It's no surprise that Republicans, led by House Speaker John Boehner, went out of their way to insult the president, but remarkably Democrats also went forward over the weekend with Capitol Hill debt talks that did not even include a symbolic emissary from the White House.
After a perfunctory meeting with Barack Obama on Saturday -- a session he had hurriedly called to maintain at least the appearance of leverage -- Democrats and Republicans returned to their caves on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue for the real talks, without anyone from the White House included.
This served to reinforce Boehner's vow to exclude Obama from the discussions. The internal logic of Washington's byzantine protocol indicates a bipartisan snub of the president.
While the GOP obviously would savor a solution to the debt-ceiling crisis that gives Obama no credit, why are Democratic leaders so willing to cut him out?
The answer might be found in growing concerns among veteran Capitol Hill Democrats that their president is a lousy negotiator.
Although they see him as a talented public communicator, his short time as a senator and painfully slow learning curve as president leads congressional Democrats to think it best to take over and provide cover for him once the deal is done.
Also by Craig: The GOP's Political Deficit
Follow Craig Crawford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/craig_crawford
I'd submit the Dems are scared of something else: they see pretty clearly that Obama is really out for 1 thing in 2012: his own re-election. That's IT!
Problem is, if he keeps trying to triangulate towards some purely imagined center, and appearing weak and indecisive in the process, or all words and no beef, then he'll get blown out in 2012, and the Dems are scared witless he'll take them with him!
they've got good reason to worry!!
Look closely at his negotiations and you'll see either, A) he sucks at it, or B) he wants the rich and powerful to win.
It's one or the other. And it's there for any non-cheerleading progressive to see. Clearly.
This isn't to say that the Democrats are the answer to the question. But to paraphrase an infamous quote, one has to deal with the economic crisis with the leaders on has, not with the leaders one wishes one has.
His approval ratings dropped the more he appeared on TV this week!
Maybe to Senate Democrats the ability to read is a "talent"
Being President of the United States is probably not the easiest job to have as evidenced by so few of the senators and representatives vying for the job. What I find interesting is that most of the really great Presidents (at least according to historical accounts) did not come to be President by way of the Senate.
What I find interesting is that some of the worst did.
OH, and you do not think printing more money will not collapse the economy?
He is afraid to stand against them.
All the wailing and whining accomplishes nothing without tangible action on our parts.
Follow the money, folks...look at campaign contributions, lobbyists (I read an article recently that stated the many of the Republican representative staffers are now former lobbyists -- foxes guarding the hen house????) voting records and bills passed to support corporations and the top 2%. A little research goes a long way to inform the voter who then needs to take action -- calling or writing your congressmen/women, writing op-ed pieces, attending community political action meetings and informed voting with accountability.
When are you going to get it? The US budget is stretched as far as it can go!
We are sick of the endless spending, and WE are NOT ALL REPUBLICIANS!
But I am afraid he is just not showing himself to be an effective chief executive.
Supporters of Obama decry the fiercely partisan nature of politics today. But if you know anything about American history, you know that fiercely partisan politics have been the rule in Washington, rather than the exception.
To be an effective president, you have to have a certain sort of political instinct. FDR had it. Eisenhower had it. LBJ had it. Reagan had it. Clinton had it. Carter did not, and (apparently) neither does Obama.
That's what the "malcontents" are upset about. We had an incredible feeling of "hope and change" in the 2008 election, and we're getting the sinking sense that we picked a bad pony.
The left, if they opened their eyes would see that the government and it's debt should have naturally gotten smaller in the last few years. Thanks to Obama evrything grew at a historic pace. Amazing really.
Barack Obama, having been a lawyer, doesn't seem skilled in the art of negotiating. You would think that as a lawyer, he would know how to have an objective in terms of legislative deals, then negotiate to get something that meets or exceeds the objective.
Remember that during the debate on health care, Obama actually took a back seat, simply encouraging Congress to send a bill that he could either sign or veto.
That is not the Reagan method to pass a political agenda. During the debate on the 1981 tax cut, Reagan invited many members of Congress to the White House for discussions and then worked out a compromise that he felt was acceptable to both the Republican leadership and his voting base. Instead of 3 consecutive cuts of 10%, it went 10-10-5.
and the DEBT CEILING. He should use it early and often. He is a great orator for petes sake.
But I totally agree with mcmchlsmth!