The NYT sounds a plaintive lament for the fate of John Boehner.
Even opening the door to increased revenues as part of a deal with Mr. Obama and the Democrats struck many Republicans as a profound misreading of what conservatives, in Congress and at the grass-roots level, would tolerate.
No shit. The "deal with Mr. Obama and the Democrats" part would be the sticking point, there. Because Obama is a Marxist!
Yet in his push for a sweeping deal, Mr. Boehner may also have underestimated the willingness of Mr. Obama to make concessions on traditional Democratic priorities and to challenge Congressional Democrats to give ground on programs like Medicare and Social Security, an approach that put pressure on Mr. Boehner to cede territory as well.
The craftiest kind of Marxist is the Marxist willing to go to the right of every Democratic president since FDR.
Mr. Boehner had good reason to pursue such a so-called grand bargain beyond the matter of his own legacy. A big deal could have resolved some of the most stubborn fiscal issues, freeing his ambitious majority to take on new matters while giving a lift to the economy and demonstrating the power of conservative Republican ideals.
A "lift to the economy"... I suppose a bullet to the head, from the proper angle, might indeed provide a "lift."
And the very liberal NYT postmortem:
But one lesson has emerged: going for the rewards offered by a big deal requires the willingness to take big risks — and such political nerve seems to be lacking in Washington at the moment.