Bipartisanship

A few weeks ago, Charles Krauthammer argued that Obama's original fiscal cliff offer--where he refused to concede anything--wasn't about deficit reduction, but was rather a cynical effort to fracture the Republican House majority:

Such nonsense abounds because Obama’s objective in these negotiations is not economic but political: not to solve the debt crisis but to fracture the Republican majority in the House. Get Boehner to cave, pass the tax hike with Democratic votes provided by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and let the Republican civil war begin.

Since then, Obama has moderated his position substantially, reducing revenue demands and increasing the amount of spending he is offering to cut. Nonetheless, Krauthammer went on Hannity and repeated his claim:

He’s been using this, and I must say with great skill–-and ruthless skill and success–to fracture and basically shatter the Republican opposition… His objective from the very beginning was to break the will of the Republicans in the House, and to create an internal civil war. And he’s done that.

I think Krauthammer was completely wrong the first time, but basically correct the second time.

There isn't a single Republican in congress who would have been willing to support Obama's initial offer, as a result it would have been a terrible vehicle for creating splits in the Republican ranks. Republicans were able to unite in opposition to that offer, denouncing Obama as negotiating in bad faith.

Since that first offer, Obama has tried to be more realistic, proposing plans that some Republicans would vote for, but would still be acceptable to most Democrats. Krauthammer is right that the goal is to split Republicans. But with such wide political differences between the most conservative Republicans and the Democratic leadership, any Bipartisan solution requires this.