I heard John Boehner speak to a live and sympathetic crowd once. He was almost brutally honest about his job in a way I have never heard a politician speak before. He will not simply have the pressure the president and his men put on him, nor even the pressure of the media who will try to make you, me, everyone, but his especially his own constituents loathe him. He has the pressure of fellow congressmen in his own party who want this or that for their districts and insist on compromises to make those things happen and pressure from Senators who all have their careers to worry about, too. He’s hoping that he’s got support from behind, from conservatives, but what he mostly gets is sniping at his back.

For a moment assume he has America’s best interests at heart. Doesn’t that demand he come to the best compromise possible with the Executive branch and Senate? Sure, we want a warrior, but even warriors lose and a warrior mentality doesn’t always make for the best government, anyway. I think support for the Speaker is very important right now.

As to his weepiness, we need a passionate man in the job. I think it absurd that people condemn him for being stiff (so was Washington stiff) and condemn him when he breaks the restraint a little.

Working in government, I find “liking” a politician a difficult request.

We all know that in their meeting Obama will point out that “I won” and expect that means that legislative branch should simply capitulate to his demands.

Boehner should say “so did I” and the Constitution still says appropriations bills must begin in the House.

When President Bush was re-elected in 2000, the Democrats incessantly whined about the popular vote. When he was re-elected in 2004, they immediately began a war of 1000 cuts, selective indignation, with the purpose of total annihilation. Uncomfortable with public speaking and disinclined to the fight, Bush disengaged, committing a suicide of inaction, not only for his Presidency, but the party, starting with the 2006 midterms.

The Republicans simply refuse to admit to their opponents, politics is all out war, and they fight to win. Boehner is already signalling surrender.

I’m tired of the Speaker’s lachrymosity, I want valor in battle. If he doesn’t believe what he is doing is important or you lack the spirit, he should vacate the position.

As an aside, I’m tempted to say he should let Obama have the high taxes he wants, and insist that there are no exemptions, deductions or other opportunities to avoid those rates. 8 of the ten wealthiest counties voted for Obama-give them what they want. If you can vote for revenge, you can legislate for revenge.

I don’t know which economists you read, Hawthorne, but I don’t know of any who are looking at the financial situation of the US and saying all is well.

“The problem with raising tax rates on the wealthiest Americans is we know that more than half of them are small-business owners,” Mr. Boehner said. “We also know that it would slow down our economy.” But, he added, “It’s clear there are all kinds of deductions, some of which make sense, some of which don’t.”

What does it mean to be called to a ministry of reconciliation in a divided and fallen world? It’s got to start with a conversation. Or we can live in our bubbles (wasn’t that a part of the problem Tuesday night?)

So that’s why I asked what I did. You believe we’re headed for a Greece-style meltdown, and that (apparently) only one party wants to avoid it. I know this a common belief in many conservative circles, but not necessarily so among many economists. I genuinely want to know your reasoning.

And I’m also interested in your certainty (one commonly expressed on this site) that Obama’s economic policies “failed.” What constitutes “failure” and what specific metrics do you use to support this? And how specifically would Romney’s policies have improved on this “failure?”

Seriously. If we’re ever to overcome our divisions and solve the real challenges our nation faces, we’re going to accept that things are self-evident to some folks are not self-evident to others.

2. Ralph Nader & the Greens ca. 2000 are to Barack Obama as the Tea Party ca. 2012 is to ? It’s clear where the future of the party lies.

3. I’m quite calm because we’re headed for imminent economic catastrophe anyway. That may seem strange to be reassuring, but there it is. And only one party has a component that cares at all about fiscal responsibility. That party will be just fine going forward, as long as that component continues to grow, i.e. if the rest of the establishment doesn’t manage to crush them.

4. “Events, my dear boy. Events.” We have no idea what the future will hold. Dems in November 2000 didn’t know they’d be running in 2004 in opposition to a war in Iraq and dealing with the aftermath of the worst terror attack in history. Dems in November 2004 didn’t know they’d be running in 2008 in the midst of a colossal financial meltdown. [Repubs in 2008 did predict that they'd be running in 2012 in the midst of economic stagnation and malaise, since the Dem policies were so self-evidently awful, btw.] You never know what’s going to happen before the next election.

5. I fully expect Obama to play complete hardball with the House. From where he sits, if he can’t get the deal he wants, he can feel confident that the GOP will be blamed 100% by the MSM for any negative economic effects going forward. Given that Obama’s policies are truly awful and if anything will just escalate their damage to the economy (Obamacare’s gut punches to small businesses haven’t even started yet), why wouldn’t you maneuver so as to ensure somebody else gets the blame?