Skip to main content


Who won? (Jason Reed/Reuters)
We've seen Boehner's spin on the deal. Now let's take a closer look at the White House spin, which was released later on. How do the two stack up?

Well, if you take them at face value, they're two entirely different deals. Great for our side! No, great for our side! Aside from a few common numbers, you might reasonably ask yourself if they're even describing the same thing: I think the answer lies in the expectations of both sides. All of this agreement is contingent upon each side following through with it: even the supposedly "mandatory" savings can be overridden just by later voting to, well, override them. Each side is making certain assumptions about what parts of the agreement will be enforceable, and how easy it will be to enforce them.

In terms of important differences in each side's spin: for starters, the White House says "programs for low-income families" are exempt from triggered cuts, which is a glimmer of good news in all of this Austeritymania. The White House strongly touts the steep cuts everywhere else as if they are a good thing in and of themselves: that's not different from Boehner, but is instead a full-throated acceptance that austerity during an economic downturn is somehow a Good Thing, when all evidence points to it being a terrible thing.

The White House especially emphasizes the defense cuts: about $35 billion a year for 10 years, which is something that's been grating on the GOP, but doesn't sound like it's a showstopper for them so far. Also grating on the GOP, and unmentioned in the Boehner talking points: preservation of Pell Grants. That will raise the ire of his more ardent teabaggers, who for some reason consider Pell Grants to be the work of the devil.


By far the biggest difference in the two plan outlines, however, is that Boehner says the deal will be "effectively making it impossible" for tax increases to occur; the White House disagrees, saying "the Committee Will Consider Responsible Entitlement and Tax Reform. This means putting all the priorities of both parties on the table – including both entitlement reform and revenue-raising tax reform."

Proposing tax reform and getting it are two different things, especially when we're talking about appointing a 6-6 bipartisan committee in which Republicans effectively hold veto power: they can simply not agree to tax increases, shutting down negotiations, and that's that. That would be precisely what they have been doing this entire time, for example, and quite successfully.

The White House, however, believes that the Republicans won't walk away from the table when Democrats propose new tax revenues (via reforms on the rich, we'll presume) because the alternative would be the "trigger," in which we ostensibly automatically cut $500 billion from future defense budgets (and an equal amount from domestic programs) if the committee cannot reach an agreement that the House and Senate can agree too:

Sequester Would Provide a Strong Incentive for Both Sides to Come to the Table:  If the fiscal committee took no action, the deal would automatically add nearly $500 billion in defense cuts on top of cuts already made, and, at the same time, it would cut critical programs like infrastructure or education.  That outcome would be unacceptable to many Republicans and Democrats alike – creating pressure for a bipartisan agreement without requiring the threat of a default with unthinkable consequences for our economy.

This presumes, however, that the same House and Senate Republicans who insist on not increasing taxes on the rich, on pain of breaking their very solemn tea party pledge, would suddenly reverse that stance if defense were also on the line. Is that assured? Is it really true that all Boehner would have to do, to get his troops in line and have them vote for an actual, bona fide tax increase, is to tell them that otherwise defense gets cut?

I don't think that's as simple as the White House argues it to be—by a longshot, in fact. All that is required to demand both no new taxes and that defense cuts not be made is, well, to simply pass something saying that those defense cuts won't be made. The House can do it easily, which leaves the Senate Democrats as having to choose between "increasing taxes!" or "hurting the troops!"—Democrats are on the defensive on both sides of the equation. They get full blame for any tax increases, and they also get full blame for "endangering our national security" by not giving in to Republican demands. Remember, that's a well-worn argument used in nearly every presidential election. The Democrats are weak on national security! they say, or military readiness is being placed at an all-time low by these draconian cuts that Democrats, and only Democrats, are insisting on!

How do we think that's going to play out? Let's say the House passes a bill next month saying, "Oh by the way, defense cuts are exempt from the trigger"? What happens? What happens if the usual Senate Democrats go along with it, and send it to the president, and Obama is presented, for signature or veto, something named the "Protecting American Freedom Act" or some such thing?

I'll tell you what happens: the GOP has its new we-love-America slogan for the elections, and President Obama, by supporting the defense cuts against their budget-busting carve-out, gets painted as a Muslimish not-caring-about-defense guy. Ditto for every single last Democratic candidate. If I can easily think of how the GOP will game this system, I think it's fairly obvious the GOP can think up the same things.


Supposing that exempting defense by fiat doesn't happen, the other bit of leverage heralded by the White House as mechanism for achieving more balanced tax revenues is the Bush tax cuts. According to the White House, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on Jan. 1, 2013 (the same date as the "trigger" for automatic spending cuts) acts to "force" the balanced revenue-to-cuts approach that they couldn't get this time around:

The Enforcement Mechanism Complements the Forcing Event Already In Law – the Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts – To Create Pressure for a Balanced Deal: The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester would go into effect. These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts.

A minor point here is that the Bush tax cuts were already supposed to end no matter what: that was the promise during the last one of these hostage-taking sessions, in which the Bush tax cuts were extended past their expiration. Now, apparently, their possible permanence has been been revived, yet again, to be used as bargaining chip, yet again.

But the larger point is that the White House believes that Democrats can "force" the Republican side to accept revenue increases, by simply threatening the Bush tax cuts with expiration if it doesn't happen. Well then, why didn't that happen the first time? What argument or hostage will the Republicans not have next time that they did have previously, in order to secure an extension of the tax cuts for wealthy Americans the first time around?

It again presumes that the Republicans can't find a hostage that the Democrats aren't willing to let them shoot. Yes, Obama can simply veto any attempts to extend the Bush tax cuts: but do we think the Republicans won't have a ready answer for that? What happens if the "Super Congress" comes back with tax reforms that severely impact the poor, but not the rich? What happens if the "Super Congress" merely votes to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, or lard things up with even more tax pork for the wealthy? Forget both of those: let's suppose the most likely outcome, which is that Democrats on the committee stand firm on not allowing either of those things, and let's suppose Republicans stand firm on requiring them, leading to committee stalemate and "triggering" the enforced cuts: are we saying that at that point, Republicans will stop taking hostages in order to regain those tax cuts, and the Democrats will be in the advantageous position? Why?


The problem with this deal is the same problem with all of the White House "compromises" during this administration. They accept ridiculous Republican demands on the theory that next time around, they'll be in a better position to fight them. Then, when the next time rolls around, they agree to Republican demands again, still saying that next time will present them with a better opportunity. Now we're basing the entire White House assertion of a "bipartisan" deal on the mere say-so that during the next round of negotiations, we've figured out a way for Democrats to stand firm.

Really? No: really?

I'm going to say something rather remarkable here, which is that if I had to choose which talking points were a more credible description of the outcome of these talks, Boehner's or the White House's, it would be a much tougher choice than it should be. In recent history, what Boehner has said would happen, no matter how ridiculous or damaging, has been much closer to what actually ended up happening as an outcome. This White House, however, has had at this point a rather pockmarked history of declaring certain things were non-negotiable, only to quickly negotiate them away again. When the White House says it's going to stand firm in 2013, and that therefore this "deal" makes good sense, it lacks credibility.

The White House is basing this entire deal, and agreeing to nearly all of the demands made by the farthest-right conservatives, on the premise that they will stand firm next time on the exact same economic and political points that they were not able to stand firm on this time: it basically renders this whole exercise into a judgement call as to whether you think next time is the charm, when it comes to Democrats having the courage to stand up against difficult, hostage-laden Republican demands.

There is nothing in the last few years that would suggest that to be the case.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  what a load of crap (15+ / 0-)

    utterly, utterly pathetic. the Dems have lost me for good

    •  I'll still vote for the "right" candidate, even if (0+ / 0-)

      he/she happens to be a Dem. (There are still some good ones out there.) But no support, time, money or votes for non-progressives. Ever.

      I no longer identify myself as a Democrat, because apparently I have a far different idea of what that means than the head of the party.

      "The real power is in the hands of small groups of people and I don't think they have titles." -- Bob Dylan

      by nonprofit jim on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 08:17:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  politico: (23+ / 0-)
    In a multi-trillion dollar deal, a stubborn dispute over less than $17 billion in defense spending for 2012 was a final issue for Boehner. And to bridge the gap, the administration ultimately agreed to soften the lines by going back to an old broader definition of “security funding” that couples the Pentagon with also includes funding for Homeland Security, the State Department and foreign aid.

    http://www.politico.com/...

    (h/t goobergunch, in my diary)

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:34:35 PM PDT

  •  A few tweets by Robert Reich that hit the bullseye (65+ / 0-)
    Anyone who characterizes the debt-ceiling deal as a victory for the Am people over partisanship understands neither politics nor economics.
    The Am public will not blame Rs for the coming double-dip jobs recession, because the deal over the debt ceiling implicates the Ds as well.
    It is not the case that "both sides" gave up "sacred cows." Rs linked the debt ceiling to their demand for smaller govt. They've got it.
    The hostage crisis may be over but the US economy will now suffer insufficient demand and a govt incapable of boosting it.
    Defining the problem is 95 percent of the battle in Washington. O and D's have let GOP define the problem as the nation's debt.
    The crisis we face now is jobs and growth. By emphasizing the nation's debt, O & D's continue to play on R's field.

    "I wish I could tell you, in the midst of all of this, that President Obama was waging the kind of fight against these draconian Republican proposals that the American people would like to see. He is not." -- Senator Bernie Sanders

    by Sagebrush Bob on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:36:09 PM PDT

  •  FUCK THOSE ASSHOLES! (15+ / 0-)

    Plutocracy too long tolerated leaves democracy on the auction block, subject to the highest bidder ~ Bill Moyers

    by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:37:49 PM PDT

  •  i better get used to no ... pie ... :o( (5+ / 0-)

    Humanity is one family ... with one heart.

    by abarefootboy on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:38:39 PM PDT

  •  Well, Obama's credibility is officially (32+ / 0-)

    at Bush levels now.

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:39:29 PM PDT

  •  Why do I smell snake oil? (12+ / 0-)

    This is a crisis I knew had to come, Destroying the balance I'd kept. Doubting, unsettling and turning around, Wondering what will come next.
    --Ian Curtis

    by jethrock on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:40:05 PM PDT

  •  Powder (10+ / 0-)

    It's still dry.

    Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

    by Joe Bob on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:43:16 PM PDT

  •  If they were on the other team (7+ / 0-)

    I would enjoy laughing at them.

  •  Do you honestly feel (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JC from IA, chrismorgan

    that if Obama had staked out strongly left positions to open the negotiations, the outcome would have been any different?

    If not - what EXACTLY is it that you would have had him do?  Give more voice to your views and yet still compromise?  I don't understand what it is you want him to have done.

    Still enjoying my stimulus package.

    by Kevvboy on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:44:23 PM PDT

    •  Let me just say (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NealB

      what I would rather he have done:  declare that he was raising the debt ceiling by executive order, and risk the impeachment trial.  But that is what the result would have been, folks - have no illusions.  THAT is the situation that was set up here and he seems to have rather deftly side stepped by negotiating an agreement that is as flexible as any law ever passed.  Triggers?  Scaling?  These cuts will never happen because the economy is already in a recovery and will recover.

      Still enjoying my stimulus package.

      by Kevvboy on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:46:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes (18+ / 0-)

      He had the bully pulpit.  He should have said over and over and over what caused the high deficits (Bush Tax Cuts - not paid for, 2 wars - not paid for, Medicare Part D - not paid for) at the hands of the Republicans.  Then he should have repeated over and over again how many times the debt ceiling was increased under Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr without a peep.  

      Exposure of their utter hypocracy would have made his position stronger.  This bullshit of giving away the farm every single time only leads to more and more farms being given away.

      There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

      by Puddytat on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:49:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eglantine, JC from IA, Mecadalphia

        It depends on what kind of farm you are seeking.

        I like a farm with a health care bill, as opposed to no health care bill.

        I like a farm where the supposed spending cuts are all reversible and triggered and mostly come from the Pentagon and probably arent real  because they are all legislative bullshit and the economy needs stimulus but impossible with Congress so the only stimulating thing he can do is allow them to keep their tax cuts.

        I like a farm where what is possible comes to be, rather than an imaginary, or Animal, farm of pure ideology where everything is exactly the way I wish it could be.

        However, I must add that I believe you are right that rhetorically he could have begun and persevered with more strongly left positions.  I still say the result would have been the same or worse.  We'll see if this fucker can pass.

        Still enjoying my stimulus package.

        by Kevvboy on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:52:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "and mostly come from the Pentagon..." (10+ / 0-)

          That's quite simply false. You're talking about a massive cut in non-defense spending. Which means less EPA, less NPS, less USDA, less FDA... less of what the government actually does constructively for this country, as opposed to bombing a bunch of places in Africa and Asia.

        •  your phrase (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hkorens, nonprofit jim
          everything is exactly the way I wish it could be.

          Do you even have any foggy idea how very far most of the country is from the ideal? Many Americans are struggling to stay above abject poverty, misery, sometimes even death. Please do not trivialize them.

          You can argue that this was a good strategy for the Dems, or that it was unavoidable, but to say that those opposing the deal just "want every little thing just the way they want it" is inaccurate and unkind.  

          To keep our faces turned toward change, and behave as free spirits in the presence of fate, that is strength undefeatable--Helen Keller

          by kareylou on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:00:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The good stuff is just as reversable as the bad (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kareylou, pengiep, nonprofit jim

          stuff. Do you really believe the Republicans won't go after health care reform? That is going to be target # 2. (Target number 1 is labor destruction:See the FAA situation.)

          "Turns out, old folks may be cranky, they may not want you kids on their lawn, but they still want those kids to be taken care of when they are old." QAZPLM

          by hkorens on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:14:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Health care bill, Obama's big "accomplishment" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tikkun

            will be gone probably within a month of the Repubs retaking the House and the Senate in 2012. Frankly, I'll be very happy to see that POS bill go. Without a public option, it's not going to work anyway.

      •  I must add (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbird, JC from IA, Mecadalphia

        that exposing the utter hypocrisy of the people with whom the Constitution forces you to negotiate is not necessarily the best way to open a negotiation.  If you know what I mean.

        As I keep insisting, we should have given him a Democratic House in 2010 and we would not be having this problem.

        Still enjoying my stimulus package.

        by Kevvboy on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:56:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, you keep fogetting that TeaBaggers are (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kevvboy, chrismorgan

        not rational.

        Bully pulpit gets you exactly dick when public opinion means nothing to your opponents.  Their dogma is the only important thing to them; they don't even care if they get reelected, as long as they uphold their dogma.

        How do you bring pressure to bear on a politician who has no regard for his political future?

        •  It does remind one (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          on the cusp, chrismorgan, LarryNM, pengiep

          of Hindenburg trying to negotiate with Adolf H.

          Still enjoying my stimulus package.

          by Kevvboy on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:09:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  but you keep forgetting that the Teabaggers are a (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Puddytat, blueoasis, pat bunny, hkorens

          minority within the Repug Party.  

          The Baggers can wave their arms and yell all they want.  They don't have the votes to do jackshit unless the establishment Repugs and/or the Dems vote with them.

          And you and I both know that neither the establishment Repugs nor the Dems would have allowed the US to default. After all the bluster and bluff, they'll vote to increase the debt limit, clean, just like they have every year for the past three decades. Whether the Baggers like it or not.

          That is why all the "negotiating" was utterly unnecessary. In the end, the Repugs would simply have no choice but to accept a clean bill.

          •  No, they are the plurality in the Thug primary (or (0+ / 0-)

            enough to matter big time).  Which is all they need to be, b/c when only 30% show up (and it is often less) or 1/3rd of the voters, then that 10-15% get to drive the train. See, O'Donnel, Angel, et. al.

            •  that doesn't help them in Congress, though. (0+ / 0-)

              They only have 60 votes (the Progressive Caucus, by contrast, has 80 votes).  

              The Baggers can't do jackshit unless we or the establishment Repugs vote with them.

              •  !) its 80 or so not 60, 2) almost every other Thug (0+ / 0-)

                is scared to death of them primarying them - they saw what happened to Bennet and in RI, NV, Co and other states and CDs - the 1st rule of politics is guard your re-election flank, and

                3) and most important, there. are. no. sane. Thugs.

                Seriously, do you buy the 'BO betrayed us and really secretly wants to eat live babies and old people' poo but you think 'just say no to Tea-liban will 1) get Thugs to do it and 2) work?"  The Tealiban didn't stop taking drugs when Nancy Reagan used that line and they liked her.

        •  TeaBaggers are bought and paid for (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zett, blueoasis, apimomfan2, hkorens, pengiep

          with corporate money.  They toe the line when told to.

          But the monied elite saw yet another opportunity to peel off more from the poor and working class and just couldn't resist.  They won't be satisfied until they have our Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and people drop dead at 72 at work on the factory floor or construction site because they can never retire.

          Welcome to the New America (looks more and more like Dickensonian England to me).

          There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

          by Puddytat on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:29:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, you let me know the minute that towing the (0+ / 0-)

            line thing gets started, won't you?

            Jesus H. Christ, do you actually read current events?

            •  You might want to look at their (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueoasis, apimomfan2

              big donors to see who owns them.  Also those corporate funded groups who ran the attack ads against their opponents.   They weren't put in office by 10 dollar checks from the Don't Tread on Me crowd.

              And you might want to curb your personal attacks when you don't agree.  Otherwise you'll get one in return.

              I probably read a whole lot more than you do, am likely more involved in campaigns and elections than you, am more involved in issue  lobbying, comprehend more issues on multiple levels than you do and certainly have amassed more mojo.

              Not bragging.  Just saying...

              There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

              by Puddytat on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:45:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  There is an old expression: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pengiep

          "He who cares less, wins."

          How do you think the Godfather would have handled this situation?

          "Turns out, old folks may be cranky, they may not want you kids on their lawn, but they still want those kids to be taken care of when they are old." QAZPLM

          by hkorens on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:38:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  He should have said (8+ / 0-)

      That he wouldn't accept anything less than a clean bill raising the debt ceiling. No negotiations, at all, period. Yeah, the tea baggers would have screamed and shouted, but they don't even make up the majority of the Republicans in the House, let alone the full House. Between the Democrats and the sane, corporate-owned Republicans in the House, a clean bill could have quite easily passed, and sailed through the Senate.

      The Republicans didn't take a hostage in this situation. Obama gave it to them.

      •  More bullshit. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chrismorgan, Juliann

        The fabled "clean" bill has been on the table since the beginning.  House TeaBaggers refused.

        Or, are you disputing very recent history?

        •  The Tea Party isn't congress (5+ / 0-)

          As I said, they don't even make up the majority of Republicans, let alone the House. A clean debt bill could have been passed between the Democrats and the sane Republicans.  Easily. Obama started this entire mess by even accepting the notion that there was anything to negotiate, because he wanted his 'Grand Bargain' of cutting Social Security and Medicare.  One he started that BS, he (rightfully) lost the votes of the Democrats, the more moderate Republicans realized they could hold out for a better deal (when your opponent starts giving you stuff out of the blue, you'd be an idiot to argue with him) and suddenly the teabagger vote was necessary.

          •  There. Are. No. Sane. Thugs. Deal with it. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JC from IA, dadadata, Juliann

            Not in the House.  Only the Insane Clown Cult, snake oil salemen and servants of the New Aristocracy.

            Why do you think Bone-head paniced last week?  He was going to lose 80 'baggers and with them probably at least 50 more when they saw they'd be voting for a losing deal.  They only got the bare majority needed by promising that a balanced budget amendment would pass both Houses in 6 months.  Nevermind that that is a Batsh&t Insane idea.  No sane person could possibly believe it would make it thru the Senate.

            •  Again... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              hkorens, tikkun

              That's because Democrats wouldn't vote for it because it cuts social programs that make up the backbone of what Democrats are elected for. There's 195 Democrats in the House. Even if we assume some of the peel off and vote against a clean debt ceiling bill, lets say that that leaves us with 180. You need 216 votes to pass something, so you only need 46 out of 240 Republicans to pass a clean bill. The Tea Party faction in the House is only about 70-80 strong. Getting 46 of the remaining 160 House Republicans to vote to avoid destroying the world economy would be a walk in the park - if anyone would have cared to fight for it.

              The Senate is even easier. 51 Democrats and 2 independents who both caucus with them.  Its doubtful anyone would be dumb enough to try to filibuster the nation paying its bills, but even if someone did, you only need 7 cross-over votes.  And the Senate basically doesn't even HAVE a tea-party faction.   The entire institution is corporate-owned mind, body and soul.

              •  Speaker controls what comes to the floor. (0+ / 0-)

                So never was going to be a clean bill less Bone-head allowed it.  He was never going to jeopardize his Speakership so Obama could get a clean bill.

                And Rand Paul certainly is dumb enopugh to filibuster in the Senate.

                The rest of your 'analysis' is just unprovable spin.  U really want to bet the country on your being right when pretty much every other political analyst with a track record says you're wrong?  

                Besides, you ignore that there. are. no. sane. Thugs.  If there were they would have locked the Clowns up long ago.  they don;t b/c they like having the Inmates lose eating the paste and defecating on the floor.  And that kind of enabling is not only insane, its evil.

                •  I absolutly disagree (0+ / 0-)

                  After all else failed the Speaker would have had to bring up a clean bill.

                  The just say no concept worked well for the Republicans and it would have worked jsut as well for Obama

                  "Turns out, old folks may be cranky, they may not want you kids on their lawn, but they still want those kids to be taken care of when they are old." QAZPLM

                  by hkorens on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:47:48 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nope. Bone-head would not 'have' to do squat. (0+ / 0-)

                    He'd just blame BO and the Ds for the Depression.  Hell, they wouldn't even have to change the talking points.

