Obama's Pavlovian GOP Can't Take Yes For An Answer

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 03:20:48 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Robert Kuttner:

This may sound churlish at such a moment, but in addition to blaming the recklessness of today’s Republican party, the man who deserves substantial blame for this impending economic doomsday is Barack Obama. For two and a half years, he has been all but training the Republicans, Pavlov fashion, to keep rejecting compromise. He has done this by rewarding them with a treat every time they up the ante or move the goal posts. [. . ] if the Republicans, like Europe’s leaders of 1914, miscalculate and create disaster, the responsibility will partly be theirs but also partly our overly eager-to-please president.

His words, not mine. I will say this, now is not the time for Obama to get tough. The failure to raise the debt ceiling would be catastrophic. But Obama's failures in December are very much a cause of today's debt ceiling crisis.

< Winning | One Down, One To Go >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama's Pavlovian GOP Can't Take Yes For An Answer | 15 comments (15 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by lentinel on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 03:45:29 PM EST

For two and a half years, he has been all but training the Republicans, Pavlov fashion, to keep rejecting compromise. He has done this by rewarding them with a treat every time they up the ante or move the goal posts.

(R. Kuttner)

I will say this, now is not the time for Obama to get tough. The failure to raise the debt ceiling would be catastrophic.

(BTD)

I totally agree with both statements.

If Obama were to "get tough" at this time, I would have to believe that he would be acting that way on behalf of some international conglomerate that has found a way to make a huge windfall profit out of our economic demise. It just makes no sense.

You know, there is a complementary piece in todays Times by Ta-Nehisi Coates in which he points out the contempt that Obama has displayed for people on his left:

The administration of President Obama has never held much regard for its left flank. Admonished by the vice president to "stop whining," inveighed against by the president himself for "griping and groaning," the liberal critics have been generally viewed by the White House as petulant children. "The Professional Left," former press secretary Robert Gibbs dubbed them, a gang of nettlesome romantics who "ought to be drug-tested," and would not be happy until "we have Canadian health care and we've eliminated the Pentagon."

I have never seen him rail against the likes of Boehner, Bachmann or any other the cretins to his right. And they are the ones who are the dumb and dangerous ones.

I truly hope that we get through this.
If we don't, I will have to believe that this country has lost its sovereignty in addition to its humanity.

I still think there will be a deal. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by lilburro on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 04:21:17 PM EST

I don't think we're going into default or going to have to the 14th Amendment route.

Was it a failure in December? (4.40 / 5) (#2)
by BDB on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 03:58:28 PM EST

If you assume that Obama is someone who wants to cut Social Security and Medicare, then didn't he position himself about as well as he could to force the Democrats in Congress to go along? Isn't that really what this is all about? I don't think Obama wants what guys like Kuttner think he wants. There's absolutely no evidence of it. All of his action signal that he wants a Grand Bargain. He wants austerity.

Now it turns out the GOP won't quite go for his Grand Bargain, but that doesn't mean Obama failed in December, based on what he wants. I'm not even sure a default would be bad from his perspective because it would be another excuse to hammer Americans with austerity.

Now, it's a disaster for everyone else. But then Obama is a complete failure as a President in terms of his service to the American people. I'm just not sure it's serving us that is his goal. At least I've seen no sign of it.

I agree with you. (none / 0) (#13)
by klassicheart on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:11:50 AM EST

He never was that into "jobs." His constituency is not the middle class. Christina Romer went back to Berkeley as soon as she saw the writing on the wall. Obama was the Manchurian Candidate. What has he really done for the middle class or even upper middle class?


add to this talk about removing mortgage deduction (none / 0) (#14)
by klassicheart on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:36:37 AM EST

or modifying it in the tax code...The Republicans are smart...they want the Democrats to preside over cutting popular programs for the middle class.


: Even Ronald Reagan (none / 0) (#15)
by NYShooter on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 02:10:00 AM EST

Wouldn't touch mortgage deductions. Of course, Mr. "Morning in America" had no problem eliminating interest deductions on credit cards, car loans, and all sorts of consumer loans. You see, rich people don't carry balances on their c.c. charges, and they pay cash for their cars.
Isn't it amazing how the poor dreck on the bottom of the financial ladder, those that are hurt the most by these Right Wing dirt bags, revere them , and vote for them time and again.
I guess Rush Limbaugh is really worth his $300,000,000 contract.

Funny How It is Churlish To Cut The Crap (none / 0) (#3)
by seabos84 on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 04:16:06 PM EST

and get to the point.

'Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's'

and the rest of the time STFU, or, pretend like you're 1 of the lie$ure cla$$ whose main concerns are - did the serfs polish the yacht, polish the Bentley, polish the golf clubs, polish the silver and the china, polish the marble and the mahogany?

rmm.

Title is either confusing (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 04:26:36 PM EST

Most ironic. Which?

: All of the above (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 04:38:47 PM EST

Not my best effort.

I'll disagree on whether or not... (none / 0) (#8)
by Romberry on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 04:43:27 PM EST

...now is the time for Obama to get tough. One can argue over whether or not there is a "constitutional option" via the 14th amendment, or whether coin seigniorage would allow the US Treasury to simply mint a few trillion dollar platinum coins and deposit them in the Fed account. But for a president who seems willing to ignore the law (or to find people outside of the OLC who say that the law isn't really the law) when it comes to things like war, I'd follow the advice of Bill Clinton and use one of those options and require the Republicans to go to court and try and stop me.

The problem I see is that Obama helped to bring this crisis about. I think it's what he wanted, and he intends to use it to get policies (read "cuts") that he would not have been able to get without it...which is why Obama isn't about to grow a pair and invoke his other (debatably) available options.

I don't believe that the US of A is going to actually default. The debt ceiling will be raised. And Obama and his Republican allies in the drive to cut the budget will get what they wanted all along.

I just want a cartoon/chart... (none / 0) (#9)
by Dadler on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 04:52:36 PM EST

...of exactly the chain of catastrophic events that would occur with default. And I mean by that, not the events themselves, but the PEOPLE who would PUSH THE BUTTONS that made the little blips revolt and send prices soaring. Because, no matter the import of not defaulting (which is not my point), we still remain beholden to this system no one but those who benefit from it seem to understand.

I may not be able to fix my car, but I do understand the process by which an internal combustion engine works, for example, and I know when it ain't working, and I can get it fixed. This rigged game of monopoly we all have to play, though, please, does ANYone really understand the rules or how the board is really laid out or how to fix the obvious cheats in the system?

Anyone?

Beuller?

: The shadow banking system (none / 0) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 05:32:06 PM EST

were crash, up in roiling flames. What does that mean for you and me? I don't know. Wall Street crashed during the Great Depression and regular life went on much the same until two years later when there was a run on a bank. That was then, this is now...each situation is not an duplicate of the other.

: Don't understand your question (none / 0) (#12)
by NYShooter on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 09:35:50 PM EST

You're asking, does anyone understand "the game" being played on Wall St?
Of course, the answer is yes.
Next?

Sorry shadow banking "would" crash (none / 0) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 05:32:26 PM EST

Well (none / 0) (#16)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 05:22:39 AM EST

I would have to say that Kuttner has pretty much got Obama's behavior down pat if you believe that his goals are different from the GOP.

This is the culmination of Obama's behavior the last few years. The deal in December may have set off this recent stuff but it really goes back to Obama's behavior for quite a while.