NRD:

Just one day after House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan explained to the President what his proposal to save Medicare entails, and Majority Leader Cantor urged the Democrats to quit demogoguing the issue, former Speaker Pelosi told ABC News, “What we want is to change the view that the Republicans have that it is OK to abolish Medicare [and] to make seniors pay more for less while we give tax breaks to big oil.”

Pelosi’s words coming straight from a White House meeting hardly inspire confidence that Obama and Congressional Democrats are going to embrace a bi-partisan “let’s get it done” attitude necessary to create a path to a balanced budget in this time of fiscal crisis.

In one statement, Pelosi encapsulated the entire problem in Washington.

Boldness in attempting to solve any problem is met with attacks by those who know that anyone who attempts to change the status quo is risking their political power and authority. So, the default response in Washington, DC is the “moderate” one, of doing nothing but tinkering around the edges of problems.

With all due respect, the idea that Obama and the Congressional Democrats have any desire whatsoever to “embrace a bi-partisan […] attitude” toward anything — much less a balanced budget and an end to a fiscal crisis they are creating, hoping later to use to “transform” the US into a country where independence and individual autonomy is exchanged for government promises, a modicum of security (and “fairness”: all will be equally miserable, with the exception of those in leadership and their cronies) and nannystate micromanagement of subjects — is the premise that keeps tripping us up, the idea being that if we just compromise, we can make government run smoothly and Republicans can get back to the business of being the slightly less big government pigs poised over communal trough than the big government leftist pigs they juxtapose themselves against.

Let me say this as straightforwardly as I can, yet again: we are not dealing with “good men” whose only failing is that they are wrong about how best to create a healthy United States. We are dealing with socialist ideologues who are bent on “transforming” this country in the image of the revolutionary texts they’ve adopted as their gospels, in the ways of “social justice” of the kind made famous by those who would gladly mau-mau the flak catchers, or blackmail corporations using Otherness as a weapon, and so on.

The President never budges on any of these issues — though Boehner famously tried bargaining down for a least one tiny superficial concession to save face — and that’s precisely because he, unlike our current leadership, is absolutely serious about remaking this country, while the GOP establishment is trying desperately to go back to the status quo, where it matters not what party is in power, because Congress is what Congress is: an arm of big government.

And yet we’re told that we must simply accept those who our establishment kingmakers hope to throw at this ideologue to unseat him — more feckless compromisers who will bring “sanity” back to DC by working to “reach across the aisle” and inch ever more leftward to “get things done.”

Thanks, but no thanks. I know who it is we’re dealing with — and have since the beginning, attempts to cow me into a more “helpful” rhetorical position notwithstanding — and I know what it takes to defeat what he stands for.

And being the new, more business-friendly champion of global warming and ethanol subsidies ain’t it — no matter how “serious” Hugh Hewitt, eg., tells me you are.