Posted on 03/19/2012 11:17:21 AM PDT by Lazamataz
What happened? Obama and his advisers have cast the collapse of the talks as a republican failure. Boehner, unable to deliver, stepped away from the deal, simple as that.
But interviews with most of the central players in those talks— some ofwhomwere granted anonymity to speak about the secret negotiations — as well as a review of meeting notes, e-mails and the negotiating proposals that changed hands, offer a more complicated picture of the collapse. Obama, nervous about how to defend the emerging agreement to his own democratic base, upped the ante in a way that made it more difficult for Boehner— already facing long odds — to sell it to his party. Eventually, the president tried to put the original framework back in play, but by then it was too late. The moment of making history had passed.
(Excerpt) Read more at thewashingtonpost.newspaperdirect.com ...
This URL looks like it will expire soon. I don't know if this article will be available elsewhere, but if it is, I will post the URL downthread.
Info ping. Credit Rush Limbaugh for bringing it to my attention. NYT article to follow on same topic.
This actually literally appears on the front page of the Washington Times Sunday edition, Mar 18, 2012, thusly why it is placed in Front Page sidebar.
This is the Random Act of Journalism that Rush commented on today
Yessir. I was very surprised we hadn't had it posted somewhere on FR!!
>> This URL looks like it will expire soon.
Read the firs page in the “e-replica” format, but it wants a login to read the rest. Bummer!
Front page is a real poke in Barky’s eye though. Considering the source it’s nothing short of astonishing.
Spin from Jay Carney in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...
bookmark
YUP! This is an amazing article. It shows Obama was directly responsible for the credit rating downgrade. Now, of course, this IS the Washington Post, so they weave in all sorts of 'noble Obama motives', none of which they could possibly know.... BUT.... the facts speak louder than the spin.
Share with everyone you know.
0bama’s “I can’t get any cooperation from the GOP” we knew was BS. This is just one (rather large and obscene) example.
Good move. This one is worth bookmarking. Get it quick, though, who knows how long the URL will be good, it seems like an application that displays all newspapers they publish... so.. the next newspaper may overwrite this one....
Yeah, this is a growing trend I've been noticing for several weeks now. I always scan FR while having my moring coffee, then follow that by listening to Rush. In the past, I'd always read the news stories on FR before Rush talked about them, but enjoyed hearing his commentary on these items anyway. Now it seems that I always hear big news (like this WAPO article) from Rush first, then his listeners pick it up and post it on FR.
I don't know what to attribute this too. Any ideas?
Any good ping lists that might be appropriate here?
Doesn’t matter. I’m just glad we have it.
Excellent. I wonder if WaPo understood how this would be perceived?
I tried snagging the text by printing to a PDF but it didn’t all come through. I don’t have an WaPo account but maybe someone who does could make sure a copy is kept somewhere.
Seems to me that either:
A) Obama lied and changed his mind later, killing the deal
or
B) This was a set-up from the get-go, and their entire goal was to lull the R’s into thinking they had a deal so in the end they could be left holding the empty bag.
Either way, if any of this is true it says Boehner/Cantor were more than willing to accept a tax increase as part of the deal, and that is just the kind of crap we don’t need.
But if the downgrade can truly be pinned on Obama, that won’t matter as this could be a game-changer.
Excellence, that was EXCELLENCE. Thank you.
As Rush is talking about now, this demonstrates that Boehner and McConnell were ready to accept tax increases, in spite of them saying publicly that they would not. I don’t think this will surprise a lot of FReepers, but I still think it’s a big effen deal [®Joe Biden]
Rush speculated that this might be a Clinton-style get-this-out-early so that you can scream “OLD NEWS” in October.
I “snagged” it. If anyone wants it, email me.
In this case, I cut the boys slack, because it was clear they were calling the bluff.
Hooah.
Thanks. I’ve been listening to Rush discuss this all afternoon.
The Democrats leaked the story to the Post (and NYT).
Why?
Because there will be another debt limit fight coming up before the election!
This is because of the Payroll tax "cut" the Dems and Obama pushed through. This is increasing the deficit beyond the value calculated to last until the election is over.
When the debt limit issue comes up again, the Dems will insist on the Repubs raising taxes and will use this as the bludgeon - "see, they were willing to increase taxes last time, ..."
Brilliant on your part.
Good catch. That could very well be the plan.
Thank you but I can’t claim credit. MissesBush posted it earlier.
I love you anyway.
No, they were going to close loopholes, not raise tax rates. They were clear about that. From the article:
Another key caveat: Much of the $800 billion would have to come from overhauling the tax code — not from higher tax rates. The Republicans believed lower rates and a simpler code
Agreed. However, I don't think it will work with independent voters. A fight over raising the debt limit during October will bode very poorly for all incumbents, particularly POTUS.
I could be wrong, but I think the tsunami will hit the last weekend before the vote, just as it did against Carter. Millions of voters will ask themselves, "do I really want another 4 years of Obama, and all that entails?
After a summer of $4+ gas, high inflation on food and other staples, I think the answer will be a resounding NO!
Carney is a very talented spin artist, especially compared to Gibbs. I hate the guy's guts, but I respect his ability immensely.
