Greg Sargent offers a preview of the Democrats’ strategy to retake the House in 2012:

The House vote today that’s expected to pass Paul Ryan’s proposal to end Medicare as we know it will be looked back on as the day the GOP lost the House, DCCC chair Steve Israel vowed to me in an interview moments ago.
“When we win back the majority, people will look back at this vote as a defining one that secured the majority for Democrats,” Israel said.
Israel said that Dems plan to use the Medicare vote today to go on the offensive against Republicans from now all the way until Election Day 2012. Crucially, Israel said it would be used in every district, even ones that are marginal or conservative — suggesting that on Medicare at least, Dems are hoping to maintain a united national front, rather than letting the messsage be watered down in conservative districts that may be more receptive to GOP messages about fiscal conservatism.

This is why I’m guessing that many observers described Chairman Ryan’s budget as “brave” or “courageous.” It represents a serious political risk to those who backed it.

The president has been far more strategic, as Ross Douthat observes. “Brave” doesn’t necessarily equal “praiseworthy,” at least not in my book. But I find the contrast between President Obama and Chairman Ryan telling.

Jay Cost recently argued that the president is not a very effective politician. I found Cost’s analysis persuasive. The trouble is that President Obama might be a better at politics than he is at the other aspects of presidential leadership. As hard a time as the White House is having in its efforts to win over independents, President Obama understands that he can’t afford erosion in the liberal base, as Cost explains. And so his solution to our budget woes amounts to higher taxes (presumably shielding the D-friendly big city and public sector upper-middle-class), defense cuts (also not his voters), and strengthening IPAB (bureaucrats rather than consumers will ration care).