That recent CNN poll showing a majority of Americans would blame the GOP if the country goes over the fiscal cliff apparently wasn’t an outlier. A new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll found similar results, The Fix reports:
While 53 percent of those surveyed say the GOP would (and should) lose the fiscal cliff blame game, just 27 percent say President Obama would be deserving of more of the blame. Roughly one in 10 (12 percent) volunteer that both sides would be equally to blame.
Those numbers are largely unchanged from a Post-Pew survey conducted three weeks ago and suggest that for all of the back and forth in Washington on the fiscal cliff, there has been little movement in public perception. The numbers also explain why Republicans privately fret about the political dangers of going over the cliff, while Democrats are more sanguine about such a prospect.
It’s also why Democrats feel they have an upper hand in negotiations. President Obama has rejected the GOP’s counter-offer to his first proposal, saying that tax hikes are a must and walking back his prior openness on entitlement cuts:
“I don’t think the issue right now has to do with sitting in a room,” Obama said in an interview with Bloomberg TV. “The issue right now that’s relevant is the acknowledgment that if we’re going to raise revenues that are sufficient to balance with the very tough cuts that we’ve already made and the further reforms in entitlements that I’m prepared to make, that we’re going to have to see the rates on the top 2 percent go up. And we’re not going to be able to get a deal without it.”
“It’s not me being stubborn,” Obama added. “It’s not me being partisan. It’s just a matter of math.”
In his first TV interview since winning reelection, Obama said he is open to changes to entitlement programs but wouldn’t commit to benefit cuts. It suggests a step back from his position during his 2011 debt limit negotiations with Boehner, when he agreed to raising the Medicare eligibility age, asking wealthier seniors to pay more for Medicare services and changing the inflation calculator for government programs such as Social Security.
Obama seems more interested in breaking the GOP than reaching a balanced agreement that deals with the entitlement crisis. And it’s not exactly a surprise. He’s always been primarily focused on eking out these little political victories — that’s how he governed during his first term, and that’s how he ran his campaigns. Why would he change now?
"President Obama has rejected the GOP’s counter-offer…." n nWhat counter-offer? Even the Wall Street Journal admits "The proposal represented a series of targets without much policy detail on how they would be met, such as the specific loopholes and deductions Republicans would get rid of."
And Obama's was an "offer"? The pose of neutrality doesn't suit you, HillelA. You are an ideologue.
Though discouraging, the results of this poll and Obama's positions on the budget are not surprises. Republicans and conservatives have no capital and I don't care about the arguments that yes, we still control one branch, and therefore have our own mandate. These poll numbers aren't even close. The Democrats are well aware of the excellent position they're in. Obama and his crew are much better politicians than many conservatives have given them credit for. Failure to reach an agreement, essentially on the Democrats terms, will have long-term consequences for the GOP and those will, politically speaking, not be pretty.
Yes aroundthetrack, that is true. So why don't Republicans actually spell out detailed proposals and be part of the negotiation? It's the hard art of governing that needs to be done, and it is not untrue to say that for the past years, Republicans have not seemed all that interested in actually governing. n nWhy not try to win the argument on merit that is in fact in the weeds of details rather than just mouthing words like "freedom", and "socialism". n nBelieve me, I'm a socialist, Obama is not.
OY- I am knocking my head into my computer again…….."around" why the eternal pessimism??? You were in the throes of pessimism before the election-and proven right- but can you-for one moment- spare us the jeremiahs? besides, the laws of averages will prevail- we mayhave lost the election but we could win this one. We msy be blamed now for a future defeat but things change and we shal lsee how this plays out…..We should stick to our guns and let the hipsfall where they may…
I'm wondering…what is winning? When you say "we could win this one", what does that look like? And please be specific. If you were to say, increase revenue by $800Bn in closed tax loopholes, please specify which loopholes. Is the mortgage deduction a "loophole"? n nHow does the "law of averages" play into this? You know that's just a canard, right? A thing that a guy who's way behind at the track tells himself to feel better. n nAs the esteemed philosopher Shakira tells us, the "hips don't lie." n n
Michaelmas12, I'll repeat what I have said when I was criticized for being negative during the campaign. As long as Commentary's site is open to comments, I'll give my best shot in expressing what I think about an issue. I'm quite sincere when I say that I don't want to offend anyone. I try to avoid personal attacks. I try to take everyone seriously, as difficult as that may be at times. But I don't believe that anyone helps our cause by not confronting directly conservatism's problems. I suspect that we are read by a wider audience than what appears in these comments' sections and, perhaps, that audience will take what we say seriously enough to follow our advice. In the meantime, notice that several of the comments subsequent to our dialogue also offer "jeremiads" about the weak Republican position in relation to the budget talks. Again as I said often during the campaign, I hope I'm wrong and will gladly admit it and credit those who were more perceptive than I. If you disagree with me, fine; I actually do consider what your(or anyone else)opinions are. But I believe you create a distraction when you criticize the fact that I am expressing an opinion.
Hi Alana, I am not sure where your comment at the end came from. The quotes you list from the President make it sound like he is trying to negotiate a balanced deal and is willing to compromise. r nr nHonestly, it looks to me like he is bending over backwards and being way less critical of the GOP plan than it really deserves – the plan that Boehner gave him has next to no detail on which cuts the GOP is actually suggesting. r nr nWhat is your basis for the statement that he is more interested in breaking the GOP than reaching a balanced agreement?
The GOP needs to correct this misconception before 2014.
always remember Cheney: "Deficits don't matter" n nThe GOP reaps what they sowed with the most irresponsible tax cuts in American history in 2001 and 2003.
Let's repeat that poll number: More than half of Americans blame Republicans if we fall off the fiscal cliff period. In other words, even before negotiations have begun and the positions have been presented, 53% of Americans blame Republicans if they fail. n nThat's astonishing. n nThe Republicans simply have to give up on the higher rates for the wealthy. Get that issue over with and then explain how that $80 billion a year will do nothing to stop the debt crisis headed towards us.
Just for your information, there is a lot more than the tax rates in Obama's proposal. Whereshoudl the republicans draw the line?
The tax increase problem is their main obstacle. The public – more than half – think this whole crisis is because the GOP won't raise tax rates on the rich (and that will go higher once the full effects of the cliff take hold). Until that perception is removed, the Republicans have no ground to fight Obama on any of the other issues, e.g., Medicare reform, debt ceiling power, defense spending. n nThey need to change the narrative away from the tax issue. If they don't the other disputes are meaningless.
Obama clearly intends to split the GOP — and with two conservatives kicked off the budget committee, it is already starting. n nWhat he and the Dems haven't thought about is the issue of "being careful what you ask for because you might just get it." A party of young conservatives could well be a force to be reckoned with — the GOP is split and Obama is going to defeat the RINOs. Great!
Tax increases for upper level people are inevitable, so the sooner that issue is off the table, the better. The onus will then be on them to explain why this will not do much to shrink the deficit, much less shrink the national debt. Be careful what you ask for, indeed. The sooner that the public understands that they have been gamed into believing that "tax breaks for the rich" was the only thing preventing fiscal solvency, the better.
"Obama seems more interested in breaking the GOP than reaching a balanced agreement that deals with the entitlement crisis. And it’s not exactly a surprise. He’s always been primarily focused on eking out these little political victories — that’s how he governed during his first term, and that’s how he ran his campaigns. Why would he change now?" Finally, someone who understands how the man operates and thinks! Obama has always had two significant allies in all the real and artificial crises he produced: (1) the absolute devotion and dedication of the mainstream propaganda media which worships the toilet he pees in; and, (2) the ignorant, uninformed and misinformed majority of American voters who have been indoctrinated with this propaganda by the media, liberal academia, and leftist entertainment industry. At one time the Republicans at least had principles on their side, but as the fiscal cliff "negotiations" proceed we will see that at the end they will have nothing on their side but losses as far as the eye can see. The Republicans, and John Boehner in particular, are as big a problem for this country as Obama himself, if not more so.
The only thing that will resonate with a media-hypnotized electorate when the fiscal chips begin to fall will be leaders with a sincere and honest record of voting for fiscal prudence. Anything else will make the voters throw their hands up in disgust and say "there's not a dime's worth of difference between the parties, a pox on both of them." The GOP needs to consistently oppose the Dems increasing fiscal irresponsibility, just as Churchill consistently opposed Hitler's rise to power. That record was the reason Churchill was brought back from obscurity to lead his nation when his predictions came true. n nAnd that raises the question — does the GOP establishment really believe Obamanomics will lead to disaster, or is that just a talking point in a campaign to get closer to the feeding trough?