Let's really think about this, shall we? Because honestly, this is what it boils down to for so many here who find it necessary to second guess and microscopically examine every nuanced morsel of pabulum that gets dished out online these days.
"He put it on the table!"
Oh, the horror!
But really? What does that even mean? It probably means ten different things to 5 different people depending on the circumstances.
Or maybe it means nothing at all.
But it is on this concept that so many are hanging their recriminations of Obama. Yes? I mean I hear that a lot. a. lot.
The argument as I understand it is "he shouldn't 'go there'!" "'No Dem should ever go there!'"
Yeah, that's another one. "Go there." While we're at it, we should probably figure out what we mean by that too, I should think.
So, back to "putting it on the table". I'll be nice and jump right to it here and suggest that in the context of this discussion "putting it on the table" is referring to the specific act of offering the Chained CPI, which many interpret as possible SS cuts some time in the future, as part of a deal w/ the GOP. I won't make you sweat out a discussion of what "putting it on the table" really means, I'm not that stupid, I get it. But can we agree that this is pretty close to what we're talking about here? Thanks.
So when you get down to it, what people are upset about is Obama seems to have discussed the possibility that he would be open to including CPI in a deal. He discussed something as an option in a negotiation. Something he knows his opponent might be interested in because they've expressed interest in it before. And maybe he's done it in the past, because he knows it's something they may be interested in and THEY may concede something in return for it.
Ok. And this is a huge crime? or blunder? I don't get it. How?
Offering it up in a negotiation indicates you might be thinking about really doing something, or you might be bluffing. It might be bait. You might be saying it for the sole purpose of seeing how the other side reacts to the offer. In other words, you might use it as a tactic to gain information about your opponents. The only way to know if the offer is genuine, is to be in the mind of the individual who is doing the offering. You must be able to read minds. Can you do that? That would be cool!
In addition, the way I see it, the peanut gallery having access to every dribble and leak like never before and able to microscopically examine every morsel is a pretty new development. For all we know, Democrats have been offering up stuff like this in back room negotiations for decades and we just never knew about it until information became 24/7.
But really, it boils down to people who believe they know what Obama is thinking in these negotiations and what his true motivations are. I don't know that. I can surmise, and I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong in my summations, but so can you, because what it would take to actually KNOW is to be able to read minds and I can't do that. Not yet anyway.
But I do have a different read on the events that lay before us. One that does not depend upon Obama having suspect motivations. And frankly, his results are also pretty damn good. He's winning and he pulled back everything he supposedly "put on the table". So there's that too. I see a very shrewd negotiator, one who is willing to take some risk, but knows his opponents well. Obama learned a great deal from this round of negotiations with the terrorists who hold our nation hostage.
Because that's what this is folks, a running hostage negotiation. People's lives are truly at stake and I believe Obama takes his role as lead negotiator seriously. And that ain't easy to manage. Think about it. If we go over the cliff, people will die as a result. People will lose food stamps and UI, and have to make tough choices, maybe between medicine and food. Millions of people. You don't think people die as a result of those situations? You think Obama doesn't take that seriously? Would you?
This isn't hyperbole, this is still a hostage situation with a bunch of loons in the House with a gun to the head of millions of people.
Many people don't realize that this has been a continuum for Obama, carrying on from what went on last year over the debt ceiling. But I'll bet Obama knows that.
So in order to try to get as much as he could, to mitigate any damage these terrorists would do, he "put it on the table". Yeah, "he went there".
And that's my interpretation. That's my read. I don't know if it's true, I can't know Obama's soul. Do you? But I look at his life, I look at what he's accomplished and in what context he's done it and frankly I'm amazed. I'm amazed every day he can get up in the morning and do it again. Shit, I don't think I could. I sure hope he doesn't come here like I do and see the vitriol that's flung at him. See his essence questioned.
These days, under the microscope of the peanut gallery, every thing is suspect. I suspect.