Associated Press
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), after dinner with President Obama last night
As promised, President Obama took 12 Senate Republicans to dinner last night -- the president reportedly paid for the evening out of his own pocket -- in the hopes that some schmoozing might ease the gridlock that has paralyzed much of Washington. By all accounts, the gathering went quite well, but there was one paragraph in one report that stood out for me. From NBC's First Read:
[O]ne senator told us that he learned, for the first time, the actual cuts that the president has put on the table. Leadership hadn't shared that list with them before.
That, my friends, is amazing.
Remember, there's been a fair amount of discussion over the last week, much of it instigated by this item from Ezra Klein, that one of the reasons Republican lawmakers have rejected President Obama's overtures on a bipartisan fiscal deal is that Republican lawmakers simply don't know what President Obama has offered as part of a bipartisan fiscal deal.
I've generally found this hard to believe -- the details of Obama's offers are hardly a secret; much of the plan has been published at the White House's website -- but the First Read report suggests there may be something to this after all. In at least this one case, a Republican senator has relied on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for information on the details of president's pitch, and he or she was surprised to learn of "the actual cuts that the president has put on the table."
We can speculate as to why McConnell refused to share these details with his own members -- and why the senator didn't proactively seek the information before last night -- but it suggests the White House's outreach strategy, predicated on circumventing the intractable GOP leadership, may have some unexpected value.
But the next step, if there is a next step, will still be incredibly difficult.
To be sure, it was a pleasant change of pace to see so many reports of Republican lawmakers enjoying their time with President Obama.
* Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.): "I think really what he is trying to do is start a discussion and kind of break the ice and that was appreciated."
* Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.): "I don't think there's any expectation that something over the next month or six weeks is going to occur. But I think it helped lay a foundation for constructive talks maybe between now and the debt ceiling. But certainly it was very useful, very sincere, very cordial and a good dinner."
* Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.): "It was a very enjoyable meeting."
Such pleasantries are rare from the president's GOP detractors, which makes the quotes a refreshing change of pace.
But there's a predictable trajectory to this process that we've seen before. I hate to sound like a cynic, but consider the usual pattern: a Republican says, "We demand President Obama support X." The White House says, "Fine, we're willing to put X on the table." At which point Republicans respond, "We no longer accept X; and now demand Obama support Y."
I'm glad the participants at last night's dinner had a good time, and if some GOP senators learned something about the president's offer they did not previously know, it was probably time well spent. But are Republicans now (or will they ever be) open to new revenue? Can they apply savings from closed tax loopholes to deficit reduction instead of more tax cuts? Will their desire for a deal outweigh their fear of a primary challenge?
Or more to the point, are they sincerely open to the possibility of compromise or will there always be a new reason to do what Republicans have done for four years: say "no"?
While we wait for that answer to come into sharper focus, the president's willingness to schmooze is apparently just getting started. Next up: lunch today with House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).
Leave a Comment:
[O]ne senator told us that he learned, for the first time, the actual cuts that the president has put on the table. Leadership hadn't shared that list with them before.
That's their freakin' DAY JOB. Good Lord Almighty! Too bad we can't dock all of their paychecks. If I was that ignorant of stuff that important to my own job, I'd be in serious trouble.
I'm always shocked all over again when I hear how many Senators and Representatives vote on bills they haven't read, and sometimes don't even know the main topics of the bills.
For example, whenever one of them makes a speech against a bill that he/she voted for or will vote for, or takes credit for a law or a program that he/she voted against.
Some of them do this knowingly and cynically, but many of them are just lazy or dumb, or dumb and lazy, and have staffs that don't bother to do their jobs, either.
To be fair,they HAVE been quite busy lately, dealing with Zombie ACORNs.
(Not to mention Louis Gohmert confiscating Obama's gold cart!)
Maybe they cannot read all of all the bills, but isn't that what their staffs are for? What are all those staff persons doing? They too get paid by the tax payers.
DAY: They too have to spend some time on the golf course.
Boy who cried Wolf?
Is the Senate in perpetual nursery school? The austerity meme told the fable of the Ant and the 47% Grasshoppers- that what we need is greater adherance to the work ethic and belt tightening.
So how come the ant royalty in the 1% gets 95% of the growth in wealth? Is it that they are expending 95% of the effort?
How's this for an alternative to Aesop's fables:
The meme of the guillotine.
The ancient French cure for grey hair of the royalty and the royalists among the GOP and DEM leadership who support their obscene feeding frenzy as they extract more and more wealth from the middle class and confiscate nearly all profits for themselves.
John M: One of the reasons for the French Revolution was that the French monarchy was broke. Why were they broke? They had lent millions to the Americans so that the Americans could break away from the British and the French could then regain their influence in North America. But, another reason was that most of the aristocrats did not pay any taxes or paid very low taxes.
I worry about exactly what cuts Obama is sharing with them. How much of Social Security and Medicare is he giving away in a (probably fruitless) effort to broker a deal with the Republicans?
Do these legislators not realize that they were elected to make decisions that affect people's actual lives? This isn't a game of Monopoly or Stratego, where they all show up in their $900 suits for a few hours a day in case there's a photo op. That they would be ignorant of something so vital to performing their duties, while not entirely surprising, is utterly disgusting.
No wonder Paul Ryan didn't want to be called 'Congressman' at his debate with VP Biden. It's become a badge of dishonor.
OK, this is pretty peculiar. (the information distribution thing, or lack thereof)
Two things.
1. "Stuff for my staff to read" vs. "Stuff I read." A legislator necessarily has to delegate. That is what a staff is for. But a legislator also has to think and make decisions, and, presumably, has information inside his or her own head that wasn't particularly PLACED there by this "briefing" or that "briefing." (and briefings are always already this odd thing called the "top line," a summary of a summary that neglects to notice what is lost in the summary, or what editorial judgments are made in the process of summarizing (by low level, lower paid folks, medieval scribes, you know, the ones with actual LITERACY skillsets. The sort of thing that isn't taught in college anymore, unless one gets a liberal arts degree).
2. Getting information outside of formal "distribution channels." E.g., the Internet. The Internet should not be something one "delegates," any more than print journalism is delegated (though print sources often do get summarized by PR "clip services"). Can we assume that information DOES flow to these people outside formal distribution channels, like party leadership?
I mean, if Sen. Franken is looking to do something for his Minnesota constituents, say, involving a farm policy, he's gonna get research on the topic, outside formal channels. He'll even talk with constituents, to find out their POV about it. In the case of many legislators, constantly badgered by lobbyists, they'll also get information through those channels as well.
Then there are the information sources that the "chattering classes" draw on, meaning yes, The Internet. The Maddow Show loves showing past video records of contradictions, and those are found in searchable archives, memories, and online (and with tips from sources). But often quite readily available.
The wisdom of what is often presented on the Maddow Show is that it will highlight and juxtapose information that is "hidden in plain sight," but for some reason is being overlooked, with the prevailing POV of the day. Especially in that long A-Block.
Hidden in plain sight, and yet, if it didn't come to them from McConnell or Boehner, you can't assume the GOP rank and file ever found it, got it, received it. How peculiar. How very very peculiar.
Is it information overload, putting overly restrictive filters in front of the delegated summaries and briefing these people receive? Or is it a general passivity, a waiting to be told what to do by one's corporate/lobbyist/leadership masters, since one is in the job primarily to fill the seat and to vote/dance by proxy with "those what's brung them"?
Or is it just another version of Sarah Palin-esque myopia, a lack of curiosity and no desire to read... anything?
Let us examine reality, as we know from the interview with Stiglitz on Monday, we know that although the stock market may be going great, 97% of the profits from that wealth growth is going to the top 5% in the country. (Video, 11:40 in)
.
That is a radical imbalance in economic fairness, and there is a power structure around that elite that has made the public believe that the great economic injustice in society concerns the least well off Mooching off the rest of us.
.
The fact of the matter is that it is the top 1% who are the parasites. Of course, beating up the lowest 5% as welfare queens is cast as instilling good work ethic values, whereas beating up the top 5% avariciously confiscating 97% of the profits is cast as Marxian class warfare.
.
As I said yesterday, I think Sherrod Brown is the kind of insurrectionist who could ignite righteous indignation among GOP and DEMs alike with a populist message against the 1% and the institutionalists like McConnell, Reid, Schumer and Durbin who protect them. Even George Will writes (WaPost) in favor of the Brown steps to break up Wall Street financial institutions. He also notes the resemblance to the situation of the French revolution, and he has good reason to play the part of the Edmund Burke to head off that outcome.
The French Revolution began as a slow moving crisis. There were two years of bad crops which lead to food shortages. People believed the monarchy and aristocracy were hoarding the food. In addition, the aristocracy paid no taxes. A few food riots broke out in Paris and bread became exorbitantly expensive. The people stormed the Bastille because a rumor swept through Paris that the monarchy had sent the military to quell the unrest and that was where the gun powder and some arms were located. It took about two years from that time to get to the point of widespread violence against the monarchy, church and aristocracy.
Can it happen here? Consider what would happen if gas shot up to $30 or more per gallon. That could be the fuse to bring down the government leaders and rich. A populist leader would find the country was ripe for a big change and it would be very ugly.
Speaking of the French Revolution, everyone should watch this YouTube video over and over again, just because it's SO COOL!
If Obama continues to have Republicans for lunch or dinner, I suggest he get with a nutritionist and insure that all these meals consist of a healthy dose of "brain food".
It's common knowledge that the background "news" feeding GOP opinions is tuned to FOX and Hate Radio, so their reaction shouldn't come as a surprise when they're presented with actual facts.
It's funny, to be sure, but shouldn't be a surprise. At least, not for people who live in the real world.
It's easier to not know. "Knowing" means that the "Knowee" might have to acknowledge reality and accept that their unwavering obstruction and irrational behaviour have no justification.
"Knowing" causes hard right lapdogs to walk out of dinners with the devil flashing thumbs up and saying reasonably civilized things about the sly demon who just fed them.
The Obama mind-meld + tiramisu = irresistible and subversive power. There will be a price to pay for obtaining this knowledge. The information they now have is already eating away at the brain cell they all share.
It is not just knowing but understanding that they lack. With all thy knowing, get thee understanding. It is not enough just to know something; one must understand what it means to the country.
I've wondered all along just how much information the House and Senate were given before accepting/rejecting the White House offers. This confirms to me that the Congressional leaders were parsing out information on a "need-to-know" basis and, apparently, they didn't trust their colleagues with the information. "Trust me" is the first line of a snake-oil salesman. Now I wonder if the GOP cloisters themselves in a room awaiting the next update by their illustrious leader so they know what to object to next. I guess it's too much to ask for our representatives to actually find out information on their own (is the Congressional Wifi kept on lockdown to prevent information gathering?? I mean, we do have the technology...)
B!tch McConnell is still trying to make Obama a one term president.
So am I supposed to assume that the Democratic leadership doesn't ever talk directly to Republican senators or provide them with documents? And the administration never does that either? Is all information strictly funneled through leadership? Since they are mostly lawyers and lawyers think it's awful if anyone goes around them to speak to their clients, then maybe that's what the culture in DC is like. I don't know but I hope not.
Ok here is my little slice of cynicism for the day...I am by nature an optimist but I am also a realist and I would be stunned if anything comes of this or of anything else that is going on in Washington.
The reason there just isn't enough benefit to anyone...at this point in our national politics we have three things working against compromise of any kind:
1) publicity, both the Democrats and the Republicans look better to their base voters by portraying themselves as the loyal opposition...it's why filibuster reform didn't get done and why we are lurching from crisis to crisis over debt and deficits.
2)power, no one in Washington is actually interested in making deals...why should they be when all they have to do is blame the other side for not being able to get any work done...the other side of that is that if you accept the fact that we have a very healthy corporate environment in this country as evidence that the status quo is good with the corporate world then there isn't any real reason to change anything anyway.
3) incumbency and choice, the only thing the GOP fear are primaries from the right in their own districts so they keep having to prove themselves more and more ideologically pure and that means continuing to reject anything that looks like compromise. For their part Democrats have something of the opposite problem back home. Because the GOP has forced it's members to tack so far out of the mainstream that they can't present any sort of reasonable challenge to Democrats so they in effect "Can't lose"
Right now everyone is quite happy with gridlock and inaction because it makes them all look like heroes or villains and they don't actually have to do anything
I believe that both sides are glad for the sequester to take effect because that gives the Republicans cover to cut defense and the Democrats cover to cut entitlements. They both say thay want sensible cuts to defense but are unwilling to say which weapons systems they are willing to cut, and they both say they want entitlement refrom but are unwilling to reform the health care industry because that would mean cutting into the shocking profits being garnered by the so called non-profit hospitals. They are both willing to talk about closing loopholes but will not specify which loopholes.
My opinion...
Charm offensive, my @ss. The repukes (especially John McCrap) are likely giving this the thumbs up because of The Obomination selling the working class, the poor, and the elderly down the river!
I await to be proven wrong about The Capitulator In Chief.
Perhaps the GOP will oust their 'leadership' in both Houses for malfeasance.
We need to blame ourselves. These are the kind of willingly ignorant people that we elect.
Yup.
Well, if they knew about which cuts Obama was proposing, then they wouldn't be able to yammer on with nonsensical talking points saying that the President isn't proposing any cuts.
I'm not sure how much this will help. If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. If you take a dozen pigs out the dinner, they're still pigs.
It would seem that a revolution is under way whereby Democratic bloggers, in a VERY short time have gone from saying no to entitlement cuts at all, to falling in line behind the president that they can be traded for some meager scraps from the Republican table, and call it a victory.
Regretably, I suspect you are right.
Steve Benen has been doing great postings for a long time, but he has always been mostly an Obamanaut. Very few criticizms of The Obomination and never any that would offend AIPAC.
I do not see that any where in the op bannedagain , maybe you got lost from fox entertainment again?
Though Senatorial minority power put on a pretty face last night after a parley with the president, those in attendance still carry the same set of demographics they can't help be part of, yet it was refreshing to see happy old white men instead of the usual scowling ones we are usually treated to! -Kevo
Mr Benen has always been pretty optimistic in my opinion , Me too , and Rachel always seems the same way , but as the op spells out , even the open minded have run aground
IMO I have to put this on obama and the dem leadership .... backroom deals , and allowing the filibuster , and the net result is what DC looks like today ..... why would any gop law maker get informed at all ? if the leadership is going to filibuster everything ...... and all the boehner team have to say is " THEY WANT TO RAISE TAXES " , so they all say " NO DEAL " , why would they need details after that ?
The reason Obama and Biden do not get a pass in that scenario ? is because they could have raised such a stink over FILIBUSTER REFORM , every dem in the senate would have been exposed and embarrassed to vote FOR KEEPING THE FILIBUSTER ...There is a time and a place for strong leadership , and over and over again , obama avoids it
But by god he shows up to the BACK ROOM DEAL when it is time to do that , now he can meet Ryan 1/2 way , and take another giant chunk out of our tattered social safetynet ... That is written in the dem platform right?
Blaming Republican intransigence on Obama and Biden is ridiculous, just as blaming the failure of fillibuster reform on them is. What you call "strong leadership" is having a public fight over the fillibuster, any real leader would tell you the way to rally your troops is not to "expose and embarrass" them. But hey, who needs to debate reality when you can simply blame everything on Harry Reid, Obama, and Biden...
Don't care, whatever effort is made is simultaneously squandered on morons by yet another moron. All of these gentlemen and I daresay "ladies" are playing dress up and have no idea how serious our collective predicament is.. Catch me after my lexapro kicks in..
How about applying savings from closed tax loopholes to job creation instead of deficit reduction? Would that be too damn much to ask? You get a threefer, fewer people collecting unemployment, more people paying taxes, improved infrastructure.
I called the President's "comments" line this morning and after a long wait gave a poor volunteer a piece of my mind about 1) the probability that the Administration will okay the Keystone XL pipeline and 2) "cuts" to entitlement.
The Democrats keep saying that they will not allow the budget to be balanced on the backs of seniors, but then they talk about raising the Medicare age to 67 and cutting the cost of living index so as to cut SS benefits. According to Steven Brill in his article in last weeks Time, "Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us," raising the elegibility age would raise costs, but lowering it to 64 would save money. Neither side wants to really cut medical costs because that would cut into the huge profits being made by hospital administrators and pharmaceutical companies.
From the tone of most of the posts above the President had better look to HIS base, because many of us are not at all happy.
What sense does it make to raise the Medicare age when we're supposedly moving toward "universal" health care? We should be lowering the Medicare eligibility age. The way we would be doing with single payer.
The majority of people between 65 and 67 are going to need subsidies through the ACA if this happens. This is like taking money from one pocket and putting it in the other.
But, what are practical, less harmful solutions to extending Medicare's longevity more than 8 years, not that I want a raise in the age either? I keep hearing vague suggestions about how pay-per-visit should be changed to lower costs, but what would that entail. Is it being piloted anywhere? As for SS, I heartily endorse raising the income cap, and making sure those whose only income is from their SS check would not be included in a Chained CPI approach, but what about instituting CCPI for those whose retirement incomes are substantial? I know neither the possible solutions clearly or the ramifications of these and would really appreciate specific information about possible solutions to strengthening the programs that are essential. Sources, anyone?
To whatever extent GOP senators haven't even known the published offers on the table, it is a matter of each individual's, and the party's, incompetence.
When a senator is ill-informed, my first question is whether s/he has hired competent staff, and has tasked them with doing their jobs. I've known a couple of congressional staffers who took their professionalism seriously. They knew how to dig into issues, research thoroughly, encapsulate info in readable reports. They were mindful of the public and private relationships between Members and Senators, and cautious about times that another member of the boss' party might be sabotaging or under-informing their boss. It was critical to have good, if quiet, contacts with colleagues on other staffs to keep abreast of things the bosses might be losing touch about.
It's actually curious that a senator is comfortable saying out loud, I was clueless about some of the published details until tonight. It's a confession that s/he is not competent to track critical details, reported directly or not, and his/her staff is not competent to stay abreast of those things and report to their boss.
what is so surprising about republican's unfamiliarity with what obama is or is all about? when you restrict your sources to fox news, hannity, limbaugh, and your own like minded staff, you're likely to get bitchslapped by reality ocassionally. cf. clint eastwood debating an empty chair (or everything they imagined or wanted him to be).
Perhaps if the President sent a personal letter (White House stationery, personal signature required for receipt, etc.) to each member of Congress with the same information they provide to the leaders of the Congress, all the members of Congress might learn what is really going on.
Oh, and send them an email with the information too --
In this kind of situation even overkill might help . . .
If I knew what the Obama offer was and the GOP Senators didn't, what does that make me?
Literate - for starters.
Capable of adjusting your satellite dish so that Fox will not come in?
Possibly the man who put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp - but I can't confirm it at this time.