Who was really hurt by the super-committee failure?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 5:02 PM GMT
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204630904577056553699973094.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond

    The talk this week was of who was most damaged politically by the failure of the super committee. The first, admittedly earnest answer is: the country. We have a projected deficit over the next 10 years of $44 trillion. A group of Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill were charged with coming up with $1.2 trillion in cuts. Just 1.2 out of 44. Not that hard. And they couldn't do it. Everyone says we will now fight out the basic issues on which the committee failed to achieve agreement, taxes and spending, in the 2012 election. And we will. Maybe the electorate will yield up a clear answer and produce an obvious mandate. But maybe not. Maybe the big muddle will continue. Which won't be good, because that way we sink deeper in the ditch.

    Super committee success would have been important for this reason: It would have shown us, and the world, that we are not Greece. That we aren't helpless, incapable, deadlocked, that we can take at least baby steps in the right direction.

    The second party most damaged by the failure was President Obama, that grand strategic thinker who's always playing long ball. It is a time of unprecedented and continuing economic crisis, and he went AWOL. He didn't put his public prestige behind a good outcome, didn't corral the Democrats on the committee, which could have made a real difference. He thought the super committee would likely fail on its own, and if it did, it only backed up his narrative—that dread word—about a do-nothing Congress dominated by Republicans in thrall to their billionaire slave masters.

    What he doesn't understand is that Americans are tired of hearing the words "In Washington today," followed by the words, "another failure to . . ." They think: Another failure under Obama. Can't this guy get anything done? Doesn't anything ever work under him?

    That is what will damage him. At the end of the day, he didn't want to spend his political capital. That, ironically, is why his reputation seems increasingly bankrupt. Maybe the most harmful aspect of the president's leadership style is that all of his political instincts were honed and settled before 2008, when he was rising. What he learned before he reached the presidency is what he knows. But everyone else in America knows the crash and the underlying crisis it revealed—on our current course, we are bankrupt—changed everything. Strangely, inexplicably, the president thinks the old political moves apply to the new era. They do not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 5:17 PM GMT
    Another example of the WSJ editorial page's lurch toward lunacy.

    The Super Committee was a congressional committee, not a presidential one, and it's failure is entirely Congress'.

    Had Obama involved himself in its working, Republicans would have been screaming that he was violating separation of powers by inserting the presidency into a legislative process.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 5:26 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidAnother example of the WSJ editorial page's lurch toward lunacy.

    The Super Committee was a congressional committee, not a presidential one, and it's failure is entirely Congress'.

    Had Obama involved himself in its working, Republicans would have been screaming that he was violating separation of powers by inserting the presidency into a legislative process.

    Another desperate interpretation. The point was the president could have chosen to spend political capital and offer his prestige to involve himself with the congressional committee, but he chose to not do so.

    It is typical for a president to become involved when he really wants success of a congressional action. Obvious case in point was Obamacare. Did you forget? Simply amazing!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 5:30 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidAnother example of the WSJ editorial page's lurch toward lunacy.

    The Super Committee was a congressional committee, not a presidential one, and it's failure is entirely Congress'.

    Had Obama involved himself in its working, Republicans would have been screaming that he was violating separation of powers by inserting the presidency into a legislative process.

    Another desperate interpretation. The point was the president could have chosen to spend political capital and offer his prestige to involve himself with the congressional committee, but he chose to not do so.

    It is typical for a president to become involved when he really wants success of a congressional action. Obvious case in point was Obamacare. Did you forget? Simply amazing!


    Incorrect. And Obama was not terribly involved in passing Healthcare reform. In fact, the same charges being lodged against him now when being made during the HCR debates.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Nov 26, 2011 5:41 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidAnother example of the WSJ editorial page's lurch toward lunacy.



    Yes, because of course YOU are so much more highly qualified and less partisan than the WSJ icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 5:50 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidAnother example of the WSJ editorial page's lurch toward lunacy.

    The Super Committee was a congressional committee, not a presidential one, and it's failure is entirely Congress'.

    Had Obama involved himself in its working, Republicans would have been screaming that he was violating separation of powers by inserting the presidency into a legislative process.

    Another desperate interpretation. The point was the president could have chosen to spend political capital and offer his prestige to involve himself with the congressional committee, but he chose to not do so.

    It is typical for a president to become involved when he really wants success of a congressional action. Obvious case in point was Obamacare. Did you forget? Simply amazing!

    Incorrect. And Obama was not terribly involved in passing Healthcare reform. In fact, the same charges being lodged against him now when being made during the HCR debates.

    White House staffers continually met with Harry Reid behind closed doors, when the Republicans were excluded, by the way. And you forget about Obama's active involvement at the meeting at Blair House, this time including both parties? Or the other only Democratic meetings at the White House http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/marathon-white-house-health-care-meeting-covered-all-aspects-but-no-deal-yet.php It is becoming unfortunate to see you increasingly resorting to making obviously false statements.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 5:50 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 saidAnother example of the WSJ editorial page's lurch toward lunacy.



    Yes, because of course YOU are so much more highly qualified and less partisan than the WSJ icon_rolleyes.gif


    I'm not writing for what used to be one of the standard bearers of American journalism. Since Murdoch took over the WSJ there has been a marked decline in its objectivity, the quality of its analysis, and its former commitment to fact checking, even on its editorial page.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 5:51 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidAnother example of the WSJ editorial page's lurch toward lunacy.

    The Super Committee was a congressional committee, not a presidential one, and it's failure is entirely Congress'.

    Had Obama involved himself in its working, Republicans would have been screaming that he was violating separation of powers by inserting the presidency into a legislative process.

    Another desperate interpretation. The point was the president could have chosen to spend political capital and offer his prestige to involve himself with the congressional committee, but he chose to not do so.

    It is typical for a president to become involved when he really wants success of a congressional action. Obvious case in point was Obamacare. Did you forget? Simply amazing!

    Incorrect. And Obama was not terribly involved in passing Healthcare reform. In fact, the same charges being lodged against him now when being made during the HCR debates.

    White House staffers continually met with Harry Reid behind closed doors, when the Republicans were excluded, by the way. And you forget about Obama's active involvement at the meeting at Blair House, this time including both parties? Or the other only Democratic meetings at the White House http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/marathon-white-house-health-care-meeting-covered-all-aspects-but-no-deal-yet.php It is becoming unfortunate to see you increasingly resorting to making obviously false statements.


    Thanks for making my point for me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 5:52 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidAnother example of the WSJ editorial page's lurch toward lunacy.

    The Super Committee was a congressional committee, not a presidential one, and it's failure is entirely Congress'.

    Had Obama involved himself in its working, Republicans would have been screaming that he was violating separation of powers by inserting the presidency into a legislative process.

    Another desperate interpretation. The point was the president could have chosen to spend political capital and offer his prestige to involve himself with the congressional committee, but he chose to not do so.

    It is typical for a president to become involved when he really wants success of a congressional action. Obvious case in point was Obamacare. Did you forget? Simply amazing!

    Incorrect. And Obama was not terribly involved in passing Healthcare reform. In fact, the same charges being lodged against him now when being made during the HCR debates.

    White House staffers continually met with Harry Reid behind closed doors, when the Republicans were excluded, by the way. And you forget about Obama's active involvement at the meeting at Blair House, this time including both parties? Or the other only Democratic meetings at the White House http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/marathon-white-house-health-care-meeting-covered-all-aspects-but-no-deal-yet.php It is becoming unfortunate to see you increasingly resorting to making obviously false statements.


    Thanks for making my point for me.

    The point that you are making false statements? Something to be proud of?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 5:53 PM GMT
    The strategy here seems to be say something, anything, to deflect away from the OP. True, false, doesn't matter. Just generate enough verbiage to deflect. Most people new to the thread read the OP, so the strategy is a failure.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 8:23 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidThe strategy here seems to be say something, anything, to deflect away from the OP. True, false, doesn't matter. Just generate enough verbiage to deflect. Most people new to the thread read the OP, so the strategy is a failure.


    That would because they have little to fight with. While it's vilifying to see predictions that these socialist dreams would go up in smoke because they are unsustainable, it's still sad to see the millions of lives that will be disrupted because of it. It didn't have to be so but this was a self inflicted wound.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2011 12:43 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    socalfitness saidThe strategy here seems to be say something, anything, to deflect away from the OP. True, false, doesn't matter. Just generate enough verbiage to deflect. Most people new to the thread read the OP, so the strategy is a failure.


    That would because they have little to fight with. While it's vilifying to see predictions that these socialist dreams would go up in smoke because they are unsustainable, it's still sad to see the millions of lives that will be disrupted because of it. It didn't have to be so but this was a self inflicted wound.


    Nope. It's about arguing for a politics and economics that benefits the majority of Americans and not the top 0.01% as it has for the last 40 years. It's about pointing out the increasingly ludicrous and hysterical arguments from the right, like this one, wherein in in some parallel universe 3 years of relentless Republican obstructionism would have dissolved in the face of a united Democratic front on the committee. Or, that Obama would have been case as anything other than an interloper if he would have taken a more hands on approach to the "super" committee.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2011 1:05 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    socalfitness saidThe strategy here seems to be say something, anything, to deflect away from the OP. True, false, doesn't matter. Just generate enough verbiage to deflect. Most people new to the thread read the OP, so the strategy is a failure.


    That would because they have little to fight with. While it's vilifying to see predictions that these socialist dreams would go up in smoke because they are unsustainable, it's still sad to see the millions of lives that will be disrupted because of it. It didn't have to be so but this was a self inflicted wound.


    Nope. It's about arguing for a politics and economics that benefits the majority of Americans and not the top 0.01% as it has for the last 40 years. It's about pointing out the increasingly ludicrous and hysterical arguments from the right, like this one, wherein in in some parallel universe 3 years of relentless Republican obstructionism would have dissolved in the face of a united Democratic front on the committee. Or, that Obama would have been case as anything other than an interloper if he would have taken a more hands on approach to the "super" committee.

    Q.E.D.