Gaming Taibbi/Krugman Out

I see that folks are getting excited about this Matt Taibbi piece in Rolling Stone.  And, I don't mean excited in a good way. Taibbi argues that Democrats "took a dive." A key part of his reasoning is that since they didn't threaten to use a 14th Amendment maneuver, they weren't seriously in this fight to win.  This is an argument that comes initially from Krugman in The President Surrenders.

Here's Krugman:

At the very least, Mr. Obama could have used the possibility of a legal end run to strengthen his bargaining position. Instead, however, he ruled all such options out from the beginning.

But wouldn’t taking a tough stance have worried markets? Probably not. In fact, if I were an investor I would be reassured, not dismayed, by a demonstration that the president is willing and able to stand up to blackmail on the part of right-wing extremists. Instead, he has chosen to demonstrate the opposite.

Okay, let's see if we can game this out.  Let's say that Obama threatens to use a plausible interpretation of the 14th amendment to negate the debt ceiling.  How would Republicans respond?  I'll give you a couple of possibilities:

1. Fold.
2. Insist that this issue be decided by the courts.
3. We don't need no stink' courts. Impeachment!

I'm going with that last alternative.  The reason that makes sense to me is that they have a reasonable argument that Obama is attempting to exceed his constitutional authority. That's a much more sympathetic argument than the meaning of the word is, or oral sex, depending on your interpretation of the Clinton impeachment. Do I think Republicans would like the politics of Obama running for re-election during an impeachment trial?  Yeah, that's what I think.

Second, I really have to say that for a very smart guy, Krugman says some things that don't really make any sense. He's saying that investors look at the Tea Party as right-wing extremists, and that since investors take stands against extremism into account when they make investment decisions, that would strengthen the markets. Do I have to explain why that doesn't make any sense?  Good, I hate explaining things that are just goofy.