The lovefest negotiation: Obama and Congressional leaders
Here’s an article that attempts to give the inside scoop on yesterday’s meeting between Obama and leaders of Congress. It as not a happy time:
The Republicans’ approach, three days after they resoundingly won control of the Senate in midterm elections, “seemed to fall on deaf ears,” Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said in a telephone interview. “The president instead of being contrite or saying in effect to America, ‘I hear you,’ as a result of the referendum on his policies that drove this last election, he seems unmoved and even defiant.”
“I don’t know why he would want to sabotage his last two years as president by doing something this provocative,” said Cornyn. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell earlier this week said the president’s stance was “like waving a red flag in front of a bull.”
Note the grim faces in the photo. Including Harry Reid’s.
Megan McArdle asks an interesting and related question: does Obama even know how to negotiate?
Most notably, of course, he said he would take executive action on immigration by year’s end unless Republicans passed a bill. It’s certainly a bold negotiating tactic: You can do what I want, or I’ll go ahead and do what I want anyway. This is how you “negotiate” with a seven-year old, not a Senate Majority Leader.
Actually, it’s how you negotiate as a seven-year-old, as well.
That is, if you’re even trying to negotiate. What if you’re trying to coerce, threaten, bully, while maintaining a facade of give-and-take negotiations—a facade that is so gossamer that it ends up fooling no one except those who want to be fooled?
As I wrote in my Noonan post, it’s as though the idea of Obama as a reasonable man, interested in the welfare of the country, willing to sit down and iron things out, dies very very hard, despite years and years of evidence to the contrary.
But although I think McArdle misses the fact that Obama has no intention of actually negotiating or compromising, at least not until his back is pushed right to the wall and perhaps not even then, she does go on to give a very interesting answer to her question about Obama and negotiations with the Republicans. Let’s assume for a moment he really would like to engage them in that way; does he know how? Her answer is “probably not,” and I think this may indeed be true, although it would be really informative if someone could tell us whether during his brief stint as a practicing attorney he ever negotiated a settlement, for example. I actually suspect that in situations where Obama didn’t think he had the power, and where it wasn’t really his agenda he was trying to implement but rather his clients’ interests, he could actually negotiate quite well.
McArdle:
I wonder if Obama even knows how to negotiate with Republicans. It’s not as if he has a long, distinguished record of passing legislation in a mixed environment. His later years in the Illinois State Senate enjoyed a solid Democratic majority, and he jumped into the U.S. Senate at a propitious time. Soon after he arrived came the wave of 2006, when Democrats controlled both houses of congress by comfortable margins, and Senator Obama was far too junior to be negotiating with the White House. Then came the financial crisis, and another wave, and Obama spent the first two years of his presidency in a happy situation where he could get things done without needing the support of the opposition. He didn’t even negotiate with his own party; the Senate negotiated his health care bill, and Nancy Pelosi whipped it through the House.
Post 2010, of course, he also hasn’t had much practice negotiating…
But at this point he doesn’t hold all the cards, does he? The legislative branch is about to be controlled by Republicans; after all, that’s the only reason he had that meeting with them yesterday in the first place. The thing is, I think that Obama thinks he’s got all the wild cards in the deck, and he’s willing to play them. If he’s willing to go outside the rules, he may think he’s the one holding the winning hand.
Both Noonan and McArdle keep talking about Obama as a politician. What they’re missing is that he’s an ideologue. And that he and his ilk are in still in the “long march” mode.
Meant to add that I’d really like to know whether they honestly don’t see that, or whether it’s just too “out there” a thought to safely express in their world.
For Obama everything seems to be personal. It is always about him.
Maybe the Republicans need to make it about him as well, or at least hint that they are going to. A suggestion that a committee might looking into his background could help. I don’t know what is there. Nobody seems to know. But he has spent several million dollars in court to keep a lid on it. That suggests some concern.
Make it about Obama. That just might get his attention.
Obama has already demonstrated a willingness to go far outside the rules and at this point, I suspect amnesty is his primary domestic focus. Getting it will secure his legacy on the left.
Reid might be reflecting upon Obama’s having thrown his party under the bus while realizing that Obama, in his future actions, will have no regard for any collateral damage among democrats. They literally have a rabid dog on their hands.
Boehner hasn’t realized that threats have no effect upon crazy people while McConnell (the smarter of the two) is perhaps realizing that the prospect of a future constitutional crisis fazes Obama not in the least.
As he either wins or is elevated to the status of a new American black martyr. Just another case of rich, racist whiteys putting down another black man, who got too uppity…
Well, hellfire, and hammer and sickles. Who’d of thought Obama would just now invoke the Brezhnev Doctrine? The hack had a fall back position all the time. Never underestimate red.
Instapundit has a link to a Politico article on why Valerie Jarret sould be fired, with info from former WH staff. Obama has been regularly insulated from opinions that differ from his (or hers). He has never had to test his ideas in the real world, and he has never had to deal with real people. His I’m the greates fantasy has been growing his whole life.
My take on Obama’s strategy isn’t so dependent on his being mentally deficient. He is an ideologue.
He has a great recent example to go on from when he was Senator. In 2006 the voters sent a clear message – the Dems won both houses – that at best they were not comfortable with the Iraq War so what did Bush do? He sent more troops – the surge, and it worked. The fact Bush managed this through some adroit politics isn’t important to Obama.
The Constitution is a flawed document as he well knows because he’s an expert on that topic too.
And the American people don’t know what’s good for them and they have done a lot of bad in order to achieve their current top position in the world order. He does know what needs to be done and the people will just have to get used to their new lower place in the world.
Legalizing the status of illegals is a win-win for him. If he gets impeached he has a recent example as to how that will likely turn out. And if he doesn’t he will have set a trajectory towards several million new Democratic voters that will be unstoppable and well ensure his party and he will be on top for a few generations at least.
What is there to negotiate but the terms of the Republican surrender?
Many Dems believe that the election prospects for 2016 will be in their favor. Their 2012 coalition will return and the Senate will flip their way again as the Republicans are forced to defend many states.
I believe he and they are miscalculating. If he goes ahead and legalizes several million people against the norms of our system, he will drive many more voters against him. He may not care but a great many Democratic politicians will see the road to their own political survival in establishing a record of voting against Obama. If the Republicans propose many reasonable reforms it won’t matter that they are vetoed by Obama, and of course I think it very possible that a new coalition could form with sufficient votes to override his vetoes.
And his lawless legalization move will likely create a consensus for a notch or two harsher treatment of the pending status for those millions of people once a Republican president and enlarged Senate takes power. It’s likely that most will end of staying, but the terms for their status are up in the air. For example, the number who are deported after careful record research might well be higher, but the bigger decision is whether there will be a real pathway to voting citizenship. An example might be the best compromise in which all those legalized by Obama are allowed to stay but denied any future pathway to citizenship and the right to vote or sponsor relatives to come over. That would checkmate Obama and the Democrats on one of I believe his major goals.
Currently among the Republicans there is no broad consensus for such special non voting status, but after Obama’s raw attempt to subvert the Constitution it might be an achievable bipartisan compromise allowing those millions to stay while removing their ability to tip the balance against existing Americans politically.
“Brezhnev Doctrine”, try Muslim doctrine. Remember Osama Bin Laden whining about the loss of Al Andalus, Spain, to the Christians in his first speech after 9/11? Don’t forget, the sweetest sound in the world is the call to prayer in the morning.
Speaking of Obama, “He underscored his intent to act on his own by the end of the year if they don’t approve legislation to ease deportations before then and send it to him to sign.”
Obama is bullying the Republicans to pass his agenda in the lame duck session with discredited Democrat Senators while the Democrats still have the upper hand in the Senate. The Republican leaders should call Obama’s bluff and should stand strong against Obama’s strong arm tactics. It is better for them to let Obama show his hand and to grand amnesty through executive order than for them to be blackmailed by Obama’s lawless behavior into passing a bad law.
Harry Reid said almost nothing at the meeting. Undoubtedly that snake is plotting how he can do as much damage as possible before the end of the year. Hopefully, before he dies Mr. Reid be forced from power and will have the opportunity to think about his legacy and about the unprecedented damage he has done to the institution of the Senate.
Paul in Boston
“Brezhnev Doctrine”, try Muslim doctrine.”
Yes, that works also – they are presumptively the same – once you go socialist/islamic there’s no going back.
Negotiations require flexibility and compromise. Obama has a vision of how the world should work. In spite of all evidence he cannot see that his vision is faulty. So, he is not willing to compromise. When you are an ideologue, you cannot be flexible. To be flexible is to admit there are other ideas that may be worth considering. Ideologues just can’t get there. Obama also does not like the personal give and take of politics with his opponents. I suspect that he loathes hearing anything that is opposed to his vision. If he talks to Boehner and McConnell he’s going to hear plenty of things he doesn’t like. That would leave him seething with anger and unable to engage except in a hostile way. Look at his attack on Paul Ryan during his budget speech in April of 2011. Ryan said, “What we heard today was not fiscal leadership from our commander-in-chief; we heard a political broadside from our campaigner-in-chief.” Read about it here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-bob-woodward-mistake-dress-paul-ryan-face/story?id=17171273
There will be no deals during this next two years. It will be a back-alley, down and dirty fight to the finish. With the new power that the Republicans have – they now really do control spending – they must have a strategy to force Obama to veto reasonable bills, handcuff his spending on immigration reform, and lure him into situations where he exposes himself to the public as the ideologue that he is.
Having witnessed his grandmother in action — a human bulldozer — it’s obvious where Barry picked up his social cues. “My way or the highway!”
His grandmother raised him as an infant. His mother was off at school.
By the age of ten, he was back living with grandmother.
For reasons too obvious, the Press has never brought his grandmother into his personal story arc.
Being forced to give way must imperil Barry’s psyche, for by doing so he’s jumping backwards in time — to his powerless daze under grandma.
And as we all know, those were the days of the choom gang.
Lastly, his grandmother was a numbers maven. He is personally sick and tired of hearing that his budget fantasies don’t pencil out.
He hates arithmetic, budgets, and (personal) boundaries. All three were front and center with his grandmother — and he hates her with a passion.
Of course, Stanley Ann rejected her, too.
Barry simply had an awful childhood, hence the result.
[ Compare and parallel with Stalin, Napoleon and Hitler.]
The whip smart “admin” who runs the pro-Hillary, but in the last six years predominately anti-Obama, hillaryis44 blog suggests that Republicans work with nervous congressional Democrats to block an Iran nuclear deal. That, she says, has to be issue #1. After that, she thinks coalitions may be easier to build to stop unilateral action on amnesty, etc. It seems like an interesting, and possibly, workable tactic. Does anyone have any thoughts on it?
At times the lead pilot in a formation will not have the correct information or he will lose his bearings and not heed any information that is contrary to what he preceives to be absolute fact and then he will lead the whole formation into a mountain that is not supposed to be there.
I don’t know who will sustain the most damage when all of this denial on the part of our heedless, fearless leader plays out but I hope it is mostly his party and not the entire nation. Stay tune for the exciting finish of “The Obama Years”.
Ann: “he and his ilk are in still in the “long march” mode.”
Agreed.
Electoral politics are merely a lesser included element of the activist game. If the GOP and Right self impose a limit to electoral politics in the arena, that is not a competitive limit shared by their counterparts.
Democrats and the Left may march together, but Democrat politician ≠Left activist.
It is time for Right activists to rise, grow out, and compete for the social culture and zeitgeist.
It will be interesting to see how the investigations (IRS, Benghazi, Fast n Furious, etc.) in Congress go after the Republicans start running things in the Senate. That’ll be a tell.
I have long thought that Obama’s ability to enact his agenda was doomed because of he has no skill at legislating.
I think the strangest thing i have read for the past 6 years are the discussions about BO’s lack of negotiating skills, people skills, “will he now start to negotiate?” , etc.
These posts, including from you Neo, are especially curious from a trained psychologist. Obama has never once shown the slightest bit of interest in what anyone else thought. He’s stated himself he’s the best at everything from speech writing through foreign policy, the economy, you name it. He’s never been shy to state his intellectual superiority over everyone.
What in the world would ever make anyone think a person with an ego that’s barely able to fit inside our galaxy, think he would consider negotiating – about anything?
There is no event conceivable that will shake Obama’s belief in his own superior intellect. There has never been a person on the world stage who is as shallow, as coddled, as sheltered, as arrogant, as petulant, as immature, as self centered, or as naive as Barack Obama.
Honest historians will portray him as a spoiled man-boy, who spent his entire presidency focused on his image, leisure, and promoting through surrogates a sophomoric world view that could be found in any liberal college newspaper editorial.
The endless speculation about when he will “get the message” is like wondering when the world will stop turning.
A person with this kind of ego has never had to negotiate. He’s never been told he’s average; to the contrary, his whole life he’s been told over and again he’s exceptional, special, one of a kind. How could he ever think otherwise?
The little prince is not done. Immigration reform is just the start of tantrums; there will be more and there will be some that not even his ardent supporters will condone – but they will restrain themselves from saying so, for fear of retribution. He’s always been dangerous little boy. When the little boy doesn’t get what he wants, he will become vindictive.
What southpaw [12:49 am] sez.
McArdle and Noonan bot voted for Obama and supported him with vigor.
Ever since they have been acting shocked! shocked I tell you! that the tyrant they supported is the tyrant they got. It must always be something else with them. He doesn’t know how to negotiate now! What a lame excuse McArdle is making for herself!!! “It wasn’t my fault! I had no idea this guy didn’t know how to negotiate!”
The two of them are a disgrace.
Noonan is actually a great person who has so lowered herself that it is painful to watch. Even now she absolutely refuses to tell the full truth. Even now she spends her time scolding others and excusing Obama.
What she should do is play the prophet and point her finger at this wicked King and say “Thus sayeth the Lord you whitewashed sepulcher, you rot of a man, you traitor of your country!
The end.
I agree with southpaw 100%.
Also, pundits who continue wondering what Obama will do haven’t been paying attention. In this case, that says more about them than Obama. IMO, they are making the quintessential intellectual’s mistake: believing everyone else is as seemingly rational as they are.
That is also a trait of narcissism, and/or lack of imagination.
southpaw, MJR, Matt_SE:
I wonder whether you actually read my post—because southpaw includes me in those needlessly and fruitlessly speculating on whether Obama will now negotiate. I thought I made it clear in this post as well as quite a few others that I do not see him doing it, and why.
My position is that it is highly unlikely that Obama wishes to negotiate. It is also unlikely he has any experience in it. One possible exception to the latter that I thought of was if—during the time when he worked as a lawyer in Chicago (which he did for a little while, working on 30 cases at the firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland)—he had to negotiate any settlements for clients, he might have acquired some skills in negotiation. I added the caveat that he probably would only be willing to apply those skills in the service of a client rather than in the service of his own agenda. My meaning in saying that was to emphasize that he might not mind giving up or compromising someone else’s goals in order to reach a settlement, but I believe he would very much resist compromising his own.
The rest of the post, with the second McAradle quote, was just a hypothetical. “What if” he really wanted to negotiate—did he in fact have these skills? So there are two parts: does he want to negotiate with the Republicans (my answer is “no”), and if he did want to, does he have the skills (my answer is “very likely not”).
Fine. I agree with southpaw’s post 95%.
Obama will only negotiate, in my opinion, if Valerie and Michelle tell him to.
“Negotiating” and other such niceties are not arrows in Obama’s quiver because he’s never needed them to get to where he is.
neo-neocon, 12:34 pm — “southpaw, MJR, Matt_SE: I wonder whether you actually read my post–because southpaw includes me in those needlessly and fruitlessly speculating on whether Obama will now negotiate.”
I did read your post, neo. When I wrote, “What southpaw [12:49 am] sez,” I was referring only to southpaw’s evaluation of “the little prince” President. I’d skipped straight past the reference to neo at the beginning of southpaw’s post; I should have made that plain in my own “What southpaw sez” post.
Neo, I think you’re pretty clear on where you stand vis-a-vis “the little prince”, and it’s not speculating on his willingness (or ability!) to negotiate, except as carefully qualified in your 12:34 pm post. I regret misrepresenting your position as I did.
It all goes back to Stanley.
No wonder his mom preferred the company of Africans and Indonesians. To them Stanley doesn’t sound any stranger than Margaret or Rosemary. The Kenyans mostly speak English, but it’s English English, where you can be named Blottie Finknottle without eliciting too many sniggers wherever you go.
Yes, after 6 years of Obama’s presidency you’d think Noonan and McArdle might have noticed that in the face of failure, Obama always doubles down, digs in deeper. It’s who he is, it’s what he does, again and again.
MJR:
No problem. I just wanted to make it clear.
What Southpaw said.
And I would like to say that I appreciate Blert’s input, as regards Da Won’s formative years. Nothing like having been there, and observed, first-hand.
Wish that our tame and neutered press could provide the same kind of observation and insight, but alas, this is the 21st century.
Mr.Sulky-Pouty-High Chair Pounder aka His Infantile Majesty. By the numbers King Baby/Narcissist. Po’Wittle Bam-Bam WAAAA..!
This love fest meeting in which Obama is doubling down on his refusal to compromise should be a neon sign bright warning to Democrats. The worst for them is yet to come.
This last election they suffered because of Reid’s strategy of not allowing any movement or votes. Republicans were able to hang those 97% voting with Obama records around their necks and light them.
In 2016 Obama (and Dems in general) seem to believe that their old coalition will rise again to save their seats and maybe take several back. However, it looks to me that they will have a new problem. Now the Senate is in Republican hands and there will be a large number of bills put through. Their problem in 2016 will be a 2 year record of votes on a wide range of issues.
Many of the remaining incumbent Dems (those not in deep blue states) will have to vote, and with Obama oblivious (he’s no Bill C) to basic political posturing they can either vote with him and look like the problem, or vote with the Republicans and look like the solution.
Sgt. Mom:
Well, all they have to do is interview blert 🙂 .
How dare Obama voters question their Messiah. Those like Noonan have forgotten their place.
Via Peter Berkowitz at Real Clear Politics via Power Line, I found my way to an article Cass Sunstein wrote about Obama in January 2008. It is almost outrageously funny in that Sunstein imputes ideas and motives to Obama that are non-existent. One wonders how Sunstein would respond to questions about the article today.
Anyway, some excerpts:
Hard to pick a favorite, isn’t it? They’re all keepers, really.
In a nutshell:
http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/09/caught-camera-obamacare-architect-admits-deceiving-americans-pass-law/
H/T Instapundit.
@Ann
Cass Sunstein may be the most dishonest hack in the entire administration, or nearly in all of the left.
There are ignorant doofuses like Ezra Klein. There are intelligent incompetents like Obama.
Sunstein is a malevolent genius, IMO, on the level of Goebbels. He knows DAMN WELL what he’s doing, knows that it’s a lie, and doesn’t care. He has an agenda to push.
He is also not hamstrung by personal foibles like Obama, which makes him that much more dangerous.
From what I’ve been able to gather, Sunstein is pure evil.
Cass Sunstein is the “Nudge” guy, he’s all about the government forcing people to make the “right” decision, so it’s laughable that he was preaching that Obama had no intention of forcing people to buy health insurance, etc. Oh, no, we’ll just nudge them into doing it with a tax – no, penalty, wait!-shared responsibility fee if they choose not to get a health plan.
He very well might be. I’ve seen no evidence that the Republican’s will do anything to fight him. McConnell definitely did, and I believe Boehner has also already run out in front of the camera to say there won’t be a shutdown, the lawsuit they threatened never actually went through, they’re not going to try to impeach him, etc.
The question to the GOPers, should he go ahead and do something along the lines of executive amnesty, is “So, what are you prepared to do?” My guess is their answer is, “whine”. Although in either Boehner’s or McConnell’s place, the answer might actually be “wine”… Based on what they’ve said, which the press would be only too willing to bring out to remind them of, they’re toothless.
I will note that I would be happy to be wrong.