The Washington Post (via their email summary):
Did Obama capitulate — or is this a cagey move?— It was President Obama’s bottom line, a position he repeated in every recent public utterance on his debt-ceiling talks with Congress: Any deal must be “balanced” with spending cuts and tax increases. But in his eleventh-hour stare-down with tea party-infused Republicans, with a possible government default on the line, Obama blinked. The deal to trim the federal deficit by more than $2 trillion and increase the government’s borrowing limit contains no guarantee that tax increases will be part of the equation. After weeks of presidential demands for sacrifice by corporate jet owners and hedge-fund managers, those taxpayers and others can rest easy — at least for now. Liberals were furious as the terms of the agreement came into focus Sunday, and yet another capitulation by Obama on economic policy threatened to further dampen enthusiasm among the core Democratic voters he will need to win reelection next year. But for a White House eager to improve its standing with centrist independents who have been fleeing Obama, even a losing deal can be a winning strategy.First off, the President has proven once and for all that his word is the proverbial boy who cried wolf. Regardless of what the President "demands," he doesn't mean it, won't push for it, and will gladly settle for less. It's hard to believe how this is now cause for celebration. The man has ruined his word.
Second, not only does the President not mean what he says, but he will cave, period. The message he sent last night is that if you want something from him, just get in his face and he'll back down. I shudder at the implications of that for US foreign policy.
Remember how the President demanded that the cuts had to be balanced with tax increases? Yeah, never mind that. There are no tax increases at all in the deal. It's all cuts. In other words, the Republicans got everything they wanted. And what did we get? We stopped the hostage takers from killing the hostages, as the President likes to say. Of course, the President is wrong. He empowered the hostage takes one too many times, and now they're high on their own success. In a very real way, he is responsible for enabling the hostage takers. And now, there will be lots more hostages in the future, and lots more people hurt, thanks to this President's definition of victory.
And finally, let's all jointly kiss the economy good bye. It's over. We're already teetering on the brink of another recession, and because it might help his re-election, the President is enacting policies that will very likely depress GDP and kill jobs. Why? Because he thinks independents will like him more, and thus vote for his re-election. (Ignore that looming double dip recession behind the curtain.)
And finally, a word about this "brilliant" re-election ploy. The increasing perception of the President over the past three years is that he's a pushover. And this deal only further cements that notion in the public's mind. It's not entirely clear how the President ever lives that reputation down - and weakeness is not something people tolerate in a leader.
Second, if the economy doesn't do a 180 by the time November of 2012 comes, I have a hard time believing any voters are going to look kindly on anyone in power. And in any case, just wait until the Republicans have 15 months to spin this deal in a way that makes them the heroes and Obama a Socialist Kenyan muslim.
It's sad how predictable all of this is.
