Can somebody please explain Jon Kyl's logic?

[Torie]

He rightly thinks that Obama's main concern is not having to go through this again before the election for political reasons. There is no basis for suggesting that having a round two before the election, after a round one that moves the ball forward, is somehow a terrible thing for the economy. That's ludicrous. It's simple really. Obama is going to have to suck it up, and live with a round two before the election, or agree to the original deal with Boehner, and deal with the anger of his base. He is not going to refuse to sign something that hits his desk with a round two. He's bluffing. The Pubbies are following the Krauthammer strategy to a tee now. They finally figured it out.

[Torie]

The latest buzz is that Reid is at the White House trying to sell Obama on a 2.5 trillion cut with no revenue increases to avoid having a second debt limit vote before the election. We now know the way to own Harry, and it's a beautiful thing.    Harry just doesn't want his vulnerable senators up in 2012 to face this little political problem. It simply terrifies him.  As I said, it's all about the 2012 election. Who knew? 

So Boehner is doing his thing, and Harry his, and it is all worse for the Dems than the deal that maybe Obama could have had until he decided he didn't want it. Or so it would appear.

[Torie]

...There is no basis for suggesting that having a round two before the election, after a round one that moves the ball forward, is somehow a terrible thing for the economy. That's ludicrous.

'Ludicrous'?  You think the knowledge that the political leaders of the nation could willfully refuse to pay the nation's debts for petty and unimportant reasons has no negative effect upon the markets and the economy?

You haven't been paying attention opebo. The debt interest has to be paid first by law, and will be. Default on the debt was never in the cards.  That is just Dem hype. Having said that, slashing 30% in spending overnight, means much of government will close down. But there will be no default.  Got it?

[Torie]

The latest buzz is that Reid is at the White House trying to sell Obama on a 2.5 trillion cut with no revenue increases to avoid having a second debt limit vote before the election. We now know the way to own Harry, and it's a beautiful thing.    Harry just doesn't want his vulnerable senators up in 2012 to face this little political problem. It simply terrifies him.  As I said, it's all about the 2012 election. Who knew? 

So Boehner is doing his thing, and Harry his, and it is all worse for the Dems than the deal that maybe Obama could have had until he decided he didn't want it. Or so it would appear.

So Harry Reid is to the right of Mitch McConnell on this?

Reid loved the McConnell deal, but the McConnell deal is dead. Well actually it was stillborn, and was never alive, but in any event, it's not alive now.

What the Dems pretend not to understand, is that the Pubbies will never vote for revenue raisers, except in the context of tax reform, where the tax code is revamped more to the Pubbies' liking, and more pro growth. But it may be sinking in now.

[Torie]

I don't think that Dems should ever concede that Reps will 'never' vote for revenue raisers. First of all, I don't think it's true. If there were a Republican in the White House, for one, who wanted some sort of tax hike I believe it would pass. But besides that, we should always make the case for what we believe to be the right policy and hopefully the popular policy and if the Republicans want to say 'No' ten thousand times, make them say it.

... except in the context of tax reform.

[Torie]

Here is a twitter thingy (what is twitter by the way?), that is kind of fun as to who is moving what pawn where when in the ongoing soap opera. Reid wants 2.5 trillion in cuts, but is it real, or more phoniness to get past the election? Boehner declares war, and gives the we must hang together, or hang separately speech, and implies that the game is that something will be offered which Obama must take or shut down 30% of the government. I guess the rhetoric will get more heated before it gets less so. The cable shows tomorrow should be red hot, with a lot of mud thrown around. Where's Olbermann when we need him?  

[Torie]

(what is twitter by the way?)

Is this a serious question?

If so, Twitter is a service that allows you to post messages of 148 characters or less, with which you can start conversations and interact with people, share links (usually using a small url with bit.ly) etc.  It's great for PR and publicity, as well as spreading bare-bones headline news ("bin Laden dead" was all over Twitter a good 3 or 4 hours before the news services started reporting it because some guy on CNN told a friend of his who tweeted it hours before the network's fact checkers were able to confirm the rumor.)

Thanks. How does one "twitter?"  Yes, it was a serious question. If I don't admit my ignorance, how will I learn?  It is not a sin in my book to admit your ignorance. I consider it a virtue.  

[Torie]

Wait-- you linked to twitter but don't know what it is?

So the GOP is going all out blackmail, that's it, and they want to come back in six months and blackmail Obama even more into huge cuts in Social Security and Medicare, no doubt. Really hardball stuff, when in fact the two sides could have easily reached an agreement. If the US doesn't default, and what's at stake here is another government shutdown, I could actually see Obama putting out the veto. But most likely it'll be punted to next spring.

You might have potential Beet as a Dem talking head. Just kidding, but really, both parties are playing hardball. A lot is at stake.

[Torie]

Yes, px, I am confused why the debt limit was deemed a better Pubbie vehicle for laying down the gauntlet than the budget process. I am sure that there was a reason, but I am not sure what it is. In any event, it had to be one or the other. So in the end, it doesn't make much difference. Either way, absent a deal, there would be a partial government shutdown. So than it came down to what would have the better political optics.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed!  Not that anyone notices, but I try hard to respect the English language, and all of its rules, and consider such truncations execrable.  Which means probably that I am becoming increasingly irrelevant. Which is OK. I have my little diversions which I enjoy.

[Torie]

Yes, I am confused why the debt limit was deemed a better Pubbie vehicle for laying down the gauntlet than the budget process. I am sure that there was a reason, but I am not sure what it is. In any event, it had to be one or the other. So in the end, it doesn't make much difference. Either way, absent a deal, there would be a partial government shutdown. So than it came down to what would have the better political optics.

Please don't be disingenuous Torie. A government shutdown won't cause global financial turmoil, so calling it a matter of optics is glossing over of epic proportions.

I don't think a partial government shutdown would do that, and it would not last long in any event. The House in the end has the whip hand. It has the power of the purse. Granted, it might be bad politics circa Newt v Clinton, and thus all the maneuvering by both sides as the Pubbies try to avoid a redux of that.

In this instance, the Dems will be folding is my prediction, with a fig leaf or two to camouflage it a bit. We shall see.

We have elections for a reason. If you don't like divided government, than work to change it.