Aiiiieeeeeeee! It’s melting!!!!
Those horrid little Tea Partiers:
What is at issue here is not some sacred moral value, such as “In God We Trust.” Domestic politics or the affairs of nations are not an avocation for angels. But the coin of this imperfect realm is credibility. Sydney Greenstreet’s Kasper Gutman explained the terms of trade in “The Maltese Falcon”: “I must tell you what I know, but you won’t tell me what you know. That is hardly equitable, sir. I don’t think we can do business along those lines.”
Bluntly, Mr. Obama’s partners are concluding that they cannot do business with him. They don’t trust him. Whether it’s the Saudis, the Syrian rebels, the French, the Iraqis, the unpivoted Asians or the congressional Republicans, they’ve all had their fill of coming up on the short end with so mercurial a U.S. president. And when that happens, the world’s important business doesn’t get done. It sits in a dangerous and volatile vacuum.
The next major political event in Washington is the negotiation over spending, entitlements and taxes between House budget chairman Paul Ryan and his Senate partner, Patty Murray. The bad air over this effort is the same as that Marco Rubio says is choking immigration reform: the fear that Mr. Obama will urge the process forward in public and then blow up any Ryan-Murray agreement at the 11th hour with deal-killing demands for greater tax revenue.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a president reach complete lame-duck status so soon into his second term.
Sen. Rubio said he and other reform participants, such as Idaho’s Rep. Raul Labrador, are afraid that if they cut an immigration deal with the White House—say, offering a path to citizenship in return for strong enforcement of any new law—Mr. Obama will desert them by reneging on the enforcement.
Dear Senator Rubio, welcome back to reality.
An immigration reform deal has already passed the Senate, and Rubio voted for it — he was satisfied with Obama’s credibility then. But now he says:
Obama went into the shutdown negotiations saying that he wouldn’t negotiate other issues until Congress funded the government and raised the debt ceiling. There were doubts about his credibility — Paul Ryan stated that “nobody believes” that Obama wouldn’t negotiate. But Obama stuck to his position, and the crisis was resolved on his terms. Isn’t that the sort of demonstration of steadiness that would add to a leader’s credibility?
Rubio isn’t concerned with Obama’s credibility, he’s unhappy that the Republicans lost the shutdown fight, so now he wants to take his ball and go home.
Or he has figured out what sane Americans and our allies already had. Obama is totally untrustworthy, renegs on his agreements and is pretty much a serial liar.
This is the fallout for Obama picking and choosing which laws to enforce and which to ignore. Chickens coming home to roost and all that rot.
“Rubio isn’t concerned with Obama’s credibility, he’s unhappy that the Republicans lost the shutdown fight, so now he wants to take his ball and go home.”
What you say is so true. In life there are many “design trades”, and one of them is that if you take a name-calling no-negotiations negotiating stance on one thing, people get all “passive aggressive” on you on other things.
But I guess people are bad and life is unfair.
So you are saying Obama shutdown the government to rebuild his credibility?
I agree with that and pointed out weeks ago that afer Syria Obama needed to look tough to rebuild his brand. That is why pushing the conditions that led tona shutdown were a mistake for Republicans. Republicans wanted to make it about Obamacare but for Obama it was all about his ego and there is no price to high to fluff Obama’s ego.
You bring up an example of Obama refusing to compromise and work with other people as a reason people in America and abroad should trust that he will work with them? Obama keeps double crossing his allies and the people he negotiates against. After five years, it is perfectly clear.
You bring up an example of Obama refusing to compromise and work with other people as a reason people in America and abroad should trust that he will work with them?
If Obama had given in, after promising for months to insist on a clean CR and debt ceiling hike, it would have told the world that he can be rolled. That would have been bad for him, and bad for the country.
If Obama had given in, after promising for months to insist on a clean CR and debt ceiling hike, it would have told the world that he can be rolled. That would have been bad for him, and bad for the country.
If (President) Obama had given in, after pleading for air strikes on Syria in response to their use of chemical weapons on innocents and expecially children as a moral imperative, it would have told the world that he “can be rolled.” That would have been bad for Mr. Obama, but also bad for the country?
Obama didn’t cave on Syria, he got something better than he’d expected.
If Obama had given in and agreed to delay the Obamacare mandate by a year, we wouldn’t be seeing the political crisis he is in today. Just like painting red lines in Syria, he painted himself into a corner and his ego would not let him compromise.
He could have brokered a win/win scenario with Republicans and as we know now, came out further ahead. The media would still have declared him a victor, he would have looked magnanimous which plays better at home than abroad, and he would have a year to fix Obamacare.
What would the Republicans have received? A one year delay to Obamacare, something that does nothing to help Republicans and everything to help Obama.
” it would have told the world that he can be rolled. ”
Lol. Syria was he chance to show he could not get rolled and he failed. Just like he is getting rolled by Iran now and Russia for his entire term. His shutdown theatre did not rebuild his image at home or abroad. I am glad to see you agree with me though about this being about Obama’s credibility and not fixing Obamacare, what is best for the country, or the principal of a clean CR.
“Obama didn’t cave on Syria, he got something better than he’d expected.”
He wanted to go to war to remove Assad and was days away from doing so. He most certainly did cave. He went from bombers are in the air to lets chat sometime over lunch.
Hey Jim, would the new immigration amnesty program be offered in 35 floppy disks formatted in MS-DOS?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-improved-obamacare-program-released-on-35-flop,34294/?ref=auto
Whether it’s the Saudis, the Syrian rebels, the French, the Iraqis, the unpivoted Asians or the congressional Republicans, they’ve all had their fill of coming up on the short end with so mercurial a U.S. president.
That’s a pretty unsympathetic lineup. I’m okay with Saudis, the French and Syrian rebels being disappointed in the U.S. president when the alternative is intervention that runs contrary to U.S. interests. And Congressmen being unhappy with the president of the other party is a dog-bites-man story if ever there was one.
the fear that Mr. Obama will urge the process forward in public and then blow up any Ryan-Murray agreement at the 11th hour with deal-killing demands for greater tax revenue
That’s rich, considering that Ryan has personally killed multiple attempts at a budget grand bargain, going back to his vote against Bowles-Simpson.
In September, I came to the realization that however pressing the need to reign in the Deficit, reignite Economic Growth, and make Entitlements sustainable, there is no deal, there is no Grand Bargain.
I guess, someday, one of these days, I will come to the realization that there is no dialogue to be had with the die-hard and unabashed apologists. But until that day, there is always hope. Yes, the Saudi’s, French, and “Free Syrians” are disappointed in Mr. Obama — for pounding the table that the intervention they had hoped for was an existential and moral necessity and then retreating with an Emily Littella “Never mind!”
The Saudis would understand perfectly if we approached them through diplomatic channels and told them, “Hey guys, we know this important to you, but an overt intervention on behalf of the rebels does not work for us, but you know where are heart is on this because we have helped behind the scenes.” What the Saudis have “issues” with is this flip-flop. Being myself of immigrant heritage from the Slavic Near East, I guess with the Saudis is is an “honor” thing — talking big and then doing a complete nothing.
What about the dog-bites-man story about opposite-party Congress members disagreeing with the President? You have the two parties, but you always have a continuum of opinions represented in Congress owing to the situation in the represented Districts, as there should be in a Republic. What is new is the complete polarization. At the start of the shutdown fight, the RINOs were threatening to trample the TEA party people. By the end of it, John Boehner got a standing ovation from his caucus.
Why does the President have such dedicated and unflappable enablers? I guess he could express his anger over Healthcare.gov by gathering the software developers in a meeting, singling one executive out, bashing his head with a baseball bat in the style of Al Capone in live TV, and people will say that he “had to do that” because of the opposition from Congress?
an existential and moral necessity
When did Obama (or anyone) call striking Syria an “existential” necessity? Obama said we had to enforce the norm against use of chemical weapons — he never promised anyone Assad’s head on a platter.
and then retreating
An agreement to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons isn’t a retreat, it fulfills Obama’s stated goal. The U.S. president is not obligated to fulfill other countries’ fantasies.
talking big and then doing a complete nothing
Obama didn’t talk big — Kerry promised an “unbelievably small” strike — and getting Assad to agree to give up chemical weapons isn’t nothing.
Are we talking about the same events?
“Existential” necessity is my wording. The Secretary of State’s words were “Munich moment.” In other words, Secretary Kerry Godwinized the Syrian conflict along with the need for the U.S. to “do something” about it.
So an agreement to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons isn’t a retreat, but reaching some kind of agreement with Congress about delaying implementation of a domestic law has some kind of drastic consequences?
As to Kerry’s “unbelievably small” strike, that is a remark that I never understood what that was supposed to mean. Is that like “a little bit pregnant.” Being pregnant is a matter of kind not degree as is declaring war on somebody by committing an act of war?
So an agreement to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons isn’t a retreat, but reaching some kind of agreement with Congress about delaying implementation of a domestic law has some kind of drastic consequences?
Yes. Agreeing to dismantle Syria’s weapons is a win for Obama, and the U.S. We’d much rather have those weapons dismantled than lob a bunch of missiles to express our disapproval of those weapons.
Delaying Obamacare so that it could be killed later would have been a huge setback for Obama and the U.S., particularly because he’d only be agreeing to it because the GOP was holding the economy hostage. That wouldn’t have been a retreat, it’d have been a disorderly rout, to be followed by more demands to dismantle other parts of his policy agenda the next time the debt ceiling needed to be raised.
“Yes. Agreeing to dismantle Syria’s weapons is a win for Obama”
No, it is a way out for Obama. It allowed him to save some face after he just got worked over. The thing to remember it was offered as a face saving gesture to let Obama back down. The damage to Obama’s ego demanded he take action. Similar to firing his top general in Afghanistan because someone on his staff said Biden is an idiot. There is no intention on the part of Russia or Syria to pursue the matter further.
” We’d much rather have those weapons dismantled than lob a bunch of missiles to
express our disapproval of those weaponspreserve Obama’s fragile self esteem.”Fixed.
“particularly because he’d only be agreeing to it because the GOP was holding the economy hostage. ”
No, he would have agreed because he knew the roll out was going to be a major disaster both technically and politically. The economy wasn’t being held hostage and why is it the only time Obama and the Democrats care about the economy is when they need to pivot from a scandal or use baseless fear mongering attacks?
4/5 of that “unsympathetic” list are our allies, countries that have faced great risk supporting our country and they did so because they knew we would be there for them. Now they don’t know that. Relationships that were in place for much of the last century are now in question which makes newer alliances more skeptical. Will America stand by Japan and Australia or will America pull an Obama and throw them under the bus like Egypt, Georgia, Iraq, Israel, ect?
Obama sacrificed Eastern European countries hoping to appease Putin. It didn’t work. Obama’s stated goal in a pivot to asia is build a coalition to counter the influence of China but why would those countries go along when Obama is capable of selling them out like he did in the Middle East and Eeastern Europe?
What risks have the Saudis or Syrian rebels ever taken on our behalf? Why should our relationship with France require our intervention in their former colonies?
There are two things about the Saudis.
One is the oil.
The second is that whereas there are the usual boilerplate caveats about how Saudi is a political theocracy that doesn’t grant people rights, there is this vibe I get about the Saudis that they are the “adults” on many matters, especially in the Middle East.
If they are Islamist nutters, how come the Saudis were in favor of supporting Mubarak, and they are currently supporting General Sisi, big time (ask yourself, why has gasoline come down in price, even before the end of the “summer driving season”?
Jim gets to be President, he will do what he wants. If I get to be President, I will certainly “consult” with the Saudis. I won’t be their puppet and do everything they say, but through diplomatic channels I will want to know how they think about important issues and why they think that way. I would quitely and in private communications challenge them why they are supporting the restoration of military dictatorship in Egypt and supporting the overthrow of a military dictatorship in Syria? But I would not inflict loss-of-face on them by making this a public disagreement.
The problem is not about Socialism and Healthcare.gov and whether we bomb the Syrian chemical installations or follow diplomacy. The problem is that Jim is already President. The President has this hard core belief system that is resistant to any dialogue, persuasion, or compromise, and he is convinced that the Saudis are bit-players on the world scene who don’t need to be respected.
We can respect the Saudis without implementing their plans for Syria.
The problem is that Jim is already President
Huh?
this hard core belief system that is resistant to any dialogue, persuasion, or compromise
I’m all for dialogue. I’m happy to be persuaded, if the argument is persuasive. And I’m happy to compromise, if both sides give something and both sides get something.
