home

WSJ Editorial Page Defends McConnell

It really is a battle royale in the conclaves of the GOP. Here is Murdoch's Wall Street Journal defending McConnell's cave:

The hotter precincts of the blogosphere were calling this a sellout yesterday, though they might want to think before they shout. The debt ceiling is going to be increased one way or another, and the only question has been what if anything Republicans could get in return. If Mr. Obama insists on a tax increase, and Republicans won't vote for one, then what's the alternative to Mr. McConnell's maneuver?

I think the alternative is obvious - extracting as much in spending cuts as you can. Is the WSJ seriously afraid of negotiating with the Obama Administration? The obvious move was the one Boehner was executing - take the spending cuts being offered by Biden and call it a day until the next hostage situation. Frankly, McConnell's move is inexplicable, not the least of which is because I do not think it can get through the GOP House.

In any event, it is fun to watch the GOP make a mess of a political negotiation for once. However it turns out, this is good news for the President's political fortunes.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Pundit HAMP'd >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I'm guessing (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by TJBuff on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 08:39:08 AM EST
    Wall Street looked around Monday at the European debt crisis and realized that Geithner couldn't bail anybody out while this was going on.  No flight to safety.  And they realized they didn't have to Aug 2, worst case they might need it tomorrow.  And the phone calls went out.

    exactly (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 08:48:11 AM EST
    we all knew it would happen the only question was how long they would let this go on

    Parent
    Obama's actually has to take the deal (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by TJBuff on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 08:57:33 AM EST
    before I celebrate.  Jay Carney's already said no.

    Parent
    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 08:59:36 AM EST
    Biden has already agreed to spending cuts.

    Indeed, you are quick to call this over.

    The McConnell plan seems unlikely to be the end result to me.

    Hell, if anything, this might be the equivalent of Obama's offer to cut Medicare and Social Security.

    This might make the Biden cuts palatable to the Tea Party.

    Your take on this is way too optimistic imo.

    Parent

    I just saw (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:05:41 AM EST
    a clip from another interview where he says no budging, no deal.

    again.  mcconnell and boner seem to believe it.

    and IOM it, some version of it, will be the result.

    Parent

    also (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:12:19 AM EST
    I would bet that Obama holds out for less than the three votes they want on it.  he doesnt want votes close to the election. they want three votes that they can use in advertising in which dems raise the debt ceiling.

    he will get that changed.  he will get, in short, everything he wants.


    Parent

    I hope so (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:14:09 AM EST
    I seriously doubt it.

    Parent
    McConnell (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:13:45 AM EST
    Not Boehner officially YET.

    And as I said before, if they believe that, it shows they can be as stupid as Dems in political bargaining.

    Parent

    Then 30 Republicans would have to vote for it.

    Then the GOP base would be completely outraged and unlike us wimpy Dems, they will extract political prices from the "traitors."

    McConnell's move is idiotic on every level.

    Boner is all over the news saying (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:13:37 AM EST
    this is the fall back position.  I repeat.  if Boners corporate masters tell him to bring it to a vote he will do it.

    Parent
    No he's not (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:14:52 AM EST
    I just saw a clip of him on fox (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:17:38 AM EST
    news being asked if he would do this and saying wellllll only as a last resort.

    I am not going to look for it I am not making it up.
    and I saw a clip from another show.  today?  on the same topic

    Parent

    Boehner has not endorsed this (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:19:59 AM EST
    You can pretend he has all you want. He has not.

    Parent
    no he has not (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:24:21 AM EST
    he has said, twice that I have seen this morning, that he will do it as a "last resort"

    the most virulent of the right wingers, or most of them, will be able to have the fig leaf of saying they voted against it.

    Parent

    This is all McConnell right now (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:36:05 AM EST
    Boehner is off the hook right now.

    Parent
    The only way to explain it (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:39:58 AM EST
    is that McConnell's donors are putting the intense squeeze on him to wrap this up without going to the brink.

    He is too competent as a political operator to otherwise give up this easily. IMO he might even be the best on the Republican side.

    Parent

    McConnells donors/masters (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 02:23:45 PM EST
    are Boehners doners/masters

    Rush may think he runs things but until he personally signs all the checks that will not be true.  the baggers may get all the press but the mulit national conglomerates make the rules in the republican party.  and the other one for that matter.

    Parent

    Glad to see you back, Capt, (none / 0) (#45)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 02:24:51 PM EST
    let's catch up in the next OT

    Parent
    fer sure (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 03:02:24 PM EST
    "are Boehners doners/masters" (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 03:11:13 PM EST
    just wanted to say that there was never the slightest possibility that the US was going to default.  Obama knew that.  if anyone has his finger up the butts and in the pockets of the multinational conglomerates than farther than republicans it is Barry.

    honestly I think this wing nut brush fire that the republicans started with this debt ceiling thing, when they knew it was going to happen, was nothing short of suicidal.  BTD you talk about "stupid", THAT was stupid.
    I wonder if it sort of got away from them in ways not intended.  I think the republicans are can than Michelle Bachmann for that.  she has said she would not vote for an increase under any circumstances.  that she wanted the country to default.  the white house must be secretly contributing to her campaign.

    intentionally or not on O's part the run up seems to work right into the rope a dope.  they thought he was so squishy they would just whack on him a little, steal his lunch money and move on the huge cuts in government.  

    its all so karate kid.

