The following was written by The Old Man. Freyguy posts it on his behalf:
I've been listening all week to our President, as he officially launches his "Fear and Blame" campaign...The Downgrade is due to the Tea Party holding the Republican's hostage... The downgrade is due to a divisive debate... The Congress should come back to work and solve this (if they do, call me, I'll be on Martha's Vineyard)... There's an unwillingness to compromise in Washington, and that's causing the problems...S&P was wrong to downgrade the U.S....The "rich" should pay their "fair share", that's the problem.
But...but...who's the Leader? Who is supposed to bring the sides together to compromise? Who is supposed to lead by example and not use partisan attacks and accusations? Who was supposed to bring Hope and Change to Washington DC? Has anybody seen that Leader? I find the quote below, from a 2008 Presidential candidate, to be on point.
"If we think that we can secure our country by just talking tough without acting tough and smart, then we will misunderstand this moment and miss its opportunities. If we think that we can use the same partisan playbook where we just challenge our opponent's patriotism to win an election, then the American people will lose. The times are too serious for this kind of politics."
BARACK OBAMA, speech, Aug. 19, 2008
Old Man,
ReplyDeleteUsually I agree with you, but you have no idea how difficult it is to tone down the rhetoric and lead in a nonpartisan way when the other side is controlled by terrorist who are holding a gun to your head and are willing to destroy the economy (to say nothing of Social Security and Medicare) for short term political gain. So please, just eat your peas and stop quoting Obama to make some silly partisan points.
"...I do believe the president was negotiating in good faith. We had a lot of productive conversations, a lot of tense conversations.
ReplyDelete...
When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the white House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy.
...
Well, there's the public noise and then there's the private discussion. Some of the most liberal members of Congress are great friends of mind. But the American people don't see the cooperation that exists off camera that really are the glue that holds this place together."
-John Boehner, CBS interview, Aug. 1, 2011.
Freyguy,
ReplyDeleteThanks for making my point. That is how a leader should comport himself. He says the other side negotiated in good faith, not that they are only after their own selfish interests and don’t care about the country. He reassures his base that he got a good deal, not that the other side was holding a gun to his head. And then he says that everyone is trying to work together, not that the other side is being held hostage by terrorists within their ranks.
John Boehner represents the kind of change we were promised in 2008. It is the kind of change we should demand of our President; if not this one, then the next.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteIf I understand correctly, your point is that "leaders" should say certain things in order to reassure us--whether or not those things are true, apparently. Obama should say he got 98% of what he wanted, this is a great deal for Democrats, the GOP/Tea Party were terrific partners in compromise, etc. That is an interesting perspective.
Personally, I think in a democracy, elected representatives (I prefer this over "leaders") should tell the truth, even when it ruffles conservative feathers. The truth is, there is not a perfect symmetry between Obama/Democrats vs. the GOP/Tea Party, in terms of willingness to compromise. House Speaker Boehner's comments were accurate. The charges leveled by Obama's strategist David Axelrod were also accurate: the Tea Party fought *any* compromise and pushed the GOP into tactics of brinkmanship. And this caused the credit rating downgrade. The truth hurts.
You and the Old Man, understandably, would like Obama to hush up about this. You say it's because a good "leader" is one who "comports himself" like Boehner; someone who represents "the kind of change we were promised in 2008". You mean, someone who gives the GOP 100%, instead of a mere 98%? Honestly, I think you and the Old Man don't really want our Democratic President to be bipartisan, in spite of yourselves. You just want a Republican President. I realize that's not your intended point, but it really seems that is what your arguments boil down to.
Freyguy...regardless of what Boehner says...who's the leader? It's not Boehner complaining about everyone and everything but himself being at fault for the failure of the actions of the past two years to have any positive effect (except for the common unprovable whine that "it would have been even worse"). Who's the leader? Who was going to bring all parties together and create "change and hope" and a new non partisan Washington D.C.? Who's the leader? The old "well, others have contributed to the problems too" and "well, look at what your guy said" doesn't answer the question...who's the leader? What's the leader doing? Harry Truman famously said "the buck stop here"...our new leader throws "the buck" around to almost as many people as to whom he tries to "spread the wealth". And just for the record, I don'tagree with Boehner either on thisspending issue...but Harry Truman wsn't the Speaker when he said "the buck stops here"... he was the President. Who's the leader? When is he going to take responsibility and lead?
ReplyDeleteThe Old Man
The Old Man,
ReplyDeleteI thought it was rhetorical, but since you asked the question several times ... you are right, Obama is the “leader” (to use your term). But let’s look at what he promised. He promised during the campaign that he would “bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda that works for the American people”. When confronted with national credit default, which arguably would not work for the American people, he gave the GOP 98% of what it wanted in order to reach a bipartisan deal. Promise kept.
Now, what he did not promise, was that if the other side does not act rationally or is unwilling to meet halfway, he will roll over and take it quietly, instead of calling them out on it. You can’t really believe that future deals will involve *more* compromise, and *less* threat of catastrophe, if the Tea Party is allowed to act the way it did with impunity. Remember that John McCain (in a display of his own style of leadership) went to the Senate floor and called the Tea Party’s opposition to the debt deal “worse than foolish”, “bizarro”, and “unfair to the American people”. Ouch. Like I said to Fred, leaders shouldn’t shy from the truth, even when it ruffles feathers. Sometime after McCain’s remarks, S&P said the downgrade was due to “brinkmanship” and a near “political stalemate”. S&P was clearly concerned by the Tea Party’s refusal to compromise in the face of imminent default. So a guy from the Obama administration called it “the Tea Party downgrade”. Again, ouch.
Freyguy,
ReplyDeleteIt’s fine if you are bothered by Tea Party people. Frankly, some of them weird me out too. But it is sad when courtesy and civility are mistaken for arrogance and when bombast and hate speech are mistaken for honesty.
And by the way 98% was hyperbole when Boehner said it. That Democratic mouthpieces have latched on to it is fine. But you are or at least should be too smart for that.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteWhat did Obama say about the Tea Party that you would call "hate speech"? Can you provide a quotation, so I understand what you are referring to?
Of course the "98%" is hyperbole, but nothing I have said rests on that figure being literally, exactly correct. (Unless I'm missing something.)
Freyguy,
ReplyDeleteOkay, you got me. Of course to officially qualify as "hate speech" it must reference race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, etc. So I guess when the President says the other party is ‘holding a gun to the heads of the American people’ he is not inviting hate or hostility. He is merely stating the facts in a non-inflammatory non-partisan presidential kind of way.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteYou appear to refer to this comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMol7h2CRmA
I direct your attention to the following:
“I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting ... Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done.” ~ Republican Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, quoted in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-debt-deal-the-triumph-of-the-old-washington/2011/08/02/gIQARSFfqI_story_1.html
What is inflammatory and hateful are the actions of the Tea Party, not Obama/McConnell's accurate descriptions thereof.
We can parse whether taking a shot at the debt ceiling is the same as holding a gun to the head of the American people and whether statements made on the floor of the Senate equal a television address to the nation, but since I am right and you have your mind made up, why take it any further. Just kidding… kind of.
ReplyDeleteYou might consider that sometimes politicians have extremely strong polar opposite views that have to do with a worldview as opposed to good and evil. Adams and Jefferson hated each other’s politics on a level seldom equaled.
Likewise while Obama and his minions were declaring that the world would end if the debt limit wasn’t raised that doesn’t mean it was evil or immoral to believe otherwise. I understand that many Americans bought into this hysteria. And indeed by raising the stakes in the debate Obama made the impact more dramatic and dysfunctional than it needed to be. I guess that’s what happens when you become Constant Drama Obama. But observe that while Democrats and media heads knew beyond a doubt that interest rates were absolutely positively going to rise dramatically if the US credit rating was downgraded, well. .. Hey, sometimes really smart people, including senate minority leaders get it wrong.
I wish it were as innocent as all that, Fred. But Boehner, McCain, McConnell, and the WSJ know better. There were some in the GOP who did believe passing the August 2 deadline would cause great harm to the country.
ReplyDeleteAs evidence, I submit that you re-read McCain and McConnell's remarks that I quoted, then consider the following radio exchange, which you can listen to here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40Rzbin5c0k
John Boehner: "Nobody wants to default ... and frankly I don't think it's in America's best interests. There are too many jobs, and too much of Americans' savings that get jeopardized if we get past it [the August 2nd deadline]."
Laura Ingraham: "Why would they [GOP detractors from the Boehner debt ceiling bill] continue down this path given the fact that the endgame is only something that would probably be disastrous for both the country and the Republican party?"
Boehner: "... A lot of them believe that if we get past August the second and we have enough chaos we could force the Senate and the White House to accept a balanced budget amendment."
The WSJ was also conscious of this attitude in the Tea Party:
"The idea [of Tea Party detractors from the Boehner bill] seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue, and the public will turn en masse against . . . Barack Obama. ... Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903591104576470061986837494.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Sorry, I apparently did not make myself clear.
ReplyDeleteWhile many people believe, say or act in ways that I consider immoral (leaving aside criminal) I believe that such people are much more likely to be sadly mistaken than innately evil.
I do not agree with certain positions of certain members of the Tea Party nor their negotiating tactics. I think raising the debt limit was necessary as apparently did the vast majority of Americans. Even most members of the Tea Party ultimately voted to raise the limit. By contrast only 50% of the House Democrats voted yea on raising the limit. So did they favor default?
I also believe it is wrong to purposely work against the President to insure failure rather than because one believes his proposals are harmful. So if that’s what’s happening I certainly don’t approve. But even here, if you believe that a second term would be a disaster for the nation, then perhaps the ends justify the means - whether the president’s name is Bush or Obama.
No they didn't favor default, they probably favored Harry Reid's debt ceiling bill which was heading to the House for a vote right after Boehner's bill. Whatever differences of opinion you have with House Democrats, their behavior, this time, cannot be equated to Tea Party-types who opposed *any* compromise for the reasons explained very candidly by GOP leaders (see quotes above).
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that many of those legislators genuinely, truly believe they were helping the country by holding it "hostage" (McConnel's term) and threatening "chaos" (Boehner's term). But if you are going to take a realpolitik "the ends might justify the means" stance when the Tea Party uses the debt ceiling as a hostage ... then to be fair, you cannot pretend to be morally outraged when Obama simply shares his opinion that, gee, they really oughtn't have done so.