Why It's a NOUGAT-FILLED Satan Sandwich

Yes, the Deal is clumsy and unsatisfying, kicks the can down the road, and is an embarrassment to a supposedly functional democracy -- a "sugar-coated Satan sandwich." But it's still a Democratic win, because it leaves the probability of Republicans, suicidally, at election time, either agreeing to tax hikes (in the Joint Committee) or allowing tax hikes to happen (by letting the Joint Committee deadlock, causing all Americans' taxes to increase automatically).

That is, it's a Democratic win IF progressives can keep their sh*t together, stop the idiotic and nonproductive internecine warfare between so-called Firebaggers and Obamabots, and pull together to demand that the Joint Committee include true Democrats who'll hold firm rather than Blue Dogs and Vichies who'll surrender on the electorally all-important new revenues issue.

Here, in a highly sophisticated graphical format developed after over one minute of communications-strategy research and diligent labor, is why the Satan Sandwich contains a nummy, pro-Democrat nougat center:



BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

How Prime Minister Pelosi and the American Parliament Can Solve the Debt Crisis

The main functional difference between the U.S. Congress and a parliament is that in Congress the coalitions are formed before the election, while in a parliament they're formed afterward. Many Americans envy the plethora of parties found in parliamentary democracies (Labour! Conservatives! Christian Democrats! Greens! The People's Front of Judea!), without realizing that we have just as many minor parties as they do.

The truth is, American politics are as rife with factions as anyone else. Religious-conservative Prairie Muffins have nothing in common with the uber-rich hedonists who fund the Heritage Foundation, but both are Republican; union autoworkers have no natural affinity for Birkenstocked environmentalists, but both tend Democratic. What we call "The Right" actually is a grab-bag of paleoconservatives, Tea Partiers, Christian Dominionists, Libertarians, gun nuts, and a handful of LaRouchies (who, like Zoroastrian fundamentalists or Bruce Willis, don't realize they're ghosts yet). On what we call "The Left," nominally like-minded liberals perpetually respond to electoral success by devolving immediately into warring clans: Obamabots versus Firebaggers, resurrected New Democrats (who, I gather, seem to have snipped the labels out of their Izods) shoving things to the right while Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nader pray for someone to primary Obama from the left.

In a Parliament, each of these groups would comprise its own political party: Democrats, Republicans, New Democrats, Greens, Tea Partiers, Dominionists, etc. And before the Parliamentary election, they would be studiously separate. Each would win some seats in Parliament, but most of the time none would win an absolute majority, so after the election, coalition-building would begin: Republicans and Democrats alike would woo the Libertarians by pitching small government and personal freedom, respectively; Dems would send Jim Wallis as an envoy to try and peel off a few Dominionists by appealing to social justice issues.

Sometimes the politics of Parliamentary coalition-building make very strange bedfellows, as in the British Parliament today (where the governing coalition was formed by what in America would be Republicans and Greens). But horses would be traded, a majority would be cobbled together, and that strange coalition would elect the new Prime Minister.

In America, we think we do things differently -- but we don't. We simply conduct our coalition-building and odd-bedfellow-matchmaking BEFORE the popular election instead of afterward. This is clearest during Presidential primaries, where each candidate effectively represents a minor sub-party (e.g., Romney representing the center-right, Bachman the Tea Party, Pawlenty the often-overlooked Boring Vote). Those sub-party primary candidates fight not only to win the nomination, but also to claim a place for their constituents in the final administration. (That's why can't-win candidates still find it worthwhile to enter the fray.) As each back-runner drops out, he or she horse-trades with the front-runners, exchanging their endorsement (and their faction's votes) for some position or increment of power in the new regime. That's how primary losers wind up being Vice-Presidents or Secretaries of State: they have traded their own coalition's support to help form the governing majority, in exchange for a slice of the power. And whoever builds the largest coalition wins the election. It's the same as Parliament, but done before the popular election rather than after it.

That's a long introduction to a very short thought, which is this: sometimes Congress can function like a Parliament, with the coalition-building occurring after the body is constituted. Whenever Republicans win the votes of Blue Dog Democrats, that's Parliamentary-style coalition-building. Whenever Democrats peel off the moderate Maine Twins, that's Parliamentary-style coalition-building.

It's very possible that late this week or early next, the U.S. House of Representatives will transform itself into the House of Commons. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is in a death spiral: unable to control the Tea Party branch of his own caucus, bearing most of the popular blame for the debt ceiling debacle, stalked from behind by Eric Cantor, reduced to griping publicly about how much his job sucks, his grip on the Speakership itself slipping away -- and, since no one really fears the threats or trusts the promises of a soon-to-be ex-Speaker, he seems to have lost the clout even to pass his own weak debt-ceiling bill through the house he nominally leads. In short, his coalition is falling apart.

In a parliament, this is precisely the moment when someone would shout "no confidence!" and call for new elections. The factions would reshuffle: the Tea Party would support Eric Cantor for Speaker, but more adult Republicans, aware of how deathly serious a default and debt downgrade would be, would look elsewhere for a champion. And if a No Confidence vote were held in the House of Representatives today, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would have a simple majority.

But if the Republican brand is failing, there remains one faction in the House that could form itself a majority government:

Adults.

You know, serious politicians who are able to look into the abyss and have the sense not to plunge into it.

Congress-turned-Parliament would allow allow the factions in Congress to reshuffle, create a new majority comprised of strange bedfellows allied for a common (if sadly ephemeral) purpose, prevent a catastrophic default next Tuesday, and possibly even hammer out a deal to bend the medium-term debt curve so that Standard & Poor's and Moody's don't downgrade the U.S. debt by the end of the summer (which they will do if we only lift the debt ceiling). All it would take is for Nancy Pelosi to step up, craft a reasonable, non-punitive debt ceiling/spending bill, and pitch it to the adults in the room.

A good Pelosi "grown-ups" bill would do three things:

1) Lift the debt ceiling until after the elections;

2) Sail into Standard & Poor's non-downgrade safe harbor by both cutting $2.5 trillion or so in spending over the next decade and by raising slightly under $1 trillion in new revenue by simply closing some of the more egregious tax expenditures and loopholes and trimming back the spendthrift Bush tax cuts on the rich (goring both liberals and conservatives -- but like it or not, S&P's threat must be responded to); and

3) Firewall any significant cuts to Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare until at least 2013.

That bill could be supported, albeit with predictable griping, by every House Democrat. And it already is privately supported by many 24 House Republicans; all that Pelosi needs is to get 24 of them to step up and support it publicly.

The Tea Party would scream bloody murder. Rush Limbaugh would lambaste the "traitorous twenty-four." So what. For some Rs, the remaining good and serious ones, those blasts would be badges of honor.

Yes, Boehner could prevent a Pelosi solution from coming to the floor -- but Boehner, with nothing left in his toolkit, the world's economy on the bubble, his "friend" Eric Cantor at his throat, his Speakership (if not his seat) already lost, 24 Republicans begging him to get out of their way, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which is on Obama's side in this fight) instructing him to damn well get out of the way, may well allow such a bill to be voted on. Again, he doesn't love the Tea Party; he hates it, and he is beholden first to Wall Street, which has been collaborating with Obama to force Boehner into this precise predicament to hobble the uppity Tea Party. Push come to shove, Boehner would (probably tearfully) allow the vote.

And if he did, then he and those 24 "turncoat," patriotic Republicans would save the nation's economy, and possibly the world's. Boehner would, most likely, see that his Speakership is lost, and retire. The 24, depending on their districts, would either win re-election as common-sense pragmatists and move on to brilliant careers as pragmatic, common-sense centrists, or would lose their seats and move on to lucrative jobs offered by an eternally grateful Wall Street (which, again, is firmly in the "solve this problem" camp). For all of them, life would go on.

Democrats plus 24: that's all it takes to solve this problem. All it would take to make it possible is for Pelosi to recognize that as the Republican caucus crumbles into its constituent factions, Congress briefly becomes the House of Commons -- giving her the chance to craft a new majority from the rubble of the G.O.P.

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Standard & Poors to G.O.P.: "We'll Downgrade U.S. Credit Rating If You Don't Accept Obama's Offer"

Holy cow. This is mind-blowing (and confirms my contention that Barack Obama has been working closely with "Big Money" to pressure the G.O.P. to commit what may be electoral suicide):

The credit-rating agency Standard & Poors has released a statement that says, among other things, that merely raising the debt ceiling is not enough to prevent a downgrade of the United States' credit rating, triggering market instability and causing the interest rate on U.S. debt to skyrocket. What's more, S&P is attaching numbers and conditions to its statement: to ensure a stable credit rating, any deal between Obama and the Republicans must reduce debt by $4 trillion, should include some balance of cuts and revenues (ie, tax increases), and will involve concessions by both sides (a thinly-veiled repudiation of Eric Cantor's assertion that merely attending negotiations is the only concession the GOP intends to make).

In short: the G.O.P. must grow up and accept Obama's offer, including politically suicidal tax increases, or the U.S. economy will tank.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business leaders already have written to tell John Boehner to stop screwing around and take a deal, the credit-rating agency Moody's had threatened to downgrade U.S. debt, and a blistering editorial in The Economist last week took Republicans to the woodshed:

"[T]he Republicans are pushing things too far. Talks with the administration ground to a halt last month, despite an offer from the Democrats to cut at least $2 trillion and possibly much more out of the budget over the next ten years. Assuming that the recovery continues, that would be enough to get the deficit back to a prudent level. As The Economist went to press, Mr Obama seemed set to restart the talks.

"The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical."

The Economist even advocated for the tax hikes that Obama has demanded (but which the GOP knows may cost them control of the House of Representatives in 2012):

"This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

"And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer."

Coming on top of this, S&P's remarkably detailed statement -- almost a prescription for what Congress must do, much as the World Bank instructs third world nations to adopt austerity measures -- may be the final blow to beleaguered Republicans, who are tasked tonight and tomorrow with deciding which way to proceed with debt ceiling negotiations -- but who now appear to have little choice in the matter.

A fascinating side question is whether the Obama administration had a role in whether or when S&P issued its statement -- and when Obama knew that the statement would be issued. It's already been reported that the Obama Administration primed the financial community months ago to put pressure on the G.O.P. (There's some benefit to having Wall Street insiders on the Cabinet!)

Earlier today, Obama appeared to retreat from his previous hard-line, must-raise-taxes position, and asked Republicans to choose which of three options they preferred: (1) work toward $4 trillion in total debt reduction over the next decade, including some tax increases and closed loopholes; (2) settle for a lower, $1.5-1.7 trillion debt reduction without tax increases; or (3) Mitch McConnells' complex plan that essentially simply raises the debt ceiling without any deficit reduction.

While Obama was making that seemingly-generous offer, however, Standard & Poors was preparing to issue its report announcing that options (2) and (3) would be ruinous to financial markets and to the nation's ability to borrow -- i.e., that only Obama's first option, the $4 trillion, must-increase-taxes plan he has pushed for all along. Taking it all together, I strongly suspect Obama knew the S&P report was coming and timed the day's events perfectly, coming away looking more reasonable than ever while making sure that the Republicans' box is getting smaller and smaller.

The key portion of the Standard & Poors report is printed below:

"We expect the debt trajectory to continue increasing in the medium term if a medium-term fiscal consolidation plan of $4 trillion is not agreed upon. If Congress and the Administration reach an agreement of about $4 trillion, and if we to conclude that such an agreement would be enacted and maintained throughout the decade, we could, other things unchanged, affirm the 'AAA' long-term rating and A-1+ short-term ratings on the U.S.

"Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might agree on. But for any agreement to be credible, we believe it would require support from leaders of both political parties.

"Congress and the Administration might also settle for a smaller increase in the debt ceiling, or they might agree on a plan that, while avoiding a near-term default, might not, in our view, materially improve our base case expectation for the future path of the net general government debt-to-GDP ratio. U.S. political debate is currently more focused on the need for medium-term fiscal consolidation than it has been for a decade. Based on this, we believe that an inability to reach an agreement now could indicate that an agreement will not be reached for several more years. We view an inability to timely agree and credibly implement medium-term fiscal consolidation policy as inconsistent with a 'AAA' sovereign rating, given the expected government debt trajectory noted above.

Further delays in raising the debt ceiling could lead us to conclude that a default is more possible than we previously thought. If so, we could lower the long-term rating on the U.S. government this month and leave both the long-term and short-term ratings on CreditWatch with negative implications pending developments."

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

It's The Election, Stupid: How Obama is Leveraging Debt Ceiling Negotiations to Win Reelection and Regain the House

The drama unfolding in Washington the past few days has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. It doesn't even have to do with the federal budget. Barack Obama's noble, President-of-both-parties overwillingness to compromise since 2009 seems to be giving way to a leaner, meaner, more Machiavellian campaign mindset, and Candidate Obama appears to have his eyes set not only on his own reelection but on engineering a Democratic re-takeover of the House of Representatives, using the debt ceiling negotiations as his chosen, and carefully pre-surveyed, battlefield.

The G.O.P.'s Three Weaknesses:

Since Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, the G.O.P. has had a very good run in Washington: they have persuaded Americans that "liberal" is a dirty word, retained the "fiscal conservative" moniker despite octupling the national debt, and rebounded after presidential setbacks in 1992 and 2008 by exploiting Clinton's and Obama's nonexistent "coattails" to gain impressive new Congressional majorities. But while the conservative juggernaut has been formidable, the Republicans have made three blunders in the past thirty years that exposed their vulnerabilities and knocked them profoundly off their pace.

Here are the G.O.P.'s three "classic blunders," the errors that for them are the political equivalents of getting involved in a land war in Asia:

1. Running a weak Republican for President against a charismatic, Kennedy-esque young Democrat;

2. Shutting down the government, as Newt Gingrich did in 1995-6; and

3. Breaking a promise not to raise taxes (which cost George H.W. Bush reelection in 1992).

The G.O.P. can't help but repeat blunder number 1 in 2012: the G.O.P. field is weak, and Obama will be the Democratic candidate. Obama is now maneuvering to force them to make blunders 2 and 3, as well -- a "hat trick." If he succeeds, the result -- and, most likely, his objective from the start -- will be not only his reelection, but Democratic control of the House of Representatives as well.

Here are the clues, tea leaves and puzzle pieces that support this analysis:

1. Obama Finds a Spine and Keeps Insisting on Raising Taxes: Until now, Obama has been over-quick to buy in to Republican frames. Republicans argue that the debt is too high (even though it's not); Obama agrees that the debt is too high and counterproductively supports budget cuts during a recession. Republicans say that healthcare should still be paid for privately; Obama agrees and doesn't even allow singlepayer advocates a seat at the healthcare reform table. Republicans argue that tax cuts are the key to an effective stimulus package; Obama agrees and squanders nearly half the stimulus on tax cuts.

But now Republicans are screaming that taxes shall not be raised -- and Obama, for the first time, is pushing back and insists that a tax increase is his one non-negotiable. Yet, strangely, Obama is not adamant about how large the tax increases ("revenue enhancements") must be; he is blithely willing to accept spending cuts that are disproportionately larger than any tax increases; all he really demands is that there must be some tax increases. He even signals a willingness to carve large, bloody chunks out of sacred cows like Social Security and Medicare and throw them on the grill for Republicans' dining pleasure -- if only the Republicans will just accept some itty, bitty little tax increases. And, at the same time, the G.O.P. suddenly seems panicked about the issue.

Why is Obama so hell-bent on increasing taxes, when conventional wisdom in an election (and a recession) says that's suicidal? And why is the G.O.P. suddenly turning pale and insisting gaspingly that it "will not, will not, will not EVER!" submit to increasing taxes, like a maiden hopelessly proclaiming her eternal chastity before a horde of slavering Mongols?

Poppy Bush.

In 1988, the first President Bush won the White House largely on the strength of a single, clear promise: "read my lips: no new taxes." Then, being a well-educated, old-school Republican and a pragmatist (who had called Reagan's supply-side theories "Voodoo Economics"), he adapted to changing circumstances and agreed some tax increases were necessary. His base exploded, his supporters stayed home on election day, and Bill and Hillary evicted George and Barbara after only one term.

The entire G.O.P. freshman class has, in more or less identical words, taken the same pledge as George H.W. Bush, and the Tea Party, like Grover Norquist but without his political sophistication, has made "no new taxes" its latest line in the sand. It's a binary, black-white, either-or test: either you increase taxes or you hold the line, and if you choose wrong, we will jettison you and back someone with more commitment to the anti-tax cause. And because a larger than usual proportion of the current G.O.P. majority are freshmen, and because freshmen are especially vulnerable in their first reelection, the G.O.P. majority is highly vulnerable to being overturned in 2012.

Obama knows this -- and so do the G.O.P.'s (relative) grown-ups, who now realize they're in a box and are looking desperately for a way out. That's why Boehner complained bitterly today that the only thing Obama is inflexible on is "these damn tax increases." That's why, as Brian Beutler has astutely observed here and here, even anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist has figured out what's happening and is moderating his absolutism to help the Republicans escape Obama's trap. That's also why the Wall Street Journal, always the oracle of Big Money and even more so now that it is part of Rupert Murdoch's propaganda machine, is defending Mitch McConnell's strange debt-ceiling proposal (which is simply a device for surrendering to Obama without having to raise taxes, made intentionally overcomplex in hopes that the Tea Party rank-and-file won't realize what's going on).

Obama is forcing the G.O.P. to pull a Poppy and break their pledge. The G.O.P. knows that it will pay a terrible price if it does so. But, when the final seconds tick their way to a default, those wiser G.O.P. heads also know that they will follow the financially-sensible bidding of Big Money rather than the suicidal bidding of the spoiled children who think they run the Tea Party, and will do what Obama (and Wall Street) demand -- after which they will start privately telephoning friends in important places to look for job openings beginning in January, 2013.

2. In a Tie, The Call Goes to the Democrat: But, you say, isn't Obama under the same pressure as Republicans to lift the debt ceiling, so that he's as likely to hit the brakes as they are before the nation drives off the cliff?

Nope.

True, Obama doesn't want the U.S. to default. But he has skilfully positioned himself as the more reasonable player by offering tax cuts much larger than his proposed tax increases, by leaking to the Washington Post and others that he is willing to alienate his base by gouging Medicare and Social Security, and by manipulating the Republicans into huffily walking out of negotiations (and into Obama's trap). The majority of Americans will blame Republicans, not Obama, for any default -- and both sides know it.

History bolsters this conclusion. The last time a Democratic President and an ideologically purist Republican Congress allowed a stalemate to shut down the government, Republicans lost in the public's mind (and those Republicans, the infamous "Contract With America" class led by Newt Gingrich, was then voted out of office, allowing Democrats to regain the House). A default now will be much, much more harmful than the brief shutdown that occurred in 1995-1996 , and the negative consequences for Republicans will be proportionately worse as well.

In the leadup to the current negotiations, Boehner tried to position the G.O.P. differently than Gingrich did in 1995, but he clearly has failed. Politically, Obama has less to lose than the Republicans do -- and, as one of my father's truisms says, you should never get in a fight with someone who has less to lose than you do. In Boehner's nightmares, he could go down in history as the man who allowed the nation to double-dip into the Second Great Depression and permanently stripped the G.O.P. of the "fiscal grown-up" label it has claimed since before WWII. He won't take that risk.

3. Wall Street will not allow the G.O.P. to cause a default: Pundits and talking heads keep focusing on the Tea Party's likely reaction to a tax increase, forgetting that fiscally there is another, more deeply imbedded, subtler but infinitely more mercenary influence on Republican politics: Big Money. Big Money -- Wall Street, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the myriad networks of individual donors and independent campaign ad funders and potential post-Congressional-career employers that are the G.O.P.'s (and, to be fair, half of the Democratic Party's) true constituents -- calmly allows its minions to showcase and speechify and engage in tiny, irrelevant acts of political theater to meet the needs of the political moment, but the ground of Big Money's existence is the integrity of the financial system. Are big banks about to go under? D.C. is mobilized overnight, ideology is set aside, and supposed free marketeers like John Boehner tearfully beg Congress to intervene in the free market to bail them out.

If Big Money can make conservative congresscritters scramble to serve its will when a few banks are on the bubble, what do you think it can accomplish when the integrity of the U.S. government -- the ground of the U.S. financial system's being, the issuer of public tender and surety of U.S. businesses' credibility in world markets -- is in jeopardy? Answer: anything it wants. Big Money can tell Boehner to step down and retire, and he will. It can tell Paul Ryan to jettison his budget, and he will. It can tell Eric Cantor to back down from his hardcore rhetoric, and Ron Paul to silently brook a larger federal government, and they will.

The pressure's already building -- the normally pro-Republican U.S. Chamber and other business leaders, carefully prepped and cultivated by the Administration well in advance of this crisis (!), already have started leaning on Republicans to take a deal, and Moody's is threatening to downgrade U.S. securities. If Obama can sustain his bluff to the bitter end, the G.O.P. will do whatever it takes to prevent a default, because their masters are telling them to do so. (And don't believe Cantor's assertion that passing a bill raising taxes is impossible: the unofficial "Wall Street Caucus" has always been larger than the Tea Party Caucus, and combined with House Democrats, who outnumber Tea Party Caucus members three-to-one, can easily pass whatever is needed.)

The process of persuading the G.O.P. to accept the inevitable has already begun; it's precisely the slowly-dawning realization that Republican control of the House is at stake that's making G.O.P. leaders look so shaky lately. It's why Mitch McConnell has, remarkably, proposed an alternative bill that would actually increase the power of a Democratic president -- and why Obama has rejected the offer. It's why the White House adamantly refuses to accept any short-term, pressure-relieving solutions.

Admittedly, Obama might not be able to pull off his hat trick. In particular, if the House were to cut its losses, abandon negotiations altogether and unilaterally pass a clean, stand-alone, two-year debt ceiling increase, it would be hard for Harry Reid not to allow a similar bill to pass the Senate, and even harder for Obama to veto it (though if he has nerves of steel he could do so, and force the House Republicans to accept a package of spending cuts and tax increases in the minutes before their midnight deadline). But in the meantime, Obama will keep slapping pucks at the G.O.P.'s beleaguered orange goalkeeper, trying to go three for three.

If winning a landslide reelection and reclaiming the House are indeed his true objectives, look for Obama to do the following:

1. Keep Taking Republicans to the Boards: At this point, this is full-contact politics. Look for Obama to keep up the hard play. Today's body blow: Obama rejected one version of a debt ceiling increase, "insisted on one comprehensive deal" (i.e., one including tax increases), threatened to veto any short-term approaches, promised to "stake his presidency" on the issue, and walked out of a meeting with Canter. Look for more of the same.

2. Divide and conquer: Obama's game depends on splitting the Tea Party Caucus from the Wall Street gray eminences, and foolish ideologues like Cantor from pragmatists like Boehner. Look for him to exploit every opportunity to drive wedges -- as he did today when he walked out of a meeting with Cantor, to Boehner's almost certain aggravation. If Obama's plan is working, on the other hand, look for ideological freshmen like Mike Lee (R-UT) to stop saying stupid, divisive things -- a sign that their elders are explaining how the world really works. And also look for the better strategists on the G.O.P. side to air increasingly desperate plans to avoid being forced to raise taxes -- which will, in turn, bring fresh waves of outcry from party purists.To aggravate Republicans' internal divide, also look for Obama to uncharacteristically toss darts and jibes at the TeaParty to aggravate it further, at least until the deal's down to the short strokes.

3. Move to the Right on Debt: If the G.O.P. suggests a clean debt ceiling increase, Obama will co-opt the "debts matter" argument and, with less-politically-savvy purists like Paul Krugman screaming epithets at him, will demand budget cuts (and, by the way, just one wafer-thin little tax increase!) as part of any deal. He will reiterate, over and over, that if not now, when? He will, to the dismay of the people at FireDogLake, adopt Frank Lautenberg talking points, crying that he does not want Sasha and Malia to inherit debt simply because John Boehner isn't willing to cut spending (with, again, just one tiny, insignificant tax increase attached).

4. Appear to be Caving on Cuts and Entitlements: Perversely, if Obama is focused on retaking the House, he will temper his hard-line position on tax increases by being almost ridiculously open to spending cuts and entitlement "reform" that his base considers intolerable. There are several reasons for this. First, the "raising taxes" pill is so poisonous that nearly any sacrifice that leads to them swallowing it is worthwhile. Obama is willing to eat a lot of garbage in exchange for the Republicans swallowing one teeny, tiny little tablet of cyanide. Second, any major cuts that pass the House must still pass the (Democrat-controlled) Senate. Finally, regaining both Houses of Congress opens the possibility of Democrats repairing any damage to entitlements that today's deal causes.

5. Almost inexplicably, keep avoiding a "clean vote" on the debt ceiling: Even down to the last minute. Good games of chicken take it all the way to the edge of the cliff.

Finally, how will we know if Obama has completely pwn3d the G.O.P.? Easy: the House of Representatives will, before the default deadline, pass a negotiated package that lifts the debt ceiling, contains something that can be characterized by wingnuts as a tax increase, and infests the G.O.P.'s 2012 platform's "debt hawk" plank with so much dryrot that it will be unsafe for them to stand on it.

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME