« BACK | PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Obama fears losing reelection more than default

By: Dan Spencer (Diary) | July 24th, 2011 at 02:03 PM |

RESIZE: AAA

President Obama, fearing losing reelection more than default, threatens to veto any last-minute debt package from Congress unless it extends the nation’s borrowing limit beyond the 2012 elections.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told ABC’s “This Week” that Obama demands that any agreement to increase the debt ceiling extend beyond the 2012 elections.

Obama’s chief of staff, Bill Daley, confirmed the veto threat. Daley was asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” if Obama would veto a plan that doesn’t extend the limit into 2013. Daley answered, “Yes.”

So a stubborn president Obama is willing to veto what by all accounts is the going to be the only viable option to meet his administration’s August 2 deadline for avoiding default so he doesn’t have to debate the issue during his reelection campaign.

Obama’s veto threats don’t sit well with Republicans.

Speaker John Boehner told Fox News Sunday that it is no longer “physically possible” to get everything done before the Treasury Department’s August 2 deadline for raising the debt ceiling. Congress is now working on a two-stage debt-limit vote – in order to raise the debt ceiling immediately while tackling deficit-reduction later.

Boehner also criticized Obama for insisting that a debt ceiling deal be timed to last beyond the next election season:

“The president’s worried about his next election, but my God, shouldn’t we be worried about the country?” Boehner said. “I’m not worried about the next election. I told the president months ago: Forget about the next election!”

Boehner is right, President Obama should be more worried about the country than his reelection. Sadly, it appears Obama continues to put political expediency above all else.

We all recall the infamous “don’t call my bluff” kerfuffle at the White House a couple of weeks ago, when Obama threw a temper tantrum and walked out of the debt ceiling negotiations. Witnesses said Obama shoved his chair back during negotiations and declared: ‘Enough is enough. According to Eric Cantor, Obama went on to say: “Don’t call my bluff. This may bring my presidency down but I will not yield on this.”

Obama just might have been right about his presidency. After adding nearly $4 trillion to the national debt since he became president, Obama’s insistence on more and more additional “tax revenue” prevented him from making a so-called grand bargain to increase the debt ceiling. And now he is willing to risk default with a veto because he wants to kick the problem down the road, past the presidential election. No wonder Obama’s approvals are tanking.

Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Daley, Debt Ceiling, Default, John Boehner, Reelection, Tim Geithner

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

mlowry

Every comment I see or hear jumps immediately from the pending default to the need to reform Social Security in order to cut spending. Why aren’t we focused on the dramatic spending increases of the past 2 years, which have nothing to do with Social Security?
RealQuiet

Very good post Dan. Well written
http://www.skiloveland.com skicougar

Those that thought(myself included) , that Obama wouldn’t throw the entire country under the bus to save himself have just been proven wrong.

We should have known, he throws family, friends and staff under the bus, why shouldn’t the entire country be any different.

Buckle your seatbelts. If you thought the first 18 months have been bumpy/a wild ride; I suspect you haven’t seen anything yet as Obama tries anything and everything to get four more years.

Boehner, ” I know the president’s worried about the next election, but by GOD; shouldn’t he be worried about the country.” – Boehner still doesn’t know who he’s dealing with either.

averagevoterdotcom

that I am not certain obama is fully sane.
he is acting bizarre and illogical.
are you ready for that, purists?
http://www.ipsnational.com Craig Whitelock

If Obama “vetoes” any bill passed by both Houses that will be the end of our Republic. He will, in my opinion, take extra-legal steps to shutdown dissent, bypass Congress, and raise the Debt ceiling via “Presidential” authority, citing the 14th Amendment Section 4.

By the time it makes its way to the SCOTUS another crisis will have been manufactured, and he will consolidate his power even further as a result.

Do not underestimate what this man is trying to do. Obama is no more than a Dictator impersonating an American President. He has no respect for Congress, and would prefer to make all of our decisions for us without any input from other bodies.

He has stated repeatedly that he prefers to act “independently” of other pillars of our Republic, even whimsically musing how much easier it would be if he could act alone.

We are now in the direct path of a Constitutional crisis that Obama intends to “win”. If he does, we all lose, Liberals included.

derechista76

…will get creamed if he does. Doing so puts the DNC/(cough, S&P) downgrade in his lap.

Unrelated: Do his mom jeans cary the union label?
concap

throw the country under the buss to further the cause, even if it means loosing the election.

In fact he all ready has. I can see the drive shaft passing over now.

Everything he has accomplished so far will never fully be repealed.

Five steps forward and two steps back, still equal three steps forward.
rowdydfw

Why is there even a question of ‘who knew’? Obama knew! He ordered it and funded it with stimulus dollars. The announcement of it is on videotape evidence by a White House staffer…”Today the president ordered and funded Operation Gunrunner’…! They not only funded it once, but three times.

They have sworn testimony that DEA and FBI agents were involved. That means Napitolano and Panetta knew. And the straw buyers were on the FBI payroll.

Hillary Clinton knew US guns were being found in Mexico when she got up and made the claim that the US was creating the problem in Mexico with lax gun control regulations. That’s not speculation, that is fact. And then ask yourself how Hillary and Bill’s boy Panetta was transferred outta there to the Defense Department so fast it makes one’s eyeballs spin!

And of course Holder knew. He made a speech about it in Cuernavaca April 2009, before they got outed.

Why all the ambiguity and stonwalling all around on both sides?

And then there’s testimony that there were Mexican National forces on the scene at the time. Connect that dot. Doesn’t that raise anybody’s eyebrows?
rowdydfw

I dunno how this post got on this topic…how strange.
msctex

What we see as Obama “throwing the country under the bus,” our current President only sees as Good. All this is means to an end.

For all practical purposes, the man is nuts. If the accepted definition of insanity is correct — doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result — he is more than worthy of a rubber room. He either:

1) Truly believes he can spend his way out of debt

or, and much more likely

2) He believes insurmountable Debt to be the manner in which he can bring down our system entirely.

Even a cursory reading of the materials he and those like him take seriously can only reinforce this theory. He has been “educated” in a manner that has rendered him essentially out of phase with Reality. Our saving grace will hopefully be the fact he has already failed so spectacularly thus far that people have been forced to pay attention, and will recognize him for what he is in time.

keysconservative

There can be no other reasonable explanation than option 2 above. History is replete with examples of super power nations crumbling under the weight of enormous debt. Only a simpleton would subscribe to the ‘pay your way out of debt’ strategy. It has never worked before and the laws of economics dictate that it will never work in the future. Obama is not a simpleton, therefore he is an evil, ‘destroy America’ progressive.

msctex

Following the logic, we are left with an intelligent man, who wants to destroy what is by leaps and bounds the most prosperous, wealth-generating, “good-doing” nation the world has ever seen, to ostensibly rebuild it in an image that no one ever bothers to fully render.

I believe a true, healthy intelligence would preclude this possibility. Intelligence would note the potential problems with shutting down coal mines and denying oil companies the opportunity to drill, while offering precisely nothing in their stead. Intelligence would recognize who our proven allies on the world stage actually are, and respect that fact in spite of any personal issues due to one’s own DNA.

There is only one scenario in the human condition which can account for both intelligence and behavior which consistently directly contradicts it: mental illness, of a high and dangerous order. The President, is not a well man.

swami7774

…that the GOP wants this as an issue next year either. If you think our fearless leaders’ responses to The One have been weak and inconsistent THIS year, imagine what they would be NEXT year?

Then again, His Condescension is showing us how terrified he is of having this slide into next year…

snowshooze

First, it gives GOP and Boehner another chance to blow over and crow they did something.
Second, Obama gets his money.
Beyond that, I think the loss of of a Senate or House majority might be worth it if we accomplish CCB… which is by no means perfect.. yet would if not perverted…put us on a path to fiscal responsibility.
Understand, I am greatly concerned about the intestinal fortitude of Boehner and the boys after the ’11 budget shellacking.
Honestly, I think we will have the whole bag after we get through the election, and I see no reason to begin the surrender now.
With enough stupidity though, we still have the opportunity to blow it.
Swami, you are right. If they dodge now, guarantee an election time cave in.

littlehouse18

since we need to get rid of Obamacare. To me this is the most serious issue of all.

snowshooze

No, or anything else of substance.
Threaten SS and Medicare/Medicaid ( To bolster support for Obamacare ) close the parks ( Can they keep us out?) and anything we might actually WANT from the Government…
The GOP should put some real targets up, just a few examples, like NEA Endowment for the Arts, the new energy commission and a pile of trash we currently fund…
C’mon guys.. I could play this game better than the ” Professionals ”

…armchair quarterback speaking…

Bobcat51

…..and Summoned seem to be the terms used by a King around his royal court ,not in the America we all grew up in !
anjinconsulting

and to have to defend it in the spotlight of an election would be their collective worst nightmare. Just look at the hysteria and hyperbole being cast about in any direction from which a threat to actually reduce spending comes from. They are practically eating their own in the House, at least those who helped pass Cut Cap & Balance; in the Senate you can be sure Ried is giving no quarter to anyone he even thinks is out of line. The fear, and near loss of all sense is palpable in the man-child president.

If we actually had conservatives who could point out the arrogance and condecension of defining a reduction in the forecast amount of increased spending as a “cut” and could cite a handful the useless and wasteful programs at the first rattle out of the box we would have destroyed Captain Zero by now and neutered the entire democratic platform. Instead we have abunch of milktoast RINOs and wannabe liberal leaders who sold their political souls in past votes and are beholden to the political machine.

There will never be a greater opportunity to peacefully destroy entrenched liberalism in this country.
Kyle-MI

If we default, he most likely looses the election next year.
If we have just a short term increase then it becomes just as much an election issue and he is likely to loose the election next year.

As long as the GOP stands firm, he either looses the election or looses the election. The only way he can win is if the GOP caves (either now or right before the election). The GOP holds the stronger hand. Obama would be better off agreeing to a weak (from his point of view) compromise. Then he would have over a year to reshape the narrative and lick his wounds. It is also a good bet that the swing voters would forget about this loss as other issue come to the forefront.

jaydickb

A default would pretty much ensure his election next year. With lots of help from the media, he would blame the Republicans for all the problems he can attribute, correctly or incorrectly, to the default, including all the economic problems.

Obama has a lousy economy on his hands that is not going to improve much. He has no idea what to do to improve the economy. So, his only way to get reelected is to blame the Republicans. A crisis he can attribute to the failure to raise the debt ceiling would allow him to blame the Republicans for everything. And he could probably sell it.

Spiral

I agree.

The Republicans should have simply raised the debt ceiling back in February by, oh, say, 3 trillion dollars, high enough so that the debt ceiling would not be an issue for the next several years.

Then the House Republicans would pass the Ryan budget plan, as they did, observe that the Democrat run Senate did not pass any budget plan at all.