In the culture of the Middle East being a friend to America is a major risk and you notice I said countries and not Islamic militant groups that Obama thinks is a good idea have their own country. And you are right to point out the rebels never did anything for us, they have only done things against us, which is why it is so incredibly stupid for Obama to be helping install groups like this in seats of power across the Middle East like has was doing in Egypt, Libya, and other Arab Spring countries.
That Obama did not go to war with Syria on the side of Islamist militants was not because Obama didn’t desire it but because his plan to gain support for the war failed. But here we are funding and training them anyway. Another of Obama’s undeclared shadow wars.
“Why should our relationship with France require our intervention in their former colonies?”
Our relationship should not require military intervention on behalf of France like we did in Libya. Libya is the perfect example of Obama’s failed foreign policy. It is not going so great over there with the kidnapping of the PM. But that also does not mean Obama has to go out of his way to alienate our allies. The Saudis see what he did to the Georgians. His foreign policy missteps in one country also effect our relationship with other countries.
The thing is that Obama does do things to support our allies but he ruins it by the rhetoric coming out of his administration and the cumulative effect of the way he treats other countries.
The mistake “we” make (as in who is “we, Kimosabe”, yes, I know that I may express the pure Libertarian/TEA Party/Right Blogosphere sentiment by any means) is thinking the problem is that Mr. Obama will trick Mr. Ryan into agreeing to tax increases and then Mr. Obama and the Socialist International will win.
Tax increases? Big deal — we had tax increases in the December Shutdown Threat Cricis and if we have future tax increases, it won’t mean the End of the World as we Know It.
The deal is the same as all other deals. There is no deal. I said as much in December when I finally came to understand this. The deal is if “our” side agrees to tax increases as part of “giving up something dear to us” to come to a Grand Bargain, there is no deal, in other words, nothing is offered in return that can be counted upon.
Say it with me, There is No Grand Bargain. There is No Deal.
Yes, maintain the pressure to oppose bad policies and bad government, but the correct response is indeed to “kick the can down the road” as is the Libertarian/TEA Party meme that the RINO’s are enablers of the Democrats blowing up the deficit.
Do people understand what I am saying? Whatever the existential problems are, Obamacare, the Deficit, the U.S. standing in the world (that Mr. Obama was accepted to fix), there are no solutions to them at least in the next 3 years. There is no agreement to make healthcare work. There is no deal to be had on controlling entitlement spending. We have to maintain our Loyal Opposition, but we have to tough it out, and those of us who understand this are not RINOs.
I agree, there is no deal. A deal depends on both sides being willing to give something up. The Democrats seem willing to give up entitlement cuts (e.g. chained CPI), but what would the Republicans give up in return? A vote on the Senate immigration bill? Obama’s pre-K program? A public option for Obamacare? More tax revenue from high-income earners? It’s hard to think of anything the GOP would agree to.
The Grand Bargain is that the Republicans would “give up” higher tax rates on high-income earners, and they have given ground on this issue in December 2012. The Democrats would “give up” keeping entitlements off-limits, and given the double-digit unfunded entitlement liability, chained CPI is just a baby step.
The idea that in exchange for one minor adjustment to Social Security (chained CPI) that the Republicans would acquiese to (more tax revenue from high-income earners is being coy — let’s just call it “higher tax rates” on persons with high incomes or persons in the future with what we now think are high incomes but aren’t owing to inflation, and there is historical precedent for this kind of thing). And Immigration Reform (which is really isn’t a partisan issue because a lot of Republicans are for it, but their “nativist” base is angry about it, and that Mr. Obama disrespected sitting Republicans in the budget fight, it gives them political cover to turn anti-immigration to protect against a primary challenge from a challenger who stands to lose the seat and weaken the Party).
A “public option” for “Obamacare” was shot down by “red state” Democrats as Republicans turned their backs and had no input into the health care law. Is that even an issue right now? And the pre-K program? The jobs program?
I have taken a Republican moderate stance around here, saying, agree to tax increases as part of a Grand Bargain, and I have been taken to task by the more Libertarian/TEA party people around here that this is agreeing to (permanent) tax increases now in exchange for vague promises on reducing the growth in entitlements in “the out years.”
The Libertarians/TEA party people around here have been trying to persuade me that giving up on tax increases is a bad deal. That there is a laundary list of things that Republicans are asked to yield on suggests that raising taxes won’t do much for entitlement costs or reducing the deficit but will be spent right away on a whole long list of, yes, worthy things, but worthy things that cost money.
The non-Libertarian/TEA party people around here have been trying to persuade me of, what? That all of my ideas are weak and not factually based and that I should give in to my intellectual superiors and support the President without reservation?
The Grand Bargain is that the Republicans would “give up” higher tax rates on high-income earners, and they have given ground on this issue in December 2012. The Democrats would “give up” keeping entitlements off-limits, and given the double-digit unfunded entitlement liability, chained CPI is just a baby step.
A bargain is a discrete deal — you don’t get credit for things you gave up in previous deals. If the GOP wants entitlement cuts, they have to offer something new. What should it be?
Means-Testing Jim. That is something the left has always wanted.
” you don’t get credit for things you gave up in previous deals. ”
That is a perfect example of why groups at home and abroad should be distrustful of Obama. During the debate that led to sequester, Obama’s position was give me tax increases now and we will work out spending cuts later. Obama had no intention of taking up the matter later in good faith with his proclamation. He would have made additional demands.
So why would he act differently on immigration reform? Why should people trust him to act differently this time? What new enforcement deal will matter when Obama will just go behind the back of congress and implement or not implement whatever he wants?
The thing is, deals are not simply about each side giving something up. Deals are about trust, especially that the side with greater power (yes, the President) will hold up their side.
If the Republicans agree to Immigration Reform in exchange for better enforcement of the laws-on-the-books regarding immigration, has this Administration given any, any indication that they will enforce this with any kind of due dilligence?
There is no deal because it is not about the contents of the deal, it is about the trustworthiness of parties in upholding the deal.
On immigration there already is a deal — it passed with 70 votes in the Senate. The question now isn’t about trust, it’s about whether Boehner will bring the Senate bill up for a vote (my guess: no).
” The question now isn’t about trust”
How can you say that when for the Republicans in congress there is a definite trust gap between Obama’s rhetoric and his actions? Why wont Obama pull the football away one more time?
“A public option for Obamacare?”
I thought last week you were telling us the Democrats desire to use Obamacare as a vehicle to single payer was just some conspiracy theory?
” The deal is if “our” side agrees to tax increases as part of “giving up something dear to us” to come to a Grand Bargain, there is no deal, in other words, nothing is offered in return that can be counted upon.”
The taxes were already raised last time around. Democrats claimed everything would be magically solved by getting rid of some of the Bush tax cuts. Taxes went up. The economy and income disparity didn’t magically heal as promised. Why would more taxes generate different results?
I also find it amusing how Obama is having to field numerous calls from foreign leaders over the NSA spying revelations. For example, he recently promised Chancellor Merkel of Germany that the NSA wasn’t listening in on her mobile phone. If that breezy assurance turns out false (and that’s where I’d be placing my bet, given what’s already been revealed about such things), then he’s just lied directly to a foreign head of state about some petty issue that shouldn’t have happened in the first place.
For almost but not quite half of us, Obama *never* had credibility as far as being qualified and ready for the office of President starting in 2007-2008. Events since then have proven us completely correct dozens and dozens of times.
Only the tools, sychophants, money grubbers, statists, Sociailsts, low-info’s, and people who refuse to see reality think any differently.
“European leaders united in anger today as they attended a European Union summit overshadowed by reports of widespread US spying on its allies. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the allegations had shattered trust in President Barack Obama’s administration and undermined the crucial trans-Atlantic relationship.”
Notice, in the above excerpt from a Daily Mail article,………notice how Merkel blames Obama for what an agency under his command did.
Merkel knows where the buck stops. Too bad Obama and his crowd of acolytes, statists, socialists, low-info’s, starry eyed dreamers and leg tinglers, pants-crease-admirerers can’t or won’t bring themselves to understand what every reasonable adult understands:
Obama is responsible.
And the Guardian reports that the NSA spied on 35 world leaders, according to the Snowden data.
It’s worth noting here that the NSA allegedly started this practice in 2006. Yet another problem started under Bush and made much worse under Obama.