The news in this is not Obama’s actions, it is that the WaPo wrote about. Obama was acting in standard community activist negotiating fashion.
Either that or “gas prices and a deteriorating world security situation are going to savage Barry so badly over the next few months, we here at Media House have to assist our brothers in the Democrat Party with kicking him to the curb before it’s too late.”
I was surprised there wasn’t more talk and noise about this at the time.....even from conservatives. Maybe they were embarrassed about Boehner agreeing to any taxes and preferred that the deal sink.
Carney and Gibbs are/were temedulously aided by a syncophantic press pool including Tapper. Tapper is seen from a mile away and waits for Carney/Gibbs to “finish”.
I’m pretty impressed with the level of analytics exhibited by the freepers comments in this thread. It’s like the old days, when cogency and good thinkers were abundant. Perhaps the nature of this thread drives away the more frivilous freepers.....
..... you know, like that detestable Lazamataz.
Their fixed it :-)..
There are plenty of threads for frivolous Freepers...we're doing hugh and series work here.
You are correct. If I had any sense at all, I’d hijack this thread to complain about either contraceptives or abortion.
1. It shows that Boehner was feeling the heat that we were discussing here at the time, that the mid-term elections gave the Republicans a lot of political capital, and that we felt that Boehner was too timid to use it.
2, The White House had a dismissive view of Boehner as Speaker. They may have been talking about the state of the GOP caucus, or they may have been talking about Boehner's leadership abilities.
Obama’s aides were under strict orders to “protect Boehner” and not talk about his private entreaties. Obama liked Boehner; they got along well during the private sessions and a round of golf. But there was doubt in the White House as to whether the speaker could bring his party along. He “probably could not deliver a pizza,” was one administration aide’s skeptical assessment.
3. Democrats do not negotiate in good faith. They lie. The coin of Congress is the promise. Negotations (debates) in Congress are about trading promise of this in Bill 1 in exchange for promise of that in Bill 2. When Democrats get Bill 1 and then reneg on promises in Bill 2, trust is destroyed and negotiations are a fruitless sham.
4. Interesting admissions of connections.
A. Obama liked Boehner; they got along well during the private sessions and a round of golf.5. I was right back when this happened, that the biggest mistake that Boehner made was walking away from Senate negotiations and letting Obama into the talks. This was always rightfully a Congressional discussion only, and Boehner let the White House in a full participants (in Boehner's mind) and not recognizing that Obama would usurp the floor and take over, making the GOP House look like weak fools. I originally posted this:B. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), one of Boehner’s dearest friends.
C. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), was close to Obama and Boehner... [Coburn] had developed a close personal bond with Obama dating to their shared opposition to federal budget earmarks when both were senators.
D. Obama invoked Boehner’s personal friendship with Chambliss, a member of the Gang of Six, warning that Democrats would never support the package under discussion when “your friend Saxby...” Everything is personal to Obama.
I still think it's a mistake to bypass the Senate Democrats and take this directly to Obama.I also wrote this:Anything Obama agrees to still has to pass the Senate, which has not even passed its own budget resolution yet.
Furthermore, this just gives Obama another platform to look "presidential" going into the 2012 election. It also gives the MSM another issue to pound Republicans with until they cave in to pressure.
Republicans instead should have put the pressure on Harry Reid to get the Senate to go on record with a budget plan of their own, and continue to make Obama look like the bystander that he really is.
Republicans gave away all of their leverage during the lame duck session of the 111th Congress.6. Up to this moment, Obama was starting to look to be marginalized and aimless. Boehner and McConnell gave Obama new wind behind his sails when it wasn't necessary. That was the biggest blunder the GOP could do.They were slow to get started in the 112th Congress.
And now they're getting played again by allowing the Senate to be marginalized, and making everything be between the House and Obama.
McConnell should stay out of it until the Senate goes on record with a budget, otherwise, all he's doing is mucking up the works by being a powerless voice who can nothing but undermine his side's position.
Suddenly, the same Democrats who had accused Obama of meekness in negotiating with the GOP were praising his aggressive new tone. What happened during those days in July when the grand bargain was almost reached, but not quite, had changed him. He no longer seemed divided.
-PJ
PJ, Thank you. Will read in great detail in a bit but a scan looks like you have some interesting input.
Could this article have been timed to provide proof of claims made in this new book being released?
Obama blamed troubles on Fox News, book says
In “Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party” — which hits bookstores on Tuesday — the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones chronicles the White House from the 2010 midterm elections to the start of the 2012 campaign. The book focuses on key moments of Obama’s presidency, such as Osama bin Laden’s assassination, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Arab Spring, the debt ceiling crisis, and the president’s dealings with Congress.
-PJ
You mean before “The Purge” when we had more cogency and clear thinkers.
Be careful... comments like THAT might get YOU purged! You've probably already been reported by 2-3.
We made it, though. Anyways, back to the article.....
Low down dirty dogs, all of them. I’m so disgusted!
Rush has mentioned several times that Obama’s approval rating was down to 41%, do you know what poll that was and where to find it?
You’re right, the Republicans were not agreeing to a tax increase, they were talking about closing loopholes and simplifying the tax code. The Democrats wanted targeted tax increases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.