I’ve watched some of the pre-Sunday talk blitz. The word from Obama’s media comrades is this shutdown is more likely than ever. Then they talk about what the resident is doing about the situation.
Now he says he will not discuss anything with the Republicans under the threat of Government shutdown. Even though he is the one threatening to shut it down. And he says he would be happy to talk about items and changes to Obamacare with Republicans. He claims he is more than willing to negotiate and meet them halfway on changes they want. But that he will not do it under the threat of force, or in other words, negotiate only if they drop the shutdown threat.
Flash back a month when he was talking about making an agreement with Syria. He heralded the threat of force for bringing about the discussion. (even if the discussion is a walking failure — never mind that) It was only due to his threat of force he said.
In an interview with Chris Wallace this past Sunday: Mr Wallace mentioned there has been an interesting development. Today, the Russians say they’re going to push Syria to put chemical weapons under international control. The Syrian foreign minister says he welcomes that. Will you delay a strike to see how that plays out?
OBAMA: I think it’s fair to say that we would not be at this point without a credible threat of a military strike
Now he condemns Republicans strategy, which is the only way they could get him to address the problem-plagued Obamacare.
And now he talks to the new Iranian president, sending the message loud and clear that while they are on the cusp of talking, it means no one including US would take action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. But that is the whole strategy of Iran to delay possible opposition actions, with rhetoric, so they can become a nuclear power. Enter Obama, giving them almost exactly what they were looking for: time and delay to get to their objective.
At home, Obama has big problems with talking. He wants it all his way or the highway. Wait a minute, aren’t the Syrian president, the Iranian president and Obama doing exactly the same thing? Using the same strategy? Or, as my friend Gene says, isn’t that the manual of tyrants? They “promise” to talk in exchange for dropping the threat of force, to get what they want. (marginalize their opposition) Never mind that their promises are an illusion, just like Obama’s other promises.
Obama said referring to the current loggerheads:
“No Congress before this one has ever, ever, in history been irresponsible enough to threaten default, to threaten an economic shutdown, to suggest America not pay its bills, just to try to blackmail a president into giving them some concessions on issues that have nothing to do with a budget.”
Let alone that he called it an “economic shutdown”, what the hell is he referring to?
Angela Wiltz | September 21, 2013
“…… during the Carter administration the government shut down each year he was in office for about 11 days at a time. “During President Reagan’s two terms, there were six shutdowns, typically just one or two days apiece. Deals got cut. Everybody moved on.
In 1995-96, however, shutdowns morphed into political warfare, to the dismay of Republicans who thought they could use them to drag Clinton to the negotiating table on a balanced budget plan.”
For the most part, they were done under a Democrat-controlled House in Congress. They were called “funding gaps” and did not involve shutting down the entire government operations. There were 17 shutdowns.
PS: he didn’t mind shutting down offshore-drilling, fracking, or threats to bulldoze the coal industry, but don’t jeopardize his beloved tool.