On Wednesday, McConnell gave an interview to conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. The New York Times summarizes:

McConnell used a radio interview to defend his proposal to allow a three-stage increase and predicted that Republicans would be punished if they did not allow the debt ceiling to be raised.

Recounting how the 1995 government shutdown helped President Bill Clinton win re-election the next year, Mr. McConnell said any impasse that hurt the nation’s credit and led to government checks being delayed could have the same result for President Obama.

“He will say Republicans are making the economy worse … It is an argument that he could have a good chance of winning and all of the sudden we have co-ownership of the economy. That is a very bad position going into the election.”

Not only would Obama say it, but it would also be true, a fact that received solid confirmation a few hours after the interview when Moody’s Investment Service placed the credit rating of the United States “on review for possible downgrade.” The reason? “The rising possibility that the statutory debt limit will not be raised on a timely basis, leading to a default on US Treasury debt obligations.”

Credit downgrades and economic meltdowns are the kind of things that, to borrow another one of McConnell’s comments to Ingraham, pose a strong threat of destroying the “brand” of the political party held responsible for them. McConnell, who wants more than anything else to be the Senate Majority Leader under a Republican president during the next Congress, is seriously worried that House Republican Tea Party is recklessly endangering his dreams.

And he is absolutely, 100 percent correct in this assessment.

At a Capitol news conference little over an hour before the latest round of negotiations was set to begin at the White House, McConnell described a plan that would allow the debt ceiling to be raised in three separate stages through the end of next year, for a total of $2.5 trillion. The plan would place the political burden of raising the debt limit on President Obama and congressional Democrats, rather than on Republicans.

On each of these three occasions, Obama would request a raise in the debt ceiling and propose offsetting spending cuts. Congress would then get to vote to approve or disapprove the president’s proposal.

However, in the event that Congress did disapprove, which seems almost guaranteed, at least insofar as the House of Representatives is concerned, Obama would still have the option of vetoing the “resolution of disapproval.” Since it would be well nigh impossible to overcome such a veto in the Senate, McConnell’s proposal essentially would allow Obama to get a debt limit increase (or two, or three!) without any spending cuts at all!

Let’s take Red State’s Erick Erickson as a proxy for how Tea Party House Republicans are likely to react to this news.

It Is Time to Burn Mitch McConnell in Effigy. He Goes Pontius Pilate on the Debt Ceiling.

Wow. Comparing the Senate minority leader to the man responsible for the death of Jesus Christ? In today’s Republican Party, them’s fighting words!

What could possibly explain this mad twist? Bearing in mind that we still don’t know all the details of the mechanics of how this would work, here’s my theory: McConnell is getting increasingly nervous that House GOP unwillingness to compromise on any revenue increases has put Republicans in a politically vulnerable position. As I’ve written before, whether you agree with Obama’s overtures on entitlements or not, there is no denying that he has aggressively positioned himself as a leader willing to make a deal. The House GOP, now apparently led by Majority Leader Eric Cantor, has done the opposite.

Judging by McConnell’s weird avowal over the weekend that “nobody is talking about not raising the debt ceiling,” one suspects that Wall Street lobbyists are beginning to lean on McConnell. The business community, understandably, does not want to see Congress deal the U.S. economy a self-inflicted wound that crashes financial markets. With each day that goes by without a deal, Wall Street gets more antsy.

So how does McConnell get out of this box? How about by proposing a plan that assuages Wall Street and still protects the Republican ability to savage Obama on the deficit from today right on through next year’s presidential election? Three separate votes on the debt ceiling are three more opportunities to rage on about “out of control spending” without every having to make any tough choices. If Obama’s goal is to get the deficit “off the table” as a political issue, then this is a way to chain the president to his dining room chair.

I can’t see House Republicans ever going for this: Releasing their hostages without getting a single concession in return? But I have to admit there is a wily and fiendish brilliance to it. McConnell’s proposal is completely devoid of any economic merit outside of avoiding the intentional blow up of the economy; it would guarantee an endless partisan war over spending without accomplishing any real reform or debt reduction. It takes true political genius to pull off such a feat.

Michele Bachmann, explaining the only circumstances under which she would vote for raising the debt ceiling.

“They’d have to cut an enormous amount, including they would have to defund Obamacare,” she said on Fox News in response to a question about the circumstances under which she’d vote to raise the debt ceiling. “Because that’s the largest entitlement in the history of the country.”

What she means:

My solution to bringing down the budget deficit is to get rid of the only part of the social safety net that is (a) paid for and (b) projected by the Congressional Budget Office to actually reduce the deficit.

What they say:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, explaining why there will be no “real solution” to the debt problem.

“After years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office a real solution is probably unattainable,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor.

What he means:

As long as the president of the United States — a Democratic politician who has already agreed in principle to bigger cuts in Medicare and Social Security than any previous Democratic occupant of the White House — as long as he continues to refuse to unilaterally give in to every single one of our demands, we will continue our policy, established on the very first day of his presidency, of opposing with all our force everything he does.

What they say:

John Boehner:

“Where’s the President’s plan?” asked House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) at a press stakeout after a GOP caucus meeting. “When’s he going to lay his cards on the table? This debt limit increase is his problem.”

OK — this one is kind of hard. The president offered a plan last week and, at least as far as outraged members of his own party are concerned, laid his cards on the table. And since it is House Republicans who are refusing to raise the debt ceiling, thus putting at risk the credit of the United States, you would think that maybe, just maybe, Boehner bears some responsibility for the current mess.

But here’s my best shot.

What he means:

I would love to cut a “grand bargain” deal that would make a real stab at deficit reduction and prove that I am a real statesman. However, (a) such a deal would also be good for the president, which is bad for Republicans; (b) I have no actual power to make any deals because my caucus refuses to compromise on anything; and (c) House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is standing behind me with a knife ready to stab into my back. Therefore, my only option is to blame the president for my failures.

Hmm. Guess what — rhetoric that looks insane on the surface, turns out to be equally insane when you dig down. This does not bode well for the future. We’ve got three weeks to go before the debt ceiling deadline, and if the last 24 hours are any indication, we’ll all be gibbering madmen long before time runs out.

The Heritage Foundation even has a little FAQ on how the Senate can repeal Obamacare. Of course, irony of ironies, every repeal option requires either 60 or 67 votes. “This would put many Senate Democrats in the interesting situation of voicing support for so-called ‘filibuster reform’ while at the same time using the filibuster rule to block an up or down vote on Obamacare.” An interesting situation indeed! I imagine we’ll be hearing a lot about “up or down votes” over the next two years, after having heard nothing about them, at all, from the ruling party over the last two years.

I am expecting basically weeks of make-believe repeal of Obama’s cootiecare health bill, over and over again. It just feels good, to the GOP.