How come this whole thing seems to be aimed at the Republicans? Are we to
really believe that it was not total ideology that caused the Democrats to pass
the health care bill with no Republican support? Yet if the Democrats to
something like that, it is considered statesmanship. Now if the Republicans
were to get a total majority in government and pass legislation getting rid of
Obamacare, it will be considered political extremism and right wing T-Party
ideology. What is going on in the Republican/conservative precincts is that
when Obama said he was going to make a "fundamental change" in America,
we believed him. And we fundamentally do not want his change. So the political
division is great in America, and just as it should be when, not one, but TWO
extreme sides do political battle. This is what the 2008, 10, and 12 elections
brought. Don't like it? Vote different in 14.
10CC,If they already know each other's positions on things and
aren't going to listen to anything now... why even negotiate? If you know
their position already and won't listen to anything new... how are we going
to resolve the issue?Sooner or later somebody's got to change.
So how will Reid know when that happens if already knows their position and
assumes it's as intransigent as he is?I didn't see the
news that the Senate finally voted on the House bill. All I've heard is
Obama and Reid's speeches that he won't even read anything the House
sends them unless it's a letter of unconditional surrender.
2 bits:Harry Reid brought up the House bill in the Senate - it was
voted down.Why won't Boehner bring up for a vote the Senate
bill in the House? Just bring it up for a vote, that's all.In
reality, both sides know the arguments of the other side quite well.
There's no lack of understanding. There probably is a lack of intelligence
among various members of Congress, but Boehner, Reid and Obama all know each
other's positions and associated problems very well.It looks
like nobody will blink until the debt ceiling vote, at which point Boehner may
lose his Speakership by bringing to a vote a compromise that offends the right
wing.Boehner revealed a lot of what's happening about a couple
of weeks ago, when talking to some reporters: "Do any of you have any ideas
on how to move forward? They'll shoot those down, too", and it was
clear he was referring to House Republicans.
10CC,Re: "I really get the sense they're not interested in
a true deal with anyone whose views differ".Same can be said
about Democrats.Democrats have said they will veto anything
Republicans them. Could that not be characterized as "they're not
interested in a true deal with anyone whose views differ"?I
don't know or care which side is to blame (because it takes both sides
being mule-headed to get the situation we are in today). But your attempt to
just blame ONE side is lame.At some point it doesn't even
matter which side is right/wrong (because this isn't critical to our
eternal salvation). It's just politics. Both sides need to be willing to
at least LISTEN to the other side's proposals. Republicans have sent
numerous proposals. Can Democrats at least read them? And maybe find ONE bone
they can give on?This "all or nothing" intransigent demand
from the left, is just as stubborn as the Right refusing to give them the
blanket approval and wanting to find some place, any place, for compromise.I know Democrats don't have to compromise... but would it kill
I wonder if there's any impulse among "conservatives" to reflect on
the warnings from many of their party's seasoned leaders, such as the past
two presidential candidates, who both warned that the tactics of Ted Cruz and
Mike Lee were not a good idea. "You can't change things as much as
you'd like if you only control one part of Congress".It
seems like the uber-conservatives have just as much disregard for moderate
Republicans as they do Democrats. I really get the sense they're not
interested in a true deal with anyone whose views differ.For
example, let's say Obama offers a 6 month delay in implementing parts of
the ACA. Does anyone seriously believe conservatives would be content with
this? They want the entire thing destroyed, including the pre-existing
conditions and extended coverage for children, and the actual reasons for those
provisions aren't important, anymore. Rationality isn't important.
"Compromise is for losers" was a t-shirt seen, ironically, at a National
Park in Utah, about 3 months ago.Our current predicament offers
uncomfortable insight into how we ended up in the Civil War.
I don't know if being idealogical is always BAD for the country. In 1776
many would have considered the founding fathers "idealogs". And that
wasn't ALL bad.The difference is... the founding fathers
listened to each other, and thought very hard about what others proposed, and
didn't just say "We're not going to even consider anything you say
or anything you send to us".Re: "moral absolutes, rigid
agendas and strong emotions"I see no problem with these in our
personal lives, or our religion, or personal lifestyle. But I don't think
Government is the best place for these. It's a place of compromise and
listening to OTHER's ideas and considering them and deciding on the best
possible option.Moral dictators should not run the government. If
they did we would have a theocracy (and we don't and shouldn't).
That is what has bugged me a little lately about the Obama Administrations
posturing on "Morality". We have to attack Seria because it's the
"Moral" thing to do. It would be "Immoral" to not have
government healthcare, etc, etc, etc, Seems whatever Democrats want to do is a
"Moral imperative" now days.
Good points. Nicely written.
In Utah blame the Blaze and all of the local sponsors.