At that point the House Republicans would say, “Gosh. What a shock. The Democrats aren’t acting responsibly on this deficit issue.”

The GOP would then wash it’s hands of the deficit issue until January 2013, by which time the Democrats would be removed from power in the US Senate and the White House.

Instead, the House GOP sees it as their responsibility to potty train the Democrat Senate and the Democrat President, even as the Senate and Pres suffer continual “restroom malfuctions.”

In the process, the GOP risks getting “the stuff” of these restroom malfuctions all over them, because the GOP is always there, with their hands in wrong places.

It’s really simple, when you think about it.

It’s like Ed Koch, former mayor of New York City, said when asked if he would consider coming out of retirement to rescue the city of New York from then current mayor David Dinkins.

Koch said, “The people voted me out last time. And for that they must be punished.”

The American people elected Obama to a 4 year term and they should be punished for the entire 4 years. They should not be bailed out by the 2010 election, especially since the Democrats in the Senate and the White House have not learned their lesson despite the 2010 election results. Let them learn the lesson in 2012.

Adjoran

Our bond rating WILL be downgraded not only if we technically default by not paying bond interest on time, “de facto” default by not paying or delaying payment to suppliers, contractors, or a partial shutdown not mandated by Congress, but ALSO if we fail to reduce the deficits by at least $4-5 trillion over the current ten-year budget window.

Of the plans presented so far, none both avoid all forms of default and cut the necessary spending. The Ryan budget cut enough spending to avoid a downgrade, but didn’t address the debt ceiling.

[The reason all of this works only in a ten year time frame is that is the statutory limit for budget authority - the maximum amount of time this Congress can bind future Congresses to a framework].

Spiral

I agree that there are two issues, the magnitude of the national debt and the statutory debt limit.

You are correct. The US bond rating is likely to be downgraded unless trillions of dollars are cut.

However, who’s responsibility is it to cut spending by trillions of dollars?

They guys who just walked in the door six months ago? Or the guys who have been in office for a couple of years, passing and signing stimulus plans that soak the nation in red ink.

The GOP tends to have this itch for rescuing the Democrats from their own bad policies because “it’s in the national interest.”

Great. If it’s in the national interest, the American people can vote for a US Senate and a President who agree with that view. Until then, the GOP should raise the debt ceiling and then tell the Democrats that the burden of cutting spending is on them, if they want to cut spending at all.

After all, it’s the Democrats’ funeral in 2012 if the economy does not turn around.

averagevoterdotcom

thanks!
radicalrighty

“At that point the House Republicans would say, ?Gosh. What a shock. The Democrats aren?t acting responsibly on this deficit issue.??
*********************************
Every, single time the Republicans attempt to get its message, any message, out, the MSM gives it a blackout.

Kyle-MI

Obama is polling terrible compared to a generic GOP candidate. He is polling almost as bad against most of the specific candidates. He is not polling over 50% against any of them. On top of that his job approval numbers are terrible as well. Do you really think those numbers will improve with default?

Even if what you say is true, that puts the GOP in a no win situation. Either the debt is defaulted and they get blamed; or they make a terrible deal (go Obama’s way) and take the air out of the tea party as well as generally demoralize the base. Also, if they cave the MSM is going to give Obama all the credit anyway. Finally, if they compromise in such a way as to substantially raise taxes, the economy will take a hit and the press will spin it that the GOP did not compromise enough.

The bottom line is that we should not let the MSM decide our course of action. We can never please them. We can never win them over. They will always give us the poor end of the deal.

lastgopinillinois

” conservatives who could point out the arrogance and condecension”
of the liberal machine who forced Obamacare on us. Heros like Steve King (R, Iowa) and many, many others beat the Obamacare repeal drum as long as they could till the next liberal onslaught bore down on them. (the budget battle). We did not destroy Captain Zero. We did not neuter the democomm platform.
It is not enough to to have a few Heros in the Congress fighting for freedom. The only way we are going to be able to stop this runaway train is by each of us getting out and fighting to get conservative officials elected to the Senate in 2012.
Til then we must hold the line somehow.

anjinconsulting

cannot be effective; he or she must have a leadership that believes in the same prtiniciples we are fighting for.

So in addition to whatever it is that you are doing about that, just let your local Republican party know that until they have a change in leadership, they’ll get no more money or effort from you, and even more importantly; you will be supporting the first conservative candidate in the primary aginst their incumbent.\

Nothing gets a politician’s attention faster than losing campaign cash.

pantera

Sounds like a good idea. In one year be in negotiations again, tie up obama so he cant be campaigning. Keep the congressional bleeders in town to haggle while rest of members go home to campaign.
Finrod

Or to be precise, W’s largest yearly deficit, adjusted for inflation if we must to make it exact. Republicans can pass a clean debt ceiling raise of that amount, and say “We’re raising the debt limit by the largest yearly deficit before Obama took office, because we don’t want a default. We still want matching spending cuts, and this gives Democrats in the Senate plenty of time to find them. If they are unable or unwilling to find these cuts out of the FY2012 budget, there won’t be another debt limit increase, period.”

If Obama vetoes a clean debt ceiling raise, let the resulting (partial) shutdown be on his head.
http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

Funny thing – I don’t remember the world ending on that day…..

There’s a link to an article at Big Government about this at my diary:

http://www.redstate.com/teresakoch/2011/07/24/psssst-we-hit-the-debt-ceiling-on-may-16th/

Adjoran

Default is only when we can’t pay all the bills authorized by law and have to delay or deny some or shut down offices, etc. We’ve had the cash sufficient to operate since reaching the ceiling, but it will run out by mid-August.

carolina

They are going to see BO at 6 PM and present their plan. BO really wants that 2.4 tril in increased ceiling.
This sounds better all of the time……..

renny

is to do nothing to attract attention until after the electionin 2012.

izoneguy

And Obama is the leader of the liberal party.

America can only “default” if the treasury does not pay interest on it’s debt.
The treasury takes in $200 Billion per month – the interest on our debt is
about $30 Billion per month. You do the math…..

We will only “default” if Obama makes it so.

Adjoran

Our bond rating will be downgraded if the government fails to make ANY scheduled payments – not just bond interest – or even delays them due to a lack of cash flow. The bond agencies have been very clear about this for over a year, and Greece ran into this very situation earlier this yera.

It is NOT enough to avoid “technical” default because “de facto” default carries exactly the same penalty: downgraded rating and higher interest costs for years.

lineholder

along with your earlier post today about Obama refusing to accept the $800 billion deal.

Have you heard the rhetoric coming out of the left today? They’re squalling like a bunch of stuck pigs scared witless that they are going to be left at an empty trough. It’s disgusting!
vikings4123

Barry is going to find himself in a tough spot in 2012. His opponent will reveal all about himself…schools, grades, etc. barry will do what when asked for same? If he somehow manipulates himself to get re-elected you can rest assured civil unrest will spawn and spread in this great country. The vast majority of the citizens of these United States will not tolerate 4 more years of this fraudulent, condescending joke in the WH.
renny

The stuck pig is the prelude to delicious bacon and pork chops.

runner12

Any time the Left is squeeling and squirming you can pretty much bet that you are getting to them. It is time to hold the line.

We have the advantage if we are willing to hang in there and use it.

lineholder

It really is. The left is adamant in their belief that Obama screwed up because the stimulus “wasn’t big enough”, but they have to try to project the current crisis onto Repubs. Still, when they start saying Repubs are a “national security threat”….that much duplicity is disgusting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/24kristof.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

BTW, here’s a great quote about why the stimulus failed:

“In the broadest sense, monetary and fiscal policies have failed because government financial transactions are not the key to prosperity. Instead, the economic well-being of a country is determined by the creativity, inventiveness and hard work of its households and individuals”.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/why_feds_spending_has_failed_8u657ZlBbO3qGnFi9n0H5J

vikings4123

barry thinks the MSM will be enough to win the PR battle and get the Republicans blamed, just like 1995. barry hopes there are too many uneducated American Idol dunces out there. He is wrong. This is not 1995. The internet allows the truth to get through now. Additionally, people have seen barry lie for 2.5 years as president. Additionally, we are in a depression, unlike 1995. barry has not faith in America nor Americans. Americans are about to show barry and the MSM who the real boss is in 2012. There is nothing that can save the man-child now because the country is wise to his tricks, the dem’s tricks and the MSM’s tricks. bye bye barry. bye bye dems. And to the MSM? Watch as, over time, your fat cat contracts for your “hosts” dwindle while viewership evaporates. Good times are coming.

Spiral

It’s not a gamble by Barry Obama.

If he played it straight, he would have no basis on which to blame the crummy economy on the Republicans.

If there is a situation where the federal government is forced to welch on part of its legal-financial obligations, at least then Barry Obama has an even chance of getting reelected.

If you were him, wouldn’t you want the issue of 2012 to be how the extremist tea party drove the American economy off of a cliff rather than how Obama mismanaged the economy?

If this debt limit issue did not exist at all, perhaps because the GOP House voted to raise the debt ceiling by 3 trillion dollars in February, taking the issue off the table, the only issue we would be talking about is “Where are the jobs? Why is unemployment higher than 9 percent rather than below 8 percent as Obama promised back when the stimulus was proposed?”

Because of this debt limit debate, Obama can say, “Those extremist Republican tea partiers. This economy would be great if it weren’t for them.”

The sooner the GOP step away from the cameras and microphones, the better.

When your enemy is in the process of destroying himself, let him.

Unfortunately, many conservatives can’t pass up the chance to play the hero role. Thus, their attempt to put America on a course of fiscal sanity while an insane community organizer remains in the White House.

lineholder

You’ve been on the same talking points for over a week, implying and conveying that conservatives should basically take the path of least resistance and encourage those elected into office to do the same, for the sake of achieving what exactly? A chance to govern starting in 2012, but facing an economy that is shot because of all the shenanigans that have gone on for four years, some of which might be prevented for these last 18 months if conservatives stand their ground, which according to you they shouldn’t do?

Spiral

My main point is is that the GOP should not jump off a cliff on this debt ceiling issue.

There are lots of conservatives who think that the GOP must be willing to risk defaulting on the US’s legal-financial obligations in order to prove that they are serious about cutting spending.

I think that this is very bad advice and I hope that the GOP members of Congress disregard that advice.

Kyle-MI

The party that wins is the party that is will to risk default.
If we deal on his terms, he wins and the base is demoralized. He wins the election next year and Dems will likely stay in control of the Senate. If he wins next year it means a long, slow, but inevitable economic and social death.
lineholder

that conservatives in general want to see the US default on our financial obligations. Broad brush with generalized blanket statement? Maybe too broad?

But here’s the deal, Spiral…the way some of your comments come across sounds conciliatory and condescending towards conservatives as a whole. There are a lot of conservatives here at RS, myself being one of them. You’re more likely to succeed in antagonizing people than winning them over with this approach. It makes you sound like an establishment elitist who is trying “school” the “uneducated masses”, which just rubs people the wrong way, okay?
Spiral

I have tried very hard to stick to the issues at stake and not get into calling other commenters names.

One commenter who disagrees with me on this issue called me a bucket of warm spit.

I did not respond to that name calling in kind. I’m much more comfortable talking about the politics and the policies than I am throwing out insults.

I’d love to be persuaded that the strategy some conservatives want to pursue could work.

In other words, wouldn’t it be great if all that was necessary for the United States to get its fiscal house in order was for the GOP to win control over the US House of Represenatives even as the US Senate and the White House remains in control of unreconstructed Marxists?

Yes. It would be great if that was all that was required.

I don’t believe it. I believe that what is required is for the GOP to win the US House, the US Senate and the White House in 2012 and then govern as conservatives, not as moderates (like they did from 2003 to 2006).

I think that there is an appropriate time for leaning on Republican Congressmen and demanding that they cast tough votes, even at the risk of ending their careers.

But not when those votes are going to have zero impact because they are ignored by the Senate and the White House.

Just my opinion. I am not someone who has connections with members of Congress. I just try to stay informed on these issues, as I have for the last 25 or more years.

Do we disagree? That’s okay. There will be other issues that come up. We might be on the same side on those.
GopTiger

Spiral, I share your basic assumptions and I too have thought/feared that Obama was angling for a shutdown/default so he could play Clinton in an updated version of that 1995 classic tv hit- “Newt ShutdownThe Government”. You know the drill…

But I’m beginning to wonder if my initial impressions were…wrong. For the first time, I have begun thinking that it is Obama-not Boehner- who fears a defaut more. The Obama we saw Friday evening was not a man dealing from a position of strength or a man who looked like he relished a shutdown fight. Frankly, he looked scared and worried.

Now, I don’t know who to credit this about-face. Did the guys and gals at Goldman Sachs or the S & P crowd or the Georgetown Chattering Circle make Obama reconsider the wisdom of this whole shutdown game? I don’t know. But it now appears it is Dear Leader Obama-not Boehner-who is most worried about a default.

If that be the case (and its debatable), doesn’t it behoove the House GOP to hold firm? Doesn’t it put them in the driver’s seat?

That said, I still think we have better-than-even odds that Obama ends up ordering Geithner to issue debt in August, deal or no deal.

Politically, that may be the best outcome for the GOP entering the 2012 election.
acat

Most importantly, Obama is not Clinton.

Mew
littlehouse18

Although I am wary of where Boehner is taking this, I don’t believe he has the personality issue that Newt has. Newt just rubs a lot of folks the wrong way, and that’s a significant factor. Boehner appears more like an “average Joe”.
acat

but Boehner does seem to lack Gingrich’s hamartia, his fatal weakness, his ego.

I’m sure Boehner has his own flaw, but .. thus far he’s managed to overcome it.

Mew
cordpt

Gingrich’s biggest problem was that he looked too eager for a confrontation. That’s why he eventually lost the favours of the public and was forced to blink first. And offered Clinton a much more favourable place in history than what he deserved and a second term.

Only about 20% of the country – 10% for each side – actually likes that.
acat

Let me tell you the truth. Clinton would have been forced to yield .. if Newt had hung on another week.

What forced Gingrich to blink wasn’t Clinton, it was Gingrich. Clinton had the losing hand, but for the media lying… but as with Minnesota, as people realized they *weren’t* hurt by the shutdown, the tide shifted in Gingrich’s favor.

Just in time for him to capitulate.

Mew
Spiral

Since we have not treaded this far into the statutory debt ceiling breach before, it’s all very uncertain as to

[a] what the economic impact is

[b] what the political impact is, including who gets blamed the most

[c] how it all impacts the 2012 election (see part [b])

My attitude is this. Why add uncertainty when, if we remove the debt ceiling wildcard from the deck, the GOP looks like a winner in 2012.

We don’t need a hail mary pass because it seems like the GOP team is leading by a touchdown right now.

The main obstacle to Boehner getting the GOP out of this debt ceiling debate, it seems, is the belief that the 2010 election gave the GOP House a mandate for cutting spending. This mandate is so significant, it seems, that they should be willing to play chicken with the debt ceiling in order to satisfy this mandate.

I don’t buy it myself. If the GOP had a mandate for cutting spending, they would not need the leverage of the debt ceiling in order to force the Democrats to go along. The Democrats, seeing the political necessity of cutting spending in light of the 2010 elections, would be busy proposing their own versions of the Ryan budget plan and Cut, Cap and Balance, from a slightly more liberal point of view.

Instead, it’s business as usual in the Democrat US Senate. Which means absolutely no action on the debt issue from that body. Which makes me think that the Democrats think that 2011-2012 will be a replay of 1995-1996. (Remember when President Clinton was presumed irrelavent after the 1994 elections?)

Since we can’t be absolutely sure how this all plays out, we should pull an Ed Koch.

Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York City, was once approached by a citizen of the big apple. Koch was asked if he would consider getting out of retirement to run for mayor again. Many New Yorkers were disgruntled with the then Mayor David Dinkins. (David Dinkins defeated Koch for reelection).

