Hello my liberal friends.  I hope you will forgive me and not think me arrogant if I suggest that I know a bit more about negotiating than your hero, President Obama. As you probably know, Obama has offered a budget that seeks to find "smarter cuts" in spending than the sequester, "close tax loopholes" to generate very minor amounts of additional revenue, and (of great interest) use the chained CPI to adjust spending on social security benefits over time.

The first point that I would make, and have made many times, is that you don't begin giving away your position before negotiations even start. The President should have suggested a budget with huge tax increases and very large spending increases tied to his major constituencies. In other words, exaggerate your position and then work back towards your realistic expectations through the negotiating process. Right now, all the Republicans need do is to wait until he offers up more and more compromise.

Second, identify the problem. House Republicans say that it is the deficit. Well, social security has no impact on the deficit--it's on a different ledger. Make your opponent expand the field of play. Then, offer a solution such as means testing (which would be just as effective in fixing the long term problems) and force the Republicans to give up something in order to obtain the CPI approach. This also keeps your own forces in line because you don't appear to be screwing your friends (which is exactly the feeling that most liberals have right now).

Third, let your opponents claim victory by acceding to your position. If the GOP could go on stage and say, "We got Obama to use chained cpi," and "We got Obama to make dramatic cuts in spending while only having to agree to minor tinkering in the tax codes that included no increases in tax rates," then they have a motivation to get engaged in the discussion. They get no return out of agreeing to Obama's proposal. They get a return out of appearing to force Obama into their position.

But it's not about that. If Obama wanted to reach a deal, he would be following my advice. His only interest is in fashioning his own image as the non-political politician, the only truth-speaker, the man who stands up to his friends, etc. This is a point made regularly by Cenk Uygur, the Young Turk. I became President to DO something--to push a conservative agenda and assert American power across the globe. Obama just wants to BE something. That's why this great compromise has been offered. If he were serious, he would negotiate behind the scenes. If he had principles, he would stand by them. If he wanted to be the leader of his party, he would be faithful to their principles. He is a narcissist who is only interested in fashioning his place in history.

I actually watched the Rachel Maddow show last night. She interviewed David Axelrod. His explanation for this compromise was that Obama was a serious man who wanted to be serious about fixing the very serious social security problem (it will run out of a positive balance sometime between 2036 and 2041). Then, when pressed on why he wanted to do this on the backs of the elderly by limiting their income, he simply continued to duck the question, over and over. I mean, there are many ways to fix the problem. I wanted to privatize, progressives want to means test, others have suggested slowly raising the eligibility age.

The only explanation that I can come up with as to why Obama is positioning himself to appear very Republican is that it is all about image. It's not about doing something--it's about being something.