President Obama, the guy who won, with John Boehner, the guy who lost.
Fred Hiatt's
Washington Post editorial team of wankers is very concerned that their pet project—making sure the elderly and the poor feel the harsh bite of austerity—is going to be derailed by the reelection of President Obama and Senate Democrats. They're concerned that the fact that Democrats won by arguing against those pet policies means that Democrats will think that they should govern accordingly.
YOU MIGHT EXPECT political winners to be more ready than losers to compromise. Magnanimity in victory, and all that. It often works the other way, though. Victors misread their triumph and overplay their hands.
Republicans, who failed to retake the White House and lost ground in the Senate, are beginning to accept that they will have to bend on a core principle in the fiscal talks now underway. Federal revenue will have to increase, substantially, with the wealthy taking the biggest hit.
Acceptance? From Republicans? Not so much. Their commitment to not allowing tax rates to increase and to not making the wealthy take the biggest hit hasn't wavered, however much they talk around the margins about loopholes and deductions.
As for the Democrats, what about the part of an election where, you know, the party that won did so because they have the backing of the majority of the population for their policies, and with that public support doesn't really have to be magnanimous? Because their ideas won.
Mr. Hiatt's editorial team also needs to read their own news to find out that, yes, a strong majority of the public supports President Obama's position on taxes and remains steadfastly opposed to messing around with Medicare benefits.