I don’t disagree with your analysis, particularly your point regarding just how productive the 111th Congress was. But sometimes I think pundits like Krauthammer are too fixated on identifying winners and losers. Consider the tax cut deal. There is a reason liberals like Krugman are incensed – Republicans didn’t just get tax cuts for the upper 2% – they got tax cuts for everybody. This was the stimulus bill they wanted back in 2009 – don’t forget these are called the “Bush tax” cuts because they were initially passed during a Republican administration, and by a Republican Congress. And what did Republicans give up? An extension in unemployment benefits. When this issue is revisited in two years – who is going to be better positioned: Democrats who would seek to raise taxes, or Republicans who will seek to maintain the status quo? As for opposing START, Kyl doesn’t care what the editorial board at the NY Times thinks – he’s worried about his constituents back home. And his opposition to START played pretty well there. My larger point here is not that Obama lost, or Republicans won. It’s that both sides made concessions to get something they wanted. Again, we need to get away from looking at all presidential-congressional negotiations as a zero-sum game – where one side’s gain equals the other side’s loss – they are not. Negotiations often benefit all parties. I think that was the case here. Note that Republicans did not give up the filibuster – they used it to block the DREAM act, and consideration of a host of Obama’s judicial nominees right up to the end of the session. And don’t forget that they also blocked passage of the Democrat’s budget.

Finally, I don’t believe in “momentum” when it comes to presidents and legislating. That’s a media construct, but there’s no evidence that “success” or “failure” on one piece of legislation impacts debate on the next, beyond perhaps signaling how resolute presidents are in pursuing legislative goals. Yes, Obama got some year-end favorable press – but positive news coverage won’t change the fundamentals driving legislation in the 112th Congress. The reality is that things are going to get harder for Obama, not easier, come January.

For two years the R’s have fillibustered anything the D’s ran up the flag poll. So Obama gives them their tax cuts for 2% of the country…the millionaires…and all of a sudden they have what they really wanted all along. They campaigned on fiscal responsibility, but the deal they cut with Obama is hardly that. Sure, START was always going to pass, but doesnt Kyl look like a fool for making such a fuss. And DADT was by no means a sure thing nor was the pay for the first responders.

Frankly, I am surprised the Republicans caved as quickly as they did. (Does going home for Christmas mean that much?).

Why wouldnt the R’s have been able to drive a better bargain next year when they control the House? And the Tea Party could have made a difference in the agenda?

Obama comes out of his first two years with a remarkable list of legislative accomplishments…too much for some…and a great boost towards a second term. If the R’s had spoiled the lame duck session they would have had the big M moving toward 2012. Now, as Charles Krauthammer points out, “the R’s have leveled the playing field.”

From where I sit, it looks as if the R’s caved for the millionaires and gave Obama a second life.