    Parent

    Amost right (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 05:52:49 PM EST
     "they thought he was so squishy they would just whack on him a little, steal his lunch money and move on the huge cuts in government."
    ****************

    And they were 100% right. Barry would have given them Michelle and at least one, if not both, of his kids to "make a deal."

    It was only when the "Money Boys" in the canyons of NYC saw the crazy mob as being beyond just crazy that they, like the oldtimers in the movie, "Goodfellas," finally moved to put an end to it.  


    Parent

    "Money Boys" (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 07:14:55 PM EST
    right
    no one could possibly have foreseen the intervention of the business community to prevent their total destruction

    Parent
    Did I hear correctly within the last day or so (none / 0) (#96)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 12:04:29 AM EST
    that the national Chamber of Commerce got heavily involved with a letter urging resolution, etc.?

    Parent
    I read the same thing (none / 0) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:50:31 AM EST
    along with lots of other corporate heavy hitters.

    Parent
    Perzactly n/t (none / 0) (#19)
    by BTAL on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:14:43 AM EST
    This is the first really interesting thing (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:28:37 AM EST
    that has happened in ages.  First time in as long as I've been really paying attention that the Republicans realized that they don't really want what they advertize and sell that they want.

    Well, we do have to realize (none / 0) (#72)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 04:29:25 PM EST
    that's how it's being played for public consumption here.

    I don't trust this.  They're so good at deflection via media.

    Parent

    The only thing that is certain (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 10:02:35 AM EST
    is that we have no idea how any of this stuff will play out, but the McConnell move, even if ultimately rejected, greatly increases the Dem's ability to stand firm on tax increases.

    I also, like BTD, think it is extremely helpful to see the GOP floundering and fighting among themselves.  Their unity has always been their strength, and the fact that Senate and House republicans appear to be at odds can only help.

    Finally, every day that we progress without a deal makes the McConnell Option more likely.

    Bottom line: The dems have the first set of advantageous facts they've had in a long time and we can spend the months after this arguing whether it was Obama's strategy or luck or GOP stupidity that provided us with the opportunity.  

    But right now, we need to ruthlessly use our advatnage.  I fear that we will not.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 10:28:07 AM EST
    Obama should take this and spend the next months preparing for a budget battle.  It's clear the GOP will not raise taxes, even on the incredibly, stupidly wealthy.  That's a very unpopular position.

    I don't think you can get a better set up for the budget battle.

    Parent

    I'm right there with you on this (none / 0) (#46)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 02:27:18 PM EST
    ABG.  I hope Harry R remembers he was a Gold Glove champion and sometimes a fight has to be fought.

    Let's force it to reconciliation-- the budget-- and hope McConnel blinked.

    Parent

    Agree (none / 0) (#49)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 02:41:15 PM EST
    There is blood in the water and this is when the GOP would pounce if the tables were turned.

    Parent
    And don't forget (none / 0) (#85)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 06:01:38 PM EST
    The Big Money Boys from Wall St., who finance both parties, have turned out to be the "Adults" in the room. And they have a World economic problem to deal with, not just a little election here, to worry about.

    they figured, "o.k. if you kids can't play nice together you'll both go to bed without supper. We have China, Saudi Arabia, Europe, and Asia that need our attention, so Scat! go on outta here, and don't let me hear another peep out of you."

    You see, ABG, we can agree on some things. People do like it it when someone displays a little authority, especially when things are getting a little out of control.

    Parent

    McConnell is digging in (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 10:57:21 AM EST
    in full capitulation mode:

    "If we go into default, [the president] will say that Republicans are making the economy worse ... The president will have the bully pulpit to blame the Republicans for all of this destruction," McConnell said, indicating that default would hand the re-election to Obama.

    "I refuse to help Barack Obama get re-elected by marching Republicans into a position where we have co-ownership of a bad economy," McConnell said. . .

    McConnell told conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham that the president has only offered Republicans two options: either "sign onto a bad deal that raises taxes or go into a default."

    "Not on my watch," he said.

    McConnell laughed off the opposition to his proposal from within his own party. "There are always differences among Republicans," he said. "There's a good deal of conservative support for what I laid out yesterday."

    The Hill has more (but not much; they pretty much just transcribe McConnell).

    This is bizarre stuff! (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Addison on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 11:04:19 AM EST
    What is he doing? Did big bank leaders drag him down to some basement with hired muscle and rubber hoses and scare the bejeezus out of him or something? In any case, I'm sure the president called Mitch to thank him for clearly laying out why the Republicans would get the blame for a default!

    Parent
    I've never seen anything like it (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 11:20:09 AM EST
    Mitch McConnell is impersonating Steny Hoyer.

    Parent
    Yesterday (none / 0) (#38)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 11:38:06 AM EST
    I read that Boehner supported McConnell's proposal so I interpreted that as meaning GOP House Reps couldn't agree on where to cut and were willing to abandon the idea till the next battle. But today I read Boehner isn't behind the deal except as a 'last resort', which of course means he's not behind it at all.

    So I have too little data now to opine on what is causing this. But it sure is fun to watch a Republican pee his pants for a change.

    Parent

    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 02:16:54 PM EST
    you are drawing the wrong conclusion from that info.

    "last resort" means it is going to happen.  start getting used to it.

    Parent

    'Last resort' (none / 0) (#48)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 02:35:07 PM EST
    just means he didn't want to dis McConnell by calling his idea stupid and unsupportable. If he supported the idea it would be a done deal right now. Instead I'm reading on CNN:

    House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, said before the negotiations resumed that some progress has occurred, but he reiterated no single proposal exists that could win enough Republican support to pass in Congress.


    Parent
    With respect, you are waayyyy (none / 0) (#99)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:39:40 AM EST
    overestimating Boehner's power and importance.  He can't agree to a deal his caucus won't support, just as Nancy Pelosi couldn't.

    Parent
    He can't agree (none / 0) (#113)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 10:08:00 AM EST
    to a deal his caucus won't support and he hasn't agreed to that deal. Where am I overestimating his power and importance?

    I said if he agreed to the deal it would be a done deal by now. I never said he could agree to that deal without support from his caucus.

    Parent

    What Boehner is behind is...Boehner, (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 02:28:14 PM EST
    and right now he's fending off an incipient takeover by Eric Cantor, who is so steeped in Tea it's a wonder he hasn't sprouted Lipton labels.

    What ticks me off no end is that, when all is said and done, whether the GOP is brawling on the Capitol steps, or Barack Obama is doing the happy dance, I suspect the real collateral damage will once again be found where it always seems to be - in the lives of the American people.

    I'm pretty sick of being flung around, used as a bargaining chip and having smoke blown up my hind end just so these twits can lay claim to having the biggest balls, the biggest d!ck or the biggest bladder.

    Screw 'em all.

    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#50)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 02:44:10 PM EST
    Honestly, this is what I mean when I say that nothing the dems could do or no set of circumstances would force you to ease up a bit.

    This is good news for the good guys (or at least it could be). If we get a near clean debt ceiling increase every person on the left should at least temporarily celebrate. It would be a real victory.  

    Put Obama aside. The truth about GOP's real goals are coming to light and that should have you at least a little pleased.

    Parent

    If Boehner, who is a wheeler-dealer (none / 0) (#51)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 02:49:26 PM EST
    makes a deal with some dems to keep his place, I won't be terribly upset. He's a hardline conservative, yes, but not a bat$hit crazy Tea Party member.

    We won't get the house back next election cycle. Dealing with Boehner is possible. Cantor is an ideological purist.

    Parent

    Unfortunately, so are Obama's (none / 0) (#100)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:40:33 AM EST
    Yep (none / 0) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:15:02 AM EST
    and unfortunately there is not much difference. Both are willing to sacrifice the poor and the elderly to the benefit their savvy business friends and uber-wealthy.

    Parent
    My criticism was addressed to both (none / 0) (#111)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 09:22:07 AM EST
    sides of the aisle, and was in reaction to what people like you seem to think this has all been: a big game.

    There are no "good guys" here, not when you have the complete politicization of the debt ceiling, not when it has been months and months of increasing people's fears, not doing anything to allay them, not when the president offers that he doesn't know whether the SS checks will go out if "something" isn't done.  Pardon me if I think it's cowardly and cheap and cruel to use and inspire that kind of fear in order to what - score points?

    In case you haven't noticed, there still is no deal.  These clowns are still meeting every day.  When I heard that Obama walked out of the meeting yesterday, I wondered how long he had practiced and planned that move for maximum effect.

    From the WaPo [all emphasis is mine]:

    Senior leaders in both parties, however, have begun to look outside the White House meetings for a solution, showing increasing interest in a Senate strategy that could use McConnell's proposal to temporarily bypass House Republicans.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is working with McConnell on this approach. Aides said the two are discussing a strategy that would pair McConnell's debt-limit proposal with at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts identified through bipartisan talks that Vice President Biden has led in recent weeks.

    The deal also could create a committee of 12 lawmakers who would be assigned with identifying trillions of dollars in additional savings. The panel's recommendations would be fast-tracked to votes in the House and the Senate and would not be subject to amendment, a process similar to the one Congress uses for closing military bases.

    David Dayen [emphasis is mine]:

    So instead of McConnell's plan, which just increases the debt limit, Harry Reid is trying to add the Obama spending cuts to that plan, and a Catfood Commission II to deal with tax and/or entitlement reforms, with binding recommendations that get an up-or-down vote.

    And why is this, when Republicans from John McCain to Tom frickin' Coburn are on board with the McConnell plan as is, and the House is softening themselves, with Cantor (the New Leader) for the first time agreeing to take multiple votes?

    Well, passage in the House isn't a slam dunk, to be sure. And the McConnell plan would have difficulties in both chambers and in both parties, though that's why they call it a last resort. But Obama reiterated that his "strong preference is not just to raise the debt ceiling but also to take significant steps to restrain borrowing." As I've said repeatedly, by his own words, he wants to use this as a leverage point. The family of the hostage victim has become the hostage taker. So you have to believe that this Reid/McConnell deal, which mandates spending cuts even though the Republican leader in the Senate took them off the table, is being tailored to placate a Democratic President.

    Still, I'm not sure that this gets done, either. The President's entire contention with Cantor yesterday was that revenue must be included in the deal. Democrats in the House have said they won't guarantee a single vote without revenues. That bargaining position has worked to put Republicans completely on their back feet. And with John Boehner estimating that at least 60 of his caucus won't vote for any debt limit increase, House Democrats have plenty of leverage of their own.

    Policy, ABG, policy.  This is about what kinds of policies we're going to end up with.  If Obama wanted a clean bill, he'd be walking out of meetings over that instead of these other things.

    All in all, though, I'm sick of having the futures of millions of people being used as bargaining chips so others can score political points - I don't care who's doing it, ABG: it's wrong.

    Parent

    McConnell wants to be Majority Leader (none / 0) (#95)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 11:47:01 PM EST
    ...Parties that get blamed for closing down govts, defaults, etc. lose. He is probably sorta, kinda hopin' that the Repubs take over the Senate per earlier CW...and, one thing he knows, kiss that personal goal good-bye if the Repubs get blamed for devastating fallout from this affair. (E.g., his references to Gingrich in Ingraham interview might suggest that he doesn't want to copy a losing strategy.)

    Parent
    Best I can figure (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 03:03:00 PM EST
    The moneymen in the GOP; you know the CoC types are actually starting to get scared that the whole madmen approach isn't just a bluff and that they need to reassert control before the Bachmann types trash the market.

    Parent
    I think that's right on the mark (none / 0) (#101)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:41:33 AM EST
    Well said.

    Parent
    Basically, yes (none / 0) (#98)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:37:53 AM EST
    my opinion (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 08:46:29 AM EST
    Obama has said that if they do not budge there will be no deal.  not even the Biden one.  watch that "eat your peas" press conference and tell me if he did not clearly say that.

    also. the plan does not have to pass the house with only GOP votes.

    They said that about the Bush tax cuts (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 08:57:19 AM EST
    I am certain Obama would have caved. 100% certain.

    McConnell's idea is, from the GOP perspective, absolutely idiotic.

    Parent

    mcconnell and boner (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:04:16 AM EST
    seem to believe that he would not have caved.  

    or do you just think they are suicidal?

    Parent

    Stupid (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:12:51 AM EST
    It's good to know that it's not only Dems who can be stupid in these negotiations.

    BTW, Boehner is not a part of this YET.

    McConnell is on an island so far.

    You know who it would be interesting to listen to today? Rush.

    Parent

    oh yeah (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:16:19 AM EST
    the baggers are going to go ape sh!t.  and you know what.  it wont matter.  the adults know the have to do this.  they know Obama has all the cards and he has set this up brilliantly.

    they are screwed and they know it and I predict the will just try to do this and move on a quickly as they can and try to distract the baggers with some shiny bit of hate or fear someplace else

    Parent

    you need to be watching the news (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:14:08 AM EST
    he is part of it

    Parent
    I've watched it (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:14:35 AM EST
    He isn't.

    Parent
    I keep reading (none / 0) (#52)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 02:49:54 PM EST
    McConnell's comments in various places and I keep coming back to one quote:

    "If we're unable to come together, we think it's extremely important that the country reassure the markets that default is not an option, and reassure Social Security recipients and families of military veterans that default is not an option."

    Despite the spin he's putting on it, I think that is really what is driving everything on the Senate side right now. With the House GOP digging in, it's clear there is no deal.  I actually wonder exactly what it is they will even talk about today.

    There will be lots of big talk and then someone will say "will the GOP agree to tax increases" Cantor will say no and that will be that.

    [Unrelated but to but on my Obama supporter hat for a second: the flip side of all of this is that this is all happening in the backdrop of Obama actually drawing a firm line in the sand and sticking to his guns, at least on this particular narrow issue.  That deserves a 34% thumbs up at least, right?]

    Parent

    I don't think it's impossible (none / 0) (#53)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 02:56:32 PM EST
    to get Boehner. the question is, what's the vig to get him?

    Oh, and a second question, in all seriousness: Does he control enough folks to get something passed? The TP group of crazies might just be willing to drive the car off the cliff, and then yell like Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangeglove on the way to annihilation.

    Parent

    I'll give him a 31 percent... (none / 0) (#54)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 02:57:12 PM EST
    just to continue to be contrary with you ;-)

    Parent
    indeed (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 03:01:48 PM EST
    the flip side of all of this is that this is all happening in the backdrop of Obama actually drawing a firm line in the sand and sticking to his guns

    I think we are seeing a first.

     as far as getting through the house I think there are enough republicans to pass it with democratic support which it would definitely have.

    Parent

    If there arent (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    enough GOP votes this countries hosed because it means the greedy sociopaths (the Saddam Hussein wing) have lost to the true believer nutbars (the Taliban wing)- both groups of GOP'ers are wrong but the former has a vested interest in keeping the country afloat while the latter would just as soon let it burn while waiting for Jesus to come back.

    Parent
    Nice comparison. (none / 0) (#64)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 03:24:40 PM EST
    I'll take 31% (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 04:30:31 PM EST
    you're pretty much right (none / 0) (#82)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 05:42:45 PM EST
    but I hope you don't believe Obama got a back bone over this for any altruistic reason; he could even let the debt ceiling date expire and watch the country plunge into the unkown abyss.

    The polls....the polls, baby. The polls tell him the R's would be blamed, and for a  "Pol,"  " the Polls" are all that matters.


    Parent

    moved from previous thread: (none / 0) (#4)
    by the capstan on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 08:56:23 AM EST
    Appeals to my (admittedly) peculiar sense of humor:

    Two sides of the coin:
    Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 07:44:55 AM EST

    Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3.  (CBS news)
    Obama campaign's eye-popping haul: $86 million raised for re-election. (LAT)

    Suppose all political contributions had to first be used to pay on governmental obligations?

    Cantor (none / 0) (#29)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 10:08:26 AM EST
    can probably still squeeze some spending cuts out of the WH.  I guess it depends on what gives 25 GOP Reps cover to vote for this thing.

    Interestingly Ezra Klein and Yglesias both seem to think the President still wants his bargain and that may be an issue in the acceptance of the proposal.  I think the WH knows the bargain is dead.  I don't see that as a problem.    

    I can't believe it (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 11:36:49 AM EST
    I actually agree with Ezra Klein and Yglesias for once.

    ...Ezra Klein and Yglesias both seem to think the President still wants his bargain and that may be an issue in the acceptance of the proposal.


    Parent
    Agreed. After all, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 12:35:16 PM EST
    how many chances does a Democratic President get to "change" Medicare and Social Security?  While McConnell has tried to pull that rug out from under him, for now, the president is holding on tight to the fringe.

    Parent
    I am not sure what to think. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 01:22:09 PM EST
    I think it is notable that group still thinks he wants the Grand Bargain stuff, and that he may use the upper hand that he has now to pass some sort of Bargain-y bill.  I don't think he will but who knows.

    One of the issues is that the Grand Bargain stuff was taken seriously because it appears Obama and his economic advisers have actually embraced at least some of that mentality.

    I actually agree with Booman here - "I'll take faux triangulation over real triangulation every time."

    But the fact that he had us all worried (including Booman, and John Cole, and ABG, and other Obama supporters) doesn't make us idiots, it makes us genuinely worried about policy.

    If this works out I'll have a newfound respect for Obama's political skill.  But that doesn't translate to me assuming he'll deliver the policy that I want so I should just trust him.

    Parent

    While unsure how this (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 03:09:25 PM EST
    will work out precisely, it appears likely that the debt ceiling will be raised.  McConnell has offered, with a tremble in his voice and trepidation in his step, an escape hatch.  If the Republicans were unwilling or unable to take their long sought after walk through the steel door that Obama busted through so as to achieve "change" to Medicare and Social Security, you know the deal was not  going down.

    Boehner has tied himself in knots about it all, looking  over his shoulder to the right and righter, and hoping for a Houdini spinner to untie him.    The dire picture and urgent timeline the president has painted would suggest that he take McConnell's offer and run with it, not hold out for a grand bargain that is no longer necessary under the terms and conditions originally set forth.  That is, unless he wants to get his grand bargain with or without much, if anything, in the way of tax cuts.  

    Obama can spin it as a great victory--he got the Republicans on the run and he finally was able to "preserve" the social safety net for the young.  The preservation will come from cuts to the middle aged and retirees (and to the young, should they become either, but keep that on the q/t)  and, don't worry, when the Bush tax cuts are due, once again, to expire, he will, once again, do something to catch up in the revenue department.

    No, I will not have respect for Obama's political skill no matter how it turns out, because social security and medicare were put on the table as bargaining chips or as opportunities to achieve a desired goal during a ginned up crisis.   And, how sad is it that a Democratic senator (Sheldon Whitehouse) has to get on Cable to urge concerned citizens to email a Democratic president to not cut Medicare and Social Security.  

    Parent

    ther is a bottom line (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 03:14:02 PM EST
    respect it or not.  it appears he will get exactly what he said he wanted.  

    after all the fireworks and static of the last few months you might at least admit you never expected it to happen.

    Parent

    Expected what to happen? (none / 0) (#63)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 03:22:49 PM EST
    The debt ceiling would never be raised?

    Parent
    that it would be raised (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 03:28:58 PM EST
    without one penny of cuts which the republicans and the tea party has been screaming for since the first heard the term "debt ceiling" (about 3-6 months ago)

    Parent
    A penny. (none / 0) (#67)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 03:40:20 PM EST
    I admit might be OK,  but any more at this this stage of the economy, not to mention, the precedent of tying cuts, including to bedrock and complex safety nets that Americans depend on, I can't support.  

    Parent
    perfect! (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 03:45:00 PM EST
    they are not going to happen

    Parent
    Good. I hope it is so. (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 04:15:04 PM EST
    But, President Obama put himself on record, not in the general "let's protect" social security and medicare by appropriate "changes", but by specific cuts to both, including chain COLA which brings a reduced cost of living adjustment that is lower and cumulative providing less as the beneficiary ages (and includes veterans and other benefits) and raising the Medicare eligibility to 67.  We know how he feels changes should be made, and so do the Republicans.  It has bailed them out of their Paul Ryan blunder and has practically written the Republican ads, including the one showing an actor crying with worry that Obama wants to cut her mother's Medicare.  This debt ceiling crisis will not last long in the electorate's memory, but attempts to cut bedrock Democratic values will linger.  Bush did a lot of bad things, but his attempt to privatize social security remains fresh in the minds of the voters.

    Parent
    You're right to see through the fog (none / 0) (#86)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 06:10:18 PM EST
    obama does see major cuts in SS & Medicare (however they're structured or spun) as his Legacy. What more magnificent, unexpected, tranformational statement could a "black man, with a funny name, and big ears" make to guarantee his place in history?

    Parent
    I can think of quite a few... (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 06:22:58 PM EST
    battling the Military-Industrial Complex, pulling Every.Single.Troop. out of Afghanistan and saying, "A pox on you and yours, Karzai. We'll bomb when we want, drone attack when we want, but no more money to rebuild corruption."

    A drawdown in Iraq to let the Iraquis decide if they want Sharia law and the 12th Century. If they do? Fine, Iran can squander it's money there. And Iran ain't too rich. We'll create an autonomous Kurdistan, with a little respect to Iran/Turkey borders, and build a big-assed air base there, with B52s, fighters, and strike aircraft. Run through every squadron on a 3-6 year rotation, keep everyone sharp. Of course, Army's ADA will have 12-18 month deployments, but they will do air defense artillery, not street patrols.

    Close the newly-announced secret CIA nonsense in Africa... it didn't work before, so stop throwing good money after bad. Again, warn Somalia that drones and air strikes against suspected bad guys, whether lunch room bullies, Al Qaida, or gun runners, those are the targets, and nobody cares about nationality. We already do it, let's tell them, "There's a new sheriff in town."

    Change policy and go after the banks. Go after the criminals who caused the crisis. If Merton and the others who created derivatives and CDS's go to jail, I have no problem.

    Give the enlisted in the military a 100 percent pay raise.

    Raise ss by 4 percent this year on COLA.

    I'm sure I can come up with more. How many of these can be done by executive order?

    Parent

    In an earlier thread (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 07:04:32 PM EST
    I recalled that during one of the presidential debates, then Senator Obama, in response to a question about social security finances, responded that the program should be strengthened by raising the earnings cap.  A sensible idea then, and even more so now. More recently, the president acknowledged that social security did not contribute to the deficit (a position, also, of his failed Catfood Commission, spearheaded by Simpson and Bowles, neither fans of social security.)

    Yet, social security was thrown in for cuts as a part of the debt ceiling bargaining.  And, in the president's hierarchy of funding in the event the debt ceiling was not raised, social security was mentioned as being foremost among those federal disbursements not guaranteed.   Now, the argument/spin is being made that  social security was never really in serious jeopardy since the Republicans would never agree to the grand bargain.  This may be the case, but I doubt that those who depend on social security to live and become frightened by even the  possibility of cuts will be entirely reassured.  Moreover, I believe that you should not make an offer on the hope that it will be refused.

    Parent

    Whether it is called "respect" or ? (none / 0) (#97)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 12:24:37 AM EST
    People show themselves in times like these. If--and, it still is IF--the tide has turned with a blink in the negotiations, to many Obama will have shown himself not just to be the reasonable negotiator acting in the interests of the country at large, he will have signalled strength. It is strength that reverberates.

    If he is successful, someday one of the other players/advisors may discuss what really happened. Right now, we all have our own Rohrshach test. For now: The poker game style of Obama's negotiation has been superb...and, IMO, a lot may have been premised on a calculated, logical political estimate that the Repubs would find it too risky to agree to any tax increase at all. I base that on quips for the Brooks/Borger conservative types in recent weeks indicating that their Repubs may have become too tied to no-tax purity. Having made that calculation, Obama could--by leaking the "offer" of various combos of seemingly reasonable <to the middle> compromises--gradually reveal that the Repubs were not acting in good faith because they would accept no revenue increases.

    Most people, Dan, appreciate a well-played hand even if they strongly dislike the game and the players. Its skill; it is politics; it is government.

    Parent

    christinep (none / 0) (#112)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 09:28:09 AM EST
    I guess we will see what happens, but if things work out for the best your comments from the last few days about this being a negotiation/game have been very on the mark.

    Parent
    Lil (none / 0) (#41)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 01:47:59 PM EST
    is exactly right.

    Parent
    very wise (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 02:03:45 PM EST
    If this works out I'll have a newfound respect for Obama's political skill.  But that doesn't translate to me assuming he'll deliver the policy that I want so I should just trust him.


    Parent
    I think it is daft... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 10:48:54 AM EST
    ...to say, this far out from the election, with THIS president's record of inanity, that ANYthing happening in this lying ruse will be good for anyone, citizen or politiciana.

    Tent, with all due respect, you cannot, in any sentient or logical manner, expect an excercise in lying and fakery and utter distraction from the real problems, to result in anything good for anyone.

    A country in a state of pathological denial must get OUT of that denial before good can happen.  This entire debt limit bullsh*t was that denial on stage, dressed up fanicier than ever, and shoving a hot poker up the ace of everyone in this country.

    This nonsense changes nothing for anyone, pol or citizen, and I am kind of stymied at how you think Kabuki = good.  Kabuki is still Kabuki, and this act was a disgrace to EVERYone.

    Another opportunity to shred (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 11:05:15 AM EST
    the GOP's platform lost...and nothing good has or will come of it.

    Had a conversation with someone in my office this morning - a Democrat - who insisted that the government can't create projects and programs to put people back to work because...it has no money to do so.  He told me the government can't just print money - it would eventually be worthless!  How would we pay China back?  Who would want to lend us money?  I asked him: "where are interest rates?  Are they 10%, 14%?  No, they are very low.  Ten-year Treasury interest has hit an all-time low - what does that say to you about how much risk is seen in investing in US debt?"

    I tried - I really did - to explain what it means to be sovereign in our currency, that this thing called money is really just a balance sheet item, but you would have thought I was speaking Martian.  

    So, I reverted to, "when the private sector isn't spending, when there is lack of demand that is depressing job creation, the government has to step in to reverse the downward spiral.  As the economy rebounds, as more people go back to work, take their money into the local communities, increase demand that increases hiring, the less the government will have to spend over time."

    He has bought - hook. line and sinker - into the critical "need" to get our fiscal house in order.  Democrats are picking up Republican ideas faster than you can snap your fingers.

    The con job, and the kabuki, will be endless, and it just makes me tired thinking about it.

    Parent

    What option hurts Boehner least? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Addison on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 10:55:58 AM EST
    Frankly, McConnell's move is inexplicable, not the least of which is because I do not think it can get through the GOP House.

    I think it's clear that huge pachyderms in the GOP are panicked about a default, for themselves and on behalf of bigwigs. So I think something is going to get done. While I think the center of gravity of negotiations has been Cantor/Tea Party ideology, I don't think that will be enough to sail a plan through. So what will happen?

    I think the major question is this: does supporting McConnell's plan prove more damaging to Boehner (and his dwindling, un-Cantored House GOP crew) than allowing for additional revenue streams (whether closed loopholes or Bush cut lapses)? Which hurts Boehner less? Boehner could push the idea to a vote, and if he has enough moderate House Republicans (30?) to vote with Dems for McConnell's plan, maybe he sees that as the best of two awful options (three, counting default). At least this way he doesn't raise "taxes" or "destroy" the American economy.

    If any of these three possibilities ends up making it through (McConnell's plan, the revenue-gaining "Grand Bargain", or default) it will be the end of Boehner and McConnell (the former gone well before the latter) -- so it's quite a choice the GOP big business stalwarts have to make in the face of the GOP's freshman wing.

    I still think we're going to see Grand Bargain Lite, made up exclusively of spending cuts, some of which are of programs that actually work very well and accomplish trans-society aims, some of which are illusory.

    It keeps happening (none / 0) (#58)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 03:07:08 PM EST
    An addendum at this point considering how often its happened shouldn't we just admit that Obama is really good at getting his opposition to make mistakes; I mean its a constant theme of his political career.

    I think McConnell wins here. (none / 0) (#66)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 03:37:43 PM EST
    No new taxes...that's much more important than cuts to the TOP.  

    HA (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 03:44:25 PM EST
    that was my tweety impersonation

    Parent
    I'm serious... (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 04:01:38 PM EST
    Obama is now on record as supporting cutting SS and raising the Medicare eligibility age.  When he has to stick to those positions or worse when he believes this hype that he won the politics here, and digs in, he's going to depress the hell out of the base.  He also failed to get a deal.  The Repubs stick with their no new taxes shtick and the Dems have to endure three more votes on the debt ceiling.  Now frankly, no one votes for a Party on raising the debt ceiling or not but they certainly vote on taxes, Medicare and social security.  Further, What?  He comes out like the adult in the room?  Big deal.  No one votes on who is the adult in the room, whatever that means.  That's a beltway myth.

    Parent
    What Ezra Klein is reporting today (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 04:50:02 PM EST
    In practice, empirical analyses have found that tax rates do not drive the long-term growth in government. But it is driving Republican strategy on the budget. That's why the GOP preferred a $2 trillion deficit reduction deal with no taxes to a $4 trillion deficit deal that would have included some taxes, but also, according to reports out of both parties, raised the Medicare eligibility age and cut Social Security benefits.

    In rejecting that deal, which liberals would have loathed, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) might have inadvertently saved President Obama from facing a primary challenge. But more to the point, he might have locked in higher taxes down the road. Few noticed that the White House offer of $1 trillion in revenues in return for $3 trillion of spending cuts would have taken the expiration of the Bush tax cuts off of the table. That would mean the tax debate concluded this year, a time when the debt ceiling gives the GOP leverage, rather than next year, when the Bush tax cuts are set to expire and the White House has most of the leverage. link

    Shorter Obama: Give me the cuts to SS and Medicare and I will let you keep the Bush/Obama tax cuts.

    Parent

    Oh yeah (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 05:04:46 PM EST
    the revenues offered in the Grand Bargain were absolutely unbelievably awful.  Matt Yglesias was set to write a post about how the Grand Bargain to the effect that Democrats are in a box that might destroy progressive tax policy for ever (last paragraph here).  Matt Yglesias was going to write that.  Matt.  Yglesias.

    Whatever you want to say about the Grand Bargain, it was terrible.  And hopefully it is dead forever.

    Parent

    Yes, lets hope the grand bargain (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 05:22:08 PM EST
    is dead and the proposed changes to the safety net programs are taken off the table and put in a far off closet to gather dusk.  

    With Obama still saying that he wants to go "big" and the Republican House saying "no way", I am not convinced that the "celebrated" clean debt ceiling will become a reality.

    Parent

    They will never again be (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:44:21 AM EST
    "off the table."  An ostensibly Democratic president offered them up to the wolves freely of his own volition.

    The genie cannot be put back in the bottle.  Hope you've got some good investments socked away.

    Parent

    good investments socked away? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:28:38 AM EST
    Evidently not nearly enough socked away to survive supporting Wall St., the people in D.C. and their savvy business friends. Because if and when these measures are put in place the money "saved" will just be spent on more tax cuts for corporations and the rich. You did read where Obama threw in keeping the Bush/Obama tax cuts to sweeten the deal and the WH spokesperson, admitted that Obama offered to raise Medicare age.

       

    Parent

    this (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:06:28 AM EST
    is so hilariously hysterical.  

    yes, because a democratic president appeared reasonable by being willing to discuss entitlements no one is safe. (in spite of the fact that they were not touched and were never in the slightest danger of being touched)  stock up on canned food and shotguns.


    Parent

    "hopefully it is dead forever" (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:11:15 AM EST
    it was never alive.  

    Parent
    I've said (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 04:30:29 PM EST
    from the beginning that the debt ceiling was going to be raised because Wall Street will rain hell down on the GOP if they don't. Unless Obama gets 50% revenue stream it's not a win for him. This kabuki theater is going to play out again and again with no revenue stream.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#75)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 04:35:29 PM EST
    they do I think.  That's what killed Newt in the Clinton budget battles.

    Parent
    Newt (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 05:19:47 PM EST
    had a temper tantrum. Boehner is no Newt when it comes to this kind of stuff. Now if Cantor was the speaker, yeah, you might have a point.

    Parent
    so was I (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 04:37:40 PM EST
    Daaaaaaaaamn (none / 0) (#78)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 04:56:50 PM EST
    McConnell in the NYT:

    Recounting how the 1995 government shutdown helped President Bill Clinton win re-election the next year, Mr. McConnell said any impasse that hurt the nation's credit and led to government checks being delayed could have the same result for President Obama.

    "He will say Republicans are making the economy worse," Mr. McConnell, who is recognized as one of his party's top political strategists, said in an interview with the radio host Laura Ingraham.

    "It is an argument that he could have a good chance of winning and all of the sudden we have co-ownership of the economy. That is a very bad position going into the election."

    Similar to what andgarden posted above (and based off the same radio transcript I assume).

    I am incredibly impressed and a lot more confident in Obama than I have been for a while.  That is awesome (and McConnell is an idiot).  Bravo Mr. President.

    if you really believe (none / 0) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 05:48:21 PM EST
    and listen closely you can hear tea bag heads exploding

    Parent
    The teabaggers (none / 0) (#88)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 07:02:21 PM EST
    want to live a fantasy.  It's amazing that they can be so thoroughly committed to "not raising taxes" as a goal.  

    Boehner was at least open to some revenue.  I think that was real.

    God knows what caucus he thought he was leading when he decided to make that overture to Obama though.

    Parent

    apparently (none / 0) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 07:15:19 PM EST
    Obama was the one to walk out today.

    Parent
    It seems in part (none / 0) (#92)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 07:47:45 PM EST
    because what Cantor wanted was only a temporary extension.

    The GOP is f*cked!

    Parent

    Yup (none / 0) (#93)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 07:52:17 PM EST
    Every day now tha cantor acts unreasonably things get better.  It would probably be bad in some ways if he started to cave now.

    Parent
    and, apparently, he walked out on this note (none / 0) (#94)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 11:15:02 PM EST
    Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican leader in the House of Representatives, said the talks on Wednesday became so acrimonious that Obama walked out.

    "He said he had sat here long enough. No other president, Ronald Reagan wouldn't sit here like this," Cantor told reporters.

    link

    Parent
    he right (none / 0) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:03:09 AM EST
    Once again (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:17:48 AM EST
    Obama reinforces that he's a Reaganite and a huge fan of Reagan. He could have left it at no other president.

    Parent
    ha (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:30:01 AM EST
    of course the other interpretation is that he was using their hero as an example of someone who would not spend 5 minutes in the same room with them.

    Parent
    All right, help me out someone (none / 0) (#114)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 11:41:59 AM EST
    I think I read, listen to, and watch as much as most anyone here and what I'm hearing changes oh, about every half hour, or so. Now, we've gotten about a dozen different proposals floated for consideration, and about a dozen different posters being absolutely sure their interpretation is the real one, and the one that will be "The One." So like I asked, help me out:

    Here's what I know, and if I'm wrong, please tell me where.

    1. Everybody is sure that the debt ceiling will be raised because......well, it just has to. The Chamber, Wall Street, and yada yada have turned the screw on, and so, disaster will, without a doubt, be averted.

    Did you know that about 90% of the new members came to Washington with the blood assurance to their constituants that they wouldn't vote for a hike in the ceiling no matter what!? What if all the "leadership" want it, but the reps vote it down?

    2. No matter which proposal moves into the "Lead-for-the day"
    someone from the White House pipes in that Obama is determined his "Grand Bargain" is where he's at, and to me that means around 4 Trillion $'s in cuts. One of the most Kafkaesque features of this whole business is that the Republicans would normally slobber from their eyeballs to get those cuts, but because Obama is the one offering it up, they don't want it because he would get the "credit?" (still shaking my head on this one; The R's rejecting big cuts in entitlements?

    3. (I've got much more than 3, but not much time) And, finally (for now) what is with this idiotic strutting and laughing all about? Whatever any one poster believes to be the case, even if they score what they would define as "victory" for Obama, what exactly is that victory? People are saying, He won!! What? Tell me, please.

    For me, the most important issues in this campaign are Jobs, the Seniors, and health care. Has anything been proposed that would guarantee those things will be "off the table" as far as damaging them?

    Gotta run now. Will catch up later.......thanks