                    Your logic fails to comprehend the simple reality: its easy to destroy, which is all 'no' does and all Thugs want.  Seriously, the Overlords know when government fails they'll be the only ones left to scoop up all the $ - and you won't even have a vote under them. Nor an of that pesky Constitutional rights nonsense.

                    For Thugs Omni Consumer Products- Detroit isn't an '80s movie villian, its the goal.

            •  nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

              The Bagger caucus only has 60 members.

              The Progressive caucus has over 80.

              The Baggers don't have the votes to do jackshit.

          •  Then, why the fuck didn't the Baggers pass it (0+ / 0-)

            when they had the opportunity?  In fact, why was it never even brought forward again by the leadership in the House?

            Obama magically stopped the guys who don't want to do anything Obama wants?

            Are you fucking kidding?  You ought to be.

        •  House Teabaggers only have 60 votes. (0+ / 0-)

          They can all refuse, to a man, and the bill can pass anyway.

          And if the Dems had held firm, the establishment Repugs would have voted for it in the end.  They don't want a default any more than we do. That's why they passed debt limits dozens of times over the past three decades.

          The Baggers simply could not stop it. They don't have the votes to do jackshit.

    •  I would expect him to stand strong (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pengiep
      If not - what EXACTLY is it that you would have had him do?

      Instead, he once again rolled over. He should have held for a clean increase. All he did now is set up the next hostage taking. If he just said “no” to anything but a clean bill we would not be in this position.

      I don't believe he has any ulterior motives. And I believe he is very intelligent. Unfortunately he is not too smart; there is a difference.

      he got caught up in “a Grand Deal.” Then he got rolled. Now we are going to pay for it. As far as I am concerned, I would rather have default then agree to this deal. The Republicans have set it up so that we are going to do this again. If they win in 2012 they will cut the hell out of social spending. If Obama wins in 2012 they will hold the next debt ceiling as a hostage to cut the hell out of social spending. The only solution is a clean deal so they know it won’t work.

      "Turns out, old folks may be cranky, they may not want you kids on their lawn, but they still want those kids to be taken care of when they are old." QAZPLM

      by hkorens on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:09:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  HIS JOB-that's what. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hkorens, pengiep

      His job is NOT to cave in to ridiculous extremist demands over and over again! His job is to LEAD this country not follow the Rs and protect the rich at any cost.  His job is NOT to kiss R ass.

      I wash my hands of him and the other dems in office.We need to throw all of them out and start over again.

      Feed my sheep-Jesus

      by GAladybug on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:30:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, the WH KNOWS who they NEED (15+ / 0-)

    to knock on doors. NOT ME, let Wall Street do it.  This administration has put it all on the line and ended up coming up sounding like the OUTKAST song, "Roses" and we all know what that is about!!!

  •  No one is accusing the White House (8+ / 0-)

    of being politically savvy.  To paraphrase Lincoln for the White House's sake...it is better to be thought a fool than to negotiate, kill the hostages and remove all doubt.

    Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up...East Wing Rules

    by Pithy Cherub on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:47:45 PM PDT

  •  None of the bad stuff Hunter describes (15+ / 0-)

    will happen. I know this because:

    I take John Boehner at his word that he will negotiate in good faith next time.

    Also, I'm looking for a good deal on a bridge if anybody has one for sale.

    I can't vote for it because it doesn't have enough votes.

    by Dopeman on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:49:43 PM PDT

    •  At the rate we are going, lots of (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, apimomfan2, Dopeman

      bridges may be for sale soon.  Given the shoddy state of the transportation system, many are ready to go anyway.

      I suggest Craigslist.

      866-338-1015 toll-free to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them.

      by cany on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:56:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes, and Obama should be arrested and tried for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chrismorgan

    treason.  Compromise is the dirtiest of words, as any TeaBagger will tell you.

    BTW, what was your more desirable, viable solution to the problem, again?

    •  How on God's green Earth is this a compromise? (18+ / 0-)

      What, exactly, did the Republicans give up? A "compromise" is something in the middle. This is a giant shit sandwich of right-wing policy and Tea Party lunacy dressed up in a paper sack that says "compromise."

      •  Well, for starters, the debt ceiling gets raised (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mcartri, clambake, Juliann

        if the bill passes, and through 2012.

        You know, the actual immediate goal.

        So, now, your better solution was what, again?

        •  The debt ceiling was going to be raised anyway (12+ / 0-)

          The GOP's Wall Street masters wouldn't have let them push to default! They would have been forced to pass a clean bill.

          But hey, let them the Republicans take hostages again and force the Democrats to capitulate again. BECAUSE IT WORKS. Forever. Until the end of time.

          •  Oh, would you have bet actual money on that? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chrismorgan

            Wall Street has been up their butts for weeks; they did not care, obviously, or this would have been over some time ago.

            •  I'd bet a $1 trillion coin (8+ / 0-)

              ...which is one of Obama's Constitutional options to avoid default anyway.

              Face it: Obama's a corporate shill who wants to push through austerity measures. He's bought into the right-wing meme and he's a goner as far as I'm concerned.

              •  Again, there go the hostages. (0+ / 0-)

                How about an actual viable suggestion?  You know, the would have passed both houses?

                •  And next time? (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LarryNM, Four of Nine, hkorens, tikkun

                  "Repeal Roe v. Wade or we'll blow up the economy!"

                  "Adopt a flat tax or we'll blow up the economy!"

                  "Appoint John Bolton to the Supreme Court or we'll blow up the economy!"

                  "Resign, have Biden resign and let Boehner take over the presidency or we'll blow up the economy!"

                  Appeasement didn't work for Neville Chamberlain and it won't work for Barack Obama.

                  •  Oh, for fuck's sake. (0+ / 0-)

                    This instance would determine whether the economy of this country and the world would crash.

                    Do you seriously think that Roe v. Wade rises to that level?

                    Really?

                    And, on top of that, you are willing to sacrifice the country to prove your point?

                    You sound more like a TeaBagger the more you talk.

                    •  The debt limit is about as inocuous as you can get (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      hkorens

                      It has been raised dozens of times over the decades with nary a peep out of the opposition. It ranks right up there with naming post offices and commemorating the 4th of july on the Congressional Routineness scale.

                      And a DEMOCRATIC representative held HCR hostage over something that was already established law (the Hyde Amendment)!!

                      So would they take something ridiculously important hostage over complete nonsense like Roe v Wade? Absolutely yes they would. Never underestimate the mendacity of the right wing. They are sociopaths.

                    •  You're willing to sacrifice Roe v. Wade? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      tikkun

                      You just proved my point, right there. You would literally agree to ANYTHING the Tea Party wants in order to keep Wall Street billionaires in business.

                      Seriously, for someone accusing me of being a "TeaBagger," you sure don't have any scruples about abandoning core Democratic and progressive governing principles.

                    •  this is silly. (0+ / 0-)

                      The Repugs didn't want a default any more than we did.  Your "they'll kill us all if we don't give them what they want !!!!!!!!!!!" nonsense is exactly why the hostage-takers have any power at all---they have only the power we give them.

                      The people who think like you do are the cause of the problem, not the solution to the problem.

            •  Oh, they cared (7+ / 0-)

              The problem is that the only options that were even being discussed were ones with massive cuts to entitlements, which the Democrats in the House simply couldn't accept (quite wisely, because they're going to inherit a world of blame in 2012 from it) which put the entire vote in the hands of the Republicans, who had to satisfy the teabagger faction who are so crazy they can't even accept victory.

              If Obama would have insisted on a clean bill, he would have gotten it, through the votes of the Democrats and enough corporate-owned Republicans necessary to pass it.  By even starting out negotiating on a deal that's always been automatic, he created this problem.

              •  They had that chance some weeks ago. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                chrismorgan

                They didn't take it.

                What makes you think they would have taken it the second time around?

                •  Because it now mattered (6+ / 0-)

                  But why would they take it, when Obama was so determined to give away the store?  There was nothing to even negotiate here - raising the debt ceiling is basically a pro forma event.  Instead, Obama wanted his grand bargain.  Once he started negotiating something where no negotiating was needed, they'd be idiots to cut things off early. If your opponent is going to dumb enough to start handing you things for no discernible reason, you may as well take the chump for everything he's got.

                  •  Bullshit. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Juliann

                    The "clean" bill was never off the table.

                    You can sit and spin all the shit you want, but you are merely in denial of the reality of very recent events.

                    Now, you want everyone to believe that the President, the one who called for a "clean" bill back in April, somehow singled-handedly prevented the House of Representatives from voting on one.

                    Because it so neatly fits your Obama-bashing meme.

                    How fucking pathetic.

                    •  What's even more pathetic (0+ / 0-)

                      is your reality-proof ongoing support for the traitor in chief.

                      "Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens." -Jimi Hendrix

                      by Four of Nine on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 04:37:57 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Obama created this problem by negotiating (0+ / 0-)

                      He should have just said "NO.". And he should have just kept saying NO. If he had, they would be voting on a clean bill today instead of this piece of crap.

                      There was no reason for the Republicans to pass a clean bill before today. As long as they held out there was a chance he would roll, just like he has done so many times before.

                      The only vote that counts is the one today or tomorrow. The Republicans out waited him and out smarted him.

                      "Turns out, old folks may be cranky, they may not want you kids on their lawn, but they still want those kids to be taken care of when they are old." QAZPLM

                      by hkorens on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 06:11:23 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  yes, absolutely. (7+ / 0-)

              I would have bet the future of the country on it.

              The reason this was not over weeks ago is because the Dems kept peeing their pants and offering more and more----and only an idiot would end the "negotiations" when they were getting everything they wanted handed to them on a silver plate, for nothing.

              If the Dems had just passed a clean bill and refused to budge from that, the Repugs would have hemmed and hawed and griped, but in the end they would have signed on.  Just as they have for three decades now. They have no more wish than anyone else does to see the US default. It simply would not have happened.  No matter how much the Teabag nutters waved their arms and jumped up and down.

              •  Oh, bullshit. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                chrismorgan

                It didn't get done, because they didn't want to, pure and simple.

                Sure is easy to bet the future of the country, isn't it, when there are no consequences?  Piece of fucking cake.

                •  how many times have the Repugs passed a debt (0+ / 0-)

                  increase over the past 30 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                  They don't want a default any more than we do.

                  Your hysteria just empowers the hostage-takers.

                  And will continue to empower them.  Forever.

                  That is why negotiating with hostage-takers is always a lose-lose.  Even if you win, you lose. Especially when they still have the hostages.

              •  How would a clean bill (0+ / 0-)

                have even come to a vote in the Senate?

                Sarah Palin: The Palin plan is quite simple. My elderly mother (drily): It would have to be.

                by Juliann on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 06:21:09 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  it would have come to a vote at 11:59pm August 1 (0+ / 0-)

                  And it would have passed in both chambers.

                  The mainstream Repugs would not have allowed a default. It's silly to think they would have.

                  The TEABAGGERS would certainly have gone for a default---they don't think we should have a government anyway. But the Teabaggers don't have enough votes to do jackshit by themselves. So they'd be waving their arms ineffectually on the sidelines while everyone else voted to pass a clean debt limit increase----just like they have several dozen times over the past thirty years.

                  There was nothing that needed to be "negotiated".  Both the Dems and the Repugs would have raised the debt limit no matter what. Just as they always have.

        •  my better solution was exactly what you say here: (7+ / 0-)
          the debt ceiling gets raised if the bill passes, and through 2012.

          You know, the actual immediate goal.

          A bill that says exactly that: raise the debt limit through 2012. Period.

          You know just as well as I do that the establishment Repugs would not allow the US to default, any more than the Dems would---no matter how loudly the Bagger nutballs bitched and whined about it.

          There was no necessity at all to "negotiate" anything. The Repugs have voted to raise the debt limit every year for 30 years now---and they will again.  They simply have no choice.

        •  For the !00th Time...14th Amendment (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LarryNM, hester

          This is what a Democratic President would have done already. You are aware Bill Clinton recently said, 'Just do it." Fell on deaf ears, just Reich & Krugman's pleas fall on Obama's deaf to progressives ears.

          •  not necessary. (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LHB, apimomfan2, LarryNM, pat bunny, hkorens

            There's no mystery about how to pass a bill raising the debt limit---we've already done it several dozen times over the past three decades.

            The only reason it wasn't done this time too is because both parties allowed a small minority of nutjobs to take hostages, and then agreed to negotiate with the terrorists. They should have just told the nutters to go fuck themselves, and passed the same ole debt limit increase as always, ignoring all the nutters who were jumping up and down and gnashing their teeth on the sidelines.

            I point out in passing that the Teabagger Caucus in the House has about 60 members, while the Progressive Caucus has about 80 members.

            The Baggers can't vote jackshit unless they can cajole or threaten someone else to vote with them.

            And they successfully threatened us.

          •  For the thousandth time, consitutional crisis. (0+ / 0-)

            Or, do you think the TeaBaggers would have all just scratched their heads and said: "Gee, I guess he's got us there"?

            GMAFB.

            •  "Constitutional Crisis"...Another Fake Crisis (6+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LHB, blueoasis, apimomfan2, LarryNM, hkorens, newfie

              Only Congress has "standing". The House can impeach a peach if it so desires. The senate would not convict, just as it didn't with Clinton. Impeachment would probably be the only thing to save Obama from a sure one-term presidency. He's going down to Romney...period. An impeachment for standing up for seniors & the middle class would have motivated a base that is disgusted with this capitulation crap. At least he would have had a chance in 2012.

              •  Yeah, and during all that time, why the markets (0+ / 0-)

                would just soar.

                BTW, which part of the Republican Party did you say you were from, again?

                You know, because an actual Democrat would never continuously spew utter bullshit about their own President, then pretend to be a concern troll about him.

                •  I'm getting real tired of this love Obama or else (0+ / 0-)

                  routine

                  You know, because an actual Democrat would never continuously spew utter bullshit about their own President, then pretend to be a concern troll about him.

                  I'm a Democrat and I don't agree with Obama. It isn't bullshit. He WILLINGLY negotiated with terrorists.

                  Forget who won or lost. He negotiated with terrorists. You do not negotiate with terrorists under any circumstances. He is Comander and Chief and allowed terrorists to blackmail my country.

                  "Turns out, old folks may be cranky, they may not want you kids on their lawn, but they still want those kids to be taken care of when they are old." QAZPLM

                  by hkorens on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 06:21:41 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Obama is not the problem, and never has been. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  RandomSequence

                  The problem is that the Democrats are not a progressive party, or even a liberal party.  They don't oppose the Repug agenda because for the most part they don't have any gripe with it.

                  We can elect the zombie corpse of FDR as Prez, and it won't help.  The White House is not where the problem is.  The entire Dem Party is the problem.

                  •  Finally, someone gets the point. (0+ / 0-)

                    The problem isn't any person -- the problem is that the Democratic Party is as schizophrenic as the Republican party.

                    The Rs are already collapsing -- and the Dems are clearly on the verge of collapsing. The "Coalition Parties" don't work anymore -- the coalitions are now 40 years old, and that hack was just a reform on a 80 year old duopoly.

                    Now we're facing, for the first time in many generations, basic ideological questions about our political system and it's role. Our system fails to function at those junctures -- there's a handful of examples, and each time the political parties began to disintegrate, a "strong" president took over, and a "re-imagining" of the Constitution occurred.

                    Since the reality of our system appears to be unthinkable (it would require questioning our foundational mythology) -- no one ever seems ready for it.

                    Someone at the top needs to offer an entire new national mythology -- but we have no Andrew Jackson, no Abraham Lincoln, no FDR. It's not a question of political skill -- but of "that vision thing".

                •  I'm From the Democratic Wing of the Party (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tikkun

                  Visit us when you can.

            •  And wouldn't work anyway. Who would buy those (1+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              JC from IA
              Hidden by:
              Massman

              bonds?  $ 1.5 T of them for 1 years alone.  I'd bet $ S/S was prohibited from doing so.

              Besides, Art. I expressly states: "Sec. 8: The Congress shall have power... To borrow money on the credit of the" US.  Yeah, there aren;t 5 votes on SCOTUS to stick the ni&&er on that so he knows his place.  I guarantee Uncle Tom, Scalia, Roberts and Alito would have loved to stick it to Obama with the literal, express language of the Constitution.  Want to bet Kennedy wouldn't have joined, "oh so reluctantly"?  Not.  

              Hecvk, I wouldn't bet against at least 1 of the 4 'liberals' feeling they actually had to follow the Constitution on this.

              The 14th A is a pipedream.  It was designed to quash Confederate and Confederate sympathizers waging continued civil war on the US through the debt.  There's also the kickers that 1) Sec. 4 limited it to "debt... authorized by law" and Sec. 5 gives exclusive power to enforce the 14th to Congress.

              •  The language of racism has no place here. (0+ / 0-)

                "It's official - Republicans have set our country back more than 100 years - to the 1800's - when the Robber Barons ruled and our politics were corrupted to the core." Thom Hartmann

                by Massman on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 02:55:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why? We're discussing the Tea-liban. They are (0+ / 0-)

                  racist and were proved so by surveys.  And ignoring that that is what they think and they think of POTUS is just stupid and counterproductive. I personally know a number of Democrats who never voted Thug until Obama and who expressly use those labels and worse about him.  We should  be honest about what we're dealing with.

                  Besides, Thomas is the quintessential Uncle Tom. And a serial sexual harraser.  Or did you miss those stories?

                  •  To be honest with what we are dealing with? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    hkorens

                    Does that mean we need to use the language of hate?

                    I know more than I wish to know about Justice Thomas. I don't see how anything is accomplished by using hate speech in speaking of him.

                    I find it offensive no matter who utters it.

                    "It's official - Republicans have set our country back more than 100 years - to the 1800's - when the Robber Barons ruled and our politics were corrupted to the core." Thom Hartmann

                    by Massman on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 03:54:55 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  How about fascist? Sellout? Wingnut? (0+ / 0-)

                      What other truthful labeling is verboten?

                      One of the hazards of listening (reading) in a public forum is u might hear something u find offensive.  I apologize for offending your sensibilities.

                      But frankly I think it is 100% accurate of him.  

      •  "I've Got plenty of Nothin' Nothin' Plenty For Me" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chuckvw, blueoasis, apimomfan2, tikkun

        The Democratic Party's 2012 campaign song. Tip of the cap to George Gershwin.

  •  Ok, so now we're the ones taking hostages? (7+ / 0-)

    The defense budget? First, as noted above, the Republicans will never allow defense spending to be taken hostage, and they probably even like it so that they can gleefully beat us over the head with it, knowing it'll never happen in the end . Second, doesn't playing overt hostage games undercut our glorious moral high ground accusing the Republicans of taking pretty much everything hostage?
    Of course, I'm not saying that defense could not be easily cut, e.g. $100 billion per year (so that we spend, oh let's say 2/3 of the entire rest of the world combined) but playing the hostage game does not seem wise. I minor point in a dismal deal...

    •  Interestingly, though, many of the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, gramofsam1

      teabag nuts are isolationists that have actually called for stopping all foreign wars, so I am not at ALL sure you are correct.

      866-338-1015 toll-free to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them.

      by cany on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 01:00:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sadly, I have to say (7+ / 0-)

    that I think your analysis is stop-on.

    •  P.S. I only mean sadly in terms of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      on the cusp, ozsea1

      the outcome, so I hope that did not sound rude.

      •  I don't think so. Who is the big enemy we have to (0+ / 0-)

        spend $ 700 B instead of $ 650 B against?  BO killed BinLaden.  That boogeyman is dead.  And why not?  Those wars this is to pay for are supposed to be frakking over more or less round that time.

        I really think this time this argument only works on those who won't vote D anyway.

        OTOH, I sure don't like the chances of BO vetoing the Thug 'defense carve out' once his genius poltiical advisers get done with him.  Neither Axelrod nor Pflouffle (sp?) have colored themselves in much glory.

  •  This nails the "what" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue denim

    Afterwards we have the "why", given that the pattern Hunter describes must also be obvious to the WH.

    Pressuring Obama should center around examining and exposing the corruption that is defining his goals. Throw him off balance and into the arm's of the base.

    "I am confident that we're going to be able to leave the Gulf Coast in better shape than it was before." Barack Obama

    by quagmiremonkey on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:52:21 PM PDT

  •  On Jan. 1, 2013 the Bush Tax Cuts become the Obama (10+ / 0-)

    Tax Cuts. Just like every other Bush policy Obama has made his own.

  •  Tomorrow, tomorrow, (0+ / 0-)

    it's only a day away.  Unfortunately, we all have to live today.  Somebody needs a carrot shoved up their ass.  Make that several somebodies.

    "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something." President Obama in Prague on April 5

    by jlynne on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:55:16 PM PDT

  •  Pelosi please try to stop the deal (7+ / 0-)

    trusting Obama as he trusts the Republicans is just one botched negotiation too far ....

    •  She cannot (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis

      Or the headlines will blare "The House minority leader, DEMOCRAT Nancy Pelosi allowed the US to default.
      Bank on it!

      A veteran is someone who, at one point in his/her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The USA for an amount of "up to and including my life." - unknown

      by AJsMom on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:45:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, well (0+ / 0-)

        Even worse, much worse, is that the TeaBaggers get to vote against this crap while House Democrats are "forced" to vote for it. We not only have to suck down their bill; we have to push it through. Talk about FUBAR.

        "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

        by irmaly on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 04:46:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, please (0+ / 0-)

      You want responsibility for a US default on the head of the most effective Democratic politician/leader we have, who has a chance (if we work hard) to retake the Speakership in 2013? I don't think so.

  •  it's not a good deal (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    clambake, Delilah, Matt Z

    but it's hard to see at this point what he could have done better. The mistakes were made in the framing and poor negotiating since the GOP took Congress. If Pelosi takes back the hosue much of the damadge will be limited. If she doesn't and Obama loses we are fucked big time anyway.

    After Obama's eighth straight victory, Penn told reporters: "Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election.

    by nevadadem on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:58:05 PM PDT

  •  Bernie Sanders (22+ / 0-)

    "I think it would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing..." -Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), 7/22/11

    •  Progressive Bernie Sanders: POTUS 2012 (0+ / 0-)

      Well, he can't run on the Democratic ticket, but if he ran on a third party ticket, could people actually vote for him. As I recall, the Constitution says you can only vote for the Republican or Democratic parties. Must have confused Lincoln in 1845.

    •  Bernie gets my write-in vote (0+ / 0-)

      unless a progressive candidate manages to actually get on the ballot.

      "The real power is in the hands of small groups of people and I don't think they have titles." -- Bob Dylan

      by nonprofit jim on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 08:37:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Defense and Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chrismorgan

    Killing OBL inoculated to some extent Obama for weakness in Defense issues and he can use that advantage.

  •  White House says it's going to stand firm in 2013 (7+ / 0-)

    he won't be there past January 19, 2013 at this rate.

    I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

    by blue drop on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:04:02 PM PDT

    •  "and this time i mean it" n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, apimomfan2
    •  2012 and I believe them. Bush cuts will expire (0+ / 0-)

      unless there's tax reform.  Unemployment was almost 10 when the Bush tax cuts for all were extended in December.  It would have hurt the economy to expire them then.

      Compare to 2012, after a presidential election with bigger turn-out and hopefully no GOP wave, unemployment closer to 8 and Obama no longer facing a re-election in his life.

      •  How's that happen? (0+ / 0-)

        GOP has no interest in creating jobs.  This deal doesn't help create jobs.  Corporations are pretty happy with record profits and offshoring jobs.  There is no great incentive for them to create jobs here - as long as you remember to define incentive as profits today not long term profits.  Not sure how we get unemployment to decline when those in power do not wish it to be so.

        "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

        by newfie on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 06:41:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Caveman (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1, dr fatman, blueoasis

    Probably not a nickname to strive for.

  •  President Wuss (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    on the cusp, donmyers, blueoasis, LarryNM

    Happily, I have property in NZ. More happily, nowhere near Christchurch.

  •  T0o much crystal ball reading (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JC from IA

    This article is full of some pretty baseless assumptions.

    Assumption 1. Democrats in the super congress will cave
    Assumption 2. If super congress Dems don't cave then they will cave on triggers

    You people have no clue what is going to happen. Instead of hoping for the worst just so you can say "told ya so" after the fact while you prance around, how about you use just a sliver of that energy to make sure those things don't happen in the first place.  Make Republicans regret moving to the right, make the tea party a political disaster.

  •  Fool me once, shame on you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1, apimomfan2, tikkun

    fool me twice - shame on me.

  •  Dems who vote no and Dems who (8+ / 0-)

    challenge GOP or Dem incumbents will have a huge advantage in the 2012 election.  Those Dems who are thinking about what to do should really think hard about how the voters will react to program cuts without any effort having been made on job creation.  The smart vote is a 'no' vote.  It also happens to be the best policy choice.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:14:09 PM PDT

  •  i just read this tonight (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    princesspat

    if only it was to hold true.

    The Republicans Exit History

    I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

    by blue drop on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:14:26 PM PDT

  •  The democrats are like Charlie Brown, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pola Halloween, apimomfan2

    the Republicans are Lucy with the football. I, for one, am tired of this game.

  •  Next time? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    travis bushman, apimomfan2, tikkun

    There is no next time.....  
    There is only this time...

    It is time to vote you'all out
    for being a spineless bunch of

    Democratic dicks...

  •  Dems are not unified economically (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans are.

    We lose.  It is that simple.

    IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT. #opengeekorg

    by potatohead on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:20:03 PM PDT

    •  To explain... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      travis bushman, dadadata, indie17

      Right now, there is the radical Tea Party, pulling for all the regression right now, as opposed to the ordinary Republicans who know they will get it, bit by bit.

      Both desire many of the same outcomes.  That's the unity.

      Democrats have progressives, who desire real economic liberalism, progressive legislation, a return to our old pre-Reagan economic norms.  They have not yet been successful, though they do have a sizable bloc formed.

      The rest of the Dems are basically aligned with ordinary Republicans, differing in some means and methods, but that's it.

      The big thing to notice here is that free-market, put big corporations first is the majority view in Washington.

      That's the regressive economic majority, and it's composed of the entire GOP, and it's radical "do it all right now" bloc, struggling with the not so radical, but still solid regressive party majority

      , and

      most Democrats!

      Progressive Democrats are the only left leaning, progressive economic force in Washington, and they are not of size yet to impact legislation.

      We as a party will lose in that scenario, and we will lose EVERY TIME, because our party minority, economic progressives, are the only voting bloc aligned with the party platform.

      The rest of the party is happy to run on that stuff to win elections, but will resonate with the economic majority afterword, because that's how they keep seats.

      If we actually want material economic progress in the left direction, progressive legislation, we are going to have to change that dynamic.

      That means cleaning up our party, and it means diluting the Republicans.

      A 50 state progressive strategy, like Howard Dean did to gain share in Washington is what is necessary, and that means running strong economic progressives, who may not be the best socially where applicable, against regressives, and doing so on a continuous basis.

      It will take a sustained and deliberate civic effort to dilute that economic majority.  Ugly work, but necessary work, if we actually want to see change.

      That also means differentiating people on economic axis, including Democrats, so the people can see who is aligned with them and who isn't and vote accordingly.

      It also means that Obama is very seriously constrained because the votes really are not there, again because of that majority, many things are simply off the table for lack of momentum otherwise.

      We either come to reality on that, and recognize that there is in fact a "we" in "yes we can", or look like chumps as we attempt to manipulate, protest and otherwise influence a large body of economic regressives, having very little real leverage to do so.

      That's fact people.

      The large amounts of money in play are absolutely going to trump any demonstration or "threat" we can pose, because the people are not clear on who is doing what economically, and while that chaos is sustained, they win, we lose.

      Time to fight this with votes, getting organized, and our wallets monthly to build a organization capable of diluting the economic regression, or we simply live with it, content to have the regression managed throughout our adult lives.

      IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT. #opengeekorg

      by potatohead on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:34:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  another comment above said... (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LHB, cany, irmaly, hkorens, potatohead

        that the Progressive Caucus has more members than the Tea Party Caucus, 80 to 60.  they don't have the same effect because somehow they always seem to be corralled by the rest of the Democratic Party.

        maybe progressives would have more of a say and affect legislation if the caucus would hold their ground like the Tea Party did.

        I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

        by blue drop on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:09:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, they did that during the Health Care (0+ / 0-)

          debate.

          And they did well.

          What happened was the regressive economic majority in Congress trumped them.

          That's the problem.  I would suggest a regressive biased media as a strong second.  You know we have NO economic left news here in the US, don't you?  There is literally nothing presented from the point of view of labor.

          Used to see it when I was a kid.  I don't anymore.

          That leads to things like, "the professional left", and such going on.

          We need more progressives in Washington period.

          The Tea Party has the influence it does because it is actually economically aligned with the regressive majority, only wanting it all to happen right now, too fast, too hard.

          Big difference.

          Progressive Democrats are the only real left economic force in our politics.  It's not enough right now to impact legislation.

          IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT. #opengeekorg

          by potatohead on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:19:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Blah (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pola Halloween, apimomfan2

    Blah blah, blan blah blah.  Next time...blah, blah blah.

    They have nothing in their entire arsenal to break one man who refuses to be broken.

    by MattYellingAtTheMoon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:26:24 PM PDT

  •  Robert Reich (6+ / 0-)
    "This should be called the "ransom crisis," not "debt crisis," and the deal referred to as an agreement over ransom to be paid."
    -Robert Reich via Twitter
  •  I'm confused! Why are Obama and Boehner (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue denim, apimomfan2

    already going to the media proclaiming an agreement when neither chamber has voted yet?  How do we even know if Nancy and company will even vote for this bill?  If the TP peeps don't like this bill and vote no, then that will tell me that they want a default, plain and simple.  But if Boehner is able to rally them, then they don't need Nancy in the first place...they have 240 peeps.  So since they don't know what is really gonna happen, why yell "Problem Solved"? Shouldn't he have waited?  Why such little respect for Nancy?

  •  What news of SSI and the accursed chain deflator? (0+ / 0-)

    Why do Democrats still persecute gays? Is a vote for Democrats a wasted vote? I voted for change. Where is my vote?

    by SGWM on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:41:04 PM PDT

  •  White House = Corporate Puppets (7+ / 0-)

    I have grown tired of even listening to them.  I am just hopeful that each and every DEM that votes for this 'crap' gets put on the PCCC radar screen and we work our asses off to vote them out of office.  I would rather spend my money, time, and energy placing Principled Progressives in the House as opposed to working to elect a Republican for President known currently as President Obama.

    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

    by dr fatman on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:44:42 PM PDT

  •  No he couldn't. (4+ / 0-)

    The bitter irony is that Obama's slogan was Yes, we can when he clearly couldn't.

  •  the most gutless pres. of the most gutless party (5+ / 0-)

    ...of the most gutless country.... in the history of the universe

  •  The Bush tax cuts need to expire for everybody (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenM30

    Unfortunately with the 2013 deadline there will be tremendous pressure for POTUS and both houses to pass something to keep the middle class tax cuts. Otherwise the GOP will paint it as a tax increase for everyone, even though there probably should be a tax increase for everyone. The media will find some working class person who now has the 10% tax bracket eliminated and the 2% payroll tax cut expiring, for a net increase of $1,000 in taxes, while forgetting about the rich whose taxes may be $100,000 less than they would have been without the Bush tax cuts.

    Quite frankly, that $1,000 that middle class person is paying additional because of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts should go into infrastructure and education so that they can save that $1,000 through better transportation and gain more than that $1,000 through more education. But that is too hard to explain.

  •  $35 billion in defense cuts. Is that 1 bomber? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paper Cup

    It surely is not 1 war.

  •  sleep (0+ / 0-)

    I'll decide by how long ittakes to go to sleep after reading all the stuff since written since 8:00 PM et.
    I was able to earlier.

    I to wonder why the Dem leaders can't stand tall in these negotiations.

  •  Wow.....I Haven't Seen This Much Presuming (0+ / 0-)

    since I believed in Santa Claus.  The deal hasn't even been voted on.....& everyone here knows exactly how the Republicans are going to stick it to Obama.  Again.  Confirmed.  

    How did Obama ever manage to get thru high school & college?  His peers must have felt sorry for him....so they choose him to be the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review.

    Then he was elected Illinois state senator for ll years....another miracle.  Then he was elected as a US Senator.  Another miracle.  Then the biggest miracle of all....he became the President of the United States.

    According to this site, the man can barely manage to feed himself.  Does he get lost a lot in the WH?  Can he fight his way out of a paper bag?  

    He's failed you again.  We get that.  Blah, blah, blah.

  •  What's most grating is the fact that they've (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pola Halloween, apimomfan2

    forever linked budgeting with the debt ceiling.  We'll get our annual "countdown to disaster" clock.

    Hey Speaker Boehner, do you like apples? Well, your debt ceiling proposal just failed to come to a vote after showing a Ben Affleck movie. How do you like them apples?

    by AZphilosopher on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:09:24 AM PDT

  •  When Republicans are arguing over the trigger (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2

    they're expecting the committee to come back with no report.

    Hey Speaker Boehner, do you like apples? Well, your debt ceiling proposal just failed to come to a vote after showing a Ben Affleck movie. How do you like them apples?

    by AZphilosopher on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:10:29 AM PDT

  •  Wow, Democrats are dumb (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2, dadadata, irmaly

    Maybe next time the Republicans will negotiate in good faith, and care more about the country than their millionaire owners. Hey, it could happen.

  •  what will be different in 2013 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2

    will be the Democratic party majority in the House and the Senate. Without a majority, the Republicans can filibuster in the Senate, but they can't originate any legislation and they can't claim to have a mandate for their economy-wrecking intransigence.
    What's that you say? We might not have a Democratic majority in the House and Senate in 2013? Well then fuck us. The Republicans have made it utterly clear what they want to inflict on an unwilling nation. If, after the abundant revelations of Republican vileness on both state and federal levels after the 2010 elections, the Democratic party can't win in 2012, it needs to simply fold up and make room for a party that can fight the power. There will be no more case to be made for the usefulness or value of the Democratic party, other than its value to the Republicans, as a fiction to make people believe that they have some alternative to being ruled by the Republican party, when really they don't.

  •  remember Carter? Obama will lose due to hostage (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2, hkorens

    situation.

    Terrorists will be back with more demands, another big drama and another capitulation.

    New democratic slogan: don't retreat, let me just back up slowly with your hands up (er, out.)

  •  Not quite an illustration of Presidential (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2

    If he had to do it all over would he have found a way to use the majority in both houses to his advantage way back at the beginning of his first term? He hasn't been very creative in suggesting ways to solve problems that are parallel to Democratic principles. I think Democrats better find someone who will represent them. This type of negotiation is not acceptable. I'm looking for a better candidate for 2012.

  •  Outstanding analysis, Hunter! n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  The policy battle is lost, but a political... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2, irmaly

    ...battle can still be fought.

    We need to get as many dems as possible to vote against this.  Obama can later claim Stockholm syndrome if he wants, but the dems need to make this owned by the republicans.  

  •  Pelosi hasn't weighed in yet (0+ / 0-)

    Pelosi may play a bigger role in the voting than we think....she may not cave to what has been done here.

  •  The policy war has been lost... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2

    ....but a political battle can still be waged.

    Just because Obama agreed to this does not make it owned by dems.  It's a conservative bill and the dems need to force the republicans to own it.  When the economy remains stagnant and unemployment dips to double figures, this is not a deal that dems need to own.

    As for Obama, this might have been his waterloo, but it doesn't have to be so for the whole party.

  •  At least they stopped saying (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2

    that line about "keeping the powder dry".

    Also, what makes anyone think the Super Congress would split 6-6?  Surely at least two of the Dems on it will be of the ever troublesome 'conservadem' faction, right?  

  •  If a picture is worth a 1000 words, (0+ / 0-)

    the one shown here is priceless for Republicans.  I see a President practically bowing, nearly setting his tie on fire, in acknowledging Mitch McConnell, who doesn't look in too much a hurry to rise from his chair.  

  •  Re: The Ultimate Act of Betrayal (6+ / 0-)

    I witnessed my eighty-seven year-old mother weep upon learning of this act of supreme betrayal.  

    Like millions of her fellow working-class Americans, she had labored from her teens, as did her late husband (a genuine Second World War hero who took nothing from his government in veterans' benefits because he was grateful to have come out of the full breadth of the European Campaign with just his life itself), so that Social Security would be her safety net.

    She stared, shocked and overwhelmed with grief, when a presumably Democratic President in fact would deny her what was not his, nor the Congress' to give away--the entitlement to a simple dignity for which Social Security was created so many decades before.

    "I have loved only three American Presidents in my lifetime," she proclaimed within the tears, "F.D.R., Kennedy, and Clinton." F.D.R., the last of the truly great American Presidents, championed the working class as did no United States President before or afterwards.  Kennedy, she noted, gave her generation a sense of optimism it had never before known, and his promise was cut all too short by assassination.  And Clinton, she noted, had genuine empathy.  He did indeed, she wistfully recalled, "feel your pain," and was unafraid of a Right-Wing Congress, even when it was impeaching him.

    Who would have thought that the United States President of African descent would in effect re-enslave his fellow Americans, not by virtue of their color or their lineage, but by way of their class?

    By bailing out the banks, rather than seizing control of them (as did FDR), he assured that the wealthiest Americans, who produced the economic catastrophe of 2008, would be re-empowered to further plunder the nation's coffers and decimate the working classes. On every key battle with the plutocrats in the past three years he has surrendered every principle he presumably campaigned upon.

    Then again, candidate Barack Obama never failed to praise Ronald Reagan ("a truly transformative figure"), so is it any wonder now that he accomplishes for the super-wealthy what no GOP President could deliver to them--the inevitable destruction of both Social Security and Medicaire, the core Democratic social programs of the past eighty years?

    He now stands to be, by all measure, the worst American President, aside from George Walker Bush, of the past fifty years, and perhaps of all time.

    He will be henceforth forever known as the Capitulator in Chief.  And to think that this is the man conferred a Nobel Peace Prize on supposedly summit achievements accomplished before the first two weeks of his inauguration!  To think that the Nobel Committee has bestowed its Peace Prize on former President Carter, the de facto elected (but even he never understood that he was) President Al Gore, and President Obama--and not any of them was even remotely the successful politician that has been Bill Clinton, whose CGI in just the past few years has done more to benefit much of the world than has the United Nations since its very genesis.

    And what can it matter if Barack Obama is or is not granted a second term?  By denying Cost of Living allowances to Social Security recipients three years running, now in effect killing the very core of the Safety Net, allowing unions to be crushed in states without ever saying of these egregious acts so much as a word of disdain, and further draining American resources by lengthening unwinnable wars in far distant lands, what praytell, does the prospect of a second Obama administration portend for working class Americans?

    In his Yuppie myopia (Obama was born too late to understand the real ravages of Labor and Civil Rights movements), what does he he truly understand of surviving on a subsistence income?  One simply doesn't negotiate with multimillionaires on the guarantees of Social Security and Medicaire for retired working-class Americans, for which these programs constitute the core of their very livlihood.  

    This has nothing to do with compromise, much less shared sacrifice.  The Obama administration has so corrupted the meaning of these in deference to Wall Street moneyed interests, that each time one of the Obama spokespersons even utter these words, working class citizens cannot help but cringe.

    Far from saving America from the implications of default, President Obama has instead all but crushed the working classes, and as they were the core of what made America great, he has instead assured the destruction of America itself.

    My weeping mother now knows that she will depart this life with the understanding that greatest years of America are long past.  For those of us in the generation immediately following, at least we have the comfort of remembering better times, of seminal leaders advancing a better posterity.

    But for the generation of Barack Obama and those born afterwards, I am certain that the likely outcome of these years of cowardice will be a sort of devolution of America, in which struggling states leave the federal government to form new states and territories, rather as did the Soviet Union some two decades ago.

    I tell my mother to take comfort in the fact that she has the memories of when America was lionized the world over as the greatest of all nations.  Hers was, indeed, "The greatest generation."  At least we who immediately followed have vivid memories of far better times, when working class citizens still had hope.

    For between the years of "The Man from Hope," and the man who espoused "The Audacity of Hope," hope for working class Americans was inevitably gone forever.

    •  well said....eom (0+ / 0-)

      "Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it" Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, part time vampire

      by marigold on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 02:12:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think you're wrong on Bill Clinton. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sanctimonious

      He deregulated everything in sight and turned down the woman who warned him about derivatives.  He also gave away our manufacturing when he made all those trade deals, especially the one with China.  He wanted to move the Democratic Party away from being the Party of FDR and did away with everything connected to FDR.  He was much more of a southerner than a Democrat.  We can thank him for creating the DLC, a bunch of  greedy rightwing politicians whose main purpose is to become millionaires.

      •  Don't forget his role (0+ / 0-)

        in creating a consolidated corporate media, another huge disaster in terms of a misinformed, propagandized citizenry

        "It depends what the meaning of 'is', is"
        Platform of the "New" Neoliberal Democratic Party
        Speaking out of one side of their mouth for the little guy, their nominal constituency, and the other for the plutocracy, their real constituency.

        by Sanctimonious on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:12:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  what a load of crap (0+ / 0-)
      Who would have thought that the United States President of African descent would in effect re-enslave his fellow Americans, not by virtue of their color or their lineage, but by way of their class?

      All the Old Black Ladies I know can't wait to vote for Obama again.

      "This country was founded on compromise. I couldn't go through the front door at this country's founding" - President Barack Obama

      by AAMOM on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 04:09:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  on second thought (0+ / 0-)

        I wish to amend my comments >>>> unless your ancestors were slaves, don't cry to me about your fucking problems.
        Unless you had a Great Uncle whose body was found in a lake after being lynched  in deep Mississippi...don't cry to me about your "disappointments."
        If you have a grandmother who moved out of the south cause the white sheriff of her town in deep Mississippi went to her Father's front door to express his desire to FUCK his daughter....don't tell me about your white folk ANGST over Barack Obama's "policies."
        Your comments are hurtful and disrespectful to the millions of black people who support this president. this is a reality and if you work against them to defeat Barack Obama then the hell with you and your "progressive" agenda.

        "This country was founded on compromise. I couldn't go through the front door at this country's founding" - President Barack Obama

        by AAMOM on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 04:54:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But it's not 1963 anymore. (0+ / 0-)

          Police abuse has been desegregated in much of the north and the south.

          The sheriff who comes to your door to threaten a rape is just as likely to be black as white, and he's probably headed to a trailer park to intimidate Guatemalans.

          Obama's skin color guarantees nothing. The ultra-wealthy care less and less about a color barrier every financial quarter. Han Chinese, white American, black Brazilian -- it's all the same to the global labor pools.

          You have a specific quote as your signature -- and it's precisely wrong. The country wasn't founded on a compromise between those who would let us through the door and those who wouldn't -- it was founded on a compromise between those who wanted to deport and exterminate us, and those who wanted to keep us as slaves and indentured servants. No advance has ever been a compromise between us and them -- it's been a threat from us against them, and they compromised between themselves on how to retreat.

          •  I love my quote (0+ / 0-)

            and you are wrong about it. And you said "us" which not sure what that means exactly. but I am not changing my quote to fit your narrative.

            "This country was founded on compromise. I couldn't go through the front door at this country's founding" - President Barack Obama

            by AAMOM on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 10:51:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  You have 4 months to pressure the Thugs and super (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kareylou

    committee members.

    so get walking and cranking up the airways.  

    Or you can just keep throwing monkey poo at each other here and the worst will happen.

    (Might anyway, but I guarantee the worst if we don't get cracking.  This fight is lost.  Use ur energies productively.)

  •  Hmm. How can both sides win? (0+ / 0-)

    Perhaps, if both are on the same side of the net....the corporatists' side...leaving no one defending the rest of America.

  •  STOP FOOLING OURSELVES (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dmnyct

    There is no Senator Sanders party.  There is no progressive party.  Remember NAFTA?  These are the kind of deals we get with the Corporate Democrats.  I am all for business, but not world record breaking profit with no tax capitalism.  Further more each one of us will put our own spin on it such as "oh SS cuts will never happen."  I can't take off work to protest.  I can't afford to make wave at work by being seen on TV protesting.  etc etc etc and "THIS" democratic party counts on it.  Anyone who had any glimmer of belief or even a midling belief that SS would be there better just flush that hope down the toilet along with the campaign slogan.  Republicans/christians really believe that we will all fall down and pray to God, or the corporation if we are just hungry enough. Any one who thinks any different......  WE JUST SET OURSELVES UP FOR SS, MEDICARE, MEDICAID cuts.  WAKE THE EFF UP! Obama, Clinton, Gore, REid, Pelosi none of them will save us.  Take personal responsibility and save yourself!

  •  This diary is useless. (0+ / 0-)

    This diary is like describing all the ways a person can die by simply leaving their home. Seriously, how do you even get through the day without worrying yourself into a catatonic state, huddled in the corner sucking your thumb.

    What you failed to write is that this president allowed the debate to go all the way to the last possible minute before giving in just so he could save the poor and middle class from experiencing more pain right now.

    Measure your success not by what you gain, but rather what it cost you to get it.

    by seattledad on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 01:52:39 AM PDT

  •  I get the impression that Nancy is the only (0+ / 0-)

    party that doesn't know the details of this agreement.  Why was she left out?  She says she and her group have to see it  first.  This is crazy.

  •  How many times have I said his slogan for 2012 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilK, irmaly, hkorens, tikkun

    is "this time I really mean it".      He's a loser, and he's taking Democrats down with him again in 2012.

    With Democrats like Obama, who needs Republicans.

    by dkmich on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 02:12:17 AM PDT

  •  Any agreement that assumes the other side (0+ / 0-)

    won't really trigger the bomb is weak. History has shown they will.

    The only way to negotiate, if it can be called that, is to make the terms so draconian that they can't afford to. The nutters actually want to cut the military, so they'll see this as a win, win.

    The older, more beholden, members of both Houses won't want to lose the campaign funds or any jobs in their districts or states, so it might be a wash but it was poor choice as a tool to force compliance.

    We'll see. If it fails, it portends a bleak future.

    "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

    by sceptical observer on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 02:34:21 AM PDT

  •  Reagan cared about defense.... (0+ / 0-)

    These yahoos only care about taxes.  Obama is so out of touch, he agreed to a trigger for them that they really don't give a damn about.    Obama is an incompetent fool and a self-serving loser.   If he had an ounce of sane competition, he'd be packing up the Whie House now.

    With Democrats like Obama, who needs Republicans.

    by dkmich on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 02:37:56 AM PDT

    •  Reagan was stupid. (0+ / 0-)

      If his wife didn't tell him what to do, he wouldn't have even talked to Gorbachev, and it was Gorbachev who ended the Cold War, not Reagan.   Reagan was running around calling the Soviets some stupid names.  This guy wasn't even a good liar.  The first thing he said when he took office was that he didn't dye his hair.  He should have been impeached after the Iran contra affair.

      •  Right about Reagan (0+ / 0-)

        but I think the point is that the Dems put the GOP pain in the trigger linked to defense.  That would work in the 1980's much better than now.  Trigger needed to be linked to tax increases to the wealthy in order for this GOP to really care.  They'll use this defense trigger as a bludgeon against Dems, when it hits, due to whatever they will be holding hostage next.

        "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

        by newfie on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 07:10:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    travis bushman, irmaly, Sanctimonious

    Obama has lost the White House.  This deal is going to "hurt some people".  Old people, sick people, poor people, young people.  You know who it doesn't hurt?????  THE RICH!!!!

    Obama is a failure!!!!  

    We have been betrayed.  Sold out.  

    A super congress is UNCOSTITUTIONAL and an abdication of responsibility of those we elected to serve.  

    I hope he can sleep at night.  Because old people, sick people, poor people, and the rest of us can't thanks to this jackass.  

    He wants the congress to pass this quickly.  SHOCK AND AWE baby!!!!!

  •  "None Of Us May Support Debt Limit Deal" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    travis bushman, irmaly

    From your mouth to gods ear, Leader Pelosi.

    DUMP this travesty and force our MILQUETOAST President into invoking the 14th Amendment and raising the debt ceiling with NO STRINGS ATTACHED.

    "Happiness isn't something you experience.... it's something you remember."

    by Sandy Berman on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 03:02:07 AM PDT

  •  Dear Mr. President and the Congress (4+ / 0-)

    fuck you.
    s

  •  Commisions are a cowardly way to hide your views. (0+ / 0-)

    I don't believe that important things should be turned over to people who haven't been elected and don't have to come up for election.  Commisions are a cowardly and dumb way for politicians to try to hide who they really are.  

    •  The Commision will be composed by elected members (0+ / 0-)

      of the Congress.

      I see your point, but it's probably the only way politicians are willing to take unpopular measures. Reminiscent of the process that closed the military bases. Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say something like that - if you want the congress to take any tough measure (like tax increases and spending cuts), you need to give them the luxury of close doors. And yes, it's coward. But those guys want to keep their jobs as much as me and you. It is what it is. Take the romance out of politics and you'll see that commissions, closed doors meetings and votings and bipartisan deals that prevent one side from demagoguing the other are necessary if you want to get anything meaningful done.

      •  Why should they take unpopular measures? (0+ / 0-)

        The heart of democracy is that when politicians do something "unpopular" -- it's because their personal interest diverges from their constituency's interest.

        They hide because they'r robbing us.

        Demagoguery is democracy -- it's the basic appeal to the populace. If the "close door politics" worked to advance the public interest, the USSR would have been the very pinnacle of public interest politics.

  •  Think Ahead. Re-elect Obama. (0+ / 0-)

    That is all we need.  Automatic defense cuts plus expiration of ALL Bush tax cuts, which Obama will be free to veto any extension of, gets us pretty far along to where we need to be.

  •  There will be an intervening election. (0+ / 0-)

    All of the House and one third of the Senate is up.

    Last time around, voters bought pigs in a poke.  This time there's time to vet candidates and make our own selections, instead of waiting for the parties to propose.

    The political parties have become irrelevant.  That's to be expected under a regimen of universal suffrage since there are no excluded populations to "protect."  The role of "protector" has obviously been hard to give up, because that's where the power lies and power is an aphrodisiac.  For some, power is an obsession.  And, because, to be felt, power has to hurt, injury/deprivation has to be heaped on someone, either the "threatening" attacker or the "protectee."  Keep in mind that when mobile individuals are protected, the protection inevitably involves restricted mobility--i.e. a deprivation of natural rights.  The only alternative is to restrain the source of threat, risking hurt to the would-be "protector" and a loss of power.

    Direct intervention is much less satisfying than triangulation.

    http://www.youtube.com/cyprespond

    by hannah on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 03:39:37 AM PDT

  •  Toldjaso, Toldjaso, Toldjaso (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    voroki, wvmom
    A minor point here is that the Bush tax cuts were already supposed to end no matter what: that was the promise during the last one of these hostage-taking sessions, in which the Bush tax cuts were extended past their expiration. Now, apparently, their possible permanence has been been revived, yet again, to be used as bargaining chip, yet again.
    Saw it coming a hundred miles away.

    All the goddamned photodiaries in the goddamned world didn't stop it.

    Republicans HATE America. Deal with it. / It's the PLUTONOMY, Stupid!

    by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 03:43:13 AM PDT

  •  Personal thanks are in order... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jeremimi

    for the Kossack community on electing a president not ready for Prime Time.  Good job!  I remember how you saveaged Hillary during the campaign.  Perhaps you now know the difference between giving a good Baptist "Hopey Changey" speech and the actual ability to protect Democratic ideals.

    Probably not.  You'll try to elect the next ding dong that comes down the pipe. Thanks for flushiong away America, Kos & freinds!

  •  Democrat voters are to blame ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nicethugbert

    I strongly suggest that all the petulant, whiny Dems who abstained from voting last time are totally to blame for this situation.
    Thanks to all of you, the thugs got control of the House, and here we are today.
    This is a street fight to the death - sorry, no room for "hurt feelings". Better show up next time ... or else!!

    •  Repeat after me: it was a midterm election. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      newfie

      And Democratic voter involvement was actually UP from the most recent midterm election before that.

      Your framing is imbecilic.

      Regards,
      Corporate Dog

      -----
      We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

      by Corporate Dog on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 04:44:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Can't agree there doorknob (0+ / 0-)

        All that says is that the turnout for the previous midterm was even more pathetic than last time. Think about who was in White House for that one. The Dems were a disheartened bunch at the time. Everything's relative baby.
        Get with the program.

        •  Think about who was in the White House in 2006... (0+ / 0-)

          ... and then look at how we cleaned up in the House and Senate. That WASN'T a demoralized party. Not even close.

          If you're aware of the fact that politics and elections occurred before the political rise of Barack Obama, you'd also know that midterm elections NEVER have high turnout for the party in power. The 2010 election was no exception.

          Here are some thoughts on why that might be, genius. Knowledge is power:

          http://chronicle.com/...

          Regards,
          Corporate Dog

          -----
          We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

          by Corporate Dog on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 06:46:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That has nothing to do with my original point (0+ / 0-)

            ... whatsoever.

            •  Sure it does. Your point is a fabricated lie... (0+ / 0-)

              ... based on a narrative that you want to push (but no actual exit polling data) designed to blame critics of this President for our losses in 2010.

              But low voter turnouts for the ruling party are a "feature" of midterm elections all throughout history, and they have NOTHING to do with the politics of any one election cycle.

              If you want to back up what you're saying, provide some polling data that show liberals stayed home in numbers more significant than moderates. Otherwise? Shut the fuck up.

              Regards,
              Corporate Dog

              -----
              We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

              by Corporate Dog on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 08:49:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Some fresh talking points might be in order (0+ / 0-)

      "It depends what the meaning of 'is', is"
      Platform of the "New" Neoliberal Democratic Party
      Speaking out of one side of their mouth for the little guy, their nominal constituency, and the other for the plutocracy, their real constituency.

      by Sanctimonious on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:14:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Cogratulations Kossacks! Terrific President! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nicethugbert

    The President Surrenders
    By PAUL KRUGMAN
    Published New Yorl Times: July 31, 2011

    A deal to raise the federal debt ceiling is in the works. If it goes through, many commentators will declare that disaster was avoided. But they will be wrong......

    Did the president have any alternative this time around? Yes.

    First of all, he could and should have demanded an increase in the debt ceiling back in December. When asked why he didn’t, he replied that he was sure that Republicans would act responsibly. Great call.

    And even now, the Obama administration could have resorted to legal maneuvering to sidestep the debt ceiling, using any of several options. In ordinary circumstances, this might have been an extreme step. But faced with the reality of what is happening, namely raw extortion on the part of a party that, after all, only controls one house of Congress, it would have been totally justifiable.

    At the very least, Mr. Obama could have used the possibility of a legal end run to strengthen his bargaining position. Instead, however, he ruled all such options out from the beginning.

    But wouldn’t taking a tough stance have worried markets? Probably not. In fact, if I were an investor I would be reassured, not dismayed, by a demonstration that the president is willing and able to stand up to blackmail on the part of right-wing extremists. Instead, he has chosen to demonstrate the opposite.

    Make no mistake about it, what we’re witnessing here is a catastrophe on multiple levels.

    It is, of course, a political catastrophe for Democrats, who just a few weeks ago seemed to have Republicans on the run over their plan to dismantle Medicare; now Mr. Obama has thrown all that away. And the damage isn’t over: there will be more choke points where Republicans can threaten to create a crisis unless the president surrenders, and they can now act with the confident expectation that he will.

    In the long run, however, Democrats won’t be the only losers. What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can’t.

    A version of this op-ed appeared in print on August 1, 2011, on page

  •  Can we have a hostage free Christmass this time?.. (0+ / 0-)

    Or, will the upper bracket tax cuts not expire again?

  •  Latest TPM Headline: Grover Norquist Backs The New (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Corporate Dog

    Thanks for cluster-frigging for Obama!

    A real winner!

    Best wishes for 2012!

    •  Hmmm. Hampsher sides with Norquist... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RandomSequence

      ... for a temporary political goal, and she becomes the Devil Incarnate of the Blogosphere.

      Meanwhile, those same bloggers who level the charge at Hampsher, are in agreement with Norquist on this debt deal.

      The take-away on this is probably that politics make strange bedfellows, but I doubt it will dampen the enthusiasm for shitting all over Hampsher.

      Regards,
      Corporate Dog

      -----
      We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

      by Corporate Dog on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 04:42:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the tax issue is reconcileable between (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irmaly

    both talking points...

    you just have to read closely and stop letting people close to the WH spin you.

    Boehner said no tax hikes (rate increases).   White House said revenue can be discussed (loopholes).

    Republicans will argue again, close loopholes but lower rates.  Revenue increases come from broadening the base (i.e job creation).

    The WH and enablers just want to confuse the issue for now.

    And trust me...it will pass easily.

    "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

    by justmy2 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 04:09:18 AM PDT

  •  Anyone notice a problem (0+ / 0-)
    Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts.

    If the President doesn't win...his veto will be meaningless...

    "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

    by justmy2 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 04:20:51 AM PDT

  •  Revenue increases won't happen and here's why (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irmaly

    Precisely because of the Bush tax cuts and the baseline that their expiration date creates.

    For the purpose of scoring the commission deal, the CBO will assume the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2013, which means that the only way tax increases can be scored as "deficit cutters" is if they total more than the $3.5 trillion of the Bush tax cuts. In fact, because the CBO will assume those $3.5 T in revenue are coming, any changes in the tax reduction below that threshold will be scored as a revenue reduction - actually increasing the deficit and therefore making the commission work borderline impossible.

    So, I'd say that the probability of a tax code change in the commission is negligible, very close to 0%.

    It was  a brilliant and masterful play by the republicans and Obama (who doesn't want tax increases in the year he's running for re-election). It allows Obama to spin the deal as having tax cuts on the table when, in practical terms, that possibility doesn't really exist.

    Obviously, nothing of this will prevent a subsequent extension of the Bush/Obama tax cuts - in fact, I think that will happen.

  •  I'll say it ... BARF (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kareylou

    I slept on it and think this is a crappy deal.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 04:37:30 AM PDT

  •  I wish I had gotten that pony (0+ / 0-)

    It could be used for transportation and if we got really desperate we could eat it.  

    To keep our faces turned toward change, and behave as free spirits in the presence of fate, that is strength undefeatable--Helen Keller

    by kareylou on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:01:24 AM PDT

  •  "Don't call my bluff, Eric." (0+ / 0-)

    LOL, yeah Obama really showed him.

    Obama = willing chump

    I agree that it's not particularly courageous to solve a problem on the backs of people who are poor, or people who are powerless, or don't have lobbyists, or don't have clout.

    by teknofyl on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:08:05 AM PDT

  •  maybe we needed this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    one group of folks commentators are completely ignoring as we all wring our hands is the huge class of people who put the tea party in office AND who will be the most harmed by their policies.  My home state of Mississippi is the poster child for this.  Our red state gets way more in federal money per capita than most of you blue staters.  
    But even with a minority population of greater than 35% and a whole lot of poor, the Democratic party has been rapidly disappearing here - unless you are black, Democrat is a bad word.  Blacks don't vote and poor whites are like my sister - ignorant, relying on assistance, and right wing!  
    I am DAMN tired of busting my butt in a futile effort to get progressives elected and of arguing with right-wing idiots.  
    As a former legal aid attorney I am DAMN tired of trying to help poor people who either don't even bother to vote or help elect people like Steven Palazzo.  Maybe they need the shock.  Maybe, just maybe, they will finally wake up.  Anyway, I have to find something  positive in all this.

  •  The difference between 2012 and 2010... (0+ / 0-)

    with regard to the expiring Bush tax cuts, I think, is that Obama is more "in charge" of the 2012 campaign strategy.

    My understanding of 2010 was that he tried to bring up passing a below-$250,000-only version of the Bush tax cuts as a campaign issue, but the Congressional Democratic leadership, at the insistence of Blue Dogs and other nervous people, refused to schedule a vote on it before the election.  After the election, they had lost much of their leverage, because the Republicans were about to gain much more power in January 2011, and so the tradeoff was the tax cuts for anything else the Democrats wanted to accomplish in the lame duck.

    In 2012, if the Republicans try to bring up making the tax cuts permanent in the runup to the election, Obama has much fuller control of whether it stays an issue: whether he vetoes (or threatens to veto and thereby causes the bill to die in the Senate, as he did with the idea of a temporary debt limit increase) is entirely up to him.  If they wait until after the election, the calculus is similar, unless Obama has lost-- indeed, if Democrats can take back the House, Republicans will have even less leverage, just as Democrats did in the 2010 lame-duck.  So there's much less to stop him from pursuing what appeared to be his initial plan in 2010.

    So I actually do think that past events suggest that Obama will hold his ground on the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 if the issue is still there in 2012.  I agree that the possibility of their being a bargaining chip later this year complicating things, but that comes up only if the Republicans agree to other tax revenue increases, which seems unlikely to me.

  •  One difference that could be significant (0+ / 0-)

    is that on 1/1/13 Obama will be either deep into lame-duck or unemcumbered by the need to be re-elected.

    One flaw in that reasoning is that if Obama really considered that circumstance why didn't he think the same during his first term. Why didn't he just do the right thing when he first had the chance?

    He has fundamentally damaged his legacy with this first term. Historians don't necessarily accept deals as success unless they lead to success in the long term. No one but tea baggers really believes that austerity leads to a better future for all Americans.

    What he's done is set the ground work for both future Republicans and Democrats to think of his Presidency as a failure. It's going to take a few years to set this economy right. If we ever do return to good times for more people Obama will be long gone.

    I see that his only hope is to champion major and fundamental change not only in the tone of the conversation but the content of the conversation. Its true that he's working hard on the tone but it takes more than being nice to and listening with respect to the views of a sociopath.

    Unapologetically pro-citizen. Not anti-corporation just very pro-citizen.

    by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 06:18:54 AM PDT

  •  "Don't mourn, organize" (Joe Hill) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hkorens

    The key to having this come out differently in the future -- including the expiring Bush tax cuts -- is undoing the damage from the 2010 elections. A difference of 10 votes in the House and 3 in the Senate, plus defeat of a few of the worst teabaggers, would have made a huge difference in negotiating strength. District by district we all have our work cut out for us for the next fifteen months.

  •  heard that stand firm NEXT TIME before (0+ / 0-)

    after extending the bush tax cuts

    2 times is a trend

  •  It's official: this is a one-party state (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Persiflage

    that does a decent job at pretending to be a two-party state for the benefit of the TV shows. We have good cop and bad cop arguing over details but there is core agreement from the two sides over what the priorities are.

    What else can we conclude but that Democrats are largely in agreement that spending cuts make sense right now? I'm sickened by their cowardice and lack of principle.

    The White House's attempt to spin this as a good deal is one howler after another.

    Oh and here is how the negotiations on the Committee will go-
    Republicans: taxes are off the table. So are defense cuts.
    Democrats: Okay, well, the automatic spending cuts will kick in if you don't deal, which include defense cuts.
    Republicans: You liberals really hate our troops don't you?
    Democrats: How much do we cut aid to the poor to get you to stop saying that?

  •  Next time ?!? There'll be no next time (0+ / 0-)

  •  On of the more suckier (0+ / 0-)

    parts of this deal, IMHO, is the "super congress"

    It's bad enough that the hostage takers actually represent only about 3% of Americans (tea party reps and senators from flyover states), then you have the "gang of six", the catfood commission....  every single time, the voice of the majority of Americans is absent.

    It seems we need these small select groups of "serious people" in order to make the "serious" decisions.  Well, we can be sure that the reps in this stupid "super congress" will not be representing progressive constituents.  They will be the "serious people" that understand the complexities of Wall Street and the economy (uh, I mean, it's easier for lobbyists to handle 12 congress critters than 536)

    Let's just give up on the democracy thing already.  It's just not that into us.

    "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

    by La Gitane on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 10:26:23 AM PDT

  •  THIS IS THE FUNNIEST HEADLINE IN DAILY KOS HISTORY (0+ / 0-)

    Democrats will be able to promise to stand firm--next time."

    Hah!  Priceless!  Who writes this stuff?  This is better than "Dr. Strangelove."  Brilliant, brilliant satire.

  •  Spineless bunch of wimpy sellouts. (0+ / 0-)

    That is today's Democratic party.

    The Patriot Act: IOKIYAD!

    by Beelzebud on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 11:25:28 AM PDT

  •  Keep your head in the sand... (0+ / 0-)

    Obama has nothing but praise for Boehner and McConnell and there compromise yet he has heard them say...We have no intentions of putting any of our members on the Super Committee that would raise taxes....This I must ask, what the Hell are you Drinking Mr. President?

    Doing nothing is very easy for Republican party to do ... you never know when there finished. Me 2009

    by army193 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 07:35:50 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site