Then the GOP base would be completely outraged and unlike us wimpy Dems, they will extract political prices from the "traitors."

I also, like BTD, think it is extremely helpful to see the GOP floundering and fighting among themselves.  Their unity has always been their strength, and the fact that Senate and House republicans appear to be at odds can only help.

Finally, every day that we progress without a deal makes the McConnell Option more likely.

Bottom line: The dems have the first set of advantageous facts they've had in a long time and we can spend the months after this arguing whether it was Obama's strategy or luck or GOP stupidity that provided us with the opportunity.  

"If we go into default, [the president] will say that Republicans are making the economy worse ... The president will have the bully pulpit to blame the Republicans for all of this destruction," McConnell said, indicating that default would hand the re-election to Obama.

"I refuse to help Barack Obama get re-elected by marching Republicans into a position where we have co-ownership of a bad economy," McConnell said. . .

McConnell told conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham that the president has only offered Republicans two options: either "sign onto a bad deal that raises taxes or go into a default."

"Not on my watch," he said.

McConnell laughed off the opposition to his proposal from within his own party. "There are always differences among Republicans," he said. "There's a good deal of conservative support for what I laid out yesterday."

Two sides of the coin:
Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 07:44:55 AM EST

Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3.  (CBS news)
Obama campaign's eye-popping haul: $86 million raised for re-election. (LAT)

Tent, with all due respect, you cannot, in any sentient or logical manner, expect an excercise in lying and fakery and utter distraction from the real problems, to result in anything good for anyone.

A country in a state of pathological denial must get OUT of that denial before good can happen.  This entire debt limit bullsh*t was that denial on stage, dressed up fanicier than ever, and shoving a hot poker up the ace of everyone in this country.

Frankly, McConnell's move is inexplicable, not the least of which is because I do not think it can get through the GOP House.

I think it's clear that huge pachyderms in the GOP are panicked about a default, for themselves and on behalf of bigwigs. So I think something is going to get done. While I think the center of gravity of negotiations has been Cantor/Tea Party ideology, I don't think that will be enough to sail a plan through. So what will happen?

I think the major question is this: does supporting McConnell's plan prove more damaging to Boehner (and his dwindling, un-Cantored House GOP crew) than allowing for additional revenue streams (whether closed loopholes or Bush cut lapses)? Which hurts Boehner less? Boehner could push the idea to a vote, and if he has enough moderate House Republicans (30?) to vote with Dems for McConnell's plan, maybe he sees that as the best of two awful options (three, counting default). At least this way he doesn't raise "taxes" or "destroy" the American economy.

If any of these three possibilities ends up making it through (McConnell's plan, the revenue-gaining "Grand Bargain", or default) it will be the end of Boehner and McConnell (the former gone well before the latter) -- so it's quite a choice the GOP big business stalwarts have to make in the face of the GOP's freshman wing.

Recounting how the 1995 government shutdown helped President Bill Clinton win re-election the next year, Mr. McConnell said any impasse that hurt the nation's credit and led to government checks being delayed could have the same result for President Obama.

"He will say Republicans are making the economy worse," Mr. McConnell, who is recognized as one of his party's top political strategists, said in an interview with the radio host Laura Ingraham.

"It is an argument that he could have a good chance of winning and all of the sudden we have co-ownership of the economy. That is a very bad position going into the election."

Similar to what andgarden posted above (and based off the same radio transcript I assume).

Here's what I know, and if I'm wrong, please tell me where.

1. Everybody is sure that the debt ceiling will be raised because......well, it just has to. The Chamber, Wall Street, and yada yada have turned the screw on, and so, disaster will, without a doubt, be averted.

Did you know that about 90% of the new members came to Washington with the blood assurance to their constituants that they wouldn't vote for a hike in the ceiling no matter what!? What if all the "leadership" want it, but the reps vote it down?

2. No matter which proposal moves into the "Lead-for-the day"
someone from the White House pipes in that Obama is determined his "Grand Bargain" is where he's at, and to me that means around 4 Trillion $'s in cuts. One of the most Kafkaesque features of this whole business is that the Republicans would normally slobber from their eyeballs to get those cuts, but because Obama is the one offering it up, they don't want it because he would get the "credit?" (still shaking my head on this one; The R's rejecting big cuts in entitlements?

3. (I've got much more than 3, but not much time) And, finally (for now) what is with this idiotic strutting and laughing all about? Whatever any one poster believes to be the case, even if they score what they would define as "victory" for Obama, what exactly is that victory? People are saying, He won!! What? Tell me, please.

For me, the most important issues in this campaign are Jobs, the Seniors, and health care. Has anything been proposed that would guarantee those things will be "off the table" as far as damaging them?