Can somebody please explain Jon Kyl's logic?

[Beet]

But isn't it hypocritical that Krauthammer ends his article with a call for Republicans to put winning the 2012 election above all else? I agree that if, the House Republicans want to pass a short-term, five month extension, Obama should sign it, but then I think both sides should use that extra five months to come up with a long term deal that gets spending under control and raises some revenues to put the long term budget on better track. I fundamentally disagree with Krauthammer's paradigm that good policy now should be viewed as "bailing out" the President. Yes, he owns the economy, and yes, he would benefit politically from a sweeping deal, but I don't think he's unable to be a partner is a large and positive long term deficit reduction solution. If the Republicans won't partner with him, then it's off to another election.

[Beet]

I don't think raising the debt limit in February next year will be as toxic as conventional wisdom would have it. From this debate, a lot of people have realized that it's just a technical vote, and it's necessary to fund the budget already passed. People are getting a better understanding of what it actually is, which is why support for raising the debt limit has been skyrocketing. Right now it's getting wall to wall coverage. If there's a government shutdown over this, then people will become even more aware. So it might not be as politically toxic as you seem to think Reid believes.

[Beet]

I don't think that Dems should ever concede that Reps will 'never' vote for revenue raisers. First of all, I don't think it's true. If there were a Republican in the White House, for one, who wanted some sort of tax hike I believe it would pass. But besides that, we should always make the case for what we believe to be the right policy and hopefully the popular policy and if the Republicans want to say 'No' ten thousand times, make them say it.

[Beet]

Wait-- you linked to twitter but don't know what it is?

So the GOP is going all out blackmail, that's it, and they want to come back in six months and blackmail Obama even more into huge cuts in Social Security and Medicare, no doubt. Really hardball stuff, when in fact the two sides could have easily reached an agreement. If the US doesn't default, and what's at stake here is another government shutdown, I could actually see Obama putting out the veto. But most likely it'll be punted to next spring.