C-SPAN screen shot 
 
 I intended to write about President Obama's prime-time address on the debt ceiling, but House Speaker John Boehner's performance turned out to be the big news. Last seen Friday evening complaining that the president added new last-minute conditions in their debt-ceiling negotiations, Boehner now seems to have no memory of those negotiations, which by both parties' account left them about $400 billion apart. That's not chump change, but against the backdrop of an attempted $4 trillion deal, it didn't have to be a deal-breaker either. 
 
 But if you listened to Boehner Monday night, you'd think he and Obama never discussed a deal. In fact you'd believe the president never wanted any kind of deficit-reduction deal at all. In an impressive display of mendacity, Boehner told the American people the president wants "a blank check" to keep on spending, and the House GOP is serving "the American people" by resisting. Instead of talking about how he and Obama might close the gap they faced only three days ago, Boehner went full-tilt Tea Party crazy and presented his own plan, which requires not only brutal spending cuts but a balanced budget amendment -- as well as another congressional vote to hike the debt ceiling again at the height of the 2012 election season. 
 
 Can there be any doubt that the Republicans' only interest here is making Obama fail? Let's review all the ways they moved the goalposts since the 2010 elections gave them new power. In December Boehner told the New Yorker that raising the debt ceiling would be the new House majority’s "first really big adult moment," adding, "We’ll have to find a way to help educate members and help people understand the serious problem that would exist if we didn’t do it." For his part Obama said he expected a clean up or down vote, just like President Reagan got 18 times and George W. Bush got another seven times. But after Boehner negotiated his program-cuts-for-continuing-government deal, in April he began to make threats. "The president says I want you to send me a clean bill. Well guess what, Mr. President: Not a chance you’re going to get a clean bill," he told a GOP fundraiser. "There will not be an increase in the debt limit without something really, really big attached to it." 
 
 Obama decided to negotiate, but he demanded a dollar of tax or revenue hikes for every dollar of spending cuts. Republicans not only rejected revenue hikes, they demanded a dollar of spending cuts for every dollar the debt ceiling was raised. Obama began seeking a "grand bargain," in which he'd discuss Social Security and Medicare cuts (even though Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit) in exchange for at least revenue hikes. The earliest leaks about such a deal, believe them or not, all contained spending cuts three to five times bigger than revenue hikes. Then what happened? Boehner walked away from negotiations to close those deals -- which would have infuriated many progressives, by the way, including me. And a few weeks ago, as the president got ever more conciliating, Republicans got more stubborn, now demanding a balanced budget amendment in whatever deal is reached. 
 
 I honestly don't think anyone has come out and said how extraordinarily apocalyptic and insane it is to tie that controversial old GOP issue to the debt ceiling hike, given the disaster for the American economy if we default. The balanced budget amendment lost favor under the deficit-building Ronald Reagan, when many Republicans decided deficits weren't really an issue -- unless a Democrat held the White House. Tonight Boehner was on prime-time national television telling Americans that's what it will take to increase the debt ceiling. Now, Boehner knows a balanced budget amendment bill can't pass. Hell, he probably doesn't even want it. But this is the way the GOP ups the ante every time the president gets close to a deal. 
 
 And what did the president do? He tried to explain how we got into this mess, and he prepared us for a gut-wrenching, economy-wounding compromise. I liked a lot of Obama's speech tonight, but he made a couple of points that typify the way he ultimately negotiates against himself. He opened with that sad and useless comparison between the federal budget and household budgets. Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, among others, have explained why it's wrong until they're blue in the face -- unlike each of our little families, the federal government correctly goes into deficit spending to spur recovery from recession; in fact, the government does it because our families can't or shouldn't. Obama still found the folksy comparison irresistible. "Every family knows a little credit card debt is manageable," the president said, while arguing that anything more than "a little" hurts the economy. 
 
 His rhetorical climax also left me a little cold. Talking about Americans' many frustrations with the status quo, Obama concluded: "But do you know what people are fed up with most of all? They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word." Does he really think that? Obama continued: 
 
 They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They are offended by that. And they should be. 
 
 You know, I'm sure that's true for some people who are "scraping by." But I think it's mainly true for the Beltway elites the president hears from way too much. That's the complaint of David Brooks and Tom Friedman, and the hedge-funders backing the frivolous "third party" time-waster, Americans Elect. It's not what the unemployed and the struggling and people afraid they'll lose Social Security or Medicare benefits are "fed up with most of all." Obama can't really think that, can he? 
 
 In this political environment, anything is possible. Prepare to hear that Harry Reid's deal to cut $2.7 trillion from the budget, with absolutely no revenue increases, is a victory for Democrats. It won't be. I hope I'm wrong, but the president is dealing with a conscience-free opposition willing to risk economic tragedy to defeat him. I'd love to see all of his maneuvering result in a clean up or down vote on a debt increase (which some of his most avid supporters insist is his goal). I don't see it from here. Again, I would be thrilled to be wrong. ||||| WASHINGTON — Ending three years of brinkmanship in which the threat of a devastating default on the nation’s debt was used to wring conservative concessions from President Obama, the House on Tuesday voted to raise the government’s borrowing limit until March 2015, without any conditions. 
 
 The vote — 221 to 201 — relied almost entirely on Democrats in the Republican-controlled House to carry the measure and represented the first debt ceiling increase since 2009 that was not attached to other legislation. Only 28 Republicans voted yes, and only two Democrats voted no. 
 
 Simply by holding the vote, Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio effectively ended a three-year Tea Party-inspired era of budget showdowns that had raised the threat of default and government shutdowns, rattled economic confidence and brought serious scrutiny from other nations questioning Washington’s ability to govern. In the process, though, Mr. Boehner also set off a series of reprisals from fellow Republican congressmen and outside groups that showcased the party’s deep internal divisions. 
 
 Continue reading the main story Video Play Video 
 
 “He gave the president exactly what he wanted, which is exactly what the Republican Party said we did not want,” said a Republican representative, Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, who last year unsuccessfully tried to rally enough support to derail Mr. Boehner’s re-election as speaker. “It’s going to really demoralize the base.” 
 
 The vote was a victory for President Obama, Democrats and those Senate Republicans who have argued that spending money for previously incurred obligations was essential for the financial standing of the federal government. “Tonight’s vote is a positive step in moving away from the political brinkmanship that’s a needless drag on our economy,” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said in a statement. 
 
 But outside Republican groups were sharply critical of the speaker. Both the Club for Growth and Heritage Action for America, for example, had put out a “key vote” alert urging members to vote against the measure. 
 
 “A clean debt ceiling is a complete capitulation on the speaker’s part and demonstrates that he has lost the ability to lead the House of Representatives, let alone his own party,” said Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots. “It is time for him to go.” 
 
 Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, commended the speaker and promised to pass the bill as soon as possible. “We’re happy to see the House is legislating the way they should have legislated for a long time,” he said. 
 
 But Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, said Tuesday in a statement that he planned to object to any attempt to raise the debt ceiling with a minimum of 51 votes, instead of requiring 60 votes — meaning at least five Republicans would have to vote with the full Democratic caucus — to get to final passage. 
 
 “If Republicans stand together, we can demand meaningful spending restraint to help pull our nation back from the fiscal and economic cliff,” Mr. Cruz said. 
 
 Mr. Boehner stunned House Republicans on Tuesday morning when he dropped a package that would have tied the debt ceiling increase to a repeal of cuts to military retirement pensions that had been approved in December and announced he would put a “clean” debt ceiling increase up for a vote. 
 
 Enough Republicans had balked at that package when it was presented Monday night to convince the speaker he had no choice but to turn to the Democratic minority. 
 
 For Mr. Boehner it was a potentially momentous decision. Conservative activists, including the Tea Party Patriots, FreedomWorks, L. Brent Bozell’s ForAmerica and commentators on the website RedState.com are all circulating petitions to end Mr. Boehner’s speakership. 
 
 And it was Mr. Boehner who raised such high expectations around the debt limit. In 2011, he established what has become known as the “Boehner Rule”: any debt ceiling increase was supposed to be offset by an equivalent spending cut. 
 
 “This is a lost opportunity,” the speaker conceded. “We could have sat down and worked together in a bipartisan manner to find cuts and reforms that are greater than increasing the debt limit. I am disappointed, to say the least.” 
 
 The ramifications for Mr. Boehner are unclear. The speaker’s supporters commended him for shepherding through an increase in the government’s borrowing authority quickly and with as little damage as could be expected for his party, for the economy and the country. They said President Obama left leaders no choice once he dug in and refused to negotiate a deficit reduction deal attached to a debt-ceiling increase. 
 
 For those few Republicans who supported the speaker, however, there were few good lessons to draw from the vote. “I am disappointed we are not engaged in a more serious debate today,” said Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, the only Republican who spoke in favor of the debt limit bill. “But as disappointed as I am, I cannot in good conscience let the Democrats’ refusal to engage lead to a default” on the nation’s debt. 
 
 In a closed-door session Monday night, Representative Andy Harris, Republican of Maryland, accused the speaker of being in the pockets of the insurance industry, a charge that stirred outrage among many of his colleagues. Representative Tom Cotton, who is seeking a Senate seat in Arkansas, told Republican leaders they had put him into an impossible political position with his state’s conservative voters. He would lose support if he voted for a debt ceiling increase, but he would also lose support if he voted against the military pension restoration then attached to the debt bill. 
 
 The 28 Republicans who supported the bill were a coalition cobbled together from Republican leadership, moderates, and retiring members. Notably, however, not all of the top Republican leadership team voted for the measure. Representatives Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, the No. 4 House Republican, and Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the party’s 2012 vice-presidential nominee, both voted “no.” 
 
 That left allies of the speaker fuming that political considerations had left Republicans with no policy cover to accompany the debt ceiling increase. 
 
 Representative Ted Yoho, a freshman Republican from Florida who voted in his first days in office to depose Mr. Boehner, was in a forgiving mood. “With that many people and that many personalities in there, it’s hard to bring them all together on a common cause,” he said. 
 
 Most Republicans appeared content to move beyond the debt ceiling fight, focus on the 2014 campaign. 
 
 “Hopefully we can win the Senate, and we can have a completely different conversation,” said Representative James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican running for the Senate.
– The dozen Republican members of Congress who gave John Boehner a public rebuke this week don't have to worry about payback, he says. "I'm not a retribution kind of guy," he told a closed-door conference meeting yesterday, reports the Hill. "I don't hold grudges." Boehner got re-elected to a second term as speaker, but the vote was unusually close thanks to the largely conservative gang of 12 who either voted for someone else or abstained. Boehner will need all the unity he can get for his next task—getting a bill passed that raises the debt ceiling. He told Republicans that he will insist any such action be paired with spending cuts, a move he says the public supports. But President Obama reiterated today in his weekly address that Congress must raise the ceiling without negotiations, reports AP. It's a "dangerous game," he said. "If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic."