In response to:

Obama Cements His Legacy

rbarton Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 12:36 PM
"An opponent who will not negotiate." Translated: republicans who will not go along with everything democrats want.
Jack2894 Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 1:24 PM
In this case the operative word is stupid. Republicans declined to trade tax increases on the wealthy for budget cuts. They lost their bargaining power. and in the end had to swallow what they didnt' want an didn't get what they did want. In their insistence on absolute positions (think Grover Norquist), they set themselves up for failure. Their own absolutism caused that failure, not democrat intransigence.
latebloomer Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 1:16 PM
Just the most recent example of "absolutism" from the right- In the sequester fight, Republicans went along with the usual bait-and-switch deal for tax increases now, vague promises of illusory spending cuts sometime down the road. Democrat's leadership is now proclaiming much more is needed on the "revenue" side of the equation.

Now, who is it you're calling inflexible, again?

Newsweek stopped its print edition at the end of 2012, but they still tried to scandalize the country by producing a fake cover honoring Obama's second inauguration as "The Second Coming." This absurd attempt at myth making is a natural progression. The "cover" story was written by Evan Thomas, who proclaimed on MSNBC a few years ago that Obama was "sort of like God" in being above the gritty political fray.

It was just as absurd when Newsweek writer David Frum, the formerly conservative Bush speechwriter, tweeted this piece of media-elite nonsense: "First term Obama: punchee, 2nd term Obama, puncher."

No...