Thomas Friedman wrote in a recent article published in The New York Times  “I voted for Barack Obama and I don’t want my money back.

 Friedman continued, “[Obama’s] never gotten the credit he deserves for bringing the economy he inherited back from the brink of a depression. He’s fought the war on terrorism in a smart and effective way. He’s making health care possible for millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions, and he saved the auto industry.

“This is big stuff. But, as important as all of these achievements are, they pale in comparison to the defining challenge of Obama’s presidency: Can he put the country on a sustainable economic recovery path at a time when, if we fail, it could be the end of the American dream?”

Friedman continues by suggesting that the President reverse field and embrace the recommendations of his deficit reduction commission chaired by Erskine Bowls and Alan Simpson. He argues that by doing so the President will “win politically and create a national consensus that would trump his opponents, right and left.”

I agree with Friedman.  Obama’s opponents, the Republicans, seem to have focused all of their energy on defeating any proposal that might reflect positively on him, keeping true to the command that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) gave to his followers in October of 2010: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

McConnell didn’t exhort Republicans in Congress to cut the deficit or create jobs; he didn’t even suggest they take on issues near and dear to the heart of his right wing supporters, such as the balanced budget amendment, restructuring Medicare out of existence, cutting taxes for the rich, and turning Social Security over to the private financial markets. Instead, he said with shameless transparency that their primary two-year agenda was undercutting the President rather than building up the nation.

The Republican strategy is too clever. First, they would invite Obama to be part of a bipartisan discussion to find solutions. Then they would scuttle the effort and blame the President. If he did not join the discussion they would accuse him of lack of leadership and extreme partisanship.

The negotiation between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner on raising the debt ceiling is an example of the former, and the recent Supercommittee failure of the latter.

In the first case, Boehner and Obama agreed on a plan to cut the budget and increase the debt ceiling and at the last possible moment Boehner repudiated it. In the second case, the Congress passed legislation to create a 12-person bipartisan committee that pointedly left the Executive Branch out of the discussion. When it failed, the Republicans stumbled in lockstep over each other to be the first to blame the President (even though he sent them a $3 trillion deficit reduction plan before their first meeting).

They treated the President in a way reminiscent of Charles Schultz’s Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football of Peanuts fame. Every year Lucy would tee up the football for Charlie Brown to kick. Just as he approached the ball with great focus and determination to kick it with all of his might, she would pull it away leaving Charlie with nothing but air to kick. Still, against all logic, Charlie never gave up.

In a like manner, the Republican leadership sat down with the President and “negotiated” budget and deficit issues. Every time it looked as if they were close to an agreement, the Republicans would walk out, leaving the President with nothing but empty air and lost time.

But, unlike Charlie Brown, President Obama is too smart to keep returning to the same failed strategy and the Republicans risk being left alone in the middle of the field holding a football with no plan of action other than to blame Obama.

Readers can look back through my posts and see that I have been a supporter of the President’s repeated attempts to compromise on contentious issues, to find a middle ground in an attempt to form a broad national consensus across political lines.

I’ve watched him fulfill his election promises to “reach across the aisle” in spite of that aisle metaphor morphing into an impossible chasm.

From healthcare to dealing with the deficit issue I have embraced Obama’s willingness to seek bipartisan solutions to difficult problems— but not any more. It is time for him to grab the football and (like Roosevelt before him) invite the Republicans to play his game on his turf.

I agree with Friedman that the President should first propose adoption of the Simpson-Bowles plan as a starting point for negotiations. This plan included tax reform and revenue increases, cuts to defense programs, and cutbacks to both Social Security and Medicare.

Secondly, as Friedman suggests “… he’d offer a plan in which the wealthy have to pay their fair share and more, because they have had a great two decades. But everyone, including the middle class has to contribute something. This has to be a national effort. Third, he would offer a plan that is aspirational. It would not just be a roadmap to balancing the budget but to making America great again.”

President Obama’s advisors would probably argue that such a tack is politically dangerous, and it is. But, at least historically, Americans respect and support those who take bold risks. I believe that proposing and fighting for such a plan would be a political win for him and a resounding victory for America.

The American people are smart enough to understand the duplicitous actions of the Republicans, and the milquetoast behavior of many Democrats in Congress.  I believe that Americans would support a leader who runs against the current of both his own party and the opposition. As Friedman concluded “Go big, Mr. President. You will win, and so will America.”

For more of my thoughts on this process go to the speech I would like to hear and “It’s time Mr President” and compromise.