That’s what many liberal commentators/posters I’ve read vis a vis Obama’s apparent press conference remark that he wouldn’t completely rule out extending all the Bush era tax cuts.
I can see the logic a bit, but I’m not sure to what extent it’s really true. Thoughts, either in general, in this case in particular, or both?
Keeping something on the table, in my experience, means that the something remains a possibility. It is not a commitment to do the something. More of a reluctance to rule it out for certain at the time.
In US Parliamentary usage, to “table” a motion means to toss it in a back drawer and forget about it. In UK Parliamentary usage, to “table” a motion means to put it on the table as an item to discuss.
“Keep on the table” however seems to mean the same thing in both [del]languages[/del] countries: remains open for discussion.
“on the table” - available for discussion - in my experience, no expectation one way or the other of actually implementing the idea.
“tabled” - put aside, possibly indefinitely
Joe
It defiinitely does not mean that they’re definitely going to do it. It just means they haven’t ruled it out, or that they’re at least unwilling to say they’re ruling it out. Often times it means they’re keeping an option available as a bargaining chip to get something they want from the other side. Sometimes it just means they don’t want to alienate a part of the electorate by categorically ruling something out on the record, even if they might have little or no intent to ever really go through with it.
I heard it as “keep it on the negotiation table” - Obama isn’t ruling it out, if he can get some unspecified concessions in return.
Interpreting it as a definite commitment is pretty overblown, IMO.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, when Obama said that, he was saying that he was open to using the Bush tax cuts as a bargaining chip. He would expect something in return.
Agreed with the above. The phrase is often used during political bargaining to stake out the extremes of one’s options, making whatever compromise is being offered look better. It seems to me it’s used the most often when discussing military tactics, and here’s an example.
Quite often, something is “on the table” when one is willing to give it up in negotiations.
For a somewhat milder example of what I was referring to in my OP, see here.
How much you want to bet that negotiations means Obama gives Republicans everything they want?
This president has turned his back on his base and his base has turned its back on him. Perhaps the lesson here should be that half assed solutions are worse than no solutions at all. It the primary lesson to the blue dog Democrats (almost all of whom have lost their seats), you weren’t elected because you were closer to the center, you were elected because the Democrats were being elected.
That would be refreshing.
Maybe, maybe not.
It could go either way in terms of showing your hand – or not.
Meaning, it could show your hand in signaling to your opponent what exactly you are willing to discuss giving up, e.g., sunset or not on the Bush tax cuts.
It could also hide your hand by listing options but not signaling a decision already made, i.e., the Israel example.
However, I agree with Damuri Ajashi that he’s actually saying, “I’m like it with no lube, guys.”