. Their productivity declines, the quality of their work declines. Corrective costs spike.
The public curtails spending. Not just those let go, but those in fear of being let go. More companies, never considered as part of the sequester, are forced to fire employees. The vicious cycle is repeated. If the sequester lingers the economic pain will be exponentially accelerated.
Those politicians that inflicted this pain will feel the wrath of the public. The angriest will be those that supported the ill-conceived theory; when you cut debt only, prosperity and jobs will soon follow.
The biggest customer in our economy is the US Government, and the jobs that flow indirectly from this spending are considerable. The Tea Party is getting what it wants. We will see very soon if Americans got what they want.
C'mon. How long does it take the country to learn?
This country wouldn't have the problems it has if there was a responsible, competent media/press. It doesn't. End of discussion.
What I find hysterical is everyone on both sides of the fence expect Obama to lead yet, until he was elected President, Barack has never been in a leadership position his entire life. Poor guy doesn't know which way is up or how to get out of the paper bag.
What I find hysterical is the inability of trolls to actually, you know, offer solutions. Instead, they parse sentences and take phrases out of context. They project onto those they oppose politically all their own faults, errors, and misbehaviors.
I do have bit of pity for a few, the one or two trying so desperately to appear rational, trying to put on a mask of care and concern about what's happening to the country when, by looking at their posts, it's obvious all they care about is money. Who has it, how much of they can get and their complete and unabiding hatred for anyone or anything that stands in the way of their becoming rich and "important".
Silly fools don't seem to realize that those for whom they're catapulting this BS would die before they'd let Blanks and his ilk associate with them.
Well, maybe as a barman, caddy or chauffeur...