Obama vs. Boehner: A Pair of Nothingburgers

What a discouraging pair of speeches. I expected Obama to stick with his Mr. Reasonable routine, so that wasn’t a surprise. But I was surprised that he didn’t do a better job of making a case for his own side. It just seemed….limp. I mean, this is not exactly a rousing call to action:

I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your Member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.

When he switched to describing the Republican plan, he didn’t do much better. I really don’t think he managed to paint the “cuts only” alternative as all that dire sounding, and I don’t think he managed to explain the tea party intransigence in the House very well either. I could figure out what he meant because I follow this stuff, but I’m not sure someone who was coming into this cold could have.

And Boehner! What kind of gall does it take to describe last week’s House bill as “bipartisan”? How many Dems voted for it? Three? Four? And he repeated this nonsense multiple times. This was accompanied by claims that it was Obama who created this whole crisis in the first place, that healthcare reform added to the deficit, and that Obama’s “balanced approach” meant solely more spending and more taxes. Ugh. This is about as close to outright lying as you can get without being called on it. But Boehner knows well that it doesn’t matter. If anyone does call him on it, it will only be in a few print-only fact checking pieces that no one reads.

I’m not sure what Obama hoped to accomplish tonight. He didn’t really explain the debt ceiling itself very well, and for my money he didn’t explain the problem with the tea party caucus in the House very well either. The latter, unfortunately, isn’t really something you can explain unless you’re pretty blunt about it, and that’s just not his style. Nor was any news made.

I dunno. Maybe I’m misjudging how this will go over with Joe Sixpack. Maybe the congressional switchboard really will light up with demands for compromise. But it sure didn’t seem to me that Obama moved the needle much tonight.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.