The uncompromiser in chief

[cali]

<snip>

There were sound reasons for the president's over-the-top rhetoric. Substantively, he's right about the debt ceiling; once Congress has voted to spend federal money, it has an obligation to allow the Treasury to pay the bills.

But Obama is also trying to solve a problem that's partly his own fault. In 2011, the president negotiated with Republicans over a similar rise in the debt ceiling and agreed to a bargain that gave the GOP some of the spending cuts it demanded in return.

That deal taught Republican leaders that the debt ceiling could be used as leverage to win concessions on other issues. To borrow the president's metaphor: In that case, terrorism worked.

Republicans would put it differently: They bargained hard, and Obama blinked. As recently as last week, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) was assuring colleagues that Obama would fold in this showdown, just as he did before. White House aides say one big reason for Obama's adamancy this time is that he doesn't want the precedent he set in 2011 — reluctantly, at the start of a presidential campaign — to become, well, an entitlement. And he needs to convince skeptical Republicans like Ryan that this time, he won't negotiate.

<snip>

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-1009-mcmanus-column-shutdown-obama-boehner-20131009,0,6372535.column

[MannyGoldstein]

1. 21 years of appeasing psychotics,

And here we are.

Hopefully it ends NOW.

[L0oniX]

2. ^^^this^^^

[ProSense]

3. I like the second comment at the link

MightyN at 7:08 AM October 09, 2013
The uncompromiser in chief? Really? Have you looked at history? The debt limit has always been increased with no debate and no blackmail. Why should Obama negotiate whther we pay our bills? That is not up for negotiation, so stop writing such foolish editorials. The media is doing a terrible job explaining what all of this means to Americans.

[cali]

4. lol. good job embarrassing yourself.

You obviously didn't read the article or even the excerpt I posted. You will, of course, claim you did, but your post makes exactly zero sense if that claim is true- and damns you as having not even a shred of reading comprehension, pro.

[ProSense]

5. I'm not embarrassed.

"The uncompromiser in chief "

That title sucks, and the article is rehashing bullshit, and offering a twist on the false equivalency nonsense pushed by the media at a time when Democrats are standing their ground.

But Obama is also trying to solve a problem that's partly his own fault. In 2011, the president negotiated with Republicans over a similar rise in the debt ceiling and agreed to a bargain that gave the GOP some of the spending cuts it demanded in return.

That deal taught Republican leaders that the debt ceiling could be used as leverage to win concessions on other issues. To borrow the president's metaphor: In that case, terrorism worked.

Republicans would put it differently: They bargained hard, and Obama blinked. As recently as last week, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) was assuring colleagues that Obama would fold in this showdown, just as he did before. White House aides say one big reason for Obama's adamancy this time is that he doesn't want the precedent he set in 2011 — reluctantly, at the start of a presidential campaign — to become, well, an entitlement. And he needs to convince skeptical Republicans like Ryan that this time, he won't negotiate.

<...>

Equally important, Republicans in Congress are divided, while Obama and his Democrats are uncharacteristically united. House Republicans have rolled out a series of changing (and steadily diminishing) demands, from defunding Obamacare to delaying its implementation to launching the Keystone XL oil pipeline to, well, anybody's guess.

The premise here is that Obama will cave because Republicans say so, and they have every right to believe it.

Pointing this out is not "embarrassing." Buying into the bullshit is.

[cali]

6. bzzzt. nope. the premise is that he caved before, thus the expectation

from congressional repukes that he'll cave again.

reading skills are fundamental. get some.

[ProSense]

7. You know

bzzzt. nope. the premise is that he caved before, thus the expectation

from congressional repukes that he'll cave again.

reading skills are fundamental. get some.

...you throw around insults like you're on autopilot. Speaking of "reading skills are fundamental," do you even realize that you simply paraphrased my point? I said:

The premise here is that Obama will cave because Republicans say so, and they have every right to believe it.

Pointing this out is not "embarrassing." Buying into the bullshit is.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. Bzzszt. Nope. The non-DU reading populace demands "compromise"

And he has his established his creds from that front. The "base" (including myself) hates it but the "base" is not the majority of the American public. Now he can go full bore the other way because the public knows the bullshit about him "never compromising" is just that. It's bullshit. I.e., there's a time to pick a fight and a time to walk away. And the teabaggers are picking the wrong fight (and this is fracturing their party).

Perhaps you need to lighten up with the insults. It's unbecoming.

[treestar]

9. I agree, he may have "caved" then but this is Obamacare

and it is law - whatever were the dealings before, it wasn't the same stakes. The OP has an all or nothing vibe to it. Sometimes you can get something out of negotiating. That didn't make it an ironclad precedent.

Republicans are not supposed to be babies the Democrats are "teaching."

[treestar]

8. That's not any different from the budget battles

Republicans have leverage that Democrats don't have.

A Republican President would still get a budget from a Democratic Congress. A Republican President would always get a raise in the debt ceiling from a Democratic Congress. It's inherent in each party's views.

There was a time Reagan vetoed a budget from a Democratic congress, causing a shut down. But it would never be a Democratic Congress doing that.

If you argue Obama should not have bargained for the debt ceiling that may be a good argument in the abstract. But we don't know what the debt ceiling failure really involves. If it's going to be as bad as they say it is, do you really want to go over that cliff? The Republicans have that leverage (though even they may not want to go over that cliff, if it's really going to be that bad. That's why they are floating out there in the media that it's not).

We haven't done that before, so Obama might have been cautious enough to deal in that case. Maybe he gives a shit that other, worse things than "caving" don't happen. We don't really know yet. If you are going to be critical of Obama for negotiating this, then you have to, in order to be consistent, be firmly in favor of defaulting on the debt and willing to accept all consequences.

[rock]

11. Unfortunately, you're exactly right

And now it will be difficult if not impossible to teach the repiggies how to play with other kids.

[KittyWampus]

12. the problem w/implying Obama shouldn't have negotiated last time was the context in '11

a little thing called a presidential election.