For the Lawrence O' rope-a-dopers - If Lawrence is right.. [View All]

As you can see from my profile I'm not a heavy poster on these forums. I have posted only a handful of replys and check in on the boards a few times a week. However in my browsing the last couple of weeks something in particular has spurred me into making this thread.

When the reports first started coming out about Obama putting SS and Medicare on the table the reaction for the most part seemed mainly the same, why? Why would he possibly do this. And of course you had the true believers, oh have faith he knows what he's doing. Enter Lawrence O'Donnell. Lawrence said to sit back and be amazed for we were watching the greatest political chess ever played.

All of a sudden the true believers had something to hang onto. Lawrence worked in the White House, he knows what he's talking about! Dont listen to...every report coming out saying otherwise, listen to Lawrence!

Ok, so lets say that Lawrence is right. Let's say Obama made the offer knowing it would be turned down. The question is the following: How could it possibly be a good thing? How could agreeing with the republican argument that SS and Medicare must be dealt with to fix the budget deficit be a good thing?

Lets say that works and instead of teapublicans we have the sane ones in office in a few years and Obama wins re-election. They come to him and say, "Hey we'll let some bush cuts expire in exchange for SS and Medicare cuts." Where's the counter to that? Is he going to turn around and say "Gotcha!"? SS and Medicare do not come off the table so long as Obama is in office.

Obamas supposed goals could have been reached, not only by never putting them on the table, but by actually making the democratic case for how to move forward.

First off, if this was all some elaborate way of getting a clean bill, well heres an idea-DEMAND A CLEAN BILL. Republican intransigence could just as easily be demonstrated by making the case that this was routine and had never been tied before to equal budget cuts. Make the case that the full faith and credit of the US is not something to be played politics with. Make the case that now is not the time for austerity! If they're so concerned with closing the budget deficit, then why wait on repealing the Bush cuts on the rich, do it now! Have Reid pass something in the Senate. Of course it wont pass the House, but that didnt stop the Republicans from passing the Ryan plan, did it? Of course not, it's politics! It's controlling the narrative so the argument happens on your terms. Even if you're the greatest political mind once you choose to navigate on their terms, in the longrun they win-BECAUSE THEY SET THE TERMS OF THE ARGUMENT. It's the difference between fighting austerity outright, and trying to win by saying "No their spending cuts are bad, MY spending cuts are better."

Two final points. First if Lawrence was right, then Obama would be demanding pure tax increases. So what was he offering?


Yes, he was offering them political cover for anyone violating the pledge. He was not only offering them what they wanted, but the safest way possible of getting it.

Lastly, if Lawrence was right, then Obama and Co knew how this would be received. He knew he would take heat, he almost sounds like he's bragging about it. It would be the best "Adult in the room" moment. So he wants frustration from the Left. His plan calls for anger and outrage. It doesnt call for silence, excuse making, or understanding. It calls for acting like DEMOCRATS.