I do have an idea, however, that allows us to leverage the Senator’s unique vulnerability at this time while also maximizing liberty. To actually pull it off we’d probably need Rush, Sean, or The Great One to run with it. Though some buzz on Redstate could help it gain some traction.

The idea is this: we conservatives guarantee that we won’t back anyone against him in a primary, not even a real conservative in the mold of a Lee/Cruz/Rubio/Paul, if he can successfully stop Obama’s agenda from getting through the Senate.

• No “immigration reform”.
• No gun control.
• No judges.

Etc, etc, etc.

Just stop Obama’s forward agenda cold so we can run-out the clock on his second term without inflicting additional damage on either the country or our liberties.

And in return for this conservative victory we will let you, Senator McConnell, focus your time and resources solely on winning the General Election.  Which of course will prove much easier than taking on both a Primary opponent and a Democrat.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/06/something-wicked-this-way-comes.html

And on a personal level I will confess that over the past couple of months, I’ve had a few unique interactions that have brought home the human-side of healthcare access and pre-existing conditions.  These are deeply personal issue, with truly complex moral dimensions.

But that doesn’t help Gawande’s attempt to belittle the “jeopardy” argument against the President’s healthcare law. The fact remains that we are in the early innings of a global debt-crisis, where the “developed” world’s unsustainable financial commitments are finally being challenged by the people needed to finance them. The inevitable default & deleveraging process that has started is still in its early innings, but it is already impacting economic growth.  And the worst-is-yet-to-come.

In the US specifically, prior to this new healthcare entitlement being enacted, the existing debt + new deficits + unfunded liabilities were absolutely staggering relative to the resources (GDP) required to finance them.  Further, tomorrow’s tax-paying citizens not only have so much financial capacity but also have limits as to how much pain and reduced economic opportunity they’ll be willing to tolerate, while today’s fixed income investors are not going to tolerate a decreasing risk/reward profile on their Treasury investments forever.

Which is why I’m convinced that adding a new and very large entitlement “on top of the pile” was an act of fiscal lunacy.  Only a madman would have added a new entitlement to a society that was already this overcommitted.  I’m sure that sounds rhetorical, but I’ve carefully chosen the words “lunatic” and “madman” as accurate qualitative descriptions given the underlying quantitative drivers.

Although the new HC entitlement is technically “paid for”, and technically “reduces the deficit”, it does so only by cutting spending and raising taxes that could have otherwise been used to help (partially help) reduce the unfunded liabilities that already existed prior to the new healthcare law.  It’s a fantasy to think that this new law improved the fiscal health of the county.

What I guess I’m trying to say here is that the existing context matters when considering any new potential commitment.  That’s true in your personal life as well as in your career; whether it’s a private enterprise or a government.  And as sure as Gawande’s footing likely is as he describes the high costs of the many uninsured, I seriously doubt he understands the fiscal & monetary context here.  How else to describe such a flippant response to it?

But I know the math.  And it ain’t pretty.

The Speaker’s response should be simple: a counter-proposal that invites Obama to address the entire Congress during the day, in either public or private, one day next week.

He should not let Obama have a national platform from which to lecture.

I envisison a response from the Speaker’s Office might look something like this:

“Mr. President, the Republicans in the House and the Senate are in total agreement that America’s lackluster economic growth and job creation are critical issues that deserve the full attention of all policy makers.  And we’re convinced that, for all of the differences between our parties, there must be some areas where we can work together and find common ground.

Your request, however, is to come and address a joint session of Congress on the evening of September 7th. There are two issues with this request, as we see it: First, the suggestions for a way forward would only be flowing in one direction, and as a co-equal branch of government the Congress hopes to engage in a two-way discussion on this critical topic.  Second, the specific time you’ve chosen conflicts with one of the Republican Presidential debates, something we seriously doubt you were unaware of when making your request. 

Hence, since your request is transparently political, we invite you instead to a two-way discussion with a joint session of Republicans (both House and Senate) for any afternoon of your choosing next week.  We are happy to hear your ideas on job creation Mr. President, and look forward to sharing ours directly with you.  And while we strongly prefer to have this meeting be public, we’re willing to meet in private if you would feel more comfortable in that setting.  The important thing is that we begin the discussion, because the problems are very real, and Americans are suffering.

And it’s critical, Mr. President, that the conversation going forward be two-way in nature for this very simple reason: Republicans in both the House and Senate, along with a growing number of Americans, view you and your Administration as a large reason why economic growth and job creation have been so lackluster.  Indeed, some of the specific ideas we look forward to sharing with you are suggestions that your Adminstration stop certain unprecedented regulatory actions that are clearly harming the environment for economic growth in our country. ”

Blah blah blah…..you get the point here.  Force it to be a conversation as opposed to a lecture….don’t let him stand apart from the crowd….don’t give him a free national audience….don’t let him drown out the GOP debate that night….and don’t let and the MSM decry that you turned down his invitation.  Rather, the truth will be that you countered for a full two-way discussion for any day next week, in public or in private.

And while there’s every reason to think you’re going to screw it up, let’s just say that hope springs eternal.

With that in mind, a few serious suggestions:

1. First and foremost, don’t forget how much leverage you have by sticking together as a group. Even the MSM can no longer pretend that Reid isn’t in the hot seat, since it’s the Senate that has not yet pased any raising of the debt ceiling. And because of the unique delaying tactics available to the minority party in the Senate, time is not on his side.  HE NEEDS YOU…AND DON’T FORGET IT.
2. Second, and almost just as important, don’t forget that 1 of the 2 critical things Obama wants out of this whole thing is not aligned with Harry Reid’s political interest.  Obama does not want to have to fight a debt debate again before the election (just look at the carnage this one is doing to his poll numbers), and his fellow Dems will no doubt agree with him on that one.  But the other critical thing for Obama in this debate is that he avoid accepting something that encourages a primary challenge.   However, the Dem Senators running for re-election in red states in 2012 would love to be seen “standing up to Obama” and “acting independently” because it would help them politically, and hence are probably very open to passing the type cuts and changes that would in fact make a primary challenge more probable.  You can even offer them a high-profile press conference with the Republican(s) of their choice if it will help seal the deal (conservatives, moderates…whatever they want). 
3. Which ties in nicely to the next thing to remember: anything that helps those Dems politically increases the (albeit slim) chance that Harry Reid can return as Majority Leader in 2013.  Hence, if going “behind enemy lines” and trying to isolate Reid turns out to be a non-starter (because those Dems don’t want to go behind his back), then appeal to Reid directly.  Don’t forget: Reid knows that Obama has screwed him left and right in ths debate, and won’t hesitate to do so again even if it means screwing the Dem’s that Reid needs to stay Majority Leader in 2013.  Harry Reid is a political animal, so appeal to his own political interest.
4. Short of actually getting daylight between the Senate and the White House (which we know exists, even though Reid has so far been successful in keeping it from pouring out for all to see), then use your incredible leverage right now (go back to point #1 above if you’ve already forgotten how much leverage you have) in order to exact somthing tangible and real that will actually make a difference for the country, and that our patriots in the House can pass (even while pinching their nose). Obviously this will mean no tax increases, but also it could (and should) mean one or two really big things.  One example would be, for instance, ending the Medicaid entitlement and block granting it.  Another would be a meaningful, immediate reduction in the number of Federal programs and workforce.  In other words, get at least a couple of individual items that will actually matter, and make sure at least one of them is an entitlement.
5. Be wary, be very wary, or which trigger(s) you choose.  This is critical: don’t forget that Obamacare may get struck down by the Supreme Court, so any trigger based on that (or a portion of it) may not matter to Dems in a year (or 2, or 4).  And if there ever is a time where it won’t matter to them, then they’ll have incentives to intentionally bust the caps, so as to automatically trigger something you vehemently oppose (e.g. tax increases) that you may well be powerless to stop.  For this reason (and others) I personally hate the idea of the triggers, but at least be extremely careful in which ones you choose.  Far better to make as a trigger Paul Ryan’s Medicare reforms becoming the law of the land.  That will always be anathema to Dems.
6. Don’t be afraid to message the “cuts” in terms of “Waste, Fraud, and Abuse”.  Coburn’s already identified trillions in Waste, Fraud, and Abuse.  The question ought to be asked: why does the President need tax increases before going after Waste, Fraud, and Abuse.  Why are we even debating this right now?  I mean, good heavens.
7. Don’t be afraid to message the “cuts” in terms of the Baseline.  As has been well-documented elsewhere of late, what we’re really talking about here are decreases in the growth of spending….not actual decreases. 
8. Don’t be afraid to message your so-called intransigent demands as both very balanced and more than fair.  Your “cuts only” approach is a balanced one when viewed within the context of the enormous increases in Federal spending under Obama, including a whole new entitlement when the existing entitlements are already growing broke. Clearly, any approach to solving the deficit ought to start with spending first.  Further, your “cuts” represent well less than 50% of those that were passed in the GOP House Budget for Fiscal 2012, which is hardly an intransigent position to take.  And last but not least, you should note to members of the media that many in your caucus wanted to tie the full repeal of Obamacare to any raise in the debt ceiling. This is the perfect line to deliver to show just how accomodating you’ve been during this whole negotiation, e.g. “We know how critical it is to raise the debt ceiling, which is why we didn’t want to make it politically impossible for the President to sign it by including a full repeal of Obamacare in any debt-raise legislation, despite the fact that many of our members wanted to do so.” 

We know you won’t get everything needed to actually save the country. But if you fail to get something substantiative here that actually begins the process of reversing the Federal Leviathan, that actually takes at least one entitlement and puts it on the path to sustainability,  then you will have truly screwed over not only the people who put you in power (namely, us), but the generations of Americans past and present who have sacrificed so much for our land, not to mention those yet unborn who are drowning in debt already. 

Which only leaves one last final suggestion: grow a pair, and go get ’em.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/us/politics/15deficit.html

But here is what we know: President Obama’s biggest potential vulnerability is still from his left.  To be precise, so long as there remains enough time for President Obama to face a primary challenge from his left (Howard Dean, Russ Fiengold, the alien from Ohio) it’s in his political interest to dig in against Republicans.  That’s why he’s digging in: because if he caves, then he’s going to get primaried.

And if he gets primaried, he’s toast.

I believe our leaders should begin pointing this out in press interviews: that one of the reasons President Obama is being so intractable is that he has to guarantee he’ll avoid a primary challenge, ala Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Here’s an example of how Boehner might phrase it in a high-profile interview this weekend (e.g. 60 Minutes, which I strongly suggest the GOP try and arrange):

Well Scott, we believe our plan is quite reasonable and balanced.  First, some context: baseline government spending has grown tremendously the past few years under President Obama.  It’s not like the Federal government has been starved for resources the past couple of years.  We believe the govenment needs at least $6 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years, but we’re only asking for $2.4 trillion because we know how important the debt limit is, and we don’t want to make it politically impossible for this President to sign.  We’re also not demanding, and many members of our caucus want to demand this, but we’ve decided not to demand that Obamacare be repealed in exchange for raising the country’s debt limit.  Again, we know that would just make it politically impossible for President Obama to sign, and we view raising the debt limit as too important to play political football with.

I mean Scott, $2.4 trillion represents less than 6% of what the Federal government is currently slated to spend over the next 10 years.  Do you know of any organization that isn’t being asked to “do more with less”? Well, why shouldn’t the Federal government?

And note that the President has indicated in public and private that he’d actually accept cuts in the neighborhood of what we’re asking, so long as we also raise taxes.  This is important Scott: it’s not as if the President is saying that the level of government expenditures we’re laying out are unacceptable….just that they’re unacceptable UNLESS we give him something to take back to his liberal base.

And Scott, therein lies the heart of why I think President Obama has come off so defensively in both private and public during this whole debate: his Presidency is careening towards a repeat of Jimmy Carter’s.  Anemic growth, high unemployment, and high inflation.  And President Obama knows that just as Jimmy Carter was weakened by a primary challenge, he could be also.  So long as there is time for a Democrat to mount a primary challenge to Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, he can’t even pretend to move to the center.  He has to dig in for the hard left, which in this case means either mandating higher taxes or maintaining the extremely elevated levels of government spending he was able to implement during his first 2 years, while Democrats still ran Congress.

Quite frankly, I think one of the things that could really help free President Obama to do the right thing here, and accept what is a very reasonable, responsible, and balanced approach we’ve put forward is if Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kuccinnich and some other potential primary challengers to President Obama can come out publicly and state unequivacolly that they will not do so.  Taking that off the table for this President, taking off the table a potential primary challenge would, I think, go a long way towards giving this President the political room he needs in order to meet us halfway here.

Scott, we all agree the debt limit needs to be raised.  And the President has laid out some very dire scenarios, in terms of consequences, if we don’t.  For the President to not sign the debt-limit increase we’re going to pass this week, that will have spending cuts that he’s already indicated he can accept were they accompanied with tax increases (which they won’t be, not by us), is unconscionable.  For him to put the country in jeapordy over a level of spending cuts that he’s said he can accept, just to appease his hard-left base and ensure he doesn’t get a primary challenge ala Jimmy Carter, is simply unconscionable.

It’s time for this President, a liberal in both mind and heart, to accept the fact that his vision of a dramatically and permanently larger federal government is NOT going to be a reality.  At least not as long as we’re running the House of Representatives.

Thoughts?

So instead of just griping about (obvious) liberal-bias in the media, I propose we here at redstate start a project: let’s compile a list of questions for reporters (national and local) who have the opportunity to sit-down with Obama that challenge him on those misleading statements.

Let me start the ball rolling with what I consider to be the highest-impact question that has yet to be put to this President.  As many of you know, President Obama told George Stephanopolous in a September 2009 interview that he does not believe the penalty Americans would be forced to pay under the Individual Mandate is a tax.  However, his very own DOJ is currently arguing that the primary justification for the Individual Mandate under the Constitution is, in fact, Congress’ ability to tax. 

My proposal for the number one question that can sink Obama in 2012:

“Mr. President, during the debate on healthcare you told George Stephanopolous, this was in September of 2009, that you did not consider the penalty levied on Americans as a result of the Individual Mandate to be a tax.  Do you still believe that?”

Either the President would publically undercut the argument his very own DOJ is currently making to defend Obamacare (thus undercutting them).  Or, Obama would be forced to publically admit that he has violated his “no new taxes” pledge to those Americans making less than $250K.

And one note to our friends at the RNC who may be reading this: given the White House’s strategy of only giving interviews to local reporters in swing states, perhaps they can be a bit proactive: look at where the President is travelling to, contact the local reporters Obama will be sitting down with, and walk them through some suggested questions.  This is a low-cost, high-impact strategy that will help our eventual nominee in 2012.

According to the (very in-depth) report in today’s NY Times:

“American officials insisted they would have taken Bin Laden into custody if he did not resist, although they considered that likelihood remote. “If we had the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive, if he didn’t present any threat, the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that,” Mr. Brennan said.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/asia/03intel.html?hp

Of course we’ll never know whether Osama Bin Laden could have been taken alive, but instead of the mission parameters described above President Obama should have ordered that every effort be made to extract him while he still had a pulse. Surely OBL could have been whisked off to Gitmo, or some new secret prison could have been set-up (since President Obama dismantled the old secret prisons that actually produced some of the original leads for Sunday’s mission). 

When in our custody at Gitmo (or wherever), OBL would likely have given us at least some intelligence that would have further aided in the protection of American lives and interests.  And “at least some intelligence” may be vastly understating it….having OBL in our custody for a few months might have produced a virtual treasure trove of vital counter-terrorism intel.

But we’ll never know how valuable that intel might have been, because that would have forced our current (Lord help us) Commander-in-Chief to implicitly endorse the utility of both Gitmo and enhanced interrogation. 

You see, word would have eventually gotten out that we had OBL in custody: the raid into a residential Pakistani city, however stealthily executed, would have ensured that.  And once word did get out, the firestorm of questions would have forced this Administration to tell the world-at-large, and his political base at home, “We have him, and we’re keeping him until he’s done telling us what we want to know.” This would have been an incredible reversal in policy, given President Obama’s high-profile, 1/22/09 executive order “banning torture”.

Politically speaking, this was the least-risky choice President Obama could have made.  The courageous choice would have been to order Osama Bin Laden be taken alive if at all possible. 

And once again, our national interests play second-fiddle to President Obama’s political imperatives. 

My specific suggestion below is predicated on two observations: First, any GOP response should tie back to a bigger narrative about the President misleading the public about the long-term consequences (intended and unintended) of his policies. Second, any final deal is likely to contain less (perhaps far less) than our original public negotiating position (see recent budget negotiations for proof).

I think the GOP should demand that the Medicare cuts enacted by Obamacare be reversed, and that the Ryan plan for Medicare beneficiaries under 55 be adopted.

The drumbeat our side should pound home publically to the American people, and privately with the Adminstration over the next several weeks is a DEMAND that the Medicare cuts this President signed into law last year need to be reversed: current beneficiaries don’t deserve to have Medicare, already on difficult financial ground, further gutted by the President’s desire to enact Obamacare. If the President wants to enact Obamacare, let him pay for it using someting other than Medicare. 

Of course, the GOP should offset the “cost” of reversing Obamacare’s Medicare cuts with reductions in discretionary spending. And when the President pushes back in private negotiations, because as we all know he NEEDS the Medicare cuts in order to fund Obamacare, the GOP can counter by asking for 1) Ryan’s proposed Medicare changes for those under 55, and 2) block-granting of Medicaid…and reductions in Medicaid’s outlays now that states will have flexibility.

The benefits of this approach are myriad. First and foremost, Obama can’t win this debate.  He doesn’t even want to acknowledge that he gutted Medicare to fund Obamacare. Further, he’ll have to defend WHY current seniors should bear the burden of his desire to enact Obamacare, when even before his cuts the program was not sustainable.

President Obama has misled, and continues to mislead, the country about Obamacare.

You see, it has to get worked into every single response to most every single policy for that fundamental truth to resonate with Americans.  Just like “flip flop” and John Kerry became synonymous, so must “Obama”, “misled”, and “Obamacare” become synoymous with one another.  People should just be saying it all the time: “Obama misled the country on Obamacare”….”Obama misled the country on Obamacare.”

As for tomorrow: we can all see that the budget Obama’s going to release is a pure piece of political theatre, just as his first budget was.  No one can accuse him any longer of ignoring the debt, because he will now just be able to respond that “I’m not ignoring our debt….I just don’t think it’s fair to ask seniors and the middle class to shoulder all of the burden without asking the wealthiest…” blah blah blah.

The GOP’s response should, realy must, tie it back to a bigger narrative here: that Obama is misleading the public about the long-term consequences (intended and unintended) of his policies. 

My suggestion for tomorrow’s official GOP response to Obama’s proposal:

“The President today has misled the country. Let us repeat: just as he continues to mislead the country on the true costs and tradeoffs involved with Obamacare, the President misled the country when he announced his new budget today.  Viewed within the context of our past debt, current deficits, and massive unfunded commitments to seniors and veterans, the far bigger welfare state and federal beauracracy President Obama wants cannot possibly be paid for by 2% of American taxpayers.  If the President wants a bigger welfare state and federal beaucracy, than by God let him level with the American people about how much in new, additional taxes it will mean for middle-class Americans.”

And another thing (to quote The Great One, Mark Levin): my advice is that for one day, and one day only, the orders go out from Boehner and McConnel’s office: no one from the GOP feeds a single quote to a single reporter.  All members should just refer back to the party’s official comment, which each member stands behind.  Let’s not allow the MSM to stuff the article with quotes from the few Republicans who are off the reservation on this one.  Instead, let’s force every article that lays out our response to have the same exact theme: the President is misleading the country about the actual costs and tradeoffs involved in his policies….just as he did (and continues to do) with Obamacare.

Hey, GOP leadership: your enemy is thinking strategically…time to do the same my friends.  Obama’s got the bully pulpit, and the MSM adores him.  The only power you have to fight back is to communicate to the country a unified, consistent message. It will help you get the best possible deal at the end of the day, it will get the focus OFF of Obama’s preferred topic (that the GOP is fighting for the rich), and if successful it will pay BIG dividends for our eventual nominee (by softening up Obama’s numbers on candor).

And finally, of course, it also has the added benefit of being true.

Before laying out the specific policy proposals and messaging that should accompany the House GOP’s offer to raise the debt ceiling, let’s first look at what Jamie Dimon (CEO of JP Morgan and someone who clearly understands financial markets) has to say about the consequences of failing to raise the debt ceiling (h/t WSJ):

______________________________________________________________

“I would hope it gets resolved,” Mr. Dimon said. “If the United States actually defaults on our debt it would be catastrophic… and unpredictable. If anyone wants to push that button… they’re crazy.”

Mr. Dimon said the consequences of failing to raise the ceiling would “start snowballing” in the months and weeks before the Treasury actually defaulted on the U.S. debt, as companies took action, such as selling the U.S. Treasuries they hold.  Mr. Dimon did not specify what steps his company would take. But in general, the growing possibility the federal government could default would throw U.S. Treasuries, the life-blood of corporate financing, into disarray.

“All short-term funding would disappear,” Mr. Dimon said.

“I would have hundreds of [people] working around the world protecting our company from that kind of event. We would get prepared for it way ahead of time. Like, I would be taking really drastic action. It would be really unpleasant,” he said.

________________________________________________________________________

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/03/30/dimon-hitting-debt-ceiling-would-be-catastrophic/

For the record, I don’t believe it’s wise to actually have the US Government fail to meet its financial obligations. However it’s absolutely critical to recognize the sheer amount of leverage the GOP has on this particular issue.  Obama is getting advised that the consequences of markets believing this might not get done could be incredibly dire, with some of the damage possibly permanent.

And lest we forget the incentives involved, remember that for Obama it’s all about getting re-elected.  If this was his second term he might draw a firmer line in the sand with regards to what he’s willing to accept to avoid a default on his watch.  Faced with the prospect of causing so much (avoidable) damage to the economy as to imperil his re-election, he’ll fold like a cheap suit.  If, that is, our specific demands are paired together with a very winning message both to him privately, and to the American people.

My specific suggestion is to offer Obama a choice, his choice, of accepting 6 the following 7 policy proposals as part of the same bill that authorizes an increase in the debt ceiling. 

1. Passage, in both Houses, of a Balanced Budget Amendment with a hard spending cap of no more than 20% of our nation’s GDP.
2. The Ryan/Rivkin plan for Medicare, a true structural reform that is a first step in bringing market forces back into the health care system, and helping us meet our commitment to future seniors while giving them more choice.
3. Strong tort reform, including Medical Malpractice reform (this is a big one to include, and not just for the benefits to our economy….see below for why).
4. A very strong, very broad DEregulation bill.
5. Defunding the unspent portion of the $105 billion that has already been appropriated to implement Obamacare.
6. Change the funding for the new Consumer Protection Bureau so that it is NOT automatic based on the Fed’s budget, but rather subject to ongoing Congressional appropriations.
7. Allow citizens under a certain age to opt out of Social Security by diverting a portion of their FICA withholding into a personal retirement account.

If the President is willing to accept 6 of these 7 policy changes, then the GOP should attach the 6 Obama chooses to a bill authorizing a raise in the nation’s debt ceiling.

I’d like to briefly address a few questions that will naturally come up.  First, why offer Obama a choice at all?  Why not just say, “here’s our list of 6, 7 (or however many) demands”? 

I think there are several benefits to offering Obama some choice in the matter.  First, although the nation would benefit from all of the changes above, some of key Obama political constituencies that would get harmed. These groups (e.g. lawyers) are criical to the President’s political base, so consideration of which ones to choose would lead to a situation where some of his own supporters end up fighting one another to try and be “the one that gets excluded” (not to mention resentment at Obama at those groups he leaves hanging).  Second, by offering Obama a choice it makes the GOP seem flexible and reasonable (more on that below)…or at the very least it makes it harder for Obama to paint them as “extreme” and “unbending”, etc.  Third, and perhaps most important, it boxes Obama in….forcing him to defend unpopular policies in the spotlight of a huge debate with both national and worldwide consequences. 

A second, natural question to ask is: why push these 7 specific policies instead of others? 

Clearly reasonable people can agree to disagree about the specific changes to include in such a list.  A rather obvious one to consider including would be a full repeal of Obamacare.  My take on that is open to debate, but here goes: 1) we have a pretty good chance at seeing Obamacare get repealed by SCOTUS anyway, 2) it helps with the messaging.  For e.g., during media interviews on why this deal represents a reasonable, responsible set of choices, GOP leaders can explain that ”we intentionally didn’t include a full repeal of Obamacare, despite the fact that we think its both unconstitutional and awful policy, because we didn’t want to make it near-impossible for him to sign such an important bill as raising the debt ceiling.”  Now how do you argue with that reasoning??

As far as the messaging to the public, I honestly think this is going to be hard even for the GOP leadership to screw up.  Let me give you a mock run-down of how you explan this to the “inside the beltway media” types who will be doing the interviews:

“Well Katie, we clearly can’t have the US default on its obligations. But it would be equally irresponsible to simply keep raising the debt ceiling without making structural changes that will help grow this economy and reduce our long-term liabilities.  And what about these proposals are so radical?  A balanced budget amendment, that would still have to be ratified by 2/3rds of the states to become law after Congress passes it, and after that allows for a 5-year phase-in? 

“Is defunding Obamacare really that radical, Katie?  I’m completely convinced that it’s unconstitutional.  Now, the Supreme Court will ultimately render a decision, but why on earth should we be spending tax payer money to implement something that has a very good chance of being declared unconstitutional?  That’s crazy under any circumstance, let alone a situation where we’re bleeding red ink.  If the Supreme Court declares the law valid, then we’ll still try and repeal it, but we’ll have to fund it.  But we shouldn’t be spending precious tax dollars on it now, when it’s constitutionality is in question.

“Now I understand that other items could be a tough pill for the President to swallow, politically speaking.  For example, lawyers were the biggest backers of the President’s 2008 campaign, and he’s going to need them in his re-election efforts.  Trail lawyers LOVE President Obama…they know they have a friend in the White House right now.  But it’s the right thing to do for the economy, for our entrepeneurs, and especially for our doctors and hospitals.  The President missed a huge opportnity to pass Malpractice Reform as part of Obamacare….he didn’t have to include it because he didn’t need Republican support to pass Obamacare.  So of course he didn’t.  The President would never choose doctors over trial lawyers unless he had to.  But we’re going to insist on it…and not some watered-down version that gives the Democrats cover on the issue politically.  But real, tough tort and medical malpractice reform.

“And even our Medicare proposal, Katie.  Alice Rivlin, co-author of this change, was a senior member of President Clinton’s economic team. This reform was endorsed by Democrat John Breaux in the 90′s.”

“Katie, I’m telling you.  These are critical reforms that are going to help our economy grow, and help address some of the key drivers of our long-term debt issues.  And we’re giving the President some choice here…he can choose which 6 he wants.  If there’s a pill to bitter for him to swallow, if President Obama simply can’t stomach the idea, for example, of reigning in trial lawyers so that our Doctors and hospitals can practice medicine without some “ambulance-chaser” second-guessing their every decision, that’s his decision to make.” 

And…well, you get the point.  This is a very, very compelling media message that will resonate with the public, and which Obama will find it very difficult to argue against lest he appear to be dramatically out of touch.

Finally, I’d like to point out how the GOP should message this to the President himself, behind closed doors:

“Mr. President, I know these aren’t the types of reforms you’d like to see implemented.  But we think you’re missing the bigger picture here.

“You see, we’ve observed you these past few months since the 2010 election, and your actions are a case study in incentives.  We know you value your re-election more than just about anything else on earth, so first and foremost you should appreciate just how positive these specific changes will be for the country.  The economy will grow faster and unemployment will be lower, both of which should increase your chances of getting re-elected.  Poverty and human suffering would also be lower, too, as a result of the increased economic opportunities higher growth would create.

“But that’s just the impact on the economy.  Let’s not overlook the re-branding effect signing this legislation would cause.  This is a very centrist agenda, Mr. President.  As your pollsters are no doubt telling you, more and more Americans continue to see you as the left-wing nutjob you truly are.  We’re offering you a way to change that.

“Further, you’ll still have a chance of seeing Obamacare become the law of the land.  All you have to do is convince the Supreme Court to let it stand.  And although we’d like to see most of Dodd-Frank repealed, you’d get to keep that too, only with a modicum of Congressional oversight (which upon reflection even you must agree would be a good thing…don’t forget, a Democrat isn’t always going to be President).

“And don’t you worry about the left-wing Mr. President.  They’ll scream and howl, but at the end of the day they’ve got nowhere to go.  Your team will be able to whip up their hatred of the GOP in plenty of time for next November.  It’s not your left-wing you have to worry about, sir, but rather the middle of America.  Who you continue to lose, but can get back with this type of grand bargain.”

“In a nutshell Mr. President, if you sign these changes then you get a chance at being Bill Clinton + healthcare + tackling the long-term debt issues.  Not too shabby a legacy, I daresay.”

“But Mr. President, it’s not just the upside to you of implementing these changes.  Also consider the downside Sir…think of the consequences of fighting us.  First, you’re going to be out there defending unpopular, left-wing positions in the brightest of spotslights when that’s exactly the lens through which more and more swing-voting Americans continue to see you with.  Second, the recovery is shaky enough as it is.  Are you really going to risk the nation’s economic well-being by fighting us here?  You’d be risking the nation’s prosperity, literally.

“And you’ll never be able to shift the blame onto us, Mr. President.  Never.  First of all, people are ultimately going to hold the President responsible for the things that happen while they’re in office, good or bad.  Second, your statements and vote on raising the debt ceiling as a Senator are going to continue to come back to haunt you (“failure of leadership”, etc). The downside of not passing these bills, Mr. President, is that you not only become a near-certain one-term, but one who’s legacy is worse than that of Jimmy Carter.

“A two-termer with a shot of leaving more popular than Bill Clinton, or a one-term with a shot of leaving more pitied than Jimmy Carter.  You choose, Mr. President.  You choose.