...they didn't need to shut down the government to get it.
I'll keep this short and sweet. According to a rec'd diary "breathlessly" citing only RW sources, the shutdown was about getting the "grand bargain" that some progressives have been pissed off about from the beginning, even if it was discussed in abstract terms.
This fails the logic test.
If according to some, the President has been hell bent since reelection to get a "grand bargain," and Boehner wanted a "grand bargain," they would have sat down months ago and hashed it out.
I'll say it again: They didn't need to shut down the government to do it.
So, one thing or another is missing in this logic fail. Either the President doesn't want a grand bargain, or Boehner doesn't want a grand bargain.
History bears this out. They couldn't reach a grand bargain in 2011. Even the stuff the President offered earlier this year that pained progressives, such as chained CPI, was rejected by the House GOP, remember?
The House GOP had eighteen opportunities in the form a conference committee requested by the Senate Dems to strike a "grand bargain." They rejected it every time.
No, this is something different. Grover Norquist himself said it today in an interview with Ezra Klein, where he said the strategy could have been to strike a grand bargain over the debt limit, but Cruz and the Tea Party fucked it up over their obsession with the ACA. As he put it, Cruz shoved the GOP into the street into traffic and stood by on the curb and watched.
I'm sorry, I know some are "breathlessly" hoping for betrayal to support their worldview. But logic is getting in the way.
UPDATE: Some commenters have missed the point of this diary by saying, "Well, the end result could be a 'grand bargain.'" Even if you accept that as true, it has nothing to do with the thesis that the shutdown was done to strike a grand bargain. To accept that thesis, you have to accept the "eleventh-dimension" chess argument, ergo, the President was playing eleventh-dimension chess to get a shutdown to strike a grand bargain deal, or vice-versa (Boehner was). The end result might indeed be some sort of bargain...grand or otherwise. But that's not what set the shutdown into motion. What set the shutdown into motion is the RW's obsession over the ACA, and wanting to get rid of it. That's the framing here.
And the fact remains that seeing Democrats united against this tactic in a way I have not seen in years is what needs to be encouraged by progressives...telling them we have their back is far better than musing whether people will be sold down the river by the President or Senate Dems. Thank them for holding firm, and tell them to hold firm. That's what we need to be doing right now.