The Washington Post has a graphic Obama and Republicans' tax deal showing the cost of the various pieces and which party favored which piece.
My issue is I just don't believe that only the Democrats favored the blue parts. I mean three of the four are tax cuts and while the GOP doesn't run on unemployment insurance, they've caved on extending it several times already.
What I also don't get about Obama's "deal" is why he froze executive branch workers salaries last week and didn't include that in the deal with Republicans?
And as a progressive I wasn't an offended by Obama's speech yesterday, I did find it odd. He said:
"Now, I could have enjoyed the battle with Republicans over the next month or two, because as I said, the American people are on our side. This is not a situation in which I have failed to persuade the American people of the rightness of our position. I know the polls. The polls are on our side on this. We weren’t operating from a position of political weakness with respect to public opinion."
If public was on your side and you still don't have leverage over the minority to get what you want, then what good are you?
"But the fact of the matter is, I haven’t persuaded the Republican Party. I haven’t persuaded Mitch McConnell and I haven’t persuaded John Boehner. And if I can’t persuade them, then I’ve got to look at what is the best thing to do, given that reality, for the American people and for jobs."
Really? I remember an interview with Boehner before the election where he said that he'd prefer the tax cuts for the rich but wouldn't sacrifice the middle class ones for it if that's all he could get. What changed between then and now? The election. The Democrats should have had the vote before the election when the Republicans would have suffered some direct harm from being obstructionist at the cost of the middle class. Remember, the polls were on the side of the Democrats!
Some asked Obama this question: "If I may follow, aren’t you telegraphing, though, a negotiating strategy of how the Republicans can beat you in negotiations all the way through the next year because they can just stick to their guns, stay united, be unwilling to budge -- to use your words -- and force you to capitulate?"
His answer was this, "I don’t think so. And the reason is because this is a very unique circumstance. This is a situation in which tens of millions of people would be directly damaged and immediately damaged, and at a time when the economy is just about to recover." I don't think that's true at all, each issue is unique and is spun into the biggest thing in the world by the media and the GOP. His answer went on a bit and he said:
"And I will be happy to see the Republicans test whether or not I’m itching for a fight on a whole range of issues. I suspect they will find I am. And I think the American people will be on my side on a whole bunch of these fights." But see my point above, what good is having the people on your side if you still lose?
I really don't get what he's thinking. It's one thing to lose a political battle, but based on his pretty candid press conference, I think he genuinely thinks he did the right thing and is completely missing the point. He ended with this:
"Take a tally. Look at what I promised during the campaign. There’s not a single thing that I’ve said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I haven’t gotten it done yet, I’m still trying to do it."
Tried to do isn't a big hurdle but it's legit if you have serious push-back. So I don't think his administration has don't much to end Don't Ask Don't Tell. He set a deadline to close Guantanamo but it's long past and not much has happened. He hasn't reformed FISA or Immigration or gotten anywhere on climate change (though he did conceded to more nuclear plants and off shore drilling, how'd that work out?).
PolitiFact has more, The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises. Admittedly his record is pretty good so far.
Update: Ezra Klein thinks it's a better deal than he expected.
No comments:
Post a Comment