home

Declare Defeat But Promise To Fight

It appears that we are winding our way to inevitable defeat in the Debt Ceiling Debacle. The loss was guaranteed in December, and the President and Democrats in Congress basically have no choice but to capitulate. Not raising the debt ceiling would be catastrophic.

The hope was that immediate spending cuts would be minimized. There is no reporting on that crucial aspect of the deal nor on who is expected to vote for the debt ceiling deal (is it going to pass with GOP support or Dem support?) More . . .

In any event, the deal will certainly be a loss for Democrats and I can only hope no Democrat, from the White House on down, attempts to claim victory. That would be self defeating.

Instead I hope Washington Dems accept that this is a defeat but promise to fight to reverse the loss. Indeed, bring the fight on deficit deals to the 2012 election. Lay out their view of what they wish to do - about jobs, taxes, and fiscal policy - and promise to reverse the Debt Ceiling Deal if they win in 2012.

State that the program that the debt ceiling deal enunciates is the Republican vision, one that Democrats will reverse if they win in 2012. State that because not raising the debt ceiling would be catastrophic, Democrats and the President have agreed to enact, for now, the GOP vision contained in the debt ceiling deal, but that the President and Democrats plan to reverse that vision if they win in 2012.

Announce that the Democratic vision requires increases in taxes for the rich, for corporations and for Wall Street. Announce that the Democratic vision requires protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Announce that the Democratic vision requires a paramount focus on economic growth and job creation.

Announce that while today is a defeat, it is only one battle and that it will be the American people who decide these issues in the 2012 elections.

Announce that Democrats have only begun to fight for Americans.

First posted here.

Speaking for me only

< Who Votes For This Deal? | Deal or No Deal: Why is a Default so Bad? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Raise your hand if you believe (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:07:29 PM EST
    a majority of Dems when they say they will fight for you in the future . . . especially when their "leader" won't.

    Amazed that you... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Romberry on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:27:45 PM EST
    ...are saying there are no choices. There are.

    He's (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:09:02 PM EST
    He's trying to shape our opinions.

    Parent
    So...how do Democrats who (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by oldpro on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:47:51 PM EST
    vote for this deal then run for reelection on the "I voted for it but now I'll vote against it if you reelect me" platform?

    Who's gonna buy that at the polls?  And what will the 'just trust 'em' message be from the Rs?  Will they ever stop laughing?

    That tactic didn't work real well for J. Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:08:41 PM EST
    Who could forget his famous "I  voted for it before I voted against it (paraphrase)." line in the 2004 campaign.

    Since at least the 2004 elections the Dems campaigned on rolling back the Bush tax cuts. IIRC Kerry spent those tax cuts several times over to finance wonderful programs for the average person. Obama campaigned on rolling them back also yet chose to not only extend them but make them even more generous to the top 1-2%. It was also reported that as part of the "Grand Bargain" he was willing to keep these cuts in force in exchange for cuts to the safety net programs and no additional vote to raise the ceiling until after the election.

    In the upcoming election when the Dems mention taxing the rich or protecting the safety net programs who is going to believe them. Not me.

    Parent

    Exactly. You heard me loud (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:43:02 AM EST
    and clear.

    Gawdalmighty.  So depressing.

    Parent

    Seriously (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by mjames on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:05:47 PM EST
    after this utter capitulation, why would I ever believe a single word out of a Dem politician's mouth? You've got to be kidding.

    Anyone who signs onto this atrocity no longer exists for me. And shouldn't exist for anyone else either. Actions count. Words are cheap.

    Next you'll be saying we must support Obama in 2012. This time he'll really be a liberal, really.

    lipstick, meet pig n/t (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:10:38 PM EST


    If a pitcher walks 5 batters in a row (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:20:23 PM EST
    you bring in a new pitcher.

    Its amazing to me that no one, not even a kook, has come forward to challenge Obama in next year's election.

    I don't think that money is even the issue. People are so fed up with our "leadership," that just announcing would give a challenger huge publicity.


    Prescient (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Swiggs on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:49:51 PM EST
    I truly wish you were not so freaking prescient, BTD.  But you have called this outcome from the start.  It is a complete and utter rout for Democrats, who look like craven fools.  Glad to see your silver lining spin, but my prediction is that Obama lost his presidency tonight.  2012 will just be a formality.

    [sorry for the double post - somehow posted this in the wrong thread initially]

    I'm sure the dkos crowd loved this post, (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:32:17 PM EST
    and I'm sure the likes of ABG and christine are clapping away, but it's not working for me; I'm sure that doesn't surprise you.

    The problem with your strategy is the questions it raises: why didn't they fight before the battle was lost?  Why have they not pushed back against the president, against this phony crisis?  Why didn't they ask if we even needed to be engaged in deficit reduction when the economy is so bad?  Why were they essentially saying the same things the Republicans were saying if they didn't believe in that message?  

    As far as I'm concerned, "we promise to fight next time" is going right up there with "the check is in the mail," and "I'll respect you in the morning."

    Actions speak louder than words; their words are totally devoid of meaning and credibility, and their actions ought to get them removed from office.

    It will ring hollow (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:08:30 PM EST
    After squandering two years with large majorities in both houses of Congress how can anyone buy the now we'll fight offering.

    Much of the electorate will think - why didn't you fight when you had the majority, when you held all of the cards - you've had your chance.

    One of the few fights Obama was (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:17:50 PM EST
    willing to publicly engage in was a fight to cut safety net and domestic programs. A full court press to eliminate the New Deal and drown the government in a bath tub. Looks like he will accomplish the task. Per Obama this legislation:

    The result would be the lowest level of annual domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was President



    ugh, just ugh (none / 0) (#17)
    by sj on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 01:41:53 AM EST
    What an accomplishment that is.  Meanwhile he's merrily spending spending spending spending on wars abroad.

    Parent
    promise to fight (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by sj on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 01:42:47 AM EST
    They've been promising for about 11 years now.

    Dems have enormous (none / 0) (#6)
    by observed on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:09:13 PM EST
    leverage right now, if they choose to use it.


    how so? (none / 0) (#8)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:11:33 PM EST
    how does that play out?

    Parent
    If Congressional Dems (none / 0) (#15)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:46:35 PM EST
    find a voice outside of Obama, then sure.  You know he will claim victory on this.  Oh, he has.  I can guess you knew that would happen though.

    Whats with the links to DK? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Left of the Left on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 02:17:15 AM EST
    Hope you're not thinking of moving solely there

    Scenario (none / 0) (#20)
    by Lora on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:36:04 AM EST
    I do not think Sandusky's interview was a good idea in terms of his defense.  He was less than convincing to me.

    How about this possibility?

    Against his lawyer's advice, Sandusky insisted on the interview.  His lawyer tried to help minimize the damage.

    Posted to wrong thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by Lora on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:38:45 AM EST
    Soemhow, when I posted, the program flipped my comment here.  I intended to post to the Sandusky thread.  I'd appreciate if it was moved.  TIA, Lora