3 reasons the shutdown (which is really just a slowdown) will be an ugly smackdown

But the political world has little to do with the real world. In the political world, this is going to be an ugly smackdown for three reasons:

1. The blame game. The Democrats have of course already started the name calling. Tea Party people and others pushing for a delay are arsonists, anarchists, terrorists with bombs strapped to their chests and a host of other names. Democrats can't govern their way out of a paper bag, but they are very good at the rhetorical war, if only because they are so shameless about what they are willing to say.
2. The administration and the Democrats are depending upon the mainstraim media to help blame the Republicans. If you didn't see it yesterday, take a look at Rob’s piece showing the video from MSNBC where they admit the media favors the administration and the Democrats in blaming the GOP. You can say this is a politically wise strategy for the Democrats, but how disingenuous can you get? On the one hand, Obama wails and gnashes his teeth over all the damage this will supposedly do, but on the other hand he does nothing to resolve the situation because he doesn't think he will pay any price for it politically? Do people actually think about how cynical and self-serving that reveals him to be?

It’s not just going to be a debate about the continuing resolution. It’s also going to be about raising the debt ceiling. Obama has already drawn a red line when he says he’s not going to negotiate. According to the Constitution, he has to negotiate, because authority to raise or not raise the debt ceiling belongs both to him and to Congress. So this will be a high stakes game of chicken.

Obama and the Democrats act as if it is an act of national sabotage that Republicans don't simply give them everything they want without demanding conditions. That's astonishing when you think about it. During the Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 administrations, do you recall congressional Democrats simply rolling over and giving the president whatever he wanted? Do you recall any of these presidents ever suggesting they were anarchists if they didn't? Do you recall the media ever suggesting such a thing? Obama may not like it, but his party does not have complete control of Congress, and that means he has to negotiate to get things he wants. That's called governing. But he would rather engage in a political smackdown, so that's what we're going to have.