Is there a strategy to debt-limit posturing?

Wait, what?

You could be excused for thinking you'd taken a step back in time Monday while watching President Barack Obama's speech on the debt ceiling standoff.

After watching Republicans walk away from a so-called grand bargain to cut future deficits by around $4 trillion and raise the nation's credit card limit, Obama had earlier in the day signed on to a scaled-down plan advanced by Nevada's own U.S. Sen. Harry Reid.

But then he took to the podium in the East Room and called for ... a grand bargain?

Said the president: "The only reason this balanced approach isn't on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach -- an approach that doesn't ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all." And, after praising Reid's no tax plan, Obama added: "What we're talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade -- millionaires and billionaires -- to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make."

So we're back to a grand bargain, then: A mix of future spending cuts and tax increases, perhaps with some tinkering on Social Security and Medicare thrown in for good measure, then?

It's as if the president hasn't been -- in his own words -- left at the altar twice by Republican House Speaker John Boehner, who has steadfastly refused to consider taxes. It's not as if Obama didn't witness Boehner say he'd introduce his own two-step plan, which raises the debt limit and cuts budgets now and next year.

What's Obama thinking? Just hours before he gave his address to the nation, the president's spokesman talked up Reid's plan, which offers a straightforward $2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit and $2.7 in deficit cuts, enough to last until the end of 2012.

"Senator Reid has put forward a responsible compromise that cuts spending in a way that protects critical investments and does not harm the economic recovery," the statement reads. "All the cuts put forward in this approach were previously agreed to by both parties through the process led by the Vice President."

And again: "Senator Reid's plan is a reasonable approach that should receive the support of both parties, and we hope the House Republicans will agree to this plan so that America can avoid defaulting on our obligations for the first time in our history. The ball is in their court."

So, which is it? Is the president endorsing Reid's "reasonable approach" or is he still pulling for his grand bargain?

It's clear the Boehner Two-Step isn't going anywhere. The Congressional Budget Office says he's $150 billion short, and the conservative House Republican Study Committee has rejected his approach. If it even gets to the Senate, it can't pass. If it does, Obama has pledged to veto it.

But if Boehner's plan faces rough going, the grand bargain has about as much chance of passing as I do of scaling Everest without supplemental oxygen.

That leaves Reid's plan as the only viable option, if the Aug. 2 deadline is to be met. Obama must know this. But he must also know that if he endorsed Reid's plan outright, there's a chance Republicans would oppose it simply because Obama is for it. Perhaps by endorsing the grand bargain in his speech, Obama hoped to get more Republicans to sign on to Reid's compromise, knowing they're denying the president the option he really wanted. In the meantime, they can avert the looming crisis.

It's the worst of both worlds, but the clock is ticking.

Steve Sebelius is author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him at www.Twitter.com/SteveSebelius or reach him at 387-5276 or SSebelius@reviewjournal.com.