When I left this morning the MSM media was groaning and complaining about the president’s compromise of taxes but Wall Street was delighted and stock shares were going up.
By the time I got home, unbelievably the president managed to groan and complain about the deal he himself had cut to the point where he managed to reverse the optimism that the deal managed to achieve.
Pundit and Pundette notes the shock of people who saw the press conference, but it is her own quote that is worth repeating:
His fifth-rate temperament was on full display today.
Talking points memo declares Obama a Pragmatist.
Today, he very clearly and loudly said: that savior persona is not me. I am the pragmatist. And you know what, I don’t have a whole lot of patience for the idealists. I share their ideals, but I don’t share their approach and I’m not going to get bogged down in recriminations over not living up to some abstract ideal.
Meanwhile in an e-mail sent out by Move On that a friend was kind enough to forward to me they had this to say:
The “deal” he’s proposing is an “absolute disaster,” as Senator Bernie Sanders said.
But it’s not a done deal. Leading Democrat Chris Van Hollen said yesterday that “House Democrats have not signed off on any deal,” and last night Senator Sanders vowed to “do whatever I can to see that 60 votes are not acquired to pass this piece of legislation.”
Senator Sanders and other progressives in the Senate are our best hope to stop this terrible deal. But Bernie can’t do it alone.
So moveon’s hero is the one avowed socialist in the congress yet nowhere do they point out what York pointed out
nor do they have a word about the AMT that has still not been addressed . Update: I stand corrected, Rachel Maddow reports they DID address this Yet here comes the new filibuster calls:
The clock’s ticking. Can you sign a petition today to leading progressives in the Senate—Sens. Feingold, Franken, Brown (OH), Boxer, Merkley, Whitehouse, Durbin, Harkin, and Schumer—urging them to stand up and use the filibuster to block this awful “deal”?
Now as Byron York reports; for all the screaming of the left on this deal apparently it was congress that put him in this spot in terms of blame:
To pass a measure by reconciliation, the Senate must pass a budget that contains what are called reconciliation instructions. But this year, as they faced an angry electorate and grim prospects in the midterm elections, the Democratic leadership made the specific decision not to pass a budget. Revealing their spending priorities to voters already unhappy with out-of-control federal expenditures was just too risky, so Sen. Harry Reid and party leaders punted, even though passing a budget is one of Congress’ core constitutional responsibilities.emphasis mine
A lot of people on the right were shocked the not passing of a budget (including me), but the MSM didn’t think it was newsworthy for some reason. Perhaps we on the right wouldn’t have been as upset if we knew the consequences, to wit:
With no budget, there could be no reconciliation. And no possibility of using reconciliation to extend the Bush tax cuts — which were originally passed with bipartisan support — on the Democrats’ terms. Shirking your constitutional responsibilities can have consequences.
Thus the dems were hoisted on their own petard. They held off on the budget to avoid huge losses, well that worked out didn’t it.
You might recall two years ago, when republicans met with the president objections were answered with two words “I won”.
Right back at ya.
The next two years are certainly not going to be boring.