A frequent commenter quoted this post by Erick Erickson at RedState:

A week ago, the United States House of Representatives sent a bipartisan measure to the United States Senate where it fell five votes short of a majority.

Today, John Boehner sent over legislation that couldn’t even get all the Republicans to support it, didn’t get any Democrats to support it, and will get less support in the Senate than last week’s plan.

And now the Democrats have a talking point they didn’t have with last week’s plan — that this plan is not bipartisan and also that Boehner had to appease the far right, all of which was lined up behind last weeks plan in even greater numbers.

Adding horror and humor upon humor and horror, now Boehner syncophants are telling the Democrats that they’ve got to do something since the GOP has finally done something.

Were these people asleep last week when the GOP did something with Democratic help?

Oh, and some of the same people on our side who’ve been pooh-poohing those of us who said to stick with Cut, Cap, and Balance, suddenly, after the Boehner vote, are lamenting that something wicked this way comes.

Lord, please give me smarter enemies within my own tent.

That analysis is superficial.

First, the only reason Cut, Cap and Balance passed the House with “bipartisan” support (i.e., 5 Democrats voted for it) was that it was far enough in advance of the August 2 so-called deadline that Nancy Pelosi didn’t feel the need to hammer her caucus the way she did against Boehner 3.0.  Pelosi was able to allow some — but not too many — Democrats to give themselves electoral cover.  If CCB was brought to a vote yesterday there isn’t a single Democrat who would have had the guts to vote for it.  That “bipartisan support” meant absolutely nothing, as the CCB bill immediately was tabled by Harry Reid, who proclaimed it “perhaps some of the worst legislation in the history of this country.”

Second, the reason that Boehner 3.0 didn’t have total Republican support in the House was that 22 House members at the urging of Erickson and others opposed it even after the Balanced Budget Amendment was added back in.  As to the Senate, six Republicans, in the face of opposition to the bill from Erickson among others, voted with the Democrats to table it.  There was no reason — on the merits or strategically — for those six to vote to table the bill; they could have voted against it later if they wanted after debate.  The opposition to Boehner 3.0 by people like Erickson gave Harry Reid a public relations gift, which oddly enough now is being used by Erickson to attack “Boehner sycophants.”

Third, Erickson has the narrative completely backwards as far as “appeasing the far right” goes.  The difficulty Boehner had in passing 2.0 resulting in 3.0 actually gives an argument that this is the best deal available, and that Boehner’s plan — but for the BBA — is disliked by the “far right.”  And, who is the “far right” Boehner was trying to appease?  Well, it’s people like Erickson.

Erickson’s arguments simply don’t hold up.  Erickson and others created the very problems which they now use against “Boehner sycophants.”  I don’t disparage their views the way Erickson disparages the views of the “Boehner sycophants;” as I indicated yesterday I agreed with them on the ultimate goal but disagreed as to how to get there.

I don’t know which strategy ultimately will or would have been vindicated.  Perhaps none of them, since Harry Reid was going to table whatever came out of the House.

But please, don’t use your own self-defeating self-fulfilling prophecies in an attempt to prove that you are smarter than the rest of us.

There is one thing Erickson says with which I wholeheartedly agree:  We need smarter enemies within our own tent.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.