Koch replied bluntly, “The people have spoken. Now they must be punished.” And so it must be now under Obama. If the GOP tries too hard to save Americans from the pain inflicted by Obama and Reid, the people might do what they did 16 years ago, reelected the Democrat President.
rbdwiggins

because after his deflect and retreat performance on FNS, it’s abundantly clear that Geithner will not violate Title 31 limitations just for the privilege of becoming Obama’s fall-guy in a constitutional battle the administration would likely lose. Article I, Section 8 is explicit in its mandate, the Fourteenth Amendment notwithstanding.

Besides, Obama will sign anything that crosses his desk, because he doesn’t even want a technical default to occur during his presidency. Historians will credit President Obama, not the 112th Congress, for any default or down-grade of the US credit rating that happens on his watch. Don’t call his bluff…

Note:

White House Confirms It Will Likely Sign Any Debt Deal Congress Sends

In an accidental moment of honesty, White House Deputy Press Secretary Dan Pfeiffer today admitted on Twitter that President Obama will likely sign any debt deal Congress sends his way.
lineholder

The progressive policies being implemented by this admin are wreaking havoc on our economy. Someone had better respond to the situation in a way that prevents as much damage from being done as possible, and the best option we have in this case are Repubs.

The level of distrust for government in general is very high right now, and one way that Repubs might have to win over voters is to let it be known that they will be the protectors of the economy in our behalf, even if that means taking a stand on a piece of legislation that, as you say, has zero impact because it would be ignored by the WH and the Senate.

It could have an impact with voters, Spiral, because it is indicative of who can be trusted and who can’t. Even a slight difference in trust levels could translate in a more proactive voter base going into 2012.
Spiral

I understand why many don’t trust either party to cut spending because the GOP didn’t deliver last time around, the last time they held the US House, US Senate and White House all at the same time.

I understand the skepticism. I understand the desire to win over and motivate the skeptics.

However, back in October of 2010, one month before the 2010 election, the GOP had no track record of cutting spending. Yet, the people gave the GOP lots of great victories. Some tea-party candidates won. Like Rubio in Florida and Paul in Kentucky. Some tea-party candidates lost. Like Angle in Nevada and Buck in Colorado.

I actually think that Obama has already provided everyone in the center-right coalition to vote Republican in 2012. I think the GOP members of Congress could eat pretzels for the rest of Obama’s term and the public would still elect Republicans as broadly as they did in 2010.

Unless, there is a disruption that can conceivably be traced to the GOP. That disruption is the debt ceiling issue (or a government shutdown). I’d just as soon take both issues off the table, even at the risk of being accused of RINO-ism. Stomp over Obama in 2012. Win US Senate seats in 2012. Retain the US House in 2012. Then throw off our RINO clothes to reveal our conservative layer underneath.

Heck. The Democrats did it. The Democrats didn’t pass Obama-care when George W Bush was president. They waited until the time was right (from their perspective). I think we should do the same. Apparently so does Mitch McConnell and columnist George Will.
acat

I think you’re misreading the Tea Parties in assuming that they’re going to fall into line and support the GOP, even if they don’t accomplish anything.

The Tea Parties want results, not words, not political theater, not dealmaking, and the GOP – and especially McConnell, hasn’t delivered.

My read is that, if the gutless D.C. wing of the GOP fail to hold the line, and still think they can still count on Tea Party support .. they’re mistaken.

Mew
cordpt

The ones I know don’t expect McConnell and Bohener to have the ability to whip the democratic caucus. They know the constitution well enough to understand that no meaningful results will be achieved regardless of the leadership.

Or by holding the line you mean not raising the debt limit? Because that will never happen. It was never an option (except for Obama, as it could save his presidency). Anyway, if that happened, I think the GOP wouldn’t win an election at least in the next decade. And I’m not sure if the party would survive the event.
Spiral

acat,

The tea party movement was very supportive of the GOP in 2010. This was true even though the GOP did not have any spending cut credentials at that time. The GOP was guilty of spending like drunken sailors under Bush, Hastert and Frist, when they controlled both ends of Washington DC.

If the GOP says to the tea party, “We passed the Ryan budget. The Democrats didn’t even pass a budget. All the Democrats did is run ads against us, accusing us of wanting to kill Grandma because we dared mention the need for reforming Medicare,” most tea party supporters will say, “Ok. We’ll support you in 2012, because it is clear that Obama and Reid have no interest in cutting spending. All they want to do is raise taxes to cover the deficit.”

Will some tea partiers bolt from the GOP and move toward a minor party like the Constitution party or the Libertarian party? Sure. But not many.

Just as the GOP won, despite its bad record on spending, in 2010, the GOP will win in 2012. If they avoid the debt ceiling trap that they had set for themselves.
acat

they had better cred than the Dems… they won as the alternative to the status quo, as the way to “throw the bums out!’, nothing more.

Should the GOP not be better than the Dems .. well …

I will point out that there have been other points in our nation’s history where the House swung back and forth between the parties… most of them unpleasant in the extreme.

I believe you misjudge the mood in flyover country, where I live, Spiral.

Mew
Spiral

I live in Indiana. This is considered flyover country too.

The GOP has already proven better than the Dems by passing the Ryan budget and also by passing Cut, Cap and Balance.

The people, including tea party folks, know which party is demanding tax increases and which party is resisting tax increases. They know which party has offered and voted on a budget and which party has not.

The GOP can raise the debt ceiling without losing any distinction between itself and the Democrats. Sure, there will always be those who will join the Constitution party or the Libertarian party on the belief that there isn’t a dimes worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans. But in most elections, over 90 percent of the votes are cast for either the Democrat or the Republican candidate.
acat

The GOP can only raise the debt ceiling if they can get real concessions out of the Dems.

The Tea Party backed the GOP to accomplish a few things… repealing Obamacare, rolling back spending, lowering taxes.

Obamacare? #Fail!

Rolling back spending? The 2011 budget “concessions” that weren’t? #Fail!

This is the third pitch. #Fail! at this, and .. I do not see the Tea Party thinking the GOP are up to the job. They won’t vote Dem, but …

Mew
lineholder

You’re getting this from McConnell and Will? I see.

Sorry, Spiral, but under no circumstances would I be willing to simply take the outcome of the election in 2012 for granted, which is more or less what you’ve just proposed we should do.

But then you turn around and talk about something that could be a threat to Repubs in 2012 in the form of a debt ceiling default? Repubs won’t default. Dems might try to lay that at their door, but it won’t stick, especially if Repubs have other things to back up their stand that they are fighting for our economy, such as continuing to make efforts on various pieces of legislation that according to folks like Will and McConnell we shouldn’t even try pursue.

Has it never occurred to you that the reason Will and McConnell are taking this approach is because they don’t want any more conservative influence? They want to stem the tide of popularity for conservatives? They want to keep conservatives out of elected office? They want to go on with the same old, same old that they had in the past?
Spiral

In his most recent column, George Will praised the tea movement. But he says that in order for their goals to be realized, they might have to wait 16 months.

I find it hard to disagree. The Democrats didn’t get their socialized medicine until they won the US House, the US Senate and the White House. I would argue that we, conservatives, will not get serious spending reduction until the GOP wins the US House, the US Senate and the White House. And, as I mentioned, the GOP, should they win in 2012, will have to govern more conservatively than they did in the previous decade.

Is any of this guaranteed? Nope. Not a bit.
lineholder

You lost me completely when I learned who was behind it.
lineholder

that he’s more than willing to take the path of least resistance and kick the can down the road. So there’s no way I trust him on this one. Will is strongly in favor of the “old guard”, and only says that he supports Tea Party initiatives to keep from ticking people off.

I don’t trust Boehner that much either, but he does seem to be trying to bridge a gap between three groups of people who have totally different viewpoints. He has conservatives, who are trying to look at the long-term fiscal implications and hold a line where spending is concerned. Then he has the “old guard” like McConnell, who became far too complacent about economic issues during the past decade or so and let Dems use them like a doormat gets used. Then he has Dems, who couldn’t care less about what is best in the long run as long as they get their precious tax increases. I don’t envy Boehner one bit in this case, because he’s got tough row to hoe regardless of what he chooses. But he has proven that he is willing to at least try, which is more than we are getting President Obama at this point. For that reason, I’m willing to give Boehner a bit more leeway.

But McConnell? Thanks but no thanks.
cordpt

He doesn’t have the same leverage of Boehner.

What exactly would you do in McDonnell’s place? Please explain.
lineholder

.
acat

When was the last time someone read a cookbook into the record?

Mew
cordpt

Incredible.
acat

Has to pass the Senate too, eh?

Mew
cordpt

Just not paying the bills.

Maybe it’s only me, but I think this distinction is important.
acat

Can’t borrow, spending limit laws apply.
Can’t just print more … the Dems would prefer inflation to not get worse.
Spending therefore has to be reduced.

Mew
cordpt

You can’t point out a single thing you would do differently and respond with a childish suggestion that McConnell “sold himself” (and cheaply!).

Quite telling.
lineholder

I would rather earn the respect of those around me for having convictions and being willing to take a stand on those convictions than to have people act like they like me but think that I’m “easy” because I take no stand to speak of on anything.

So if you think I’m going to respect someone who sets their standards LOW and then sells themselves short, it isn’t going to happen. And in this case, it isn’t just himself that he’s selling short…it’s our entire nation, because of his position as someone elected into office in our government.

No wonder the Dems would rather deal with McConnell.
lineholder

that Repubs have lived with for so long, I guess setting such low expectations for themselves became their new “norm”. Once upon a time, McConnell might have had a conscience and the kind of convictions that let stand upright with a sense of dignity that earned the respect of his peers, but he’s lost that somewhere along the way.
cordpt

Other than that, you haven’t answered: What would you do differently?

It’s a very simple question. Why cant’ you answer it? Just explain what you would do – how you’d get the CCB passed or something. I’m not particularly interested in your self-righteous rants, they’re boring and completely off-topic. Just answer the damn question. It’s a simple one. Just say one thing you’d do differently. One thing. Not even two. One.
lineholder

between a stand based on solid convictions and one based on learned complacency…well, anything I might say won’t make a lick of sense, because we’ll be approaching it from totally different viewpoints.

And I rather you didn’t curse at me, if you don’t mind. Thanks.
cordpt

between empty words that don’t mean anything

Can you say a concrete thing you’d do differently than McConnell or not? And something concrete, practical, tangible; not some vacuities about taking stands and childish ad hominem attacks.

If you don’t produce an answer, I think it’s fair if we all assume that you don’t have an answer at all.

For the record, I defended taking down McDonnell back in 2005, I think – exactly because he wasn’t strong enough opposing the President out-of-control spending. Of course, at that time most of the “anti-McDonnell” of today were defending the President. But at that time he was a Majority leader – different power, different responsibilities.
lineholder

No, I have no intention of discussing it with you, thank you. Your answers to the last few posts have been rude to say the least, and I just think it is time to back away from this conversation.
cordpt

You made that up; I understand you needed a cop-out.

