Obama Has Not Come to Negotiate, He’s Come to Consolidate Power

The level of audacity coming from the Democrats – who I chiefly blame for creating this economic mess in the first place- is simply unbelievable. And I mean, unbelievable- as in, if I saw this plot line in a movie I would see it as bad writing, believing no career politicians could be that arrogant and ignorant of economic realities.

To that end, I don’t believe this is an economic battle at all. It is really shaping up as a political battle where President Obama is looking to consolidate his power as being both executive and supreme legislator, asserting his authority over all branches of government (having already dismissed the Supreme Court as an “unelected group of people”).

Apparently, I am not alone in my belief. Charles Krauthammer believes similarly:

“Let’s understand President Obama’s strategy in the ‘fiscal cliff’ negotiations. It has nothing to do with economics or real fiscal reform. This is entirely about politics. It’s Phase Two of the 2012 campaign. The election returned him to office. The fiscal-cliff negotiations are designed to break the Republican opposition and grant him political supremacy, something he thinks he earned with his landslide 2.8-point victory margin on Election Day.

This is why he sent Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to the Republicans to convey not a negotiating offer but a demand for unconditional surrender. House Speaker John Boehner had made a peace offering of $800 billion in new revenues. Geithner pocketed Boehner’s $800 billion, doubled it to $1.6 trillion, offered risible cuts that in 2013 would actually be exceeded by new stimulus spending, and then demanded that Congress turn over to the president all power over the debt ceiling.

Boehner was stunned. Mitch McConnell laughed out loud. In nobler days, they’d have offered Geithner a pistol and an early-morning appointment at Weehawken. Alas, Boehner gave again, coming back a week later with spending-cut suggestions — as demanded by Geithner — only to have them dismissed with a wave of the hand.”

Kudos to Mr. Krauthammer for successfully pulling off the first Alexander Hamilton duel joke seen since 1804.

Krauthammer continued,

“Such nonsense abounds because Obama’s objective in these negotiations is not economic but political: not to solve the debt crisis but to fracture the Republican majority in the House. Get Boehner to cave, pass the tax hike with Democratic votes provided by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and let the Republican civil war begin.

It doesn’t even matter whether Boehner gets deposed as speaker. Either way, the Republican House would be neutered, giving Obama a free hand to dominate Washington and fashion the entitlement state of his liking.”

The Obama Administration has created a nice, tyrannical situation for themselves. If they reject any reasonable offer, they may be able to get the weak-willed Republicans to cave. If they can do that, the Democrats get what they want while simultaneously weakening the confidence in Republicans and driving a wedge between conservatives and moderates.

Krauthammer finishes,

“What should Republicans do? Stop giving stuff away. If Obama remains intransigent, let him be the one to take us over the cliff. And then let the new House, which is sworn in weeks before the president, immediately introduce and pass a full across-the-board restoration of the Bush tax cuts.

Obama will counter with the usual all-but-the-rich tax cut — as the markets gyrate and the economy begins to wobble under his feet.

Result? We’re back to square one, but with a more level playing field. The risk to Obama will be rising and the debt ceiling will be looming. Most important of all, however, Republicans will still be in possession of their unity, their self-respect — and their trousers.”

If the Democrats take us over the cliff, they may try to frame the narrative as a tragic result of Republican stubbornness to protect the “wealthy.” However, when tax rates go up, it’s not too hard to convince the American people to blame the one in charge. Plus, going over the cliff obstructs Obama’s power grab and Republicans can call it a strategic victory- especially after they push through a restoration of the tax cuts.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Obama Has Not Come to Negotiate, He’s Come to Consolidate Power

  1. Tom W says:

    Republicans are too weak willed and spineless to deal with Obama. He has proven himself to be the master of the Marxist agenda. Republicans are living, thinking, and acting 70 years in the past. Like it or not, Obama is the present and future of this country. When the new Constitutional Convention is held three years from now and presidential terms are extended, he will be the master of all he steals and surveys. Republicans won’t be rounded up; just ignored and irrelevant as long as they keep their mouths shut…and they will.

    • TexasLadyJuanita says:

      Okay, I will bite . . . what Constitutional Convention? Our original Constitutional Convention had members from each state. Who exactly are those members for a Constitutional Convention today? If governors – that could be awesome. If Senators – awful. If House Representatives – awful.

  2. Richard Ksenich says:

    Let’s start hearing more about the Constitutional Convention. It may be a blessing to the American people if they understand it and what it is designed to do.

  3. George Jones says:

    Our Marxist Dictator: This time you only have teeth marks on your butt. The next four years there will be big chunks torn out, and you will not have any money to buy medicine!! But you can always get food stamps. Along with 47 million others,just get in line and wait and wait and wait!!! But you voted him in so quit complaining!!!

  4. Tom W says:

    A Constitutional Convention will not bode well for the country. Each state will decide who to send and with what authority each governor/legislature will allow. The Marxists will see to it that the convention is heavily loaded with their point of view. The result will be a “democracy.” Please keep in mind that the former Soviet Union also had a constitution that guaranteed a “democracy.” In the 30′s, the German Socialist Workers Party (NSDP) also developed a “democracy.” Under both “democracies,” hundreds of millions of people were slaughtered. Obama’s civilian security force, currently in training (it graduated its first class several weeks ago), will become America’s own midnight door knockers when FEMA finishes training, arming, and badging them. They will have police authority, military weaponry, and a complete hard-on for anyone who disagrees, even in the slightest, with our Marxist government. That includes just about everyone who didn’t vote for President-For-Life-Obama. The next 20 years will be a living hell in this country.

  5. sally morris says:

    RE: the proposed Constitutional Convention – What on earth are these nuts talking about? The big problem we have right now is a direct result of not living under the authority of the Constitution we now have. When we did abide by its authority our government was responsive and responsible. Our economy was surging. Our military strength guranteed our national security and our reputation among other nations was respected. So what would be wrong with simply going back to the one that has worked for over 200 yers o freedo n Amrica and return to safety, prosperity and freedom under our law? Forget about constitutional conventions and new constitutions. What makes anyone think that this government and these officials will live under any law they don’t make themselves? Which is to say, any law? This has ceased to be a nation of laws and has become a lazy, sloppy personality cult that has no intention or capability of paying its bills when they come due. Our schools have been turned into political indoctrination stations and are now branching out into the field of sexual perversion of tots. Parents think they’re doing their job by dropping the kid off at school or at the estranged other parent’s home on time. The idea of providing any moral guidance to their own children is dismissed out of hand. What did we expect?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>