The Daily Show's last interview with Austan Goolsbee (VIDEO)

...at least, the last interview with him as a member of the Administration.

Part 1:

The Daily Show - Exclusive - Austan Goolsbee Extended Interview Pt. 1
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Part 2:

The Daily Show - Exclusive - Austan Goolsbee Extended Interview Pt. 2
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Boehner didn't have the votes...so Nancy Pelosi stepped up and saved his @#$#....

From David Corn:

When the voting began on the controversial—and ugly [1]—debt ceiling bill in the House of Representatives on Monday, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the Democratic leader, did not know how many votes House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had for the measure that had been crafted by President Barack Obama and the Republicans. Boehner had not reached out to her to make certain that the crucial legislation designed to prevent a potentially disastrous US default would be approved. When Boehner "went to the table"—brought the bill to a vote—he "had no idea" how many votes he had, Pelosi says.

The speaker, as it turned out, did not have enough Republican votes to pass the bill—only 174—and he had made no arrangement to guarantee its success. When there were minutes left for the vote, and it became apparent that Boehner would fall far short of the 216 votes necessary for passage, Pelosi's Democrats began voting in favor of the measure. "We were not going to let it go down," she told a small group of journalists on Wednesday morning.

In past years, a House speaker and the leader of the opposition would probably confer before such a crucial vote and figure out how to move the legislation through the chamber. (Boehner and Pelosi both were supporting this bill, albeit Pelosi quite reluctantly.) And many outside observers assumed that Boehner and Pelosi had indeed convened prior to this vote, that a conversation such as this had occurred: Nancy, I can get up to 170 or so votes, but not all those tea party guys. John, I can tell you that at least 50 Democrats are going to hold their noses and vote for this stinker. Yet when the final dramatic vote arrived, Pelosi was surprised that Boehner was so short of the magic 216. "When they didn't come to us for votes," Pelosi recalls, "we thought they had the votes on their own."

But Boehner didn't. So the Democrats, having waited to see how many Republicans would back the measure, started filling in the gap. Pelosi didn't have to send any signal. Her Democrats, she says, are a "sophisticated" group, and they could see that without Democratic support the bill would fail.

In a routine situation, if the House speaker were to bring a bill to the floor and only obtain 174 votes of his or her own party, he or she would pull the legislation and then talk to the other side, which would expect concessions or sweeteners in return for the votes necessary to assemble a majority. In this case, Pelosi maintains, there was no time for further bargaining. The measure had to be approved and kicked over to the Senate, for the possibility of default loomed. "I don't know nobody [in the Democratic caucus] who wanted to vote for it," Pelosi notes. But Democrats were committed to forestalling default. In the end, half of her caucus supported the measure, far more than necessary to put it over the top.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was one Democrat who voted against the measure, which mandates deep cuts in discretionary spending and sets up a commission to propose further cuts (and possibly revenue hikes). He argued that the legislation was a lousy deal and could lead to significant cuts in programs crucial to low- and middle-income Americans, without imposing any burdens on the well-to-do. If the Democrats were to balk and vote against it, he contended at the time, Congress would be forced to pass quickly a measure that would raise the debt ceiling (and prevent default) for at least a short period of time. Why didn't Pelosi, who hardly fancied this debt measure, adopt such a course? Frank, she says, was "probably conveying" his own sense of decency upon others—meaning he was granting GOPers the benefit of the doubt, and Pelosi didn't trust the Republicans to forestall default by agreeing to a temporary measure. Default, she notes, "would have been terrible," and blame for it would have landed at the doorsteps of Obama and the Republicans.

So to prevent default, Pelosi held her nose and halfheartedly encouraged fellow Democrats to vote for legislation that she insists will "deter economic growth [5]." This fight, she adds, was not propelled by Republican concern for deficit reduction; it was "about destroying the public space"—that is, the tea party's desire to weaken government. And this battle, she concedes, has reinforced the Republicans' economic message: "Debt is everything." It has demonstrated that the tea party has succeeded, as she puts it, in changing the "arena."

TPM: Way to go Liberals, you let the Teabaggers punk you...again.

Once again, according to TPM, the passive among you bear an awesome responsibility for the outcome of the Debt Ceiling Debate:

A telephone poll by the Pew Research Center for People and Press found that Republicans and Tea Party-affiliated respondents both paid more attention to the debt negotiations and were more likely to take action to influence the outcome.

Some 66% of the two groups followed news on the issue closely versus only 34% of those who had different views or did not offer a political opinion. Nor were they passive observers: some 66% of Republicans and Tea Partiers contacted an elected official during the standoff while only 5% of the rest did the same. This despite a direct appeal from President Obama to do exactly that.

As was the case in the midterm election, age was a crucial factor. Only 19% of 18-29 year-olds followed the story closely and 1% contacted an official versus 54% of those over 50 who followed the debate and 16% who contacted an official.

You need to update your FAA/Democratic Cave in meme/story @TPM!

Just after the Debt Ceiling vote, we got this from Talking Points Memo:

With the debt-ceiling crisis now averted (for now), Congress still hasn't settled a lesser, but still quite important, problem: A partial shutdown of the Federal Aviation Administration, which has furloughed thousands of employees and hit the pause button on construction projects.

But fear not, Democrats could be on the verge of resolving the situation in a similar manner as they did the debt ceiling: By accepting Republican conditions.

Well, according to the Washington Post...

A partisan stalemate that has partially shut down the Federal Aviation Administration will continue into September, stopping airport construction projects and depriving federal coffers of potentially more than $1 billion in uncollected ticket taxes, after congressional attempts to reach deal fell through on Tuesday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., initially told reporters that he would be willing to accept a House Republican bill to restore the FAA’s operating authority even though it contained cuts in subsidies for rural air service that some Democrats oppose. But he later reversed course after a possible deal with House Republicans had fallen through.