I dared you to say what you would do differently in a very straight way and, as I presumed, you weren’t able to answer at all. Now you’re using the “I know the answer, but I won’t discuss it because you were mean to me”. C’mon… you have no ideas at all. You were unable to answer that very simple question.

It’s very simple: a minority leader is a minority leader is a minority leader. Folks moaning about McConnell as if he could achieve anything substantial are truly bizarre to say the least.
lineholder

You’ve hurt your own cause more than you realize by the type of verbal transaction that you’ve carried on. You’ve let it be known that those who have convictions aren’t your cup of tea (no pun intended} and that you feel entirely comfortable cursing at them and berating them when they don’t conform to the mentality that you want them to have.

I wasn’t angry before, but I must admit that I’m going in that direction now. Rather than expose other members of RS to that, I’m calling it quits. It’s that simple. And most folks around here know me well enough to know that it is standard for me to back away from a conversation if I start getting angry, because I’ve done it before.

But by all means if you feel compelled to paint imaginary scenarios to make your point, feel free to do so.
http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

Even if the Republicans retake the Senate in 2012, McConnell will still function as a minority leader. It is engrained in his thinking. He has no grand vision. He is unable to play hardball. All he wants now is to be the majority leader so he plays along and does not rock the boat. He plays it safe. If the Republicans control the Senate after 2012, all he will want is to retain his position as majority leader. So he will play it safe and not rock the boat. He is a political creature. He is not that bright or visionary. He is the wrong man for any leadership position. But safe, bland, and political is what passes for leadership these days.
cordpt

And he was a disaster in the job. Didn’t do anything to oppose Bush’s big government agenda or to address the ever growing budget deficit.

I feel weird defending McConnell now, considering I was part of the 0.1% of the Republicans that were calling him out 5 or 6 years ago. But fair is fair.
http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

Even in the position of “Majority Leader” he acted as the leader of a minority and simply accepted his fate at the hands of the Democrats. It was easier than taking candy from a baby. When Harry Reid out maneuvers you, you have a problem.
cordpt

As socialist as any democrat, but still a republican. The problem in those years weren’t the democrats – that’s like saying that the GOP is responsible for anything that happened in the first 2 years of Obama mandate, including Obamacare.
Tbone

Spiral is not even a Rino.

olsmithie

Wallace asked, while calling Boenher a liar.
There appears to be no lie too small or big for Komrade O or his lackeys.
Little Timmy keeps saying we should do the “smart” thing and give Fearless leader a blank check through 2012, (imagine that), and form committees to “make” Congress do the hard things and find the cuts.
If the Administration could “make” Congress do anything, I suspect they would be doing it…

Then too, I can do my taxes correctly, even if the only man who could “save America”,can’t.

Regards

acat

And just how well has forcing congress implement that gone?

Yeah. That’s got #fail written all over it.

Mew

GopTiger

Is anybody else enjoying Reid and Pelosi’s very public willingness to cut Obama out of the process? At this point, Obama is like the kid ordered to the corner while the parents and teachers figure out what to do about his irresponsible pranks.

I had to laugh when Daley said Obama would veto a bill passed by both houses of Congress.

Obama will sign anything President Reid hands him. If he doesn’t, he’s truly a man without a country.

So much for the “adult in the room”/”essential man” bs we’ve all been subjected to the past few months. Of course, none of us believed it, but I have been quite surprised at how willing the Undertaker from Nevada has been in exposing this farce.

wbb1950

what comes around goes around–eventually, Lord willing and the creek don’t rise. It;s payback for the time when Obama cut them out of the loop. As for his hissy fit Friday last, it is like the old saw on lawyers–when the law is on your side argue the law, when the facts are on your side argue the facts, and when neither the law or the facts are on your side pound the table. Eric is right. He looks like a man who does not have the upper hand, but after all it is baseball season.

The sneer is gone from Casey’s lip, his teeth are clenched in hate;
He pounds with cruel violence his bat upon the plate.
And now the pitcher holds the ball, and now he lets it go,
And now the air is shattered by the force of Casey’s blow.

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Mudville ? mighty Casey has struck out.

wbb1950

The entire res gestae reminds me of the familiar scene in the movie Dirty Harry where Inspector Callahan sticks a familiar object in the face of the perp and says I know what you are thinking did he fire 5 bullets or 6. To tell you the truth in all the excitement even I lost count. So it comes down to this: how lucky do I feel? I speak metaphorically of course.

In a rational world it should debt ceiling negotiations should not come down to this. Markets like certainty and this is the essence of uncertainty. But when you are dealing with a man from the mean streets of Chicago, one never knows. And tax cheat Geithner is stirring the pot. and roiling markets and unlike Obama he knows better.

Nonetheless, when the chips are down, if Boehner and Reid come up with a deal, the last thing in the world Obama will be thinking about is vetoing it. On the contrary he will be looking for a way to take credit for it, and to imply that if he had done it himself it would have been even better. But as always he was too busy,
http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

Make him veto a bill he doesn’t want or watch him sign it.

If the O vetoes it he is vetoing his re-election.

If the O signs it his side will spin it as “being fiscally responsible and bi-partisan” while the side of reality will label it with the victory for being responsible and *mebbe* realize the left can be taken down on occasion…

My guess he would sign it rather than shut down the government because it’s so glaringly obvious to all but the kool-aid drinkers what the left is trying to pull… but then I could be wrong and he could be stupid enough to veto a balanced budget.

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Obama fears losing reelection more than default

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL