[paraphrased from the live broadcast. If I can find the audio later I’ll post a link. If someone finds it first, just post it in the comments. Thanks]
Q: Were there gimmicks in the budget deal?
A: The fact is, we’re going to spend $78 billion less this year than the President wanted to spend
Q: What about the CBO number?
A: That is NOT an accurate figure. I fought for every dime in spending cuts I could get out of Reid. It’s a good first step
Q: The WSJ is calling it “spending cut hokum”. The National Review says it no longer supports the deal —
A: — And the Weekly Standard says these are real cuts, this is a deal worth taking, and that we ought to proceed. And we need to get this out of the way because the next step is Paul Ryan’s budget.
[note: raising the debt ceiling isn’t the next fight? Interesting.]
Q: A conservative congressman said to me last night that he’s concerned that we’ve taken weapons off the table from the very beginning. There’s concern that we’re approaching these discussions in fear — fear of how a shut down will be perceived, fear of how not voting to raise the debt ceiling will be portrayed — rather than from a position of strength suggested by the November elections. Is that an unfair characterization?
A: Today we’re talking about cutting spending whereas last fall we were not. We’re cutting $38.5 billion —
Q: You’re still standing by that figure
A: Absolutely, I’ve got the numbers. And it’s $78 billion less than the President wanted to spend. The debate has changed dramatically in Washington.
Q: Impressions of the President’s speech on budget reform?
A: An election day speech. He has no plan, and frankly has no interest —
Q: Mr Speaker, does that not tell you something about the deal you struck? He went out there and he stared you down yesterday. He stared you down and he insulted Paul Ryan and he showed his gratitude about working with you, don’t you think?
A: Listen, I’m not going to get into the back and forth with the President. I was very disappointed with the speech yesterday. He clearly is not ready to grapple with the long-term debt that is staring us down. Future generations imprisoned blah blah blah. And if he won’t lead, we will.
Q: What about the 72-hour rule for voting?
A: Meh.
Q: Your spokesman, in response to Tim Pawlenty’s dislike of the deal, evoked Reagan’s 11th commandment. Don’t people have a right to voice concern or skepticism?
A: Nobody worked harder to get cuts than me. We were able to cut spending, we have a plan to cut more, and God Bless the naysayers, but this is the best deal we could get, and it was time to take it and move on.
***********
At this point I turned the damn thing off. This is the same Rovean, inside-the-Beltway justification tour rhetoric we heard when the deal was announced. Boehner sounds defensive. And it’s clear he’s filtering every move through a political calculus that has as its aim balancing spending cuts — and getting what they can — with not wishing to be perceived as obstructionist or extremist, etc.
What I found telling was his frequent references to the next big battle being the Ryan budget. The debt ceiling fight…?
Last night, Michele Bachmann said she thinks Boehner will get the votes to pass this. At which point, we need to look at the roll call and begin to target Reps for a primary challenge.
This is classic GOP establishment leadership. Which is simply not what we need at this time.
Yep.
Think we might need to consider taking aim at a surprise target or two. It’s clear that far too many of them feel safe. How about we take a look at someone standing in the middle of the herd rather than the expected target who’s always wandering away from the flock?
We need to get some bang for our buck here.
Same old trick, decrease the amount of the increase and call it a “cut.”
You know what Obama ain’t got in him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6V3WVDIvmg
Sorry, playing on youtube again.
Which includes another trillion and a half that we don’t have. You might as well be curled around his feet so you can revel in catching the drips that fall from his ice cream cone.
If we use Boner’s silly metric, we are spending $1,700,000,000,000 more than I wanted, therefore it is a gifuckingnormous increase.
$78,000,000,000 less than the moon and unicorn farts and the worst budget ever proposed is supposed to be a measure of goodness?
I think it’s safe to say that an old pal of ours might be tempted to characterize this as, “the sound of the burbling Boehnerfag”…
He was right on Boehner, that’s for sure. But he was wrong on DeMint and Palin and Bachmann, who rub him the wrong way for other reasons unrelated to their staunchiness.
More’s the pity.
Is Boner vulnerable to a primary challenge? Getting rid of him would be a good start.
I do not like it when people piss on my leg and swear swear swear that it is raining, especially when I see their orange crying ass standing right there with his crank in his hand.
Jeff, you would have been even more disappointed with Weepin’ John’s appearance on Hannity’s radio program yesterday (DON’T JUDGE ME!!). Sean didn’t even set up a false dichotomy and scream “Yes or no, Mr. Speaker” at him. Ingraham put a few more screws to him at least but the congresstwat kept bleating, “I’ve never worked harded for these cuts blah blah blah”. Shades of Billy Jeff, it was.
HAH! That robber may have gotten my Rolex and gold chains, my cash and credit cards, my car with a full tank of gas and a months worth of signed business checks in the trunk, but thanks be the lord and my own ingenuity, I still have that dime in my shoe!
JeffG,
As an aside, you forgot to finish the last sentance of this post! I mean, we all “get it”, but just in case there was any delicious irony or important point contained within…
This is classic GOP establishment leadership. Which is simply not what we need at this time. We nee
…d to finish this sentence.
What Bob said.
One thing Rush mentioned yesterday is that the, supposed, one time Stimulus bill expenditures have become part of the baseline for spending. Meaning that we now have a built-in “Stimulus” bill, one that has it’s own yearly increases, year after year forever and ever.
It was the best deal if you take shutting down the government off the table, maybe.
Amazing how negotiating with terrorists always works out for the terrorists, isn’t it?
it’s clear he’s filtering every move through a political calculus that has as its aim balancing spending cuts — and getting what they can — with not wishing to be perceived as obstructionist or extremist
Ever get the feeling that the GOP half believes what the Left says about them? The way some people worry that the accusation of “racist” might have a tiny bit of truth to it?
The guys who fight the dirtiest are the ones who always win. If you’re not willing to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you’ll just get a Pyrrhic victory (if that) in a prolonged land war.
#12 – I think that is a pretty darned good way to put this into proportion. Nicely done.