I wonder what the president had in mind this afternoon when he sat down with conservative writers Paul Gigot, Kathleen Parker, Charles Krauthammer, Robert Costa, and Byron York? I’m betting that he was less hoping to influence what they write than influence what they say privately to Republican lawmakers.
He probably wants to send an indirect message that he isn’t going to fold to bolster what he’s been saying directly, but he needs credible messengers.
What do you think?
I wonder what the president had in mind this afternoon when he sat down with conservative writers Paul Gigot, Kathleen Parker, Charles Krauthammer, Robert Costa, and Byron York?
Considering that Costa is the sanest one, I don’t know. The other 4 are just scum. Does any of that group, excepting Costa, have any redeeming features/value?
York stumbles into non-hackery a couple times a year.
Parker once a year.
A little more often than that. She was probably the first wingnut to recognize the disaster that was Sarah Palin.
But I’m not defending her. She has written some of the worst wingnut columns in history as well.
Perhaps he needed a good laugh.
Interesting, and not the first time he has sat down with some of these folks in a critical period. Sorta like talking to some of the crack dealers themselves and asking them to make sure that the GOP in the House is not so high on its own supply that it hurts the country.
Boehner’s response to the President’s news conference was disconnected from reality.
I think you are right about his views getting back to GOP lawmakers. Also to have someone outside of the Congressional backroom bubble have the same information that he’s giving to members of Congress.
Or was Obama looking for a way to apply more pressure on the Speaker?
Perhaps he hoped to discover the price of their whoredom.
Hmmm off the record huh…
Don’t know what it’s about, but your explanation is as plausible as any.
But I’m sure the conspiracy theorist from the left have more out there explanation.
Will be interested to hear them
Here you go. Right on schedule.
What would that be? He’s met with the Kraphammer/George Will types a few different times. So this really isn’t anything new.
Well, Obama has just signaled that he would accept a clean increase good for a short time (what? about a month?) followed by negotiation. The increase is specifically to create space for the negotiation, which again will have the debt ceiling threat behind it, but this time one Obama has endorsed. Sounds like Kabuki to me. Take the gun away from my head so I can say I won, and I will let you put it right back, but this time negotiate thusly. What on Earth is he thinking?
He could be thinking that his only non-negotiables are (in order of importance) 1) raising the debt ceiling limit without conditions, and 2) reopening the government without conditions. By signaling he’d sign a short-term measure to accomplish either or both of his non-negotiables he makes it more clear (or hopes to) that congressional Republicans are the extremists and do not have the nation’s best interests at heart.
He wants a grand bargain. I mean, he’s stated all along that if you just pass clean stuff that I’m willing to endorse your SS cuts. And now Paul Ryan has an oped in the WSJ calling for the same thing, including “revenue”.
The problem is that Obama’s (correct) position is that he cannot negotiate under threat of default. Default must simply be off the table. However, agreeing to a short term increase, especially with the explicit understanding that this is tied to subsequent negotiations, means those negotiations will again be made under threat of default. The ceiling will have to be raised again shortly, and the GOP can again refuse to do it if they don’t get their way, but this time they can claim buy in from Obama. It doesn’t change the situation. It just creates an empty rhetorical victory for Obama, while making it impossible for him to take the same position again.
Another thing that the world noticed. President Obama did not call on any television “journalists” at all during his press conference. Seem to be some hurt fee-fees.
It’s always amazing to me how petty those people are.
I guess it must be a symptom of self-importance since the wealthy and powerful who aren’t “journalists” also react that way.
At least when there’s an R President in office, I would assume most these guys recognize that the executive branch must protect its powers. The message is that refusing to pay ransom is an institutional thing. Maybe they will pass that along. Doubt anyone would listen, however. Now I see that R Senators are gonna block the debt limit increase and Dems are discussing nuking the filibuster. Gonna get real interesting.
Republicans in the Senate may use the filibuster as an instrument to force the U.S. into default if their demands aren’t met? If that happens, and it isn’t enough to finally convince Democrats it’s long past time to terminate that procedural anachronism, I don’t know what could be.
Can Republicans impeach Harry Reid? LOL
Obama is almost certainly interested in what these people think. The White House is such a bubble, and this conflict is so perilous that it would be almost malpractice to not seek out their opinions and council. It’s basic Sun Tsu – know your enemy.
I’m sure he is worried that a mis-calculated group think has set into the conservative camp. He invited these folks because they are essentially ambassadors for the conservative movement. He needed them to see his face and the faces of his staff as he explained why he wasn’t going to negotiate.
I hope it works. I thought default was unthinkable, but now I don’t know. The comments on the hard right sites are full of seditious thoughts. The rural white South has their own set of facts and their own view of history, and to hell with checking in with reality. In their minds the war of northern aggression is in full swing and must be repelled.
The Tea Party is a very strange and unpredictable movement. If I were Obama I’d be in desperate need of subject matter experts too.
“The Tea Party is unpredictable”.
Really? they are totally predictable: they are against anything and everything Obama advocates.
It’s not the Tea Party that is unpredictable. If it were just the Tea Party, Boehner could bring up a clean CR and debt limit, get enough other Republicans (none are “moderate”), and pass both with Democratic votes. That was supposed to be the scenario. That is not happening. My guess is that the White House, like the rest of us, is trying to figure out what is motivating the irrational lemming-unity of the House Republicans.
(none are “moderate”).
I disagree. what about the republican congressmen critical of Cruz’s antics?
I think there’s a few moderates who would vote for a clean CR and debt limit.. they voted for this before. they are not going to oppose it now and bring the whole house of cards down.
Interesting comment, thanks. I agree with Superpole that the Tea Part/right wing of the Republican party is relatively predictable. Ed Kilgore of the Washington Monthly grew up with these folks, and has been very good on precisely this point: they’re not nihilists; they’re extremists.
Also, it’s not just rural white Southerners. The Tea Party is disproportionately more affluent than the American public. To draw a rough analogy to the 1950s and 60s, the Tea Party is the White Citizens Council of today: the “respectable” face of the extremist, racist, xenophobic faction in American politics.
What do I think? I think he had a vigorous shower afterwards. And then another.
More seriously, this is basic stuff in trying to both send back channel indicators and gauge the enemy. And, sensibly, he’s done something like this several times while in office. Nobody should be at all surprised by this.
GOP not doing very well in the popularity department.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/08/republicans-could-lose-their-house-majori
ty-because-of-the-shutdown/
Decent analysis. Doesn’t factor in all the Koch etal. money that will flow into those 23 districts between now and the midterm elections. Remember, Scott Walker beat the recall and is currently set to win a second term thanks to his rich benefactors.
Rich benefactors? Or that fact that Wisconsin is a lilly white state and the midwest in general has been trending right?
It’s meaningless because we don’t have snap elections in this country, by next year it will be all forgotten unless we have a long period of default in which case I have no idea if we’ll even be able to have more elections.
It’s not going to be forgotten any more than the 1995 shutdown was by the time of the 1996 elections.
The real reason the WIS recall vote did not succeed is that a lot of Democrats did not support the recall,not because they like Walker but because they did not think it was a good idea or necessary to recall him.
Remember, three Republican State senators were also recalled, and the result was a Democratic 17-16 majority in the state senate.
The GOP tried to recall three Democratic senators and failed on all of them.
The Senate flipped back to Republican control in January 2013. So Walker’s riding high again this year.
I live in MN not Wisconsin, so I fully admit I could misread but…
If Wisconsin dems didn’t think it was good or necessarily to recall them then that stands to reason they are accepting of his radical rightwing policies. That suggests a right leaning electorate.
As you said, the senate flipped (2012), then flipped again (2013) right away, again suggesting a right leaning electorate that was temporarily more left but quickly asserted it’s existing lean.
Forgot to add this to the last post. Look at the chart:
Significantly worse for Dems than 1996. So even if not forgotten the effect will be less pronounced.