Understanding the President

Joseph Rago of the Wall Street Journal talks things over with House Majority Leader Cantor, and comes out with this:

Like Mr. Cantor, President Obama is also a man of deep and strong convictions, and perhaps that’s why they seem to dislike each other so much. Call it, to adapt Freud, the narcissism of big differences. Mr. Cantor cautions that he isn’t a “psychoanalyst”—before politics, he was a real-estate lawyer and small businessman—but he says, “It’s almost as if someone cannot have another opinion that is different from his. He becomes visibly agitated. . . . He does not like to be challenged on policy grounds.”

In a meeting with the Journal’s editorial board Wednesday, Mr. Cantor, 48, gives his side of one of his more infamous altercations with the president. In a mid-July Cabinet Room meeting, Mr. Cantor made a suggestion that Mr. Obama and other Democrats took as impertinent. “How dare I,” Mr. Cantor recalls of the liberal sentiment in the room. He was sitting between Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, “and they were in absolute agreement that [the president] was such a saint for having endured all this.”

“No president has sat here like I have, in these kinds of meetings, with congressional leaders, in this detail,” Mr. Obama said in Mr. Cantor’s recollection, which Democrats dispute. Mr. Cantor says the president also invoked Ronald Reagan “to be a little patronizing of us, because he assumed that anything Reagan did we like.” Mr. Obama then told Mr. Cantor, “Eric, don’t call my bluff,” and walked out…

Maybe this is why Obama has a desire to appoint Czars…it was Czar Nicholas I who stated, at the start of his reign, “I cannot permit that someone should disagree with my views, once he knows what they are”.  Might be that my little joke about His Majesty, Barry I actually hits close to home.  President Obama might be one of those sad political specimens who are driven bonkers by contradiction.  Equally telling, if Cantor has it completely right, is the servility of Pelosi and Hoyer…The One was defied by a Republican, and that was offensive…where does that little worm get off talking like that to Dear Leader?  I wonder if Obama still has the Democrat Congressional leadership enthralled like that?  Is the mere fact that he is black something which will continue to blind them to the facts?  To put it differently, is the election of  a black man so important, to liberals, that the results will be resolutely ignored?

I guess we’ll find out as the next year unfolds.  But if Cantor has read Obama correctly – and other evidence out there indicates he’s at least in the ball park – then Obama will just rigidly adhere to his view and keep bulling ahead, regardless of what happens.  This works out bad for America, because the President should be a man with the courage to admit he has been wrong and then change course.  On the other hand, it works out great for conservatism because it means Obama will just keep driving liberalism over the cliff.

It is a pity that our final wake up from liberalism should have to come like this, but it also might have been inevitable.  So seductive is the idea that you can have it all for nothing that once you fall for liberalism, it would take a complete catastrophe to get you cured of it.  The catastrophe is coming (though the very worst won’t get here until 2015…and not then if we toss Obama in 2012)…but that means the liberation is, too.

Boehner Seeks Limited Budget Deal

A statement from the Speaker:

Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes. I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase.

It does appear we are at an impasse – Democrats won’t go for a major package without tax hikes, while we can’t accept tax hikes.  Unless there was a cave-in by the GOP, this is pretty much what I expected.

Of course, it would be better if we didn’t agree to any increase in the debt limit – there would be scare stories aplenty if that happened and the markets would at least temporarily tank…but as the markets are due to tank, anyway, the actual economic effect would be minimal.  And I do believe that as on the morrow of no new debt the world did not end, people would shrug off the event and any hit we took in the polls would be short-lived – and the long term payoff would be immense as the people would absolutely trust us on the matter of the budget.

But, we don’t quite have that sort of Congress, yet.  We’ll have to work for one in 2012 – meanwhile, a mini-deal which actually cuts spending will be good for the country and good for us…and we can carry the fight in to next year, with the Democrats having to defend Big Government while we defend freedom.

Now, if we could only get the GOP leadership to make it a fight against Big Government and Big Corporation and really hang the rotten system on the Democrats, that would be wonderful…

Chances for Budget Deal Fade

From the New York Times:

President Obama’s drive for a supersize budget deal was further complicated on Friday by the release of unexpectedly weak employment figures, which Republicans seized on to bolster their arguments against possible tax increases and Democrats said were reason to limit painful spending cuts…

If this does create an impasse then that will probably be for the best – no tax hikes can be contemplated, and massive spending cuts must be done.  This is the requirement of common sense in this – we’re bankrupt and we must not spend as much as we have been; meanwhile, our economy is teetering on the edge of a new recession and so we don’t dare put even the lightest additional burden on it.  If Democrats can’t see their way to clear to merely roll back spending to 2008 levels – all that would be required – then there is nothing to discuss.

We’ll see how this comes out, but it does appear that the Congressional GOP has discovered a back bone (or had one implanted by the TEA Party) and at the very least any deal which does come out will be defensible on conservative/libertarian grounds.