House Republicans reply: your move, Mr. President
In the chess game between the parties, Obama has proposed televised bipartisan health care talks, and the House Republicans have countered with a rather nice gambit of their own.
Your move, President Obama.
Ah, but Obama has that spare queen and night sitting on the chess board above them ready and waiting to swoop down and take him out of check and mate the king. The beauty of playing 3-d chess when everyone else is simply playing chess is those hidden pieces waiting in reserve and biding yout time until the right moment.
We are salivating in anticipation of that moment – raw Republican losses the likes of which the world has never seen!
Err, something like that if you extra pieces are failed legislation with 59 senators, low approval rating dropping like a stone, causing what is probably going to be one of the biggest losses in history – not to mention massive spending/deficits, jobs in toilet, and terror threats on the rise.
But then maybe that is how one wins at Obama’s 3-D chess? The first person to get all their pices taken is the winner?
what i think this looks like, if we are going to keep with the idea of coming up with abstract analogies.
is like a drunk, 3 times over the limit, who has just banged up the car careening off of obstacles, who screeches to a halt next to the republicans walking alone down the road and says “want a lift?”
of course the one offering the ride cant understand why such a good idea is not being taken up.
It is indeed interesting. As I said Sunday night in a reply to Tim P about this [with a few light edits]:
I don’t know what happens next. Obama’s gambit to work out healthcare on television with him presiding and both parties debating has never been offered before.
I think it’s a bad idea for the Republicans to accept the gambit, most especially using the current bills as the starting point, since it concedes almost everything to Democrats in the format, which is Obama presiding – and no doubt lecturing and lying – with occasional Republican petitions to change a little of this or add a little of that, and at the end there is the expectation of a bill that should be passed. Then Obama and his followers spend the next year clapping themselves on the back for how bipartisan they are.
As we’ve seen, when Obama addresses Congress he has no compunction about misrepresenting his case and basically slandering his opponents, but if there is slightest show of contention or disrespect by Republicans or conservatives, it gets blown up into a big hairy deal.
No, this is a lose-lose proposition for Republicans. They should politely stick to their guns to shelve the current bills, then take the PR hit when the gambit dies.
That analysis holds up pretty well. Obama’s gambit seems even more of a gimmick when one considers that current health care bills from the House and the Senate are over 2000+ pages long and the televised summit is only three hours long.
Furthermore if Obama is truly looking for Republican input, he has had written Republican proposals for weeks now.
So no, this isn’t a serious offer to work out health care reform but simply campaign-style ploy to force Obama’s opponents to choose between a rigged television appearance or being blamed for obstructionism.
I’m proud of the House Republicans for pointing out all the hypocrisy of Obama’s gambit and pressing hard on substantive points.
However, Matthew Continetti at the conservative Weekly Standard says:
Continetti, a conservative (I believe), is entirely oblivious to the dangers of doing battle on the opponent’s turf and according to his rules.
I sincerely hope Continetti is mistaken that Republicans are inclined to accept Obama’s poisoned apple.
Ahh. Gone are the days when an ill informed populace was much easier to govern.
Make me earth czar and i’ll straighten this out.
How about “Ladies and gentlemen, we can’t afford anymore entitlements, and i expect ideas on my desk in two weeks to cut 80% of the entitlements now on the books over the next decade. If no good ideas can be agreed upon we’ll draw straws for what gets cut. Thank you very much”.
We all expect this event, if it occurs, will feature Baraq hectoring, badgering, lecturing the Repubs in his best emulation of Chavez. At best, they can stand up to him a la Joe Wilson. And if one’s reaction to this prospect is negative, that it will demean the office of the President, kindly consider that the demeaning is by Baraq himself.
The problem for the Repubs remains the MSM, who will delight at again painting them as the Party of No, if they don’t attend. But wait! That will happen if the Repubs do attend. So it will be best if they “respectfully” decline the invite.
BTW a gambit in chess is an opening, not a mid-game tactic. It involves sacrificing a piece, to gain positional advantage. Neither side at this point is engaged in a gambit.
Ahh. Gone are the days when an ill informed populace was much easier to govern.
Absolutely.
All things being equal, if this is Obama’s best shot — to use a TV summit to trick Republicans into supporting health care reform — it smacks of desperation.
Same old O doubletalk. Lets talk and ‘add’ your ideas to our existing 2000 page pos bill.
Buy insurance over state lines? Sure… of course, it will be our new highly regulated uniform insurance purchanged on our healthcare exchange (ie, totally equal regardless of where purchased)…
Republicans should just tell him that jobs are the priority and HC should be shelved until we get people working again. Why the hell anyone cares about HC with a crumbling economy and rising unemployment is beyond me.
Well, the Repubs can go back to sleep; it’ll never happen.
Loved reading it.
It should be printed in every newspaper. HA ~ !
“”Why the hell anyone cares about HC with a crumbling economy and rising unemployment is beyond me.””
The reason democrats care is because they fully plan on a crumbling economy and rising unemployment to starve Americans out till cry uncle to euro socialism.
Huxley:
“Continetti, a conservative (I believe), is entirely oblivious to the dangers of doing battle on the opponent’s turf and according to his rules.
I sincerely hope Continetti is mistaken that Republicans are inclined to accept Obama’s poisoned apple.”
True enough. But, they could easily turn his own turf into their advantage. Simply ambush him because he’d never expect it. Have every republican that shows prepared to grill the president on broken promises regarding the healthcare debate or anything else. Every single time the president said one thing then did another. They would need to be unified. No backing down, no discussion. Just one accusation after another, from every republican. Let him choke on his own ‘poisoned apple’.
Of course, the MSM will attack the republicans for this. But they’ll marginalize them anyway. If they’re going to accuse you of obstructionism, why not deliver on it. And be seen as strong and fighting.
Ditto here to Baklava’s comments.
Wouldn’t change a word of the letter.
Be nice if it could get wide circulation.
Jim Sullivan: You’ve got a point, and as it turns out:
The Republicans better have gamed this one out thoroughly.
They are heading into the lion’s den where the Democrats have the majorities with President Obama presiding, and the MSM covering it.
However, Cantor does make it clear that Republicans are not showing up for a “dog and pony show to trumpet failed bills” i.e. the current Democratic bills.
So it’s turning into a game of chicken with each side dares the other to show up for bipartisanship but neither side will back down from their proffered starting conditions.
meanwhile, while we are arguing that, they want to make a lot more of the kind of people who dont know history, cant read large tracts, cant comprehend much more than 200 words at a time…
the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction is attempting to remove all American history prior to 1877 from its textbooks, replacing it with a “global studies” curriculum.
Anyone KNOW why 1877?
[and not around some other time?]
[hint: they control history, and so there is no history before their God. which is why, like alma, they are fulfilling their masters predictions!!! (if reality wont comply, they will make reality). the era was when the enlightenment was undone by romanticism]
By removing the entire first century of American history from our children’s textbooks, these radicals are doing more than just putting a “liberal spin” on things — they are trying to fundamentally alter the world view of future generations of U.S. citizens. They are trying to rip out American democracy by its roots and replace it with what Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer has dubbed the “New Socialism,”
which is the old socialism…
the difference is that if you read all that crap back then, they were honest as to what they would make and they had not learned yet to hide it.
they didnt learn to hide the goals and ideals and things till AFTER they saw the reaction the common man had to hitler and stalin…
then having the same ends and ideals and given that their religion has no way to evolve or change, they have endeavored to implement the progressive plan that hitler, lenin, stalin copied from them, and though they were going to beat us to the end prize.
i did bring up the theory and such behind a lot of this / Historical revisionism (negationism)
During the existence of the RSFSR (1917—93) and the USSR (1922—91), the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (“CPSU”) attempted to ideologically and politically control the writing of both academic and popular history. These attempts were most successfully in 1934—52 period. According to Mehnert, the attempt to control academic historiography (the writing of history by academic historians) in this period was in order to promote ethno-racial imperialism by Russians.[5] During the 1928—56 period, modern and contemporary history were generally composed according to the wishes of the CPSU, not the requirements of accepted historiographic method.[5] According to some authors, such as Mehnert, this practice was fundamentally corrupt.
