Friday, July 22, 2011

Winning the bout on points

As I've pointed out before Obama is not stupid. He's moved up smartly in the polls by offering to do what most Americans have become convinced by the Republicans and their corporate media that the people want. The Republicans don't dare accept this, as the reality of such a "victory" would ensure a Democratic sweep in Congress and Obama would probably be re-elected anyway.

The Tea Baggers continue to chant blood, blood but Boner has slipped between the ropes and run toward the exit. The gang of six or seven is trying to work out a draw but Obama controls the ring and since he's ahead he doesn't need to take a draw. The sports broadcasters say it's not fair of Obama to trash talk his opponents so he's winning unfairly as if that was in the rules. 

The old boxer in Obama's corner has come out and said Obama can claim a victory with the 14th Amendment when time runs out and as a former champ his words carry weight and can't be ignored. All that remains is for Obama to claim the big belt.


John said...

I am NOT pleased to doubt that Obama will claim victory with the 14th Amendment ... even if that means he will (minimally) directly order the Treasury to honor ONLY maturing valid US debt obligations ... without "traditional" prior approval of congress via the 1917 debt limit statute.

The two remaining questions are:
1) If he manages to do the above, does he also order the Treasury to borrow more to make expenditures that are already congressionally approved "to keep the government running"?
2) If he manages either, or both of, the above, does he then get impeached?

The radical reich rode impeachment of the last Dem president to victory in the 2000 presidential race with a shabby excuse for a nominee. It sure doesn't look like they'll rise above shabby with their next nominee ... even their own pundits have said as much.

John Puma

prairie2 said...

As Clinton has pointed out, the President can simply ignore the debt limit as un-constitutional and dare the courts to stop him. The tea baggers will try to impeach him but don't have the votes. Clinton's poll numbers shot up after he was impeached and he actually did something. Obama will come across as an American hero for saving the Republic. Tea baggers are a tiny, tiny, noisy minority that gets news coverage but have no real power.

John said...

The power of the teabaggers will be determined by Obama's action. IF Obama ignores the debt ceiling then they are, by definition, rendered powerless. But we are not there yet, just hoping that is where we end up.

I'll note that impeaching a president in his second term is politically different from impeaching one prior to his run for a second term. Might the GOP just save impeachment until they need it, in 2013, if Obama is re-elected? Of course, that depends on who controls congress. And, if somehow the GOP manages to lose the House in Nov 2012, there's always that lame duck session!!!

The point is that any heroism attributed to Obama for ignoring the debt ceiling would be minimal and short-lived due to the relatively obscure and poorly understood central issue. That heroism, alone, would not protect him from a delayed, 2013 impeachment.

Honoring our debts is one thing but getting people to feel comfortable about their economic futures is THE real task at hand.
The same pinheads who have manufactured the current false crisis over the debt ceiling are obstructing all conceivable
economy-improving measures. The chances of impeachment rise as the economy falters.

I would note that Clinton's most important post-impeachment "achievements" were the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that deregulated the OTC derivatives. Two horrific moves that may still destroy the world's economy. (Not that it doesn't need severe "re-working" just not violent implosion.)

John Puma

Anonymous said...

Sorry John, but the radical reich STOLE the 2000 election if memory serves me correctly. Gore won the popular vote by over a half a million votes. In fact, had Gore allowed Clinton to campaign for him (since he failed to realize Clinton was MORE popular after the impeachment) Florida might have been moot.

Bush/Harris wiped out 80,000 minorities off the voter rolls in Florida. And lets not forget the Supreme Court stopping the recount that would have gave Florida to Gore. Each Con-Justice who voted for the ceasation had either political and/or personal reasons for doing so. Hartmann lays this all out in his "Unequal Protection" book.

Obama knows he has the 14th amendment trump card. However, now all that is to be seen is if how he interprets it. Does debt obligations mean only the debt itself, or other government expenditures? Republicans can impeach all they want-Obama will have the American public in his corner on this one if he does the right thing.

John said...

To Anonymous:

And what IS the "right thing" for you: payment of debt only or funding all government functions?

I'm well aware that the radical reich STOLE the 2000 election ... and the 2004 election via the Ohio debacle. By 2008 you can be sure their techniques for doing so were even more sophisticated and widespread. But that makes my point

The reich is only able to steal close elections. A half-million vote loss (2000) is reversible, but a ten million vote loss (2008) is not.

Anything prior to the election that gets their base to the polls and discourages the other side from doing so makes election fraud/theft more likely.

The 1998 impeachment did just that. It branded Democrats as liars and seekers of icky sex in the Oval Office!!! This paved the way for the fake-Christian, nothing-burger, fascist pimp.

And what is your take on the possibility of a 2013 impeachment, assuming Obama is re-elected?

John Puma

prairie2 said...

44% of government spending is paid for by selling bonds to rich people who don't pay enough taxes. If this stops which is what they really mean by "default" this effectively either ends payments to SS, Medicare, Medicaid and debt payments (that is redeeming expired bonds not interest, interest is "paid" up front by discounting the bond)this adds up to 66% (M/L) or instead you cease all government functions.

If the Republicans ever had a 2/3 majority in the Senate required for a conviction, they would impeach Jesus let alone Obama. Otherwise they aren't likely to try it since the public would see it as a coup which is basically their view of the Clinton impeachment.

Anonymous said...

I think Obama will get re-elected if he uses the 14th amendment to fulfill our fiscal obligations. This will include directing the Treasury to continue issuing t-bill/notes/bonds to meet ALL expeditures. Furthermore, he will be seen as a hero for these actions.

The Republicons, like during Clinton, will be blamed for this non-crisis made into a crisis. They will lose control of the House, because voters will wise up that the Tea Bagger legislators cannot govern effectively. Furthermore, Obama will gain more campaign support from Wall Street for averting default.

Let them try to impeach Obama-they won't have the votes now, nor will they in 2013 when the Dems retake the House. Bruce might be right about this one-Obama is playing chess while the Republicons are playing tic-tac-toe.

However, I still disagree with regarding 2000. Gore should have embraced Clinton regardless of the impeachment and the scandal surrounding it. Clinton's approval ratings were at their highest AFTER the impeachment. Which reinforces your assertion that the Cons only steal close elections-Gore would have won more states (e.g. like his own home state of Tennessee, Clinton's Arkansas) which would have made Florida a non-issue. Hence, they would have been unable to steal 2000 as well.

Tony said...

Prioritizing debt by its very definition is a default. This is the same process utilized in bankruptcy court all across this country by the casualties of the right-wing war on the middle class.