Accepting Duncan’s invitation to revisit my contemporaneous analysis of the debt ceiling negotiations and compare it to what I said earlier today, I agree that there isn’t much contradiction. I think, although I am not certain, that I wrote the 2011 piece immediately after getting off a conference call with the White House. It just seems to me that that post reflected pretty strongly what the White House was saying privately at the time. The headline leads me to that conclusion, too.
Ultimately, I was half right and half wrong. I was right that the White House felt that they had the upper hand and would not be making big concessions. I was right that it was nearly impossible to envision Boehner doing a deal because he’d need Democratic votes. I was right that he’d probably never survive if he made that deal. I was wrong to predict that Boehner would cave to his big donors rather than his Tea Party base.
It’s also possible that I was engaged in a bit of psychological warfare at the time, which admittedly sometimes creeps into my analysis when the stakes are high enough.
But, on the whole, I am not sure why Duncan chose that particular piece for a contrast because it doesn’t really touch on the main question I raised, which was what the administration really wanted to happen at the time.
But, on the whole, I am not sure why Duncan chose that particular piece for a contrast because it doesn’t really touch on the main question I raised, which was what the administration really wanted to happen at the time.
Tweet him and ask.
What’s the point in this context as opposed to say something for WaPo? Your basically preaching to a powerless choir here.
Don’t you know that the congressional and White House staffs read this blog?
Weird.
No. I thought they just included you on conference calls etc. How did that happen?
It’s like, why would I even do this?
Why do any bloggers blog? Money or because they think it’s important to cut through media bullshit and tell the truth.
Money? You must be joking.
And there’s dozens of people who can cut through the media better for the simple reason that they read and watch that garbage.
I don’t blog for those reasons.
I’m talking about fashion or gossip blogs like gawkers stuff or TMZ when I say money.
Alrighty then.
I think, whatever was going on in the Administration, it is worth noting that in 1996, after the Republican Congress came in under Clinton, he stepped up his efforts to enact welfare reform, and by all accounts came to view passage of welfare reform as necessary to maintaining credibility as a leader. Rahm Emanuel was among those in the Clinton Administration visiting Capitol Hill on a daily basis in summer 1996 to signal to Republican leadership that Clinton would be willing to sign the very painful welfare reform bill he ended up enacting – in spite of a report Clinton tried to bury in September 1995 that said it would throw 1 million children below the poverty line. Welfare reform was viewed by insiders as an unqualified success. Sid Blumenthal says, “Welfare reform and the balanced budget were the two issues that decisively allowed President Clinton to undercut the Republicans and begin transforming politics.”
If there’s any president Obama has tried to emulate, it’s Clinton. That, combined with Rahm’s history of encouraging presidents to throw poor people under the bus in the name of transpartisanship, makes me think we dodged a pretty big bullet when the Republicans refused to cooperate.