Democrats refuse to deal because they’re pretty sure Boehner will cave

The statement from John Boehner sounds encouraging on the surface. He stands firm and declares that Republicans will not cave and give the Democrats what they want - a "clean" debt ceiling increase with no conditions, neither as a stopgap measure nor as part of some graceful exit from what the media insists is a political no-win situation. If Obama wants to end the shutdown and raise the debt ceiling, Boehner insists, he will have to negotiate.

Conservatives pump their fists. Finally, Boehner fights. Except for one thing. The strong stand is designed to get Democrats to the table ready to make concessions. Ready to really cut spending. Ready to give up something of significance on ObamaCare - perhaps a one-year delay in the individual mandate. Ready to stop stonewalling the Keystone XL pipeline. Boehner's determination only accomplishes anything meaningful if that happens. And so far, it's not happening. Part of it, as Rob pointed out on Friday, is the fact that they care about nothing but politics - and in that context, they think they're "winning" so what do they care if the shutdown continues or if the debt ceiling is not raised?

---

But to the extent Democrats want the showdown to end, there is no indication they're moving. Why? If Charles Schumer is to be taken seriously, they're not buying Boehner's hard-guy act. The Wall Street Journal:

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said in an interview that five Republican senators had approached him about trying to broker an end to the shutdown. He declined to elaborate, saying only, "They know that it's bad for both their party and country to keep the government shut down, and they know it's even worse for their party and their country to default." Mr. Schumer and other Democrats saw hints of flexibility in the speaker's remarks Sunday. "I will predict to you today that Boehner will not let us default," said Mr. Schumer, a member of the Democratic leadership team, pointing to the speaker's request to have a "conversation" as evidence of his willingness to strike a deal on Republican priorities. "Default is so calamitous that even if there's only a 30% to 40% chance of it, it freezes the markets and pulls us into recession. Boehner can't risk this, and he knows it."

I don't like agreeing with Schumer, but Boehner's history tends to bear him out. I already detailed last week Boehner's failure to really fight on all these fronts when he could have and should have. But the 2011 debt ceiling fight is not encouraging either. The idea there was to assert a very reasonable position: If you want the OK to borrow even more money, you're going to have to be serious about cutting spending so we're not making the nation's debt situation even worse than it already is. What was accomplished? A series of automatic sequest cuts so tiny they achieve no serious structural change whatsoever, but they give Democrats the opportunity to engage in hysterics every time they are triggered, because most of the public does not know that the "cuts" are insignficant and not even real cuts, and the media of course will not tell them that. Oh, and as far as the long-term 10-year plan for reducing spending? As predicted, the White House welched on the deal at the first opportunity. So what does this all mean for the here and now? It means that Boehner's history is that he either doesn't fight at all, or agrees to a "deal" that can be made to look like it accomplishes something, but really does not. Schumer and other Democrats know this very, and they also know that Boehner only girded up for the shutdown after real fighters like Ted Cruz shamed him and the rest of the establishment into it. They're pretty sure his heart is not in this, and that is objective will be to find a way to claim some sort of victory while extricating himself from the battle as quickly as possible. And because of that, Democrats are not coming to the table. They're still convinced they don't need to, and that they will ultimately be able to ride this out to the end without giving up anything. Do you think they're right? I do.