home

Noticing The Madman Theory Of Political Bargaining

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:44:46 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Regular readers are familiar with my writings on the Madman Theory of Political Bargaining. Today, E.J. Dionne discusses the GOP's use of it in the budget negotiations:

Richard Nixon espoused what he called "the madman theory." It's a negotiating approach that induces the other side to believe you are capable of dangerously irrational actions and leads it to back down to avoid the wreckage your rage might let loose. House Republicans are pursuing their own madman theory in budget negotiations, with a clever twist: Speaker John Boehner is casting himself as the reasonable man fully prepared to reach a deal to avoid a government shutdown. [. . .] Thus are negotiators for President Obama and Senate Democrats forced to deal not only with Republican leaders in the room but also with a menacing specter outside its confines. As "responsible" public officials, Democrats are asked to make additional concessions just to keep the bomb-throwers at bay.

There is less "madman" to this approach for the GOP than in the past. The reason is simple - the GOP has rolled the Dems for most of the past two years (some would say past 2 decades.) In any event, the only way to defeat the madman bargainer is to stand up to him. In this case, that means being willing to suffer a government shutdown. Are the Dems ready for that? We'll see.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Night TV and Open Thread | Monday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Noticing The Madman Theory Of Political Bargaining | 79 comments (79 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Are the Dems ready for that? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by sj on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:55:28 AM EST
    No.

    Would love to be wrong.

    But, no.

    in (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:59:50 AM EST
    our paper the other day they were already saying that Obama had signed onto the GOP budget to prevent a government shut down. Of course, in my mind, they could have just shortened it to Obama caves again.

    There won't be a shutdown (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:38:41 AM EST
    The only place this exists in reality is in the media.  If they would have to shutdown, it would be for a couple of days, as it has in the other 15-20 shutdowns we've had since the mid-1970s (in which case, something like 80% of federal employees still go to work anyway).

    The media loves playing this up - the suspense factor.  The Democrats and Republicans are about $50 billion apart right now. I see the Dems caving and giving up about $35-$40 billion and then we have a deal.

    Of course, had the Dems finsihed this when they had the majority and this budget came up last fall, we may not be in this position.

    Parent

    The suspense factor (none / 0) (#60)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:24:09 PM EST
    Hell, the media loves this almost as much they love 'horse race' campaign coverage.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:26:34 PM EST
    They can breathlessly keep asking "Will they or won't they?"

    Parent
    I read the other day that (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:15:19 AM EST
    Obama already blinked.  Last Wednesday he signaled that he wanted to avoid a shutdown and was willing to deal with the GOP.  All they got out of that was a two week extension.  They wanted four.  Why they didn't want a budget is beyond me.  

    The White House is just worried about getting reelected in 2012.  They're not too worried about what happens to the country or the nation's citizens.  Apparently, they still think that they can talk people out of their pain without actually alleviating it.  

    He said something like (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:17:01 AM EST
    "I've already gone halfway." Which, my god, how depressing to hear something like that. His entire Presidency seems to operate based on a golden mean fallacy.

    Parent
    He is a mediator not a negotiator. (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:30:27 AM EST
    He not even a very good mediator either.

    A decent mediator would have some boundaries that were a bit more reasonable than he does.

    I can't imagine what he would have been like during the Civil Rights battle.  "All ideas are on the table" in that context would have been disastrous considering the extremes that the nation faced in that era.

    Parent

    he would (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:37:20 AM EST
    be saying that the KKK had a legitimate gripe and we should listen to what they had to say.

    I saw a tape of LBJ a while back talking about the KKK and how disgusting they were and how his father had dealt with those jokers his entire life and he said he would not be cowed by them. Fast forward to 2011 and we actually have an African American president who is willingly caving to the crazies. Truth seems to be stranger than fiction here.

    Parent

    Worse still - and this is the political (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:46:42 AM EST
    malpractice - when he says that the crazies should be given their hearing he is legitimizing their cause.  The nutty stuff coming from the extreme right keeps being "on the table" while the sane and rational stuff from the left - or not even from the left - just from the realm of sensible keeps getting thrown off to make room for the nutty stuff.

    That's not a mediation.  That's a circus.  No make that a carnival complete with the most extreme freaks and geeks at center stage.

    Parent

    He's not a mediator, he's a facilitator (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by TJBuff on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:46:57 AM EST
    He doesn't much care what the deal is, as long as a deal gets done.

    Parent
    The reality is that the President (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:57:48 AM EST
    of the United States is elected to be an advocate.  Good working order of our government depends on the checks and balances of the various branches constantly checking and balancing.  The survival of our government and our nation depends on our leadership advocating for their survival and success.  What we have is a leadership that has basically checked out like some sort of absentee parent who parachutes in from time to time to call some shots just to seem like they are still relevant.  It is a dangerous, confusing and destructive approach to running this country that they've taken.  It is really irresponsible.

    Parent
    A good mediator wouldn't show his/her hand. (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:09:20 PM EST


    Parent
    He should watch (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:12:39 PM EST
    Fairly Legal on USA to see how it's done.

    Parent
    Plus, he goes halfway before he even knows (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:58:07 AM EST
    the full distance, thus making his 'halfway', the new starting point.

    Parent
    They started out by agreeing to (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:26:48 AM EST
    $4 billion in cuts; then, before any meetings or summits, they agreed to an additional $6.5 billion.

    The GOP originally wanted $100 billion in cuts, but they have come down to $61 billion.  Obama's now up to $10.5 billion, and are right out there saying they are willing to cut more.  The gap is roughly $50 billion - and if that's where this is going, then Obama can say - as he is always so proud to do regardless of how loony the policy - that he met them halfway.

    I am hard-pressed to find even a glimmer of anything Democratic about what the Dems are bringing to the table.

    Oh, and Obama's not a mediator or a facilitator - he's a community organizer, for crying out loud; if people had any idea what that was going to mean, what "hope and change" would mean, they would have run screaming for the hills en masse like extras in an old science fiction movie.


    Parent

    I'd be interested in what your (none / 0) (#40)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:45:49 AM EST
    understanding of what a community organizer is and why that would make someone run screaming.  I have my own similar view, but I am interested in what drives yours.

    Parent
    Well, I think of a community organizer as (none / 0) (#42)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:03:20 PM EST
    someone who assists communities - whether that is a geographic community (the south side of Chicago, for example) or a community of identity (women, gays, unions, anti-war, etc.) in achieving goals and advancing issues that matter to them.  

    I think they serve - or can serve - an important function, and it certainly was not my intent to disparage the good work that community organizers do.

    I guess my point was that if people had known that whatever Obama's organizing skills were, they would be used to help destroy the Democratic Party, move the new Dem party hard right, attack government, worship at the feet of the corporate elite, and carry on some of the worst of the Bush administration policies, they would, indeed, have run screaming for the hills.  Hell, I want to do that, and I didn't even cast a presidential vote.

    He certainly has not worked to advance any of the things that matter to my community - the liberal community that believes in the power of government to do good, that we must practice what we preach on civil and human rights, that we have a responsibility to our American community to lift up the least of us...well, I don't have to spell all that out for you.


    Parent

    I wish that I could (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:42:39 PM EST
    find the comment where someone that I have "talked with" for a number of years on the blogs explained what his specific organizing job entailed.  This person has experience in that world and had some first hand knowledge of the project that Obama worked on.  In any case, it was, as I understood it, a project where they went into that community to basically re-organize it after the loss of a local industry.  It wasn't organizing to get the industry back or to build a new one as much as it was what read to me like a form of group therapy to get through a grieving process born out of loss.  That's partly where I came to this image of mediator-in-chief - a mediator being someone who is not responsible for changing any of the facts on the ground and instead only there to deal with the facts as they stand.  Thus, the apparently lack of ability to imagine trying to change the facts to suit a better course.  At least, that was how it was described to me and it seemed to make sense.  All the talk of "political reality" devoid of any sense that political realities can and have been changed many times in this country's history.  OR they liked the reality and didn't want to change it - which is possible too!

    Parent
    I pretty much (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:59:22 PM EST
    got the impression from one blogger at MYDD that they knew someone who was a community organizer with Obama in Chicago and said they wouldn't vote for him because they had worked with him and seen what he did. Of course, it's the net so you never know how true this stuff is.

    Back during the primaries I asked everybody exactly WHAT did he do as a community organizer and the answer I got was he worked with unemployed steel workers. The next question I asked was for what? What was the goal? What did he accomplish for them and no one had an answer. Group therapy for unemployed steel workers would be a pretty accurate picture of what I got too. The only concrete thing he seemed to accomplish was registering voters. I feel like what we are getting now is due to the party's lack of "vetting" him. Him never having been in a leadership position really shows too.

    And even with all that, he may get reelected simply because the GOP is just that awful. This reminds me of '72 and Nixon vs. McGovern.

    Parent

    Lack of vetting indeed (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:54:12 PM EST
    It's like the party bought one of those mystery bags at a rummage sale.

    But, he was picked to give the keynote address at the '04 convention.  

    I confess I don't know who or how those selections are made but since Clinton gave the address at the '88 convention, if forced to guess, I'd say someone or some faction with a lot of clout considered him an up and coming star or useful tool.

    I know Wall Street has had a lot of influence in the party for a couple of decades so could it be that he certainly was vetted?

    Obama really had nothing, nothing at all and he comes out of nowhere.  He must have been someone or some faction's horse.

    Where did the early money come from?

    Parent

    cal, Clinton didn't deliver (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:21:08 PM EST
    the keynoter in 1988 -- that was Gov Ann Richards.  He only gave the (long-winded) nominating speech for Dukakis, which Duke's people insisted that year be given not by the usual parade of several political notables, but by one person alone, that's how highly they thought of Bill and his political profile.

    And usually it's the party nominee, working with the DNC, who decides on the keynoter.

    Obama wasn't an unreasonable pick for 04 -- on the contrary, since he was a shoo-in for the senate seat, and a known great orator, it was almost a no-brainer as that slot usually highlights the up-and-coming party stars.  Not many though figured he'd go for the top spot so quickly ..

    Parent

    Yup, you're right (none / 0) (#69)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:32:17 PM EST
    don't know how I forgot Ann Richards and the silver foot remark.

    Anyway, Obama was considered a rising star and that's the point I was trying to make.  So someone, Kerry or Kerry and a faction or Kerry's faction put Obama in the national spotlight.

    I think Ga6thdem's point about vetting is that the party doesn't vet anyone anymore as people would like to see them vetted.  The McGovern Commission probably made 'vetting' obsolete.

    Parent

    Obama got the national spotlight (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:46:08 AM EST
    by being a shoo-in for the Illinois senate seat, end of story.  Since he was personable as hell and known to be pretty silver-tongued in speech-making, it made him pretty much an obvious choice for a Dem. convention that was eager to counter the faux minorities the GOP convention was offering up.

    To the extent that he got "vetted" by the party establishment, it was around that time but not before.

    Parent

    He ran for Senate (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by cal1942 on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:39:51 AM EST
    against a raving lunatic.

    Of course he was going to win.

    Parent

    just that awful (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:10:35 PM EST
    at some point, someone has to say that the American people are just that ignorant and compliant.

    Parent
    So by (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:22:49 PM EST
    voting for Obama you're compliant in the disaster that we're facing now?

    Parent
    About as much as you (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:36:58 PM EST
    are for trying to sell the guy who deregulated Wall St as the greatest President of the last century..

    Parent
    You're (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:46:44 PM EST
    funny. you're blaming the voters but won't take responsibility for your own vote.

    Parent
    I knew going in that the choice was (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:05:30 PM EST
    between different whores working different corners and sides of the street..

    While discussion of their major patrons mostly continues to remain verbotten.

    Parent

    IIRC (none / 0) (#50)
    by smott on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:23:02 PM EST
    Obama's community organizer experience was primarily GOTV operations in AA neighborhoods. Not sure how long that actually lasted....

    Will attempt to retrive links...

    Parent

    The interval before Obama and (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:15:38 AM EST
    the Dems adopt all the cuts and more will be used by the Dems to raise campaign contributions by "Help us save (insert program of your choice)" solicitations and provide the background necessary to support the illusion of

    "Oh he/they didn't have any other choice." "Oh, he/they have to work with the Republicans!"  "Oh, he/they need to be bi-partisan!"  "Oh, he's/they are doing the best they can!"  


    That's an interesting take. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:24:33 AM EST
    But with so many examples of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party espousing political rhetoric that doesn't match their policies, I think that it is hard to imagine that that fundraising tactic is going to be wildly successful.

    Just one example is their Win the Future campaign slogan that lists making American students competitive in math and science; and then taking the position that coming to the aid of Wisconsin teachers would distract from the Win the Future initiative.

    I am not sure who the Administration thinks will teach our kids math and science if our public schools and the teachers are laid to waste.

    Will they be home-schooled by someone like my mother whose first and last science course was a summer botany course?  I am quite sure that she wouldn't turn out a competitive group of engineering students.  Not that she doesn't have other valuable qualities and knowledge to impart, but hey if we want to win that future on math and science we shouldn't count on her...

    Parent

    Charter schools, doncha know? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by sj on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:33:14 AM EST
    I am not sure who the Administration thinks will teach our kids math and science if our public schools and the teachers are laid to waste.


    Parent
    Yeah. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:51:26 AM EST
    Schools that no one will be able to afford and that the government having been drowned in a bathtub won't be able to help subsidize.

    We'll just go on back to the apprenticeship model and have seven and eight year olds starting their training as runners in the labs at Los Alamos.

    Parent

    The charter school my almost 13-yr. (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:11:36 PM EST
    tutoree attends is part of the city school system.  

    Parent
    Science courses will be taught by (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:17:26 AM EST
    people who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and that the cave men rode around on dinosaurs.

    These policies will definitely result in a WTF quality of education for those without $30,000 - $50,000 a year to spend on each child to attend the premiere private schools.

    Parent

    Think back on the soliciation letters (none / 0) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:58:56 AM EST
    that went out on the public option and the Representatives and Senators who claimed to be fighting for a public option long after Obama traded it away.

    Courtesy of Atrios - my sweet Claire various views on SS:

    Your voice has been with me in Washington this week during budget discussions -- but I need your support at home, too. Make a contribution of $5 or more now to help my campaign lay the groundwork to keep fighting for you.
    ...
    This week we have a lot of tough decisions to make -- but I can tell you a few things for sure:

    1. I don't think anyone is going to propose cutting Social Security benefits -- if they do, I'll vote against those cuts. link

    Because NPR told me this just a few days ago.

    NAYLOR: McCaskill seems ready to make some folks mad. She says spending on entitlement programs, including Social Security and Medicare, which consume most of the budget, will have to be trimmed. She suggested the retirement age for Social Security might need to be raised for future recipients, and that Medicare might need to be means tested. She also said there were plenty of places to cut Defense spending, and that tax loopholes should be closed.

    Many Democratic voters want to believe that Obama and the Dems are doing the best that they can so I think that the ploys will continue to work.

    Parent

    Many do, but many are starting (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:11:39 AM EST
    to question their integrity.  I don't think that the Democrats are going to be able to get away from the growing union problem they have, for instance.  The unions understand that their only hope is within the Democratic Party, but they are not fools.  They see how poorly they've been treated by the Dems.  There are traditional Democratic activists across the board who are more and more feeling swept under the rug and ignored.  That sets up a very different dynamic for the Democrats who are seeking re-election in 2012 than the one we say in 2008.  We have a ton of Senate seats on the line in 2012.  McCaskill being one of many.  The reality is that she in particular isn't dramatically different from those to her right on government and the economy.  She was shilling for the White House during the stimulus debate explaining that government shouldn't be the answer to our problems.  She makes herself irrelevant with those statements; and I think she's talking herself out of a job because her base Democratic voters aren't going to be enthusiastic about her.  Meanwhile, whomever her opponent will be will be slinging red meat for their base whilst picking up those quixotic "independents" who seem often to tend to follow the enthusiasm rather than the politics in campaigns.

    Parent
    Already happening (none / 0) (#10)
    by sj on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:33:30 AM EST
    still on email lists from when I was a Democratic district captain.

    Already happening.

    Parent

    And have you given? (none / 0) (#26)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:12:40 AM EST
    That's the question.  Will as many people give and will people dig deeper into their pockets?

    Parent
    Not me. Haven't given a dollar (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by sj on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:17:11 AM EST
    OR an hour since the election.  I decided I would start giving those things when I had an advocate.  Since not one of my issues has been acted on, I've had a lot more time on my hands and more cash available to me when I was unemployed.

    Parent
    Democratic continue to raise funds (none / 0) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:26:41 AM EST
    despite performance.

    A report by the Federal Election Commission says the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee pulled in $183 million in new donations during 2009, the first half of the 2009-2010 congressional election cycle.

    That put Democrats about 9 percent ahead of their Republican counterparts - the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee - which raised $168.6 million together. link



    Parent
    Just curious about that (none / 0) (#32)
    by sj on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:29:12 AM EST
    Are those donations individual or corporate donations?

    Parent
    2009. (none / 0) (#37)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:37:19 AM EST
    What's 2010?  What will 2011/2012 look like?

    And despite being ahead of the GOP per your citation the Democrats lost miserably at the polls in 2010.

    In the past month, I've read at least five or ten articles about various traditional base factions expressing fairly overt disappointment and dissatisfaction with the Administration and Democratic Party Leadership.

    Meanwhile, with the joblessness and economic insecurity looming large across the country, the individual small donors are not going to be ponying up the kind of cash they did in 2008.

    In any case, the cash is important, but the votes are what are counted for the win in the end.

    Parent

    It takes a POWERFUL lack of imagination... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:50:34 AM EST
    ...to be unable to counter the predictable and never-ending Republican playbook.  "Okay, shut it down, a-holes. Tell grandma and grandpa they have to starve.  Tell that toddler in the inner-city that, sorry, you just have to suffer. Be the inhumane cretins you really are. Here's your stage, rip the entire country to shreds and see how it goes."  But, of course, that would be far too divisive for Obama.  As if that divide isn't more destructive if left unchallenged.

    And they still act lkie there is a secret plan (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:32:12 PM EST
    I wrote about this a bit over at Fair and Unbalanced.  In the Times the other day, in response to criticism that the President was not taking on the horrible cuts the Republicans were proposing, Dan Pfeiffer, White House Communications Director, had this to say

    One of the lessons of the last two years is that if the president weighs in all the time, it's less impactful.  But if he weighs in at a moment of his choosing when the public is paying attention, it will be more influential.

    So really he has a secret plan and he is going to jump out of the closet and really show them.  Any day now, just you wait.

    More telling was the description in the same article of the adminustration's goals:

    White House officials say the goal is to achieve a long-term victory -- by bagging a budget deal, or the credit for trying -- not to win each day's news cycle. On two successive weekends, for example, the White House passed up chances to score points against the House Republicans.

    Note that the goal is to look good, not to actually do good.  How they think ceding news cycle after news cycle to the Republicans will lead to long-term victory is an enduring mystery.

    Notice they're (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by sj on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:53:28 PM EST
    concerned with impact.  Not effectiveness.

    Like Mighty Mouse: "Here I come to save the day"

    Or rather more like Andy Kaufman performing to Mighty Mouse.

    Parent

    Obama's keeping his powder dry, that's all n/t (none / 0) (#51)
    by TJBuff on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:35:26 PM EST


    Parent
    He must have the driest powder in D.C. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:20:26 PM EST


    Parent
    I guess he's keeping his nose clean. (none / 0) (#74)
    by observed on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:48:50 AM EST


    Parent
    "Government running in our time"? (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:52:04 AM EST
    Nixon didn't invent this style of negotiating.

    If I remember correctly (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:48:54 AM EST
    Nixon was speaking about the Cold War and not about Democrats and I don't see how "acting crazy" relates in a budget debate context.

    In any event, the Democrats should have done what they were elected to do in the last Congress and produced a budget.

    They didn't because they believed that approving another budget bloated with big ticket buying votes from special interests would hurt them.

    Now they are paying the price.

    Goody Goody.  

    If I remember correctly (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:50:06 AM EST
    metaphors are not frowned upon in the writing of the English language.

    Parent
    for those with no grasp of what metaphor is... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:54:50 AM EST
    ...there is no such thing as metaphor. Keep it up, Tent, your analogy was right on point. As if you can't be a "madman" economically.  Whatever.

    And your Gator cagers seems to be a sleeper this year, just noticed their ranking and the conference title.  Gonna be an interesting March of madness.

    Parent

    Jelling at the right time (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:02:12 AM EST
    March Madness baby!

    Parent
    No one said you shouldn't (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:32:11 AM EST
    I just noticed that you did.

    Parent
    Ya really gotta knack (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 07:18:58 PM EST
    Ya really gotta knack.

    Once you strip away the fraudulence, corruption, hypocrisy, fundamental dishonesty, anti-Americanism, intolerance and incompetence, "acting crazy" remains the extent of the gop's act.

    Apart from that, there's just no there there.

    Parent

    how many Michelle Bachman (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:51:41 AM EST
    appearances will it take to make it the Madpersons theory of political bargaining?

     

    I don't understand the downside (none / 0) (#29)
    by masslib on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:24:56 AM EST
    for the Dems.  Of course they should allow the shutdown.  There is little political downside.  Do they remember nothing of the the 1990's?

    90's didn't happen (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by sj on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:30:07 AM EST
    We're looking to Reagan now.  Because he had ideas.

    Parent
    Mmm.... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:31:43 AM EST
    This isn't the 90's and the players are definitely not the same.

    Remember- the economy was in much better shape in 1995.  And while Obama is certainly no Bill Clinton, John Boehner is not nearly as reviled and polarizing as Newt Gingrich.

    Parent

    And then there's things like (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:32:45 AM EST
    this

    Twenty-nine percent of likely voters would blame Democrats for a government shutdown, compared to 23 percent who would hold Republicans responsible, according to a new poll conducted for The Hill.

    The results are surprising because most people blamed the GOP for the last government shutdown, which occurred during President Clinton's first term. A week before the 1995 shuttering, polls showed the public blamed Republicans by a two-to-one-margin.



    Parent
    The reason (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:38:14 AM EST
    the poll says that is because of Obama's bipartisan schtick. I mean everybody's to blame but Obama. Right?

    Parent
    Irony: (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:48:52 AM EST
    No matter how hard he tries not to be, Obama is still going to be perceived as the President.

    He and his people keep trying to place him in some aloof and elite position "above the fray", but nothing will change the perception that the President of the United States is and should be working within the system.

    Parent

    Nothing at all surprising about (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:42:35 AM EST
    the public perception in Obama's case.

    Clinton did a lot of work prior to Gingrich's shutdown to explain to the American people that the Republicans were being unreasonable and extreme.  Clinton made it clear that we did not have to sacrifice the things that the GOP were trying to destroy in the 90s.  He made it clear that there were other ways to address managing the budget.

    Obama, OTOH, keeps validating their deficit alarmism; keeps legitimizing their crazy; and he won't say anything bad about their motives or their ideas.

    He has set himself up to take the fall if the shutdown occurs.

    Parent

    I have read that, due to direct deposit, (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:15:48 PM EST
    which didn't exist re Social Security during the Clinton yrs., the direct deposits may not happen timely. This will effect many people, including Dem. voters.

    Parent
    Okay, if true (none / 0) (#59)
    by sj on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:12:50 PM EST
    that's bad.

    But it seems to me that it takes more human intervention to stop the checks than to have them automatically go out.

    Doesn't quite scan to me, but okay.

    Parent

    actually, the way you deal with a madman, (none / 0) (#43)
    by cpinva on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:21:04 PM EST
    is by showing him/her that you're even crazier, and willing to destroy the whole world. that's how we ended up with MAD (mutually assured destruction) on the nuclear arms front.

    jfk applied it during the cuban missile crisis: he told the soviets that he was willing to start a nuclear wwIII, if the missiles/launchers weren't removed from cuban soil. he backed it up with a naval blockade of cuba, and threats to shoot down any soviet plane attempting to fly in to cuba. as well, he very publicly had the 1st marine division gathered at cherry point MAS, ready to jump off for a direct US invasion of cuba.

    khrushchev blinked, realizing he'd badly underestimated the young president's resolve/lunacy and, having no taste for the blood of the entire russian population on his hands, decided compromise was a better route. the missiles/launchers left cuba (with castro spitting), and russia got what it wanted: our missiles out of turkey. since we'd already planned to remove them anyway, everyone was "happy".

    this is how you play "madman theory": go for broke. to do it right in this instance would require a 180 by obama (not very likely), wherein he presents a whole new budget, complete with everything a progressive's (and economist's) heart could ask for. he then calls the house republican's/tea partier's bluff, threatening to go to every district with a republican rep. and show them, in blunt terms (jobs, federal funds for their town/city/village, etc) what their rep's intrasigence means to them personally.

    will this happen? myself, i doubt it, obama is no poker player, and he seems too wedded to wanting everyone to like him.

    Hmm, a misinterpretation (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:38:20 PM EST
    of the crisis, imo.  JFK never threatened WW3 if they weren't removed but did say their presence was unacceptable, etc.  Perfectly rational response in the geopolitical circumstances of the time with very limited options available to him, but something premier Khrushchev failed to adequately anticipate.  

    What ended it though wasn't as you state but a different madness scenario:  the private meeting betw RFK and Khrushchev's man in D.C. where Bobby told him the president had only so much time left before his military would try to assert themselves, possibly overthrow the govt, and begin bombing/invading Cuba.  When this dire concern was relayed to premier K, his thinking was greatly affected and decided at that point to "help" his counterpart in Washington.  Yes, that was the term he used according to his son Sergei who talked with him later.

    Parent

    Was this something (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:57:59 PM EST
    the Kennedys actually believed: that the military might attempt to overthrow the government and begin conducting it's own foreign policy?

    If so, it's sort of in keeping with whats trickled out about the John Birch-level of paranoia of the Head of the Joint Chiefs at that time..

    Parent

    Yep, that was what (none / 0) (#65)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:15:29 PM EST
    RFK, in that crucial private meeting in DC, told Khrushchev's rep -- deal with us now and help resolve this thing peacefully, or deal later with the far more aggressive group in our Pentagon who seem about to mutiny.

    Dunno exactly the basis for this belief by RFK -- his brother did have the ExComm meetings secretly taped, and so might have heard some of the Joint Chiefs conversation one time after the Kennedys had left the room, those remarks about another Munich if we don't take out those missiles, etc.  Sorensen, upon hearing them years later, thought they sounded like something out of Seven Days in May.

    Also, it wasn't the chair of the JCS -- Taylor was a Kennedy-picked guy.  It was some of the other chiefs who were wildly gung-ho about attacking Cuba.  LeMay (AF) and Anderson (Navy) come to mind.  Anderson was later re-assigned after the crisis -- he'd had one direct confrontation in the Navy war room with McNamara, had acted insubordinately and disrespectfully to the SecDef, and this got back to Kennedy.

    Quite a group of military leaders back then.  And CJCS Taylor, though a hawk himself, was a breath of fresh air compared to his predecessor left over from Ike, one Lyman Lemnitzer -- a complete nut who kept advocating to Kennedy for a unilateral nuke strike against the Soviets, just because we had the vastly superior weapons advantage.

    Parent

    A little OT but how did Chas Sheen's (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:32:07 AM EST
    madman persona help his bargaining?

    Only works if you're (none / 0) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:04:30 AM EST
    a faux madman.  If you're a real madman, you screw the whole thing up.

    But seriously, he wasn't negotiating anything as far as I know, and he wasn't threatening anything.  He's just nuts in a vacuum and a million Twitter followers.

    Parent

    It's funny (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:22:10 AM EST
    because I think Chuck Lorre was the Madman in that imbroglio.

    He killed the golden goose with his antics. Yes, Lorre's antics were the spark here imo.

    Lorre is a no talent hack who got lucky when he cast Sheen is that awful show. Sheen made him a fortune.

    Lorre's ego got in the way of his making money.

    Sheen will make money. Lots of it.
     

    Parent

    Except (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:27:35 AM EST
    Lorre can go on to do other shows.  For now, no one will touch Charlie Sheen (besides the news whores).

    Parent
    You'd think, right? (none / 0) (#77)
    by sj on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:16:57 AM EST
    But I wouldn't count on it.

    Parent
    I have never watched the show (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:42:40 AM EST
    But my daughter has and she told me yesterday that Charlie Sheen makes a ton of money playing himself :)

    Parent
    Maybe so. I am a big fan of the show. (none / 0) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:50:40 PM EST
    I've seen just about every episode, at least once.

    Based on this season, I really wonder if maybe this year was the show's last. Really lame season.

    Lorre is, of course, not blameless, but most of the money to be made for Lorre is in syndication, and the show is already syndicated.

    There is always more, of course, but the gorilla's share is already locked in for Lorre.

    Although I don't know any of the contracts, I would expect that Lorre has/will make several/many times more money from the show than Sheen.

    Parent

    Noticing The Madman Theory Of Political Bargaining | 79 comments (79 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment