I've Found Something I Agree With Mitt Romney On

     According to his son, Tagg-the fellow who wanted to punch out the President of the United States-Mitt Romney never wanted to be President. Great! I never wanted it either. Nice to see we do agree after all:

     "Mitt Romney's eldest son Tagg Romney told the Boston Globe that the ex-governor had "no desire" to run for president again 2012 but was persuaded by his family to do so."

     “He wanted to be president less than anyone I’ve met in my life. He had no desire to . . . run,” he said. “If he could have found someone else to take his place . . . he would have been ecstatic to step aside. He is a very private person who loves his family deeply and wants to be with them, but he has deep faith in God and he loves his country, but he doesn’t love the attention.”

     "Read the Globe's post-mortem of the Romney campaign here"

     http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/romneys-son-mitt-never-really-wanted-to-be

      So then, he should be pleased. Seriously, why be President of the United States if you don't want to be here? Are we Americans really that hard up that we want a guy who doesn't want the job?

      Of course, I also don't want Mitt Romney's ideas pushed by the President. So why is there so much surprise that the President is playing a tough game during these negotiations? To hear people like Bob Woodward, the President should just cave in to the GOP to get a deal-any deal, preferably a "big deal."

      I mean Woodward never tires of saying that the President should 'ldea, that's what Presidents do.' This drives me nuts. What is Mr. Woodward trying to suggest? That as it's supposedly up to the President to "lead" then therefore the GOP's bad behaviour-it's holding its breath until it either gets its way or turns blue-is to be excused?

     If they won't compromise is the President to do it all just so as to "lead?" And what is all this talk I heard on Meet the Press yesterday about the Democrats needing to compromise on entitlements? They've already done plenty of that-remember the 2011 debt ceiling deal? That contained no GOP compromises on taxes with plenty of Dem compromises on spending cuts. Between that and the 2011 budget deal, the Dems coughed up well over $1 trillion.

      True balance would require the Dems to have no cuts in this one. That would be fair. As it is, Obama has agreed to something roughly along the lines of 1 to 1 spending cuts vs tax increases on the rich. If this goes through that would still mean the GOP has gotten it's way net 67% of the time.