July 14, 2011

"Don’t call my bluff."

It's what Obama said when he stormed out of the debt-talks yesterday. Let's analyze it. Glenn Reynolds says:
UM, ISN’T THIS A CASE OF CALLING YOUR OWN BLUFF?... I mean, I’m not a big poker player, but I thought the point of a bluff is not to admit it’s a bluff . . . .

UPDATE: “I’d love to play poker with him. Does he know that it’s played with cards?”
I'd say the biggest problem with the poker metaphor is that it characterizes the talks as a game... and, more particularly, a game in which, on any given hand, somebody wins the whole pot. At the point in poker where you make a comment like "Don’t call my bluff," you are trying to lure the other player into making the wrong decision so you can win it all. In the ultra-serious debt negotiations, where supposedly the 2 sides are engaging in give and take to reach a consensus for the sake of the people, it's bad to reveal that you see it as a game and you're trying to win it... for yourself.

Now, there's also the question whether someone who plays poker competently would use the phrase "Don’t call my bluff." Glenn is right that you don't want the other player to know when you are bluffing, but saying "Don’t call my bluff" isn't admitting you're bluffing. Indeed, if you were playing with someone who thought it was, saying "Don’t call my bluff" would be a great way to get them not to fold when you have an excellent hand. You could just as well say the opposite — "Call my bluff" — in the same situation for the same reason. The other player has the same problem he has when you don't say anything at all — when you keep a poker face: He doesn't know what you have.

Think about when someone outside of a poker game might use the phrase "Don’t call my bluff." Meade and I were talking about that and he said: It's something a father would say. "Son, don't call my bluff." In other words: Do you think I'm kidding? Try me. Within some father-son relationships, that's a very powerful move. The father is demanding obedience, and the son is afraid of what will happen if he does not accede to his father's demands. The father isn't saying what the consequence will be, but the fear of the father's power is enough to make the son comply. He can't risk finding out. It's a test of parental authority.

And we know Obama would like us to see him in that fatherly role. He would like to have our compliance because he knows best. Eat your peas.

207 comments:

1 – 200 of 207   Newer›   Newest»
TWM said...

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that he compared himself to Ronald Reagan.

That's just so wrong on so many levels.

Hagar said...

"Eric, don't call my bluff" is a threat external to the "game." It is Chicago showing.

Mark O said...

One of his many "tells." Next? "Double dog dare you." He had to walk out because Cantor had already walked out on him. Third grade behavior from a man child with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

And, then there is the issue of people asking questions. People. Questions. Stop it.

Drew said...

Obama had to sit in that meeting for two-and-a-half hours?! That's like a week's work for him! No wonder he was agitated!

AprilApple said...

Obama is trying to win it for himself.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AprilApple said...

Obama is trying to win it for himself.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TosaGuy said...

Of course he is like Reagan. Both are men, both lived in Illinois, both probably have eaten peas......

AprilApple said...

Sorry for double post.

Fear King Obama! Fear and worship, worship and fear.

MikeDC said...

It's still a malapropism. It'd be more correct thing to say would be "I'm not bluffing" or "Don't assume I'm bluffing" or something along those lines. If you were the sort of douche who yaps in the middle of a hand of cards.

pm317 said...

From John Batchelor Devin Nunes added that the rumour in DC is that POTUS will back up the hysterical remark that Social Security checks will stop after August 2 by ordering letters sent out next week to the recipients. Social Security Babylon. And also the rumour includes a letter to the military personnel that they will not be paid after August 2.

Maybe this is what he meant when he said ‘don’t call my bluff’..(Don't dare me!)-- you know flakes and fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Scott M said...

Meade and I were talking about that and he said: It's something a father would say. "Son, don't call my bluff." In other words: Do you think I'm kidding? Try me.

I, and I'm every man with a good father, had a few of those moments with my dad when I was 16-17. I disagree that it would be "don't call my bluff". As you say, it's ADMITTING there's even a remote possibility that doom may not be imminent. What my father did say, on the other hand, is "don't try me". That, unlike the "bluff" comment, is a bare-faced threat. There was no bluff. There was no attempt at deception at all. "Try me and you'll loose".

traditionalguy said...

All that the Professor says is true, but the unanswered question is why Obama knows that he has a father's power of life and death here.

My belief is that he knows death will be the outcome and very soon. All he needs is Bernanke's diluting the dollars to cause the world to never trust our dollars again.

So Obama is playing with Boehner and friends like a small boy tearing the wings off a fly.

He is enjoying his power to destroy his enemy, the USA. The funny part is that it confuses the others who presume Obama wants a successful outcome here.

TMink said...

I recall libs and progs talking about his temperament. Did they confuse that with his temper?

This is what we get for electing someone with no leadership or business experience. He "leads" by ultimatum.

We are so screwed.

Trey

Scott M said...

By the by, is the WH disputing the words spoken? I've seen them trying to downplay Cantor's version of "storming out", but have they pushed back against "don't call my bluff"? They'd better. This is one of the veritable cornucopia of unforced errors this administration has pushed on us since day one.

They just keep handing their opponents negative campaign ad material. If you don't think that this upcoming election isn't going to be one of the dirtiest in history (in terms of negative campaigning), you've not been paying attention.

G Joubert said...

It's possible Obama thinks his reelection depends on this negotiation, i.e., if it is perceived that he "won" here by standing strong against Boehner, he will be reelected, and if it is perceived that he lost here, that he was weak, he will not be reelected. Here's the irony: if Obama wins he loses, because what's missing from his calculus are the economic effects of what he wants. Increase in the debt ceiling, higher taxes, and minimal spending cuts are going to further dampen the economy. Obama has 15 months tops to turn the economy around, and his policies are not the recipe to do it. The other side of the irony is that Boehner's approach is much more likely to help Obama get reelected, and Obama doesn't seem to know it.

Rialby said...

Let me be the first one to say it on this thread - but, but he's the rational choice!!

jrberg3 said...

it was a poor phrase to use at that moment. And I thought Obama was supposed to be this exceptional poker player.

Why not "call his bluff"? I hope this brings more resolve to Cantor and Boehner. With all the fear-mongering and doomsday scenarios his administration has brought forth it would be political suicide for him to veto it.

Rialby said...

Obama knows he has the Republicans backed into a corner because he has the media on his side. If the Republicans cave on the debt ceiling, the media will try to pump up Tea Partiers and divide the right. If the Republicans don't, they will be blamed for killing senior citizens, black people and women.

Scott M said...

If the Republicans don't, they will be blamed for killing senior citizens, black people and women.

They will be blamed for that no matter what. Thus, knowing that, they should hold fast and not blink.

Scott M said...

Oh...and can someone please pass the popcorn?

nevadabob said...

"They will be blamed for that no matter what."

This is what Republicans need to understand. No matter what you do, when election time rolls around, you'll be blamed for everything.

So you may as well stick to a principle.

Because if you don't you're going to lose your political party not by Obama defeating you but by US DEFEATING YOU.

If you capitulate to Barack Obama and raise the debt ceiling or raise job-killing taxes and fees during a recession, WE will take you out.

We will get to you long before Barack Obama has an opportunity to blame you.

PETER V. BELLA said...

The adult in the room has proven what I have said all along. He is a child. A man child. He is a spoiled brat who has to get his way to make his-story

EDH said...

"I've got new for you, pal. They're gonna nail us no matter what we do."

TOGA!

AllenS said...

At the point in poker where you make a comment like "Don’t call my bluff,"

The possibility that those words would be said are close to zero in a poker game. I've played a lot of poker. There's a reason that you bluff, and it's when you don't have a winning hand. Letting another player know you're bluffing would be idiotic.

garage mahal said...

Cantor got his fee fees hurt and ego bruised again, and ran to the press to tell his story. What a baby.

EDH said...

“I’d love to play poker with him. Does he know that it’s played with cards?”

"You guys playing cards?"

NYTNewYorker said...

"I'd say the biggest problem with the poker metaphor is that it characterizes the talks as a game..."

But it is a game for him professor.

It's called the "Get Barry reelected by any means possible" game.

It is all that he is and all that he will ever be.

A sham.

Sir Absurd said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
pm317 said...

Watch this video and think about what she would have done. She certainly would not have stormed out of a meeting in a fit.

AllenS said...

"Don’t call my bluff" would be a great way to get them not to fold when you have an excellent hand

Let's remember here, obama got up and left the table (room). Meaning, that he didn't have the cards. Had he been holding a winning hand, he would have waited for people to call. One person here folded. Guess who?

Sir Absurd said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...

"Don't call my bluff" was one of John Adams' few edits to Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the declaration of independence. "It's not about you, Thom," said the New Englander, "and you're kind of a lightweight anyway."

Erik said...

Republicans know that the media will hit them no matter what they do in this situation, and that Obama will remain protected by the media. Best be hit for doing the right thing and holding firm than to be hit for being wimps.

Sir Absurd said...

Speaking of poker, when it comes to "reading" players, the fundamental rule of poker "tells" is that "weak means strong, strong means weak."
So as a poker player, looking at all of Obama's posturing, I can only conclude one thing...

This principle has saved me from making a lot of costly decisions; if only it could do the same for this country.

maninthemiddle said...

And the threat, in which he is bluffing but don't call it, is to withhold SS checks. Thanks to Congressman Huelskamp, the SS Actuary has confirmed this would be a political move, not financial.

SS Actuary Confirms

bagoh20 said...

In poker, don't you play with your own money? And if you're not, doesn't that change the way you play?

EDH said...

"You fucked up. You trusted us."

Doug Wright said...

A bigger question is what did he mean in fact? Is calling his bluff mean not accepting his demands? Or does he mean something else entirely?

The hint in the comments that Obama might send out letters saying that SoSec payments would be stopped and that our military might not be paid might also have another purpose in mind! I've felt for sometime now that Obama wants the USA to be in a state of rebellion, open insurrection, as that would suit his purpose and give him leverage to do other, more important, things.

Still, we held the 1864 elections during the Civil War, even getting votes from soldiers in the field, so what excuse would he have to void the 2012 elections? Legally, he doesn't have any grounds but that's not his point, I believe.

Our times are way too interesting, but how do we get back to a more settled and calm state in the Republic?

NYTNewYorker said...

Obamas clay feet are now crumbling and the road to the election is one and a half years away.

Mitch H. said...

Yes, professora, but it's something a weak man would say, echoing what he's heard fatherly authority figures say in the movies or on TV. Like most bluster, it's a sign of insecurity masking itself with swagger.

Which is, btw, why "macho" is an insult. I was reading a fantasy the other day which featured a deathless, aristocratic woman whose body language was explicitly compared to that of a drag queen, because the stylized gestures embraced by that personality-style are modeled on the archaic Victorian-era behavior which became the model of exaggerated feminity.

Misappropriated signifiers invert when taken to extremes - feminity become coarse, masculinity turns fragile, intellectuality comes across as obtuse, hail-fellow-well-met populism reads as sly.

Scott M said...

The details coming out show that President Obama didn't say anything about a "bluff" at all. Rather, it was something about "this fully operational battlestation". Cantor had to wait before going to the press because of severe neck pain.

MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...

What is so strange is the context in which he used the phrase. Obama is not threatening to veto the bill for economic or substantive differences on policy. He's threatening to veto it because he doesn't want a short term fix that has to be re-negotiated again prior to the 2012 elections. Does that make you feel that he's negotiating with the best interests of the country at heart, or is he negotiating based on his own personal best interest in that he doesn't want to interrupt his campaign to come back to the negotiating table?

Henry said...

In House of Games would Obama be the guy with the squirt gun or the mark with the revolver? He certainly isn't Joe Mantegna.

I think he's the kid with the car. Hey kid, you have one job to do. Don't blow the game. Whoops.

Scott M said...

I was reading a fantasy the other day which featured a deathless, aristocratic woman whose body language was explicitly compared to that of a drag queen, because the stylized gestures embraced by that personality-style are modeled on the archaic Victorian-era behavior which became the model of exaggerated feminity.

Stirling's new "Council Of Shadows"?

Rialby said...

I was thinking the same thing - it's the line of someone who spent the early 80s coked out of their mind watching bad movies on HBO on a 13" television in their upper west side apartment.

MisterBuddwing said...

It's still a malapropism. It'd be more correct thing to say would be "I'm not bluffing" or "Don't assume I'm bluffing" or something along those lines.

"You think I'm bluffing? Try me!"

WV: redalev.

Michael said...

I am not an expert on game theory but a way out of a Naah equilibrium is not to admit to a bluff. Or is it?

I find myself marveling at our president who appears bored with so much of this. I do not think his haughtiness is anything other than a mask hiding his deep understanding that he is in over his head.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Hold the line Republicans.

Hold the line!!!

DO NOT GIVE IN to the petulant tantrums from the left. This includes the Republicans in Wisconsin and the Republicans in Washington.

The union goons and their boot licking lackey, Obama, are cracking and the ugliness, venality and corruption behind the masks is beginning to ooze out into the public's eye.

With any luck Cantor will continue to hold firm and Obama will have a stroke.

bagoh20 said...

A problem with Obama is that he has never actually done anything selfless, sacrificial, or impressive, and he knows it. This is what makes him such a pussy of a bully. I can respect a bully if he's earned it. Patton was a bully. I liked him.

Jay said...

TWM said...

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that he compared himself to Ronald Reagan.


Me too.

To be clear, Obama and his ilk hated Reagan and said the exact same things about him that they did George W. Bush.

To see him use Reagan and himself in the same sentence is a silly joke.

NYTNewYorker said...

Washington is dysfunctional. And to paraphrase the president's senior adviser, David Plouffe, Mr. Obama owns the dysfunction. The president has not only governed as a liberal—he's governed as an incompetent liberal, thereby reminding voters that electing a Republican Congress and president next year is the only way to change direction.

nevadabob said...

Ann forgot the last update to Instapundit's post where a reader points out that Obama isn't even playing with his own chips.

It's easy to bluff when you're using everyone else's money.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

Cantor got his fee fees hurt and ego bruised again, and ran to the press to tell his story. What a baby.


As opposed to "anonymous Democratic sources"

Republicans aren't afraid to speak on the record, you intellectual coward.

nevadabob said...

"The president has not only governed as a liberal—he's governed as an incompetent liberal, thereby reminding voters that electing a Republican Congress and president next year is the only way to change direction."

Barack Obama doesn't control this.

Republicans do.

If Republicans want to stop the irresponsible borrowing and spending, they'll refuse to vote for an increase in the debt ceiling.

It's that simple.

Barack Obama is a bystander.

ONLY Republicans can increase the debt ceiling. So remember that when they do it.

Fred4Pres said...

The point is Obama lost it. It makes him look weaker, not stronger. So what is the veiled threat if his bluff is called? Does he bring in Michelle Obama to beat up Boehner and McConnell?

Thank God this is in a context of other Americans arguing over spending. This not reassure me thinking of President Obama taking on some foreign power over some crisis.

MadisonMan said...

A father who has to say Don't call my bluff has already lost, because he has let the situation deteriorate to threats. This is what's going to happen is a better phrase. If you've been a consistent parent, then they will know you mean it.

The relationship between Executive and Legislative branches is not a Father/Child relationship. Warring siblings would be more like it.

sdferr said...

The ancient Greeks had a word to refer to such a father, the master of his household. δεσπότης - Despot, they called him.

Bob Ellison said...

I like Hagar's succinct analysis.

In a negotiation (or a poker hand), you try to maximize the appearance of your powers and minimize the appearance of your weaknesses. In most cases, sophisticated negotiators and players are not easily fooled: their assessments of powers and weaknesses tend to be pretty close to reality.

Usually, the easiest way to get to an agreement is with plain honesty and good will, but that's not happening here. In the budget negotiation, the powers and weaknesses all stem from how it all plays out politically in the end, deal or no deal. Who knows how a deal or no deal might play out? Obama is trying to appear as though he knows perfectly well. He's saying "like Clinton in 1995, I will win the public debate over this, and you will lose." I don't think Clinton actually did win that debate, but the MSM is convinced that he did, and Obama undoubtedly is as well.

So I predict that Obama will go all in, so to speak, and the end result will be "no deal", unless the Republicans decide to believe that Obama understands the electorate better than they do.

Scott M said...

If you've been a consistent parent, then they will know you mean it.

Amen. The real struggle with raising a teen is the battle between your own fallibility and a consistent example/expectations to the child.

Michael said...

This is a detail that isnt being discussed but the potential downgrade by the rating agencies is not being contemplated because we dont have enough debt. They think we have too much now.

garage mahal said...

Republicans aren't afraid to speak on the record, you intellectual coward.

"Mommy! He HIT me!"

vet66 said...

We have been through this "government shutdown" before. The government will not be shutdown even if Obama threatens "...or else, granny gets it!"

If the checks don't come it will be because Obama made it so. Does he really believe that he will scare us into believing that government employees will continue to be paid while gramps and granny eat cat food? That is called bluffing. His handlers probably let him win in Chicago if he ever played poker with them.
He is holding a losing hand and will lose unless Cantor and Boehner start crying and shaking then fold. Somehow, I don't see them doing that.

E.M. Davis said...

Cantor got his fee fees hurt and ego bruised again, and ran to the press to tell his story. What a baby.

Thanks for taking this seriously, Garage.

Scott M said...

I've noticed over time that Garage tends to play this one-off snark comment game until a given story's had a chance to fill itself out and more facts become known. Then, if it's good for his side, he's verbose. If not, the opposite. In any case, it's petty.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So....Italy is crashing, Greece has crashed and in is default, Ireland has been downgraded and is circling the drain. All because of debt, welfare state crushing the private sector, over regulation by government.....


Meanwhile....Obama and the Dems are playing GAMES with our lives. Using Grandma's health and income as a bargaining chip in a "game of thrones". Trying to jigger re-election on the backs of the current unemployed and chaining the future generations to TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of dollars of unending debt.

Instead of paying attention to the unfolding slow motion disaster in Europe, Obama and the Dems are determined to lead us into the same maw of destruction.

Playing games and throwing petulant temper tantrums because they are not getting their way.

This is not a game to US. This is our lives and the attempt to avoid a long and deep economic depression.

We elected these people to represent US and they damned well better do it and not play games.

Fun and games are all good until someone loses an eye...or worse.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

"Mommy! He HIT me!"


As opposed to: don’t call my bluff, which of course is incoherent, and: He then “shoved back” and said “I’ll see you tomorrow

Don't worry garbage, you really have nothing to say as your "sort of a God" President is circling the drain...

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

Everybody knows some of us are gonna have to eat our peas. The game now is all about getting the other side to take the blame.

There is no way around the peas. As mom often said: "You will sit at that table until you eat every bite on that plate." I learned the miracle technique of holding my nose while I ate. Or you learn to like peas.

Either way lets get on with it. My friends are waiting for me outside, and it's summer.

Carol_Herman said...

In poker, "I'm calling your bluff" ... is the what you say towards the end of the game. When all the cards have been served. Everyone's been UPPING THE ANTE ... and you shove ALL that you have in your pile of money, into the center of the table.

It's ain't a bad analogy.

Obama thinks McConnell is preening. He is never threatened that he doesn't belong in Harry Reid's chair EVER!

And, with Boehner, you don't know if he's suffering from over-tanning at the tanning booth. Or he's just a dead drunk wino like Dean Martin. Who managed to sing, by holding the microphone ... so he wouldn't fall down dead drunk on the floor. His voice was velvet smooth.

It probably IS "all in" time.

We either cut entitlements. Cut drastically ... or the politicians will always be the whores they are. And, our dollar goes down.

MayBee said...

It's what he's fighting over that's the big tell.
He threatened Cantor because Cantor could offer him different timing. The one absolutely non-ideological, non essential parameter that Obama himself is trying to impose.

If he thought this was a good issue for him,he'd happily have another vote just before his election. But he's threatening to send the US into a tailspin to avoid that.
A definite tell.

Michael K said...

Obama knows he has the Republicans backed into a corner because he has the media on his side. If the Republicans cave on the debt ceiling, the media will try to pump up Tea Partiers and divide the right. If the Republicans don't, they will be blamed for killing senior citizens, black people and women.

The thing that would divide e right and ensure his re-election is agreeing to a tax increase. The best strategy now for Boehner and McConnell is to agree to a "clean" debt limit increase to fight another day. I deally, it should be one that will only last a year so we can have this debate again before the election.

Obama might even veto it and that would turn the tables on the Democrats.

garage mahal said...

Don't worry garbage, you really have nothing to say as your "sort of a God" President is circling the drain...

You think Republicans are winning this? You're such a fucking dope.

edutcher said...

A Freudian slip. You bluff when you haven't got the cards.

He hasn't, if the polls are right.

What we saw yesterday was known in vaudeville as flop sweat.

PS Bret and Bart would have cleaned this guy in less than an hour.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

You think Republicans are winning this? You're such a fucking dope.


Um, Republicans aren't the ones storming out of meetings.

Of course the latest polling shows the approach you & Barry support isn't exactly popular, clown.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The best strategy now for Boehner and McConnell is to agree to a "clean" debt limit increase to fight another day.

No effing way.

We do not have the luxury of time or the ability to continue to kick the can (another game) down the road anymore.

Everytime the Republicans cave in and compromise, they just get fooled.

Won't get fooled again.

I would rather see the government shut down than raise the debt one more time.

There are plenty of places to cut back that don't cause Grandma to eat cat food or die for lack of medical care.

We can ax the high speed choo choos for one. Close the Federal Parks. Who cares. Eliminate 15% of all federal employees. Get rid of agencies that are wasteful, burdensome and HATED.

Hold the line and do NOT cave. NO MORE SPENDING.

We do not have time anymore to play games.

Lem said...

It's something a father would say. "Son, don't call my bluff." In other words: Do you think I'm kidding? Try me.

Obama: Daughters Do Homework, Congress Can Too .

The problem is father Obama is a big time hoarder and we want to take out the garbage ;)

MadisonMan said...

Why can't they just do something sensible (I know, I know) like rolling back spending to 2008 or 2002 levels. The government was working okay back then, wasn't it?

Oh, and dustbin the Dept of Education and DHS too.

Doug Wright said...

DBQ: We still don't know, or understand, what games Obama is playing! He's told us several times what his goals are and we still wonder what's he trying to do!

Jeez, there shouldn't be any question that he's trying to radically reconstruct America to fit the "Dreams of His Father!" It's geting down to serious nubbins now and we can't afford to slip up.

Lem said...

I wonder what father Obama would do if Malia and Sasha don't do their homework?

MayBee said...

Why can't they just do something sensible (I know, I know) like rolling back spending to 2008 or 2002 levels. The government was working okay back then, wasn't it?

Oh, and dustbin the Dept of Education and DHS too.


Exactly, Mad Man. Also eliminate the civil rights division of every agency.

You would think it would be easy enough to tell every Secretary they have to cut 10-15% from their agency budgets. That's what a company would do.

Phil 3:14 said...

Of course its a game, we all know that. Its a game for BO; its a game for the congressman. Its a game I'm tired of watching.

Believe me, as someone in that evil top 5%, I don't want taxes raised.

BUT;

Some would rather win this game and lose the more important contest to come, 2012. I doubt the House would turn back Democratic so quickly, but I know maintenance of Democratic majority in the Senate is very possible. More important, I would hope that the White House will turn Republican in 2013.

That won't happen if certain members of the Republican caucus choose to "die gloriously in battle" than get something done. Lets get our best "deal" and then move on to the bigger fight in 2012.

The government that governs best, governs least

Not much of that going on right now and a worrisome possibility that a lot less could be going on after 2012.

(And NO I don't want the US to experience Greek turmoil to "teach us a lesson.")

gerry said...

MayBee is dead on.

McConnell is catching a lot of flack for his offer to give Obama short-term stop-gap debt ceiling raises from time to time (with matching spending cuts). But if the Republicans can keep thsi issue visible during the upcoming year, Obama will be a dry, empty husk by November.

Obama wants his "big plan" to get the issue off the table and out of sight NOW, damn the consequences.

Phil 3:14 said...

You think Republicans are winning this?

I don't often (?ever) agree with Garage but insofar that this is a PR battle, Republicans are losing that battle. There is no single clear voice on the Republican side. There is no clear message. There is no positive message.

Dad Bones said...

I'll see his tax increases and raise him my Social Security check. I think I can do without it (even though I pretty much live off it) longer than he can go without a government.

TWM said...

"Cantor got his fee fees hurt and ego bruised again, and ran to the press to tell his story. What a baby."

That's one way to look at it. The other way is that Barry, nothing more than a spoiled, petulant child, got his feelings hurt and threw a fit.

Plus he showed he knows nothing about poker OR Ronald Reagan.

MadisonMan said...

You would think it would be easy enough to tell every Secretary they have to cut 10-15% from their agency budgets. That's what a company would do.

That would require Government Managers to actually, you know, manage, and as they are political appointees, that's asking for too much.

I'd like to thank althouse for a thread that allows my cynical side to flourish.

TWM said...

"I don't often (?ever) agree with Garage but insofar that this is a PR battle, Republicans are losing that battle. There is no single clear voice on the Republican side. There is no clear message. There is no positive message."

What do you base that on? I've seen no great upturn in polls showing increased suport for the President on this matter.

Lem said...

There is no single clear voice on the Republican side. There is no clear message. There is no positive message.

Not pushing the car further into the ditch is so.. unclear.

Scott M said...

There is no single clear voice on the Republican side. There is no clear message. There is no positive message.

A single, clear voice that's wrong isn't a good thing. As far as the PR battle, I don't think either side can claim an edge. Most of the people I'm around daily either aren't engaged on this or have generalized "those damned politicians" comments.

Those that are engaged, though, are taking a wait and see. There's too many variables, too little hard info, and too much back and forth bickering to make it anything but a political furball at this point.

Don't cite polls. Our president declared just the other day that all you have to do is reword a question to change the outcome in your favor.

MayBee said...

We aren't members of any organized political party. We're Republicans.

Godot said...

Depends on the Dad. A good Father would be trying to teach his son a subtler aspect of the game. His admonition to 'not call the bluff' would be an object lesson in the known and unknown, desire, fear, observation, instinct and human nature.

A bad Father would simply be trying to win.
-

SunnyJ said...

Absolutely, the father says: "You think I'm bluffing...try me!" the dopey kid trys the line on his little brother and it comes out screwed up like, "Don't call my bluff". Happens across America every day.

The plan has always been to collapse the system by overwhelming it, and have the shadow government of administrative rulers in place. Obama has taken that plan almost to the finish line.

Unless, the Repubs/Inden really have had a wake up call, and are really ready to be smart.

Sen Ron Johnson from WI is on the budget comm. and doing some excellent writing and speaking...he's been demanding a Plan B from O and Treasury Secty for months.

Johnson and 5 other fresh R Sen are demanding open debate on this process, as is Judicial Watch. Then we would know if Cantor's version of O's behaivior is cry baby or...if O is wearing the diapers. This most transparent administration never walks their talk.

edutcher said...

Phil 3:14 said...

You think Republicans are winning this?

I don't often (?ever) agree with Garage but insofar that this is a PR battle, Republicans are losing that battle. There is no single clear voice on the Republican side. There is no clear message. There is no positive message.


Ever hear of good cop, bad cop?

Actually, listening to garage is almost always a bad idea. I think the Republicans are winning and Barry's tantrum (and that's what it was) shows it.

That little routine he did from "The Untouchables" may well have had the opposite effect. As I say, it would be interesting to see the Demos' internal polling afterward.

Barry set himself up as Godfather and said he would cut off the checks if he didn't get his way. He put it so it was his initiative, not McConnell's and Boehner's.

Go look at the So It Goes In Shreveport blog. When asked about it, the 87 year old lady said, "How can he do that?".

Michael said...

Garage. No budget from the Dems in two,2, years. Obama budget dead on arrival with no votes from his own party. Dems could not agree to raise taxes when they held both houses and the oval office. Who did you say was "winning?"

Fred4Pres said...

This is more akin to "Don't make me pull over!"

or maybe the real scary threat:

"Wait till Michelle gets home and I tell her about this!"

Michael said...

Garage. You have often told us that Social Security is perfectly solvent, lock boxed. If that is the case how could it run out of money if the debt ceiling is not raised? Why do you have to borrow money to pay Social security? Or is the president misinformed?

gerry said...

According to IBD/TIPP, 58% oppose raising the debt ceiling. Only 36% support a raise. These figures include include 59% of independents AND 38% of Democrats.

Rasmussen reports today that 55% of survey participants oppose a tax increase as part of a debt ceiling deal, which includes 51% of idependents.

It looks to me that a majority of citizens oppose both a tax increase and more borrowing.

GM, plase continue believing this is a winner for libs and Democrats. Please.

Idiot.

Mitch H. said...

Stirling's new "Council Of Shadows"?

Yup. It's okay so far. Stirling's psychosexual hang-ups can get a little wearying, but he can usually crank out a decent potboiler in between the evil bisexual aristocratic predation.

Scott M said...

aristocratic predation

The Draka come to mind instantly, although he didn't need aristocrats to work it into the Nantucket series. Black and military to boot.

walter said...

The last two Dem prezdents have liked to call their own bluff. It's like telling the enemy you will never use ground troops..or tell them in advance when you're going to leave. It must be a clever strategy to keep the enemy off balance wondering if we are really that stupid.

WineSlob said...

In the Huffery and Coo-Coo Cocoa Puffery
Barry's Bluffery Brought Only Butt-Stuffery
Sore-Sphinctered He Exploded
Wants Whitey's Markets Imploded
In Fluffery and Media Knob-Buffery.

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

Next, Obama is going to clench his fists, stomp his feet and scream, "stop arguing with me!"

Lem said...

Watch out.

Father Obama don't like to be shouted at.

garage mahal said...

Who did you say was "winning?"

I didn't say anyone was, but by the looks of it it ain't Republicans. Obama offered 4 trillion in deficit reduction, and Republicans refused. They won't even agree to half that. Proves what everyone should already know: Republicans do not care about the deficit. They want continual 6 month extensions so they can try and run on it. Some of the Tea Party idiots think we can just go into default. How idiotic does that look to the rest of the world?

Joe said...

Time to repeat what I've been saying since 2007; Obama genuinely believes that the President of the United States governs by fiat. He still can't grasp that he doesn't.

The republicans need to stop acting like such asshats; they need to just fucking write a bill that's simple and straightforward without hidden binding bullshit and with an increase in the debt limit--not a plan or proposal, but the actual bill--present it to the american people in paid television spots and then put it up for a vote.

The democrats will scream that they didn't follow procedure and weren't allowed to ammend it to death. So what?

Problem is that republicans are too chickenshit to do the obvious, brave thing. It requires balls, something all politicians are in major short supply of.

David R. Graham said...

"Let's remember here, obama got up and left the table (room). Meaning, that he didn't have the cards. Had he been holding a winning hand, he would have waited for people to call. One person here folded. Guess who?"

Yup, and a forced error, too.


And garbage is back. Yeah!

phx said...

That is certainly a very compelling case that Obama wants us to see him in a fatherly role.

Jim said...

I didn't say anyone was, but by the looks of it it ain't Republicans. Obama offered 4 trillion in deficit reduction, and Republicans refused.

You can prove this, of course, right?

You're not just relying on Democratic spin on what they CLAIMED they offered rather than an actual document which details what exactly they were offering, are you?

And let's not forget: the ONLY reason we are even having this discussion is because Obama and the Democrats spent the last 2 1/2 years running up $3.5 trillion in deficits.

We wouldn't be anywhere close to the debt limit if they had produced a balanced budget for the last 2 years.

But now that they're out of money, they want Republicans to bail them out of the mess that they have made of things.

Fine. But you're going to have to do it on their terms. Deal with it.

exhelodrvr1 said...

I agree with Phil 3:14 - overall, this is probably a slight loss for the Republicans. There is still way too much tendency for the majority of the media to spin events against the Republicans, and in favor of Obama, no matter how illogical. And we've seen how people will vote for him, and still claim that it was the right thing to do, no matter how illogical.

Mary said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jenner said...

I've never heard anyone say, "Don't call my bluff." It's either, "I'm calling your bluff" or, "You think I'm bluffing?"
Another example of Obama's lack of command of the English language.

Mary said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
nevadabob said...

"I've noticed over time that Garage tends to play this one-off snark comment game until a given story's had a chance to fill itself out and more facts become known. Then, if it's good for his side, he's verbose. If not, the opposite. In any case, it's petty.

It's why nobody takes Garage seriously. He's the retarded fat kid in the class that everyone tolerates but nobody can stand and everybody makes jokes about when he's not around.

He has bad breath, stinks of B.O. and is a loudmouth ... but never really has anything original to add to a post.

Just ignore him like everybody else does.

nevadabob said...

"Somebody said President Obama speaks loudly and carries a small stick ..."

That was Michelle.

Why she vacations without him.

Paul said...

Our president is an idiot.

He really does not know what he is doing. I doubt if he really cares either.

Mary said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
B said...

garage mahal said...Obama offered 4 trillion in deficit reduction, and Republicans refused.

Liar.

Michael said...

GAGAGE: Help me out on this social security thing. You say its solvent but the president says we have to borrow money to pay recipients. Is he misinformed?

garage mahal said...

It's why nobody takes Garage seriously. He's the retarded fat kid in the class that everyone tolerates but nobody can stand and everybody makes jokes about when he's not around.

Let us both show our W2's from last year. I still wager I paid more in taxes than you earned. You up to it?

Jay said...

Obama offered 4 trillion in deficit reduction, and Republicans refused.

*GIGGLE*

You go on believing that garbage, go right ahead...

mtrobertsattorney said...

Obama is on firm ground. He is relying on an economic theory first proposed and put into practice by that beloved,renowned and respected economist, Wimpy:

"a dollar tomorrow, for a hamburger today."

Brilliant!!

Scott M said...

Let us both show our W2's from last year. I still wager I paid more in taxes than you earned. You up to it?

My usual healthy amount of respect just nosedived, GM. This no better than J's "I bench 400". Just to catch you up to speed, you are using the internet. The internet is linked through computers. Computers have very little trouble changing things like numbers on a supposedly scanned document before transmitting them to other computers. Just in case you didn't know...just sayin'...

I would, on the other hand, love to see the box on your 2010 taxes where you voluntarily paid the government more than you owed.

Michael said...

GArage: "Obama offered 4 trillion in deficit reduction, and Republicans refused. They won't even agree to half that."

If there is 4 trillion in reduction available why does he have to withhold it as a bargaining chip? If it is available why doesn't he simply make those reductions? He is the president, he can offer those up. Why does there have to be a quid pro quo if there is so much fat?

This is as infuriating as saying that the govt. will cut out waste and abuse in exchange for something. Bullshit.

Jay said...

PS, garbage: why won’t President Obama just take Social Security payments out of the lock box?

walter said...

The real bluff is BO's not so veiled threat of withholding SS and Medicare based on the debt ceiling.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

Let us both show our W2's from last year. I still wager I paid more in taxes than you earned. You up to it?


*DOUBLE GIGGLE*

Your meltdown is epic, and now complete.

B said...

Michael said...GAGAGE: Help me out on this social security thing. You say its solvent but the president says we have to borrow money to pay recipients. Is he misinformed?

Damnedest thing about garage and his lying. The record is always there. The lie always comes back at him.

garage's sole intent is to disseminate, Not defend them.

See Alinsky, Saul. Rules for Radicals

Michael said...

"Let us both show our W2's from last year. I still wager I paid more in taxes than you earned. You up to it?"

W2s? BWaaaaaaahaahhhhhaaaaaaaaaa!! Salary man.

garage mahal said...

Your meltdown is epic, and now complete.

Maybe you want to take the challenge? I'm betting not. Little dog with a big bark. Run along little doggie!

Sigivald said...

I like Terry Pratchett's version - "Bet you a dollar."

B said...

Michael said...If there is 4 trillion in reduction available why does he have to withhold it as a bargaining chip?

Obama's not. garage is lying.

Obama's offer of deficit reduction is based on increasing revenues by raising taxes. Not decreasing spending. There's some window dressing in there, but that's what it is.

The republicans are not saying no to deficit reduction. They are saying no to tax increases.

garage is lying.

cubanbob said...

Now that the whinny little bitch has confirmed that social security is a Ponzi scheme and the recipients will only get their checks only if the Affirmative Action Man Hire and Peter Principle living embodiment deems them worthy its time for the republicans to introduce a bill to privatize social security. What Boehner and Cantor ought to do is propose impeaching the whinny little bitch if he doesn't pay the bond holders and active duty military and the social security recipients. It will pass the house and Reid and the democrats can make fools of themselves trying to defend the Clown-In-Chief. And just for fun pass a budget without Obamacare, The Wagner and Davis-bacon Acts, a national right to work clause and the abolition of numerous programs and agencies. Let the senate democrats try to justify their existence.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...


Maybe you want to take the challenge? I'm betting not. Little dog with a big bark. Run along little doggie!


Yes!

You're a "high flying rich tax payer" despite being:
1. Stupid
2. Posting silly, uniformed, and ignorant comments on the Internet all day.

Kurt said...

What could be the consequence of the "bluff"? Perhaps an evening with Joy Behar?

As far as the actual proposal by Cantor et al to offer a short-term extension of the debt limit (which would probably run out again around this time next year at current spending levels) it seems to me to be a brilliant tactical maneuver, which is one reason that Obama is so furious about it. I think it's brilliant because it would ensure that Obama would be bogged down with this controversy and these negotiations (and more reports about even more petulance on his part) a year from now when he would be hoping to devote his full time and attention to running for re-election instead. In other words, the Cantor proposal would force Obama to do something he's never had to do before in his life: actually do the job he was elected to do while also campaigning, instead of just blowing off what he was elected to do so he could campaign instead.

Scott M said...

Maybe you want to take the challenge? I'm betting not. Little dog with a big bark. Run along little doggie!

GM, you don't even have to know how to use photoshop to fake something like that. It's an empty challenge. But you knew that.

garage mahal said...

W2s?BWaaaaaaahaahhhhhaaaaaaaaaa!! Salary man.

100% straight commission. I receive zero salary.

David R. Graham said...

"The relationship between Executive and Legislative branches is not a Father/Child relationship. Warring siblings would be more like it."

The fundamentum I get from this incident, even given the sketchiness of its reports, is an individual of imperious mien scornfully acquiring on a subject and advising said subject (a weak thing to do, as many grasp) on the brevity of his career counting from now.

From an imperial, impervious position high above he is addressing a subject he considers truculent and dangerous. There is no conversation here. It is one way, ruler to subject, up to down. He's telling Cantor et al that because they aren't accepting that posture as the nature of their relationship to him, they are coming to harm (again, a weak thing to do, foretelling the future).

His ilk consider Reagan a unitary (one branch of government, the President) imperious ruler and admire him for that, take that model of unitary power as their own. (It's not true but they think it is.) The guy yesterday was complimenting himself by making this comparison, and warning the world of his might. Thigh slapping it was called and done in days of the Ramayana.

His every move announces to the world his supreme power and authority and challenges anyone to dare abridge it. He loves to roar challenges, baiting whomever to approach and die. Even the bowing, which has stopped from being seen through by its subjects, is an insulting gesture of imperium. He has been doing this since childhood and will continue doing it into the end. He cannot alter course. He will never think he needs to.

Bluffing to him is not about poker. It is a hunting technique. A tried and true one used by both animals and humans. The metaphor he used in this incident is neither gaming nor parenting. It is hunting, and specifically, a double decoy, as Ann picked up but did not elaborate. The fellow is neither a player nor a parent. He is a predator. That's the central but not only reason he loves drone warfare. And that's what I see in this incident.

Jenner said...

Mary, I agree with your assessment of the meaning of his words, but
I disagree with your language critique.

I am pretty sure what he meant to say was something like, "Don't make me pull this car over" as a threat to an action he might take that Cantor wouldn't like.

But what he said was more like, "I'm bluffing and if called on it I will be exposed."

Bluffing means you are faking, not able to back up your position.

I think it's safe to say that was not his intended meaning, therefore his use of words off the cuff usually sounds like someone who is trying to sound smart, rather than someone who has an ease with the language.

I.e., militate/mitigate; corps/corpse.

Do we all pretty much understand what he was trying to say? I would say yes, but that doesn't make him a great communicator.

Joe said...

Let's be honest here; even if Obama proposed $4 trillion in cuts, we all know damn well that the cuts would take place over ten years with most the cuts happening in the last three and almost none in the first two. They wouldn't touch all his sacred cows, like trains or ObamaCare or loan programs. They probably won't touch agricultural subsidies. And most of them won't be actual cuts at all, but a reduction of the increase in spending in programs.

Again, Republicans need to stop dealing with this asshole and write a bill with real cuts right now, including eliminating thousands of laws, entire government programs and departments, defense spending and some immediate changes to the tax law. Make the bill simple and very straightforward and present it to the American people. Then vote and go home.

JAL said...

Now, there's also the question whether someone who plays poker competently would use the phrase "Don’t call my bluff." Glenn is right that you don't want the other player to know when you are bluffing, but saying "Don’t call my bluff" isn't admitting you're bluffing. Indeed, if you were playing with someone who thought it was, saying "Don’t call my bluff" would be a great way to get them not to fold when you have an excellent hand.

This does not describe Barack Obama. He is not. that. smart.

His problem is he learned to play only one way, the Chicago / Alinsky way, and never had real life experience working things through with adults who don't bludgeon or demean their opposition. And who actually in some cases, have principles.

Canuck said...

"Why can't they just do something sensible (I know, I know) like rolling back spending to 2008 or 2002 levels. The government was working okay back then, wasn't it?"

The economic system took a real shot with Lehman's collapse and the housing crisis.

Huge wealth loss in the US, consumers underwater, sky-rocketing unemployment, buisnesses going bust, less state & federal taxes paid, ect.

And then the baby boomers started to retire, go on medicare, ect. In past generations of the US there's been a much greater proportion of the population employed people to those who are on medicare & are unemployed.

As more baby boomers retire & if nemployment stays high it'll get worse.

t-man said...

Dayton cave and Republicans win the battle for Minnesota!

Mary said...

Last comment, I promise.

Re "His problem is he learned to play only one way, the Chicago / Alinsky way"

This is a myth really. He spent little time there, and isn't all that "tough" either in negotiation, getting the job done, or making effective threats/bribes.

Chicago during the Machine Days was known as the City That Works. It's why Richard J. Daley was tolerated so well, and M. was liked, even as he softened the tone. (meaning, sure you might disagree with the tactics, but if they kept the city livable, clean and healthy enough for a guy at least to have a shot at getting himself up -- not being lifted by uninvolved others -- it was tolerated.)

Here, I don't much see the Job Getting Done. So the tactics Obama's New Dems use -- which really are mild or weak sauce by Chicago standards -- aren't really harkening us back to the Days of the Chicago Way. Those times really are passed, I think, although perhaps the administration (Rahm especially) might have benefitted by the continuation of such a myth.

My personal opinion, fwiw. See Royko's Boss, for a well run machine, which this administration simply is not.

JAL said...

Help me out here on an organizational / administrative matter re the rumored letter (origin -- WH team,I am sure) which could be sent out declaring there won't be SS or military payments made becasue of the evil republicans.

How can President Obama decide what money the Treasury Department sends out, when these things have been determined by others. Others meaning, I assume, that Congress has something to do with military pay / $ which goes to to the DOD or whoever, and $ which is secure in the lock box (spitting coffee on keyboard) by virtue of someone besides the POTUS deciding that.

Seems he thinks if we aren't a banana republic (didn't *he* say that recently??) we should become one.

It does seem that his Columbia transcript which is none of our damned business must have included classes with Cloward and Piven.

His economic experience involved acolytes of theirs at the very least. His experience also was based only on on giving away *other* people's.

He is not interested in providing Americans opportunities to build wealth through work and entrepreneurship and innovation, that's for sure. That's like trying to speak Inuinnaqtun.

And as we know, English seems to create problems for him.

wv angst
It's not a statistical anomaly.

JAL said...

Hey Mary -- I think I meant the bullying way. The threatening muscle. The under the table deals. The cutting off of anyone in opposition. The money flown in one direction but never producing anything tangible except to keep the needy needy.

He is a snarky bully after the engaging smile comes off.

JAL said...

Above: giving away other people's MONEY that is.

Sorry for the quick edit.

Phil 3:14 said...

What do you base that on? I've seen no great upturn in polls showing increased suport for the President on this matter

Just personal opinion.

According to IBD/TIPP, 58% oppose raising the debt ceiling. Only 36% support a raise. These figures include include 59% of independents AND 38% of Democrats.

Rasmussen reports today that 55% of survey participants oppose a tax increase as part of a debt ceiling deal, which includes 51% of idependents.

It looks to me that a majority of citizens oppose both a tax increase and more borrowing.


But I wouldn't assume those results indicate what public opinion will be post-whatever resolution. Remember the majority of Americans supported "healthcare reform" and they support much of what is in PPACA and yet they're negative on Obamacare.

madawaskan said...

Someone should have called Obama's bluff a couple of trillion ago -when his administration promised-

the stimulus will keep unemployment below-

8%.


Anyone remember that?


It was arrogant to call out a number like that.

8%.


We have people like Meade claiming he doesn't hold the President accountable for the economy and that he didn't blame other Presidents for the economy.

Well I don't think any other President was arrogant enough to take some $800 billion, now trillion and claim that with that money he could keep unemployment down. In fact doubling down on hubris and claiming to be able to keep it below or at 8%.

Here is the deal-maybe you can't hold a President accountable for the economy but you can hold him responsible or accountable if he -

assumes the arrogance.

You can hold Obama accountable for the arrogant promises and bluffs he makes to the American people that has cost them

BILLIONS of dollars.

Billions, and what is unemployment at?

9.2%.

Could easily reach 10% by the next election and that is what has -

Obama posturing-

Don't call my bluff.

Do call his bluff America- on Election Day.

It's your money on the table.

BJM said...

Obama has a big birthday bash cum fundraiser set for the 3th in Chicago.

Starving granny and leaving DC to party with fat cat donors isn't a great re-election move...so I think he's bluffing...but this admin excels in forced errors so who the hell knows?

Michael said...

Garage: You make a living in sales on a straight commission with your personality? It is a hell of a country, I can tell you that!! Good for you.

Scott M said...

Remember the majority of Americans supported "healthcare reform" and they support much of what is in PPACA and yet they're negative on Obamacare.

Yes, but, remember, that while I support electricity, freezers, and ice cream, I do NOT like frozen treats shoved up my ass at gunpoint.

garage mahal said...

Garage: You make a living in sales on a straight commission with your personality?.

ha. Yep. For the past 10 yrs.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"...although he didn't need aristocrats to work it into the Nantucket series. Black and military to boot..."

Never could buy into the black lesbian Coast Guard commander who just happened to be a martial arts expert and sword master.

I was ready for the transgendered midget who was ex-Delta Force who lived on the island before the change.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...


100% straight commission. I receive zero salary.


Oh wow!

It sounds like you're moving up at Mary Kay, garbage. Did they give you the pink car?

garage mahal said...

Jay
So tell us: What do you do for work?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"..."Let us both show our W2's from last year. I still wager I paid more in taxes than you earned. You up to it?"..."

Garage claims he makes six figures which proves any idiot can make it.

America, what a country.

sorepaw said...

Garage,

Obama offered 4 trillion in deficit reduction, and Republicans refused. They won't even agree to half that.

Give the amounts that Obama offered to cut, the programs from which he offered to cut them, and the years in which his cuts were to be applied.

Remember, the CBO doesn't score speeches.

Michael said...

Garage. As i said, my hst is off to you that you eat what you kill. I mean that. You can have whatever crazy view of the world you want but if you make your money strictly by commission you have my respect.

Hoosier Daddy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael said...

Jay. A guy who makes all his money from commissions should not be mocked about his job. If he has the pink Cadillac he should drive it proudly. If you are getting a paycheck you might want to think of the asses you kiss versus the asses Garage does not have to kiss. Just, as the man says, saying

Hoosier Daddy said...

"...Garage. As i said, my hst is off to you that you eat what you kill...."

So did Hannibal Lector.

BJM said...

Another reason I know Obama is bluffing?

How the hell are they going to stop the electronic payout?

The SSA began a phase out of checks and no longer issues checks to recipients applying after April 30th, with a full phase out completed in 2013.

The SS already pays 85% of their recipients via direct deposit or DirectExpress debit cards.

It would take weeks to reprogram the stop and they would have no idea of a restart date. Plus we're talking about govt systems, D'Oh! Then there's the backend interface with Comerica's debit card platform and it's only two weeks until the first payout date.

Not possible.

Jay said...

Michael said...

Jay. A guy who makes all his money from commissions should not be mocked about his job.


Sorry, I don't agree.

Especially given that it is unlikely he/she is telling the truth.

Further, these "commissions" could be from selling junk on eBay for example...

Hoosier Daddy said...

He once claimed his only friends are conservatives. Considering his consistent contempt he displays here for conservatives, I can't help but question his veracity.

Oligonicella said...

"I'd say the biggest problem with the poker metaphor is that it characterizes the talks as a game..."

You, my dear, have never played poker at a table with guns on it, have you? It's no fucking game.

Michael said...

Jay. If you can make a living selling junk on ebay my hat is off to that as well. Do you think that form of making money is wrong? Unseemly? Beneath you? Be interested in why you would have that view.

garage mahal said...

Jay. A guy who makes all his money from commissions should not be mocked about his job.

I couldn't live any other way. But guys I've worked with in the past that could have easily moved into a sales chair, and probably been good at it, would never take that chance.

Jay said...

Uh-oh garbage, Gov Dayton just caved:



FOX 9) - Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton and Republican leaders are returning to budget talks, with a 2 p.m. meeting in Dayton’s office.

The meeting comes after the governor sent a letter Thursday morning to House Speaker Kurt Zellers and Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch, saying he "reluctantly" agrees to accept the Republican budget proposal from June 30


Barry's next...

BJM said...

@Michael 1:55

Garage massages and kisses plenty of customer ass, he may not have a hierarchy of management ass to kiss daily....but, as Bobby sang,
You’re gonna have to kiss some ass, yes indeed

...er summin' like that.

garage mahal said...

He once claimed his only friends are conservatives

Nope, never said that.

Joanna said...

Now would be a good time for Obama to lead from behind.

Seeing Red said...

But I wouldn't assume those results indicate what public opinion will be post-whatever resolution. Remember the majority of Americans supported "healthcare reform" and they support much of what is in PPACA and yet they're negative on Obamacare.



Maybe that's because they actually had their rates jacked up & some companies explained they had to because of Obamacare?


When people actually have to start paying for things.......

LOLOL

Michael said...

Bjm. I concede that sales involves ass kissing (assuming the job is sales, one can sit at a screen and sell and buy options all day and make money without kissing a single ass). But the ass kissing is strictly a matter of choice whereas it is often a necessity in a corporate setting and in sales it is generally directly correlated to near term compensation versus a way of life.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Nope, never said that..."

Actually ya, I believe ya did.

Clyde said...

Scratch "World Poker Tour" off the list of Obama's post-presidential career options.

Robert said...

Wasn't Obama's negotiating strategy prefigured by Wallace Shawn in The Princess Bride? I think it was: http://youtu.be/f6wqKb8EUxI

garage mahal said...

Actually ya, I believe ya did.

I said most of the people I know well, and hang out with on a regular basis are conservatives. Which isn't a lot of people.

AllenS said...

garage mahal said...
I said most of the people I know well, and hang out with on a regular basis are conservatives. Which isn't a lot of people

What?

Is your black neighbor, Figment, is he a conservative?

dbp said...

I say call his bluff: Let's see if he has a fully functional debt star.

garage mahal said...

Is your black neighbor, Figment, is he a conservative?

Not sure. He's an Ohio State fan, I know that much.

Alex said...

garage is more mentally ill then usual. I fear for his safety.

JAL said...

Debt star here.

Remember when that was sort of funny in a clever way?

chickenlittle said...

Alex said...
garage is more mentally ill then usual. I fear for his safety.

I've spoken on the phone to Garage Mahal. I don't say he's a great man. He says he's made a lot of money but his name was never in the paper. He's not the finest character that ever lived. But he's a human being, and a terrible thing is happening to him. So attention must be paid. He's not to be allowed to fall in his grave like an old dog. Attention, attention must finally be paid to such a person.

chickenlittle said...

"He knew what he wanted and went out and got it! Walked into a jungle and came out, the age of twenty-one, and he's rich!"

- Garage Mahal, Dearth of a Salesman, Act 1

Hoosier Daddy said...

"...I said most of the people I know well, and hang out with on a regular basis are conservatives. Which isn't a lot of people...."

Surprising considering the contempt you hold conservatives. I know quite a few liberals but I don't hang out with them. Birds of a feather and all that.

Alex said...

But he's a human being, and a terrible thing is happening to him.

Inquisitive minds need to know!

grackle said...

Increase in the debt ceiling, higher taxes, and minimal spending cuts are going to further dampen the economy. Obama has 15 months tops to turn the economy around, and his policies are not the recipe to do it.

This contains an assumption with which I don’t agree. Namely, that Obama will be blamed for the poor economy. I believe that after the smoke has cleared from these negotiations the GOP will find themselves with either

a. partial ownership of the economy which will provide partial cover for Obama in the coming election

or

b. complete ownership of the economy which will provide complete cover for Obama in the coming election.

This is what Republicans need to understand. No matter what you do, when election time rolls around, you'll be blamed for everything. So you may as well stick to a principle.

Yes, of course the MSM will try to hang the economy around the GOP’s neck “no matter what.” Actually, the MSM has been engaged in the blame-the-GOP game the minute the economy started going bad. But they could never quite make it stick, never had the specific event with which to give that meme credibility, until these negotiations.

If you[the GOP] capitulate to Barack Obama and raise the debt ceiling or raise job-killing taxes and fees during a recession, WE[tantrum-prone conservatives] will take you out.

And Obama will be laughing all the way to a second term.

Had he[Obama] been holding a winning hand, he would have waited for people to call[his bluff].

I believe Obama wants the negotiations to fail. See “b.” above. He’s going to do anything he can to anger the GOP and goad them into rash behavior. Name-calling, condescension, scare tactics … nothing is off-limits. Occasional verbal gaffe’s aside the man does nothing that is not orchestrated. Obama’s best option at the moment is for the negotiations to fail and thus for the GOP to gain complete ownership of the economy.

Best be hit for doing the right thing and holding firm than to be hit for being wimps.

A good phrase for a tombstone.

Obamas clay feet are now crumbling and the road to the election is one and a half years away.

“Clay feet?”(snort) “Crumbling?”(guffaw)

Rabel said...

What's the actual bluff? Here it is:

" 'What I've said to [Republican negotiators] is, 'Let's go,' Obama said. He said he would not sign into law any 'temporary stopgap resolution to this problem' of anywhere between 30 and 180 days."

The republicans are set up to offer a clean 6 month to one year increase in the debt limit just before August 2. If Obama vetoes that, he gets obvious credit for whatever happens. If he doesn't veto, the whole thing will be back for the election but with bigger debt numbers.

grackle said...

He's threatening to veto it because he doesn't want a short term fix that has to be re-negotiated again prior to the 2012 elections.

Bingo

If Republicans want to stop the irresponsible borrowing and spending, they'll refuse to vote for an increase in the debt ceiling. It's that simple.

If Republicans want to perpetuate the irresponsible borrowing and spending, they'll refuse to vote for an increase in the debt ceiling, thereby handing to 2012 election to Obsama. It's that simple.

Fixed that up for the commentor.

He's[Obama is] saying "like Clinton in 1995, I will win the public debate over this, and you will lose." I don't think Clinton actually did win that debate …

Is the commentor aware that in 1996 Clinton won by a landslide?

He[Obama] is holding a losing hand and will lose unless Cantor and Boehner start crying and shaking then fold.

“Losing hand?” Ha ha ha ha, until out of breath, gasping, then ha ha ha ha for a full minute.

The best strategy now for Boehner and McConnell is to agree to a "clean" debt limit increase to fight another day. Ideally, it should be one that will only last a year so we can have this debate again before the election.

Yes, Obama wants a “long term” agreement in order to defer future negotiations safely beyond the 2012 election. But if the GOP sweetens the pot sufficiently he may be persuaded to agree to a “short term” plan. However, any sweetener Obama is likely to agree to will also be sure to give the GOP joint ownership of the economy and will probably also keep peevish conservatives away from their checkbooks and away from the polls come Nov 2012. Right now Obama has the GOP stretched over a log and is unzipping his jeans, Deliverance-style. The only question is how messy the sodomy is going to be.

I've seen no great upturn in polls showing increased support for the President on this matter.

The only polls that count are the polls that take place after the negotiations are over.

I think the Republicans are winning and Barry's tantrum (and that's what it was) shows it.

This type of thinking is called “clutching at straws.”

Let's remember here, obama got up and left the table (room). Meaning, that he didn't have the cards.

Poker 101: Whoever wants to end the game has usually won the most hands.

Old Dad said...

The President doesn't no shit about poker. What he meant was "don't fuck with me."

My Old Dad just gave us the look. It meant "don't fuck with me." His actions always supported the look, which pleased my mother who didn't like the effbomb.

B said...

grackle,

You are making the same error Obama is making. You are assuming that the electorate is not aware of what the differing positions represent over the long term.

Seeing Red said...

Is the commentor aware that in 1996 Clinton won by a landslide?


Rubs eyes, accesses memory & net:


He didn't even get 50%.


Against Dole & Perot.

LOLOLOL

Who is to say what really would have happened?

SunnyJ said...

Yeah Old Dad...we called it the "one eye"...it was a bit of rotation of his head and dropped one ear to shoulder just a little..one eye squinted and eye brow of other went up...

Never said a word.

You knew with certainty you were destined to be picking yourself up on the other side of county road B.

Seeing Red said...

probably also keep peevish conservatives away from their checkbooks and away from the polls come Nov 2012.

Not necessarily, not downticket.

Pres - depends on candidate.

2000 election, more people voted for senators than president.

Checkbook, mine's been closed a long time.

Seeing Red said...

The only polls that count are the polls that take place after the negotiations are over.



And we still have a year to go after.

Seeing Red said...

Keith Hennessey:

...Chairman Bowles found that, to get three Senate Republicans to support a net tax increase, he needed to repeal an expensive new health program, tick off the trial lawyers with malpractice reform, establish a pilot program for Ryan-Rivlin style Medicare reform, and place a cap on total health spending. He needed to increase the eligibility age not just for Medicare, but also for Social Security, and he needed to slow Social Security spending growth through changes to the benefit formula. He needed to tick off government worker unions by prospectively repealing their special exemption from Social Security. And he needed to agree to tax reform that would raise total revenues while dramatically lowering top individual and corporate rates.

President Obama has been unwilling to make any of these changes, and yet suggests Republicans are being unreasonable for not agreeing to net tax increases. The President refuses to discuss changes to the trillion dollar new health entitlement he and Congress created last year. He refuses to discuss changes to Social Security beyond a CPI correction. He insists that top tax rates go up. He attacked Paul Ryan for his long-term Medicare reform and refuses to consider it.

At least as important, Bowles & Simpson offered a long-term fiscal solution in exchange for this net tax increase, under which spending would never have exceeded 22% of GDP and deficits would have quickly dropped below 2% of GDP and eventually reached balance. That’s too much spending (and too high taxes) for my taste, but it’s qualitatively different from and far superior to the President’s proposal, which is to trade permanent tax increases for only a temporary slowdown in government spending growth and budget deficits.....

AllenS said...

In 1996 Clinton got 49.2% of the vote.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 207   Newer› Newest»