The republicans have been put in a corner now. 2013 isn't that far off, when massive military/industrial complex cuts kick in, which strikes terror in the minds of Boards everywhere - the same board members who support republicans.
If President Obama holds true to his veto of anything that doesn't raise revenue on the richest 2%, and cut a lot of the loop-holes on corporate america, then the R's have really screwed up.
I'll wait for the fat lady to sing.

Please! This analysis presumes the Supercommittee was anything other than the Kongress Kabuki it so obviously was.

This group was formed out of frustration at the debt ceiling impasse, and served as an attempt to resolve the impasse. The debt ceiling impasse itself was kabuki of a high order of magnitude, something that had to be raised eventually or catastrophic default. Never should have happened, except the minority party is not in control of its own minority.

As Jonathan Chait noted, "The whole plan was to start talking about something other than the debt ceiling, in hopes that the tea party would find some different shiny object to pick up and try to smash with a rock." In that sense, it worked.

The idea that the President would dignify a fraud by pretending to care about a fraud is laughable as it is ludicrous. I salute Obama for walking past a turd without so much as a glance at it.

I disagree. Obama's intervention would have doubly assured gridlock.
His position in support of Simpson-Bowles telegraphed his hopes and set the R goal at stalemate.
His threat of veto to any extension of Bush tax cuts is more a promise that the R's understood.
The entrenched partisanship continues until the electorate decides which party will rule.
The R's are past shame; they are afraid, unwilling and maybe unable to do anything their handlers don't ordain.
My 2 cents.

Just now I received an e-mail from the President's re-election campaign trumpeting the veterans jobs bill. I cannot rightly imagine how out of touch with their base the campaign must be. You may have to go all the way back to Grover Cleveland's mishandling of the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, if not farther, to find such a conspicuous lack of presidential leadership.

What do you suppose accounts for Obama's aloof style? Does he suppose that he will offend a minimum number of constituencies by refraining from firm stances on controversial issues?

Obama has said that he most admires Abraham Lincoln and has made some efforts to channel the spirit of the 16th president. Lincoln attracted a lot of complaints by ceding federal forts in the South in early 1861 and forcing the Confederacy to fire the first shots. Lincoln also frustrated abolitionists throughout 1862 and into 1863 by sending mixed signals on emancipation. Further gripes were directed at Lincoln's slowness in canning George McClellan and for a reconstruction policy that was much milder than what radicals in Congress wanted. In most of these cases Lincoln was vindicated, but where his leadership showed moderation or mixed signals, at least it was clearly present.

The Super Committee merely provided cover for legislators on both sides of the aisle by reducing names associated with any legislation. These games will continue through the ramp up to the election. The problems of trying to govern from beneath the increasing weight of special interests are becoming more acute. The wishful thinking about the power of the electorate to do anything, as well as the standard analytical "ain't it awful" observations is only a distraction.

Maybe this next year will help some folks understand what those pesky protests are about.

Great strategizing, Ted.

So the President, who still has trouble getting his jacket on because of the knives in his back, should get out front again and try to lead the jackals to carrion?

What ever are you thinking?

Oh, I see. You're reliving ancient history--when the aisles of Congress, in rheumy memory, were filled with men (yup) who were pliantly venal and strategically corrupt (not rigidly ideological), and therefore could be bribed, jollied, or beaten down by paragons of virtue like Lyndon Johnson. I'm sure you miss those good old days, which glow more brightly with the passing years.

Dreck.

Glorify your era as much as you like; you may as well recast those days in false nobility, because you're out of touch with the harsh realities, and the reactionary demagogues, of today.

Nobody is going to rehabilitate the right, which pursues a do-nothing agenda in hopes of further corroding the public mind.

The current President sees what you're clearly unable to: that another attempt to make nice with this den of thieves will produce nothing of good, and will link him with yet another abject failure of the congress, which is AWOL.

See you in 2012, when you can vote for change, Ted, and get a real stand-up flip-flopper in the office.

Thank you, TimJ and jwatts, for calling out the nonsense in this article. The "smallest, shared bipartisan sacrifice" would have gotten the negotiators there? Obama and the supercommitee Dems were offering major cuts in Social Security and Medicare, including more means testing and lower COLAs, to that point that a lot of liberals were furious. What the Dems were asking in return was that the Republicans give up the Bush tax cuts to the rich. What did the Republicans come back with? Lower tax rates for the rich. (I have no idea where TVD got that his statement about Toomey proposing to raise the top two tax brackets. That's the opposite of what the Times and others have reported). Mild-mannered, way-too-kind Patty Murray's reaction says it all: "What I have learned in the past three months is astounding to me." I'm sure the relative bipartisan comity
of the 1960s and 1970s must have been nice, TVD, but we're living in 2011 and the Republicans you remember so fondly, Bob Dole and even the early 2000s John McCain, are an extinct species.

Some of the comments illustrate the problem. Hyper-partisan, cynical villainizing of the political opposition (of either party) will only insure more gridlock. In true blue Washington, most of the comments villainize the GOP. In red states, the opposite is true.

Fact is, there are people of goodwill on both sides of the partisan aisle who wanted a real bargain. Many of them were on-board the "big deal" outside-the-special-committee congressional efforts which, in the end, foundered. And it is fantasy to believe that Obama embraced his deficit-commission's proposals. He could have put them forward for an up-or-down vote as a package but just let them drop, with the usual partisan statements about preserving entitlements.

For whatever reason, Obama takes a detached, out-of-the-fray
approach to working with the Congress. Senior Democratic congressional leaders cannot even get on his calendar. It is not nostalgia to say that leaders must be engaged at the beginning, middle, and end of major
policy undertakings. It is an imperative when ideological and partisan polarizations will otherwise assure gridlock. Do you like what we have now?

Speaking of failing super committees, we have a special session coming up in the next couple of days in the Washington State Legislature. I am sure that now that the Governor has sent out her budget proposal, the templet for failure, we will all get an opportunity to witness how a well oiled political monopoly "eats it own". No blaming the opposition on this one, it's a one party show.

If this committee was serious would Patty Murray have been appointed co-chair? I think not and knew it was a doomed effort from the beginning.

My understanding is that, according to John Kerry, Congress told Obama to stay out of these latest budget negotiations.
That sorta undercuts TVD's point.

I don't think the president's getting involved in the supercommittee's work would have helped one bit. He doesn't have a lot of respect on the Hill anyway. His presence wasn't going to move the immovable.

I give him credit for taking the position that he'll veto attempts to circumvent the automatic cuts. Congress had its chance to develop a compromise plan, but couldn't. Let it live with the consequences that it itself developed. It's about time someone keeps their word in Washington.

Sorry, but the budget needs to be cut by 30% in one year. That's because current tax revenues don't cover current expenses. That's a recipe for long term failure. And since we've been doing this for the last 30 years, long term is rapidly approaching "now."

Kabuki Theater is right. No one in government has been honest about the problem.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?get_gallerynr=2321

As usual, TVD ignores facts and evidence that don't fit his argument. President Obama was by all accounts deeply involved in negotiations with Speaker Boehner earlier this year on a big deficit reduction deal and had put a lot of Democratic sacred cows on the table, only to have Boehner bail under pressure from his right wing. Obama and his advisers knew very well that the same thing would happen again this time if he got involved, and he would get no credit for effort. Again, TVD is drawing from an entirely different era of the Republican Party, and those lessons are moot.

the main reason the GOP opposes tax increases is simple math. you could raise taxes to 75% accross the board and it would not make a dent in the growth of entitlement expenditures. what is infuriating to those on the right is the Democrats demonizing the 50% of the population who vote republican over a tax issue that they know will not fix the problem. as whacko as some of the GOP candidates come across, they are speaking in clear terms in public about the looming tragedy of ignoring fiscal reality. the left is firmly entrenched in a dated fantasy world of budget trickery and phoney class based solutions.

Failure should not have been an option. Period! However, anyone who watched 60 minutes and saw Grover Norquist's arrogant commentary can understand why there is NO compromise on the republican side of things signing this stupid pledge they all sign about raising taxes for anything! What can Obama do about that! Nothing. He's dealing with irrational, unreasonable people for the most part and we in, trying to plod along, pay our bills, help our kids, lose our retirements, lose our property values have to sit on the sidelines basically and put up with all this crap. Sick of it!

Why would the left want to compromise? They got what they wanted. They got minimum spending cuts with a disproportionate amount coming from a single program, defense. And the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2012. In the mean time they get to demonize the right for doing nothing. None of this was going into effect before 2013 anyway. So why is the super committee a "failure" if you are on the left?

Wow! I'm aghast that it took all those many commenters before Susan finally came along to point out that Grover Norquist was the puppetmaster. Where has everyone else been? And Magellan, I agree with you too that big defense cuts and ending the Bush Tax Cuts is the very best deal possible, not only for the left but for the nation. So the supercommittee "failure" was 100% predictable and Obama could only lose political points by associating himself with it in any way.

Susan is correct, and the whole exercise had very little to do with us. Our government representatives are beholding to someone else, and not just Grover Norquist. Whenever there is gridlock, it is because the constituency of those in power disagree, and it is not us.
I believe that all registered voters should be allowed to contribute $100.00 a year to the candidates of their choice. That should be the only source of income for our policymakers. Our vote would once again be vital. Candidates would woo the voters, instead of the 5000 dollar a plate crowd. It would be Grover Norquist in reverse.
Oops, I stepped out of reality there for a moment. That would never happen.I better just line up for my McRib and shut up!

Those of tired of all the flack can now, thanks to the NYT DIY Deficit Reduction, at least get a grasp on the numbers and fine tune the rhetoric. That WOULD be nice!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

I think it's delusional to think that Obama could have somehow waved his magic wand or given a magic speech and gotten the Super Committee to do anything. The #1 objective of the so-called Republican party is to make sure President Obama fails as President. Or as Jim DeMint says, "We can break him."

To top this off, as others have already stated, nearly all of the Republicans in office have pledged their allegiance to Grover Norquist rather than to their constituents. So in essence, we have an unelected man who is part of the Jack Abramhoff Class of Corruption calling the shots in Congress. So don't blame Obama. Blame the Republicans. Blame Norquist.

The President isn't a dictator. He's shown himself to be smarter by half to sit out this one when Grover Norquist really dictates what happens in the Republican party.

From the second that the third highest spender(Murray)in the senate
was named to the so called "Super-Committee" I knew that failure
to accomplish anything was the only option. All she knows is how
to spend. Obama's total absence and lack of input only fortified
the absolute failure of the committee.
Restoration of the earlier tax code, and really DEEP cuts in spending
is the only true solution to this issue, but neither political party
understands that truth.
If this is not addressed, Standard and Poor will not be the only group
to pull the AAA credit rating for the United States.

What do you suggest, TVD, that the Dems say to the Republicans, "We're sorry you're upset, because all those 'No!' statements must mean you're upset. Otherwise you'd be nice and collaborative. So here's what we'll do: we'll compromise a little more. Will that help? Now give us a smile and let's be friends."

They're winning. People who are winning don't have to be collaborative. They don't have to horse-trade.