President Obama Delivers a Statement on Debt Compromise (VIDEO)

President Obama delivers a statement in the Rose Garden of the White House on the debt compromise passed by both houses of Congress to reduce the deficit and avert a default that would have devastated our economy. August 2, 2011.

"There's no doubt that the Supercommitee will fail..." (VIDEO)

More on the Debt Ceiling deal, which Lawrence is very unhappy about, but the key thing here are Bob Greenstein and Jared Bernstein.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"The stupidest Deficit Reduction Package in history"... (VIDEO)

Like I said, Lawrence lays out the details, and doesn't seem happy about them. But since I put him up when he was praising the President, I'd best put him up when he's ripping him.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Lawrence O'Donnell with Ari Melber and (more importantly) Jonathan Alter (VIDEO)

Lawrence, like Chris Matthews, isn't happy with the President., now that it's all said and done, but Jonathan Alter had some words of wisdom for him and for us.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A Washington Post Video containing a little bit of Ezra's interview with Alice Rivlin (VIDEO)

Chris Matthews hates the Debt Ceiling Deal, but wants you to remember this number (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The best thing I've seen in months (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

How to feel about the Debt Ceiling deal, and more detail about what's in it... (VIDEO)

Announcing the deal:


Spinning the deal:


My biggest problem with the deal is that there’s a deal in the first place. The details of the deal don’t matter to me so much as the philosophy behind it. I don’t believe we are in a position to start cutting stuff right now. Virtually the entirety of the Stimulus’s impact (and I thought it was positive) has been blunted by equally heavy budget cuts at the state level

So now, we’ve decided to spread Austerity to the Federal level as well.

And yes, I'm referring to Austerity like a disease...because it is.

So look at what we got, and tell me, does it really matter in the scheme of things? What’s the point when we start to cut at the worst possible time to start cutting?

As for the deal, here’s what we (Democrats) got:

• A debt-limit increase large enough to provide the government borrowing power to pay bills through 2012.
• A special congressional committee to consider broad deficit reduction can consider tax reform along with entitlement changes.
• If the committee's recommendations are not adopted, half of the automatic spending cuts to follow would come from defense.
• If the committee's recommendations are not adopted, programs for the poor, including Medicaid and Social Security, would be shielded from the automatic spending cuts to follow.

Here’s what we (Democrats) gave:

• The deal includes immediate spending cuts of about $1 trillion but no tax increases.
• If the special congressional committee's recommendations are not adopted, consequences include spending cuts but no tax increases.
• If the special committee's recommendations are not adopted, Medicare provider payments are not shielded from the automatic spending cuts to follow.

This came via the Washington Post. I like the fact that it highlights the Debt Ceiling increase as a Democratic get, even though its supposed to be (and would normally be) an American “get”. Clearly, the Republicans did not give a shit about whether we defaulted or not, just like they don't give a shit about the deficit.

Here’s what they (Republicans) got (also, they produced the slide above):

• No tax increases.
• $1 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending over the next 10 years.
• A special congressional committee to consider broader deficit reduction can consider entitlement changes along with tax reform.
• The debt-ceiling increase will be matched dollar for dollar in deficit reduction, through adoption of the work of a new congressional fiscal committee or through automatic spending cuts that will occur if the committee's recommendations are not adopted.
• If the committee's recommendations are not adopted, half of the automatic spending cuts to follow would come from domestic programs.

Here’s what they (Republicans) gave:

• The immediate deal includes no entitlement reform.
• The immediate spending are cuts less than the GOP had sought.
• The special congressional committee could consider tax reform.
• If the special congressional committee's recommendations are not adopted, half of the automatic spending cuts to follow would come from defense.

I mentioned this last night as a question, but I’ve had a change of heart. I’m starting to feel one of the benefits of this deal might be that it lays the groundwork and terms for the next Budget Fight. What I want to see is if this is voted on, will the Tea Party renege on the deal, and demand even more cuts?  My bet is that they will, and how will America see them then?

Jonathan Bernstein: Addressing Liberal Ire...

To answer that question, Bernstein goes back into our recent history:

[Matthew] Dickinson ends [an earlier referenced piece by] asking a great question:

[M]aybe some of you can tell me why so many very smart people have, since the day Obama was inaugurated, deluded themselves into thinking that this admittedly very smart man, albeit one with limited political experience at the national level, was somehow going to step into office and proceed to rewrite the political laws that have governed presidential politics for the last two centuries?

I have a two part answer.

Part one covers 2009-2010, and is pretty basic: lots of people just don't understand the limitations of the presidency within the political system. There's some of that now, too.

Part two covers this past few weeks, and is much more speculative, but perhaps therefore more interesting.

Here's what I think happened -- and I'm really mainly talking about elite-level Democrats, here.

In 1994, elite-level Democrats were absolutely stunned by the GOP landslide. They believed that it ushered in an era in which conservatives would dominate government for years, reversing most of the gains of the past sixty years. Bill Clinton was certainly toast, and Newt Gingrich was a genius. And then it didn't quite work out that way; Newt imploded, Clinton was re-elected and was very popular for the last five years of his presidency, and Clinton "won" the 1995-1996 showdown. Of course, there's an awful lot of fine print to that, including the GOP holding Congress for another decade, and very real policy gains by the Republicans in the settlement of that showdown.

But then, when history repeated itself in 2008-2010, I think a lot of liberals were a lot less stunned. Instead of expecting huge policy losses, they remembered the Clinton "win" and expected the Tea Partiers to be just as inept as Newt had been. In the event, I think the Tea Partiers were in fact pretty inept, while John Boehner could govern circles around Newt Gingrich...but that's not really what's important. What's important is that liberals in 1995 had unrealistically low expectations and were pleasantly surprised -- which produced liberals in 2011 who had unrealistically high expectations, and were bitterly disappointed.

Or, to put it another way: I think a lot of what's hitting liberals over the last couple of weeks is a delayed reaction to the severity of the Republican landslide of 2010. And I'm not at all convinced that the policy changes so far this year are any worse for Democrats than the policy changes in 1995-1996.

Of course, there's a long way to go with the 112th Congress, beginning with the uncertain votes to actually pass this thing today, and then continuing with FY 2012 appropriations this fall. So perhaps liberals will still turn out to be correct about the overall (lack of) effectiveness of the president. And no question: from a liberal point of view, this turn in policy is basically a disaster, and it's also a disaster from a mainstream economics point of view (although almost certainly not as big a disaster as two more weeks of stalemate would have been). Moreover, there's nothing at all wrong with realistic criticisms of the president's negotiating record. But to be realistic, those criticisms need to take into account the actual bargaining strength and positions of everyone involved, most of which has very little to do with Barack Obama.

And now, the details (of the Debt Ceiling Deal)...

Via TPM:

The deal works like this:

It guarantees the debt limit will be hiked by $2.4 trillion. Immediately upon enactment of the plan, the Treasury will be granted $400 billion of new borrowing authority, after which President Obama will be allowed to extend the debt limit by $500 billion, subject to a vote of disapproval by Congress.

That initial $900 billion will be paired with $900 billion of discretionary spending cuts, first identified in a weeks-old bipartisan working group led by Vice President Joe Biden, which will be spread out over 10 years.

Obama will later be able to raise the debt limit by $1.5 trillion, again subject to a vote of disapproval by Congress.

That will be paired with the formation of a Congressional committee tasked with reducing deficits by a minimum of $1.2 trillion. That reduction can come from spending cuts, tax increases or a mixture thereof.

If the committee fails to reach $1.2 trillion, it will trigger an automatic across the board spending cut, half from domestic spending, half from defense spending, of $1.5 trillion. The domestic cuts come from Medicare providers, but Medicaid and Social Security would be exempted. The enforcement mechanism carves out programs that help the poor and veterans as well.

If the committee finds $1.5 trillion or more in savings, the enforcement mechanism would not be triggered. That's because Republicans are insisting on a dollar-for-dollar match between deficit reduction and new borrowing authority, and $900 billion plus $1.5 trillion add up to $2.4 trillion.

However, if the committee finds somewhere between $1.2 and $1.5 trillion in savings, the balance will be made up by the corresponding percentage of the enforcement mechanism's cuts, still in a one-to-one ratio.

Democrats say they're confident that the enforcement mechanism is robust enough to convince Democrats and Republicans to deal fairly on the committee -- to come up with a somewhat balanced package of entitlement reforms and tax increases. However, the White House assures them that if the committee fails to produce "tax reform" he will veto any attempt to extend the Bush tax cuts, which expire at the end of next year.

Unclear, though, is what happens if the committee does agree on tax reform, but in a way that produces insubstantial revenue. If such a plan passes Congress, Obama would be hard pressed to veto it, even if it took the expiration of the Bush tax cuts out of the equation.

Basically the Democrats weren't total suckers. Revenue is still on the table for the "Supercommittee", and Medicare and Social Security seem to have been spared the axe.

The question for me now is...does this settle Budget Fight No. 3, which is coming up in September, or are we done for the year?

President Obama Delivers a Statement on Deficit Agreement (VIDEO)

President Obama delivers a statement to the press on announcing that the leaders of both parties have reached an agreement that will reduce the deficit and avoid default. July 31, 2011.

The Fireside Chat for July 30, 2011 (VIDEO)

A message to the Firedoglakes, Greenwalds, Schultzes and Greens of the world...

From Ezra:

When Nancy Pelosi served as speaker of the House, her job was conditioning her members for disappointment. It was Pelosi who had to bring them around to a Senate-designed health-care law that lacked a public option, a cap-and-trade bill that gave away most of its permits, a stimulus that did too little, a bank bailout that endangered their careers. Pelosi had to do that because, well, that’s what the speaker of the House has to do. To govern is to compromise. And when you’re in charge, you have to govern.

Lately, Boehner has not been governing. What should have happened Friday is obvious: Having failed to pass a conservative resolution to the debt crisis without Democratic votes, he should have begun cutting the deals and making the concessions necessary to gain Democratic votes. That, after all, is what he will ultimately have to do anyway, as whatever he passes will also require the approval of the Senate and the president.

But Boehner went in the opposite direction. He made his bill less conservative. He indulged his members in the fantasy that they wouldn’t have to make compromises. It’s as if Pelosi, facing criticism for dropping the public option, had tried to shore up her support by bringing a single-payer health-care bill to the floor. Even if that would have pleased her left wing, what good would it have done her? Her job was to prepare her members to take a vote that could lead to a successful outcome. Pretending that that outcome could be far further to the left than it actually could be would ultimately make her job harder.

Did you catch that?

I seem to remember the Whiny Left crowd chanting for exactly that when the Public Option fight was going on...kill the bill and start again with Single Payer.

What we're seeing now in the Debt Ceiling fight is the exact same hole you wanted to dig us in during Health Care Reform.  So, thanks for nothing.

I'm sure ramming through Single Payer would have made the aforementioned people feel sooooo much better, and accomplished exactly nothing as the whole of Health Care Reform would've gone down in flames.

The very thing so many Lefties are excoriating the Republicans for today, is the very same behavior they are still mad at the President for yesterday.

The purpose of the Speaker, of the Senate Majority Leader, of the President, in a strange way are all exactly the same, even if those three will occasionally come to blows.  It is to prepare the caucus for what the deal will look like (yes, disappointment, but with realism), but at the same time do so in preparation for a successful outcome.

The problem I have with the Bill Killers from HCR, with the Ed Schultzes, the Jane Hamshers, the Adam Greens, the Arianna Huffingtons, the Keith Olbermanns (there, I said it), Bill Mahers and the Glenn Greewalds of the world, is that they are very good at sketching out what is their preferred outcome is, while conveniently neglecting to give us any realistic indication of how to get there.  Sure they give us 100% Grade-A bullshit like "he should have lead more", or "he's not using the bully pulpit", or "he's really a Republican".

(And for the record, Robert Reich has been through these fights and should know better.  I guess he enjoys getting his ass kissed too much by the Huffington crowd.)

I went through the Bush Years with a belief that the Left, the people of my ideological stripe, were at least the one's mired in reality.  But the last two years have shown, that that's nonsense.  The Left is terrible at Politics.  There's a reason they lose as many campaigns as they do.  They're lazy and arrogant (lazy because they feel they should just present their ideas and have everyone bow in acquiescence).  The problem is the Left hasn't heard that lesson...and multiple defeats at the polls have not taught them otherwise.

My marker is down, and remains down.  The only way this President does not win re-election, honestly, is if douchebags, like the ones I've mentioned above don't show up.  I am a Liberal, and I will always remain a Liberal in my beliefs, thoughts and actions...

...but I can't stand Liberals.  And if they don't show up to support the President in 2012, I will make it my mission to end organizations like MoveOn, like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

Like Chris Mattews said yesterday, "I will not forget those who did this..."

But I'm talking about you Professional Left.

I have discovered your mirror opposite, and for some reason...they've been allowed to sit in the House of Representatives.



P.S. Oh, and Conservatives...if that's how I feel about Liberals, imagine how I feel about you?

The President's Address on the Debt Ceiling for July 29th, 2011 (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Actually, I found this to be a better speech than the Prime Time one a couple nights ago. It was more concise...and just a touch angrier.

Lawrence O'Donnell's interview with Sen. Chuck Schumer (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Zombie Speakership...(VIDEO)

At least there was a hint of self-sacrifice in this clip. That tells me John Boenher lacks the brain power of Homer Simpson...and that's saying something.



I said it before, I'll say it again.  The sooner John Boehner realizes his Speakership is over, the sooner we'll get a deal on the Debt Ceiling.

The problem I have is that what Boehner did yesterday and what he is doing today is compounding a waste of time, with another waste of time. The Boehner plan was dead on arrival. The Speaker knows that. It was never going to pass the Senate, and that was the point. But last night it became clear it wasn't even going to pass the House, and instead of accelerating things toward a deal, the Speaker did what was previously unthinkable, he moved his plan even further to the right, by re-adding the Tea Party's demand for a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Boehner's plan probably had a puncher's chance of at least getting a party-line vote in the Senate, but add this on, and even that prospect is dead.

So what are we all doing here?

We're basically going through the motions, completely wasting time because the Teabaggers won't compromise, and Boehner is more worried about being Speaker than governing the Country.

Ezra puts it another way:

John Boehner has a problem. He likes being Speaker of the House of Representatives. He would like to continue to be Speaker of the House of Representatives. But being Speaker of the House of Representatives means both leading the House Republicans and compromising to get things done. And in this Republican Party, at this moment, if you want to lead the House Republicans, you can’t compromise to get things done.

We’ve now seen the same farce play out four times. Republican leaders get close to a deal and then, just before they can close it, their members revolt and they have to pull back. The first time was when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor walked out of the Biden talks rather than discuss revenue. The second and third time when when Boehner walked out on the various iterations of the $4 trillion deal he had been cutting with Obama. And the fourth time is playing out right now. Boehner is rewriting his bill so that it links any increase in the debt ceiling to the passage of a balanced budget amendment.

Is that acceptable to the Senate? Of course not. “We simply do not have the votes in this body to enact such a measure,” said Sen. John McCain on Thursday. But that’s sort of the point. If Boehner is to have any chance of passing his bill through the House, he needs to make it completely unacceptable to the president and the Senate.

If that doesn’t make any sense to you — and it shouldn’t — then perhaps it would help if I rephrased: In order to have any chance of surviving as Speaker of the House, Boehner needs to produce legislation that is completely unacceptable to the White House and the Senate. Their opposition is a feature, not a bug. Consider how he sold his plan to Laura Ingraham: “President Obama hates it. Harry Reid hates it. Nancy Pelosi hates it. Why would Republicans want to be on the side of President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi [is] beyond me.”

Why anyone would think that a plan loathed by the Majority Leader of the Senate and the President of the United States would be signed into law is beyond me. And since then, Boehner has moved the plan considerably to the right. But that’s because he’s not legislating. He’s just trying to survive.

It’s not just that Boehner’s party doesn’t like any of the viable compromises on the table. It’s that they don’t like compromise, full stop. YouGov polled this question and found the two parties to be almost mirror images of each other: Two-thirds of Democrats preferred a member of Congress who “compromises to get things done.” Two-thirds of Republicans preferred a member of Congress who “sticks to his principles, no matter what.”

The problem for Boehner is that the country needs a Speaker of the House of Representatives who compromises to get things done. Even if what’s being compromised is his career.

There's a certain element in this country that is intellectually lazy. It is not exclusively an element of the right, because Lord knows I've seen it on the left, too. There's a certain element among the citizenry who just want problems to go away, and will always take the path of least resistance to get there.

My concern has always been that should we go through an apocalyptic 2011, with battle after battle after battle (because don't forget, the Fiscal Year ends in September, and we're going finish up the Debt Ceiling fight and start this nonsense all over again), and the American People will tire of it all. Instead of blaming those actually responsible, they will decide that its just easier to get rid of the President, and that way all the fights will go away.

I hope that doesn't happen, and I'm decently sure that it won't. But I am afraid that a lot of my fellow citizens are stupid enough to think that way.

And if that's the case, we will bring about yet another crisis enitirely of our own making, because the rest of the world is ahead of us. They're looking at the current batch of Republicans, and have decided they're batshit insane.

This might be old by the time you watch it, but it shows how the Breaking News is shaking out (VIDEO)

Still whipping, though Boehner got one to flip

This is valuable, even if it winds up being old, because it shows the breakdown of how things are happening:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Chris Matthews: "I will not forget those who did [this]..." (VIDEO)

"...and I think the Country would be well-advised to do the same."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

At least, he calls 'em Terrorists.

Once again, if you let these batshit insane Teabaggers into your tent, don't expect there to be cupcakes and lullabies:



Expect that.

Besides, it's not like we didn't spend all of 2010 warning you.

Yes, Fox News is racist...and Christianist. All Jon Stewart last night did was document it. (VIDEO)

The Daily Show - In the Name of the Fodder
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show - GOP - Special Victims Unit
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

You want a definition of Christianist, and example can be found here, via Andrew Sullivan.

I'm still...mesmerized at the outrage over every single Terrorist incident where the perpetrator is Muslim, yet in instances of violence (Terrorist and non-Terrorist alike)...like for example: the Norway Shooter, Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta Olympic Park Bomber, Jared Loughner, Tim Proffit, the guy who tried to ask Eric Cantor a question at a local event, the Tea Party's constant use of racial imagery and threats, the guy who posted former Rep. Perriello's address on the interwebs, all the HCR Town Hall nonsense (which Fox frequently justified), Pastor Steven Anderson...an actual Pastor!!, the Idaho GOP, Teabaggers showing up with Guns at Obama appearances, the guy who shot the head of the Local Democratic Party in Arkansas, the man who shot up a Unitarian Church in Tennessee, the who shot Dr. Tiller?

(Things ain't perfect on this side of the aisle.  I will point out that things like the Sparkman case turned out to be B.S. and the thing with Rep. Bobby Rush's niece which also turned out to be wrong.)

You see there's a healthy list of quote-unquote white-slash-supposedly-Christian Domestic Terrorists out there, that Fox does not make their audience hyperventilate over.

Lawrence O'Donnell: Rejecting proposals serving a larger strategic purpose (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Chris Matthews: "This isn't the return counter..." (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The GOP gets paid to waste your money...

Bear in mind, it is the GOP who's interested in undoing the Affordable Care Act. Bear in mind that it's the GOP who receives the lion's share of Big Pharma and Insurance industry money (Lord knows, Democrats are guilty of that too).

So keep that in mind when you look at this...this is what the GOP wants to see continued, if not expanded.


Created by: Medical Transcription

The 14th Amendment Option...and why it's probably NOT an option.

Steve Benen first posted this from Prof. Lawrence Tribe, writing in the New York Times.  By way of background, Tribe is a Liberal Law Professor from Harvard who's described Barack Obama as "the best Law Student he's ever had."  So I think we can count him as a Obama Supporter.

His piece goes on to explain his former Student's thinking when he says that the so-called 14th Amendment Option everyone's been talking up simply won't work:

Proponents of a constitutional deus ex machina have offered a more modest interpretation of the public debt clause, under which only actual default (as opposed to any action that merely increases the risk of default) is impermissible. This interpretation makes more sense. But advocates of the constitutional solution err in their next step: arguing that, because default would be unconstitutional, President Obama may violate the statutory debt ceiling to prevent it.

The Constitution grants only Congress — not the president — the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” Nothing in the 14th Amendment or in any other constitutional provision suggests that the president may usurp legislative power to prevent a violation of the Constitution. Moreover, it is well established that the president’s power drops to what Justice Robert H. Jackson called its “lowest ebb” when exercised against the express will of Congress.

Worse, the argument that the president may do whatever is necessary to avoid default has no logical stopping point. In theory, Congress could pay debts not only by borrowing more money, but also by exercising its powers to impose taxes, to coin money or to sell federal property. If the president could usurp the congressional power to borrow, what would stop him from taking over all these other powers, as well?

So the arguments for ignoring the debt ceiling are unpersuasive. But even if they were persuasive, they would not resolve the crisis. Once the debt ceiling is breached, a legal cloud would hang over any newly issued bonds, because of the risk that the government might refuse to honor those debts as legitimate. This risk, in turn, would result in a steep increase in interest rates because investors would lose confidence — a fiscal disaster that would cost the nation tens of billions of dollars.

Although an authoritative judicial declaration authorizing borrowing above the debt ceiling might alleviate investors’ fears, obtaining such a declaration is no easy task. Only someone who has suffered a “particularized” harm — not one shared with the public at large — is entitled to sue. It would be difficult to conjure up a plaintiff who has suffered such specific harm from an issuance of debt beyond the ceiling. And even if such a plaintiff could be found, increased interest rates would have already inflicted terrible damage by the time the Supreme Court ruled on the matter.

Has Boehner made the Republican Caucus see sweet, sweet reason?

And if he has, can that be a good thing?

So goes the thinking of Jonathan Chait over at the New Republic.  His article is here, but the thinking goes like this.

Boehner comes up with idea to cut spending and hike Debt Ceiling.  Tea Party hates Boehner idea.  Tea Party manages to shoot down Boehner idea.  Vote for Boehner idea cancelled.  Boehner turns around and sells his idea as a good way to stick it to Obama.  Tea Party starts to warm to Boehner idea.

Which brings us to this key graph from Chait's piece:

Once you've gotten the right to cross the philosophic threshold Boehner has, the next step is a lot easier. Boehner will lose plenty of conservatives if and when he cuts a final deal, but he'll gain Democrats. The key step was breaking down the right's default denialism and sense of entitlement to total victory. That's achieved.

What did I say yesterday? (Hell, what did Chait himself say yesterday?) Boehner...needs...Democrats.

And if he decides to follow his Caucus off a cliff, he takes us with them:



Again, that's 44% of the U.S. Government having to get cut overnight.  10% Gross Domestic Product disappearing overnight.

And once again, because this episode of the West Wing sums things up so nicely (and that it can't be repeated enough):

Chris Matthews' interview with Jay Carney (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Still sayin' the Grand Bargain's on the table.

Loved Chris's question, are we all on the same team here?

You do remember how the President mentioned that compromise has become a dirty word, right? (VIDEO)

Well, you should.  He mentioned "compromise" a bunch of times in last night's speech:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Actually, Chris (and mind you, Randi Rhodes totally caught this earlier today), this goes back to the beginning of the year:



Was it just me, or did you hear Leslie Stahl audibly gasp when he said that?

Jonathan Chait writes a better version of the piece I wrote this morning...

Remember this?

Yeah, good times. Well, now there's this from Jonathan Chait:

One of the oddities of the Obama-Boehner negotiation/showdown is that Obama has vastly more strategic latitude than Boehner. Obama can cut almost any deal he wants. He can probably persuade Democrats in Congress to go along with an outrageously bad deal. He could sign a deal that passes with mostly Republican votes.

Boehner can't do those things. He got his job as Speaker by default. He is the picture of the Washington insider and the apotheosis of the kind of Republican conservative activists loath and suspect of selling them out. His head has been on the chopping block from day one, and it won't take much to bring the ax down. Note this not-too-subtle threat from Steve King:

Aside from actually nailing down a plan that can pass the House, there’s also the problem of what kind of support a final deal gets — and whether it ends up receiving the backing of more members of the president’s party than of Boehner’s.

That could be “a real political conundrum,” said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a five-term lawmaker and one of the House’s most vocal conservative members.

“If he ends up with a deal with more Democratic votes than Republican votes, I think the speaker has a real problem,” King said.

The "problem" meaning not that the deal wouldn't pass, but that Boehner would lose his job.

This is the key fact to keep in mind when assessing Boehner's actions. He obviously wants to make a Grand Bargain. But he can't and he knows it. This constraint on his maneuvering ability gives him a huge advantage in the game of chicken against Obama. In other ways, though, it dramatically inhibits him. For instance, it's not even clear that his current plan, which is unacceptable to Democrats can pass the House:

One of the most influential conservatives in Congress says he's confident his own Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) will lack the votes to pass his plan to raise the debt limit in the House of Representatives. ...

"I am confident as of this morning that there are not 218 Republicans in support of the plan," Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) told reporters at a Tuesday morning press briefing.

It's possible that Jordan is bluffing, or that things could change. But I think it's at least an open question whether Boehner's bill can pass the House. I'd bet on yes, but I wouldn't bet too much.

Meanwhile, Democrats have a plan in place either way. Greg Sargent has some great reporting here:

Here’s the game plan, as seen by Senate Dem aides: The next move is to sit tight and wait for the House to vote on Boehner's proposal. The idea is that with mounting conservative opposition, it could very well be defeated. If the Boehner plan goes down in the House, that would represent a serious blow to Boehner’s leadership, weakening his hand in negotiations. ...

At that point, the Senate would then pass Harry Reid’s proposal, and then kick it over to the House, which would increase pressure on Boehner to try to get it passed, since he was unable to pass his own plan.

The second alternative possibility being gamed out by Senate Dems would take place if the Boehner plan does manage to sneak through the House. Aides say Dems would then vote it down in the Senate. ...

Senate Dems would vote to “amend” Boehner’s bill by replacing it completely with Reid’s proposal — which the Senate could then pass more quickly than they otherwise could.

After that, Reid’s proposal — having passed the Senate — would then get kicked back to the House. Having proved that Boehner’s plan can’t pass the Senate, Democrats would in effect be giving House Republicans a choice: Either pass the Reid proposal, or take the blame for default and the economic calamity that ensues.

What's Boehner's plan? I don't really know if he has a plan. I think he has a short-term survival strategy. Of course, from the perspective of the world economy, that makes him very, very dangerous.

The main difference is that Chait thinks Boehner's plan will pass. I think it's dead in the water.

Then again, he's been watching Congress a lot longer than I have, and he gets paid to do it.

Greg Sargent: "If the Boehner plan goes down...that would represent a serious blow to Boehner’s leadership"

Greg Sargent's a little better at this analysis stuff, so I'm sure he won't mind that I'm putting up quite a bit of his article: Dems plot the endgame in debt limit fight here for you to read.

Here’s the game plan, as seen by Senate Dem aides: The next move is to sit tight and wait for the House to vote on Boehner's proposal. The idea is that with mounting conservative opposition, it could very well be defeated. If the Boehner plan goes down in the House, that would represent a serious blow to Boehner’s leadership, weakening his hand in negotiations.

“The Senate will wait to act until we see if Speaker Boehner is able to pass a bill in the House,” a senior Senate Democratic aide says. “At the moment that’s an open question.”

It’s unclear as of yet where most Tea Partyers will come down on the Boehner proposal, but House conservatives are privately expressing serious reservation about the plan, arguing that it doesn’t cut spending enough, and the Republican Study Committee is dismissing Boehner’s plan as not “a real solution.” Dems hope that if conservatives do sink Boehner’s plan, it will reveal clearly that Boehner does need Democratic votes to get anything passed.

At that point, the Senate would then pass Harry Reid’s proposal, and then kick it over to the House, which would increase pressure on Boehner to try to get it passed, since he was unable to pass his own plan.

The second alternative possibility being gamed out by Senate Dems would take place if the Boehner plan does manage to sneak through the House. Aides say Dems would then vote it down in the Senate. And here’s where it gets even more interesting.

Senate Dem aides say they would then use Boehner’s bill — which passed the House but died in the Senate — to expedidate their own proposal. Here’s how. They would use the “shell” of the Boehner bill as a vehicle to pass Harry Reid’s proposal, because for various procedural reasons House messages get expedited consideration. Senate Dems would vote to “amend” Boehner’s bill by replacing it completely with Reid’s proposal — which the Senate could then pass more quickly than they otherwise could.

After that, Reid’s proposal — having passed the Senate — would then get kicked back to the House. Having proved that Boehner’s plan can’t pass the Senate, Democrats would in effect be giving House Republicans a choice: Either pass the Reid proposal, or take the blame for default and the economic calamity that ensues.

I think we're headed toward option 1, because it looks like Boehner's plan is already tanking with some House GOP members.  Dear old Dad, who I talked to this morning, thinks they really haven't started Whipping votes yet, and that's true, but remembering Joe Walsh's letter, I think Boehner starts out the day with 90 votes down, and thus we're headed for Reidsville.

Also, here's Jim Jordan (R-OH) saying something just a wee bit interesting:

A leading House conservative said Tuesday that enough Republicans oppose the debt-ceiling plan drafted by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to make Democratic support crucial to passing it.

“I am confident as of this morning that there were not 218 Republicans in support of this plan,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee. The group comprises more than 170 House conservatives.

The comments from Jordan, who announced Monday that he would not support Boehner’s plan, come as several Republican members have expressed skepticism about or declined to weigh in on whether they might support a two-step increase in the country’s debt ceiling in exchange for $3 trillion in deficit savings.

Jordan said that members “appreciate the speaker’s hard work” but that the proposal would not do enough to get the country’s fiscal house in order.

Translation. Boehner...needs...Democrats.

Some men (with bad hair) just want to watch the world burn...

From Huffington Post...:

On Monday, Donald Trump urged Republicans to reject any deal with Democrats to raise the debt ceiling and let the country risk default. Economists and administration officials have warned that defaulting on our debt would have dire economic consequences, but for Trump there is an upside: the crisis would prevent President Barack Obama from being reelected.

"Frankly the Republicans would be crazy unless they get 100 percent of the deal that they want right now to make any deal,” Trump said on "Fox and Friends" Monday. "If this happens, for instance if this stuff is going on prior to an election, he can’t get reelected. He possibly can’t get elected anyway. … The fact is, unless the Republicans get 100% of what they want, and that may include getting rid of Obamacare, which is a total disaster, then they should not make a deal other than a minor extension which would take you before the election which would ensure Obama doesn’t get elected, which would be a great thing."

The longer Boehner takes to realize that his Speakership is over, the longer it'll take for a deal to get cut.

Now that the Speaker Boehner (apparently) doesn't have the votes to pass his own "Tea Party friendly" plan (because the Michelle Bachmann and the Tea Party has rejected it), its pretty clear that any Debt Ceiling plan will pass like it has always passed, with the votes of the President's party.

Of course, to do that, Boehner is going to have to come a little closer to Democratic positions, like increasing revenues, easing spending cuts, or...getting rid of both entirely and passing a clean damn bill.

He won't totally capitulate. After all, its still a GOP Majority in the House. They need to get something to hang on their wall.

But the final vote will probably have to look something like this: the overwhelming majority of Democrats (minus a few red state stragglers that we can live without anyway) and a few (between 50 and 70) establishment Republicans in the House (i.e., anyone's who's non-Tea Party) . And the usual suspects in the Senate, all the Democrats plus a 20-30 Republicans.

Mind you, if Boehner decides to go with the Reid plan, the only way it passes is with that formula, with that mix of Democrats and establishment Republicans.

Seems easy enough.  Why isn't this happening?

Simply put, John Boehner wants to be Speaker, and the above referenced formula helps the country. It just doesn't help him stay Speaker.

It's easy to see a scenario where, provided Boehner does the right thing for the country, is prompty stabbed in the back by the Tea Party set who never wanted a deal at all....hello Speaker Cantor, unfortunately beating Rahmbo to the position of the first Jewish Speaker of the House.

Simply put the longer Boehner takes to realize that his Speakership is pretty much over (because if we default, it'll be over anyway), the longer it'll take for the Congress to cut a deal on the Debt Ceiling.  When he realizes he can't get a deal done bowing to Tea Party demands, he'll use the above referenced formula and get it done.

The only question is...will it be too late?

President Obama's speech on the Debt Ceiling for July 25, 2011 (VIDEO)

On the Debt Ceiling itself:

Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling -– a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.

Understand –- raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it seven times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.

Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.

If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills -– bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.

For the first time in history, our country’s AAA credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, on mortgages and on car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis -– this one caused almost entirely by Washington.

So defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.

First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.

But there’s an even greater danger to this approach. Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House of Representatives will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.

This is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It’s a dangerous game that we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare.

On the Teabaggers:

Now, I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons. Yes, many want government to start living within its means. And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. But do you know what people are fed up with most of all?

They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They’re offended by that. And they should be.

The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government. So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.

Apparently, they did.

Stephen Colbert: When in doubt, go with Muslim (VIDEO)

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

The President's Speech before the National Council of La Raza (VIDEO)

Chris Matthews lights 'em up (VIDEO)

...and by "them", I mean the Republicans.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Pay attention to about ten minutes in, where Howard Fineman talks about the Teabagger's slow motion secession from the country. There's a lot to it. He wouldn't put a racial tone to it, but...frankly I might.

Dick Durbin: "The president negotiated with [Boenher] in good faith. [Boenher] walked away from it. Twice.”

...you own it.

The second most powerful Democrat in the Senate warned Republicans Sunday that they are toying with a fragile economy and would take the blame for any fallout from a debt default.

On Sunday, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he had six words of warning for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio): “If you break it, you own it.”

Republicans and the White House have argued the case that the president “owns” the economy, along with its recovery.

Durbin slammed Boehner for calling off debt-ceiling negotiations with the White House on Friday.

“The president negotiated with you in good faith,” Durbin said he would tell Boehner. “You walked away from it. Twice.”

Jonathan Bernstein puts the blame for the Debt Ceiling crisis squarely where it belongs...

Amen, Brother!

I have no idea what’s going to happen in the next week. One hopes that enough Republicans are only bluffing with their craziness, or can be talked out of their craziness (by who? Who will they listen to?) at the last minute. Or perhaps eventually, if there’s no other way, the president will take unilateral action — the Constitutional option — after all. But the idea that there was some obvious way for Democrats to deal with this situation strikes me as naïve. This isn’t about poor bargaining or fecklessness by the Democrats. It’s about dealing with the consequences of the fact that Americans elected to Congress a whole bunch of people who are either trying to impose fringe policy views despite apparently having no understanding whatsoever of their consequences — or are so driven by opposition to the president that their highest priority is opposing him, regardless of those consequences.

Translation: America, you voted for these idiots, prepare to deal with the consequences.

Summing up the Conservative mindset on the Debt Ceiling...

Republicans simply may not have the emotional capacity to accept a bargain that they don't see as a humiliation for Obama.

-Jonathan Chait

New Republic

July 25, 2011

I hope you understand this is why a lot of African-Americans see actual racism in this country's reaction to the President. It's right there in that sentence. It's not enough for the House GOP to beat Obama, they have to humiliate him, even if they have to take the country down to do it.

This is the same GOP that ran up the debt that they now don't want to pay. This is the same GOP who voted seven times for George W. Bush to raise the Debt Ceiling without pre-condition.

If the GOP wanted to simply beat the Obama Administration, we would have had a Debt Ceiling deal days ago.

This is about humiliation, and that's why I see race in this.

I know the code words. I know the behaviors. I'm an African-American, this is not a hobby for me. Knowing the code words, recognizing the behaviors is a matter of survival.

And when you see it, it's hard not to react to it.

Matt Ygelsias: Why 2.7T in cuts for a 2.7T hike in Debt Ceiling isn't good enough for the GOP

Okay, it's early morning for me on the West Coast, and I'm sure some of you are already in a twitter (get it, huh?  Twitter) about Harry Reid's total and craptastic capitulation to GOP Demands, giving them everything they want in the Debt Ceiling fight.  All spending cuts, zero tax increases.  How could you, I hear people cry.  Why have Democrats surrendered...again?

But I'm going to say what Lawrence is going to say tonight.  It's only a surrender if you expect the GOP to bite on the deal, and Harry Reid clearly doesn't expect them to bite on this deal.  This is for public consumption, a way of assigning (successfully might I add) blame to the GOP for being unreasonable in their Debt Ceiling demands, and brings us closer to what I feel to be the ultimate resolution, a clean bill, with mostly Democratic votes, but a loss of our credit rating thanks to an entirely self-manufactured crisis.

Matthew Ygelsias tells us about why the Republicans are really saying no (to their own demand, no less):

Republicans have sought to portray themselves as having two bottom lines. One is that any increase in the debt ceiling must be met dollar-for-dollar with spending cuts. The other is that no revenue increases can be part of the deal. What Harry Reid did yesterday was essentially call the GOP’s bluff by outlining a plan that raises the debt ceiling by $2.7 trillion and includes $2.7 trillion in spending cuts, a healthy share of which comes from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Republicans are rejecting this even though it nominally meets their demands. Why? Because it doesn’t achieve either of their two real objectives. In particular, the plan doesn’t cut Medicare, which means that Democratic party candidates for office in November 2012 and 2014 can accurately remind voters of the content of the Republican budget plan. In case you forgot, this plans repeals Medicare. Having repealed Medicare, it then gives seniors vouchers to purchase more expensive private health insurance. And having replaced Medicare with a voucher system, it then ensures that the vouchers will grow steadily stingier over time. It was only after voting for this plan that Republicans seem to have realized that repealing Medicare is unpopular. Since that time, they’ve been trying to entrap Democrats into reaching some kind of Medicare détente with them, which would immunize them from criticism. Reid’s plan doesn’t do that.

Second, while Reid’s plan doesn’t raise taxes, it also doesn’t take tax increases off the table. Currently, the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire in 2012. If Reid’s all-cuts plan passes, that still leaves the door open to significant revenue increases.

That's not to saw that Matthew's piece wasn't a "brilliant move, Harry" piece, it wasn't. But I thought it was important to show you the politics at work here.

Jonathan Chait: What's John Boehner Up To?

Jonathan Chait had a good explanation Sunday Night:

Here's my guess. [Boehner's] got a faction that opposes raises the debt ceiling on principle unless and until President Obama has agreed to implement the entire Republican fiscal agenda. He's got another faction that's willing to cut raise the debt ceiling, but fiercely opposes any tax hike. They're willing to raise the debt ceiling without any deal -- that is, they support a version of the Mitch McConnell plan -- and they also oppose a deficit agreement that would allow President Obama to move to the center on fiscal policy. But you have a larger group that regards the McConnell plan as a sell-out.

Basically, Boehner doesn't really have the votes for anything. He doesn't even have the votes for Cut, Cap and Balance, because that requires a supermajority in each house to pass a Constitutional amendment.

So he's reduced to the lowest common denominator. That's a plan that only temporarily lifts the debt ceiling, pleasing the faction that opposes lifting the ceiling, avoids any tax increases, pleasing the anti-tax absolutists, and provokes a confrontation with Obama, pleasing the political hardball faction. It also positions the party as having voted to lift the debt ceiling past August 2nd, thus providing the party with an argument for laying the blame on Obama if and when dire consequences occur.

How should Obama respond to this apparent move? He needs to veto it, for two reasons. First, as he's said, extending debt ceiling chaos into the election year will only worsen the crisis. And second, abandoning his one true demand would prove that he's willing to capitulate on anything at all. This would set up a second debt ceiling showdown in which Republicans would be emboldened to make even more maximalist demands.