An insufferable read that'll leaving you begging for more

Ron Fournier's "grand bargain" analysis is a masterful serving of Beltway mumbo-jumbo, seasoned with hocus-pocus, liberally sprinkled with conservative abracadabra and all of it marinated in utter hogwash.

It's a true must-read, if you can get it down.

"[F]inally," writes Fournier in the National Journal, "there may be shared will to compromise." And that will would come from Republicans, right? No. According to Fournier, it would come from Democrats, because you see "President Obama needs fiscal peace to stop his slide in polls" and "Liberal commentators, who for months cheered the White House’s no-surrender stance with House Republicans, are now signaling retreat or retrenchment."

Fournier then stands a Greg Sargent piece on its head by arguing that Sargent is one of those liberal commentators "signaling retreat or retrenchment"; Sargent isn't, he didn't, and Fournier should have either his reading comprehension tested or his integrity-levels checked.

Fournier then unwittingly proceeds to blow up the entire rationale of his own piece--in a nutshell, that "bargaining with the House GOP may be Obama’s smartest path"--by observing that "even token reforms by Obama in 2013, opens the door to deeper entitlement changes in the future"--that is, an out-and-out GOP triumph.

You haven't had enough, you say? You want more abuse? More deception? More insidious hogwash? Then you're in luck:

Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.

Comments

[Robert Lipscomb]

Will he respect me in the morning?

[japa21]

Robert, no.

[Turgidson]

Fournier has long been a GOP water-carrier. He once wrote Karl Rove a mash note saying "keep up the fight!"

So I'm about as surprised that he's picking up the "it's Obama's fault the teabaggers are batshit insane" baton and running with it as I am that water is wet.