During and after the rule of Nikita Khrushchev (1956—64), Soviet historiographic practice is more complicated. Although not entirely corrupted, Soviet historiography it was characterised by complex competition, between Stalinist and anti-Stalinist Marxist historians.[6] To avoid the professional hazard of politicised history, some junior and trainee historians chose pre-modern, medié¦val history or classical history, where ideological demands were relatively relaxed;[citation needed] nevertheless, despite the potential danger of ideological dictation corrupting historians’ work, not all of Soviet historiography was corrupt.[6]
Soon… everybody will know the same facts, and soon we will all march to one drummer. soon, your personal goals of your life will be replaced with the goals of the oppressed lords, no longer oppressed by being hired clerks, and will take up their rightful place as rulers over man
BTW a gambit in chess is an opening, not a mid-game tactic. It involves sacrificing a piece, to gain positional advantage. Neither side at this point is engaged in a gambit.
Tom: Strictly speaking, a gambit in chess is the offer of a pawn or two (never a piece to my knowledge) in the opening for a positional advantage or attacking chances.
Outside chess, it’s simply “a calculated move”.
As the person who brought up the term, gambit, in this discussion, I chose it because gambit conveyed the spirit of Obama’s offering Republicans the chance to be part of the health care discussions and to bring up their agenda on national television, which superficially sounds great except for the positional advantages it offers Obama to attack Republicans during the summit and later during the midterm campaigns.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lenin-Trotsky_1920-05-20_Sverdlov_Square_(original).jpg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lenin-Trotsky_1920-05-20_Sverdlov_Square_(censored).jpg
i can show obamas people did similar things
and i can show that berlisconi has done it!!!
lh3.ggpht.com/_EHZsoUS6SIA/S2iP09Jv_tI/AAAAAAAAF9I/z2EmbKlX-v4/berlusbloodyconi.jpg
so now tell nme how this isnt the same today as it was when my family was there living it?
here is one with stalin and a very famous latvian that looks very very much like Obama.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Voroshilov,_Molotov,_Stalin,_with_Nikolai_Yezhov.jpg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Commissar_Vanishes_2.jpg
the history of the past is being erased.
and its clear we dont mind!!!!!!!!!
Huxley:
“The Republicans better have gamed this one out thoroughly. ”
As much as I’d like to see it, as much as I enjoy the armchair quarterbacking, I just don’t see that happening. It would be nice. But I’m not holding my breath. I mean, personally, when I go into the ‘lion’s den,’ I attack (for better or worse). We’ll see.
And Artfldgr, dude. Please, try an outline first. Just once.
An excellent letter with many good points but far too complex for public attribution.
The Republicans need talking points that fit well in sound bites, which regrettably but realistically is how most of the public draws its impressions.
Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means,so the Republicans agree to bipartisan talks provided the President, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Majority leader Reid agree to the following conditions, so as to ensure a productive dialog:
They formally agree in writing that all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, will be televised on CSPAN so as to meet a common-sense standard of transparency and openness.
Pelosi and Reid agree that writing proposals behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding immediate Republican support is not a truly open, bipartisan discussion.
The President acknowledges that Republicans first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May.
The President holding up the Republican health care alternative and reading from it word for word contradicts the assertion that Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’.
The President must acknowledge all of this so as to clear the air.
Agrees to start over, with a step-by-step approach, focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses.
Republicans will be permitted to invite health care experts to participate in the discussion.
The President, Pelosi and Reid demonstrate their sincerity by making a written commitment to not jam through health care reform by way of reconciliation.
Publically commits to make any legislative proposal available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours before calling for a vote.
Those Democrats who opposed both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill will be included in bipartisan discussions..
Agrees that no individual American should be compelled to purchase health insurance.
Agrees that under no circumstances will seniors’ access to high-quality care be jeopardized by imposing Medicare cuts.
Will the President, Pelosi and Reid agree to any of these conditions? Of course not, but then they’ve never been sincere as to bipartisanship either. And by rejecting reasonable conditions they demonstrate their lack of seriousness.
They have the power to pass legislation, Republicans will not filibuster moderate legislation, so if nothing is done it will be they who are held to account.
Let them face a choice, agree to real bipartisanship legislation or twist helplessly in the wind until November.
Huxley,
I have to say that I’m pleasantly surprised by the republican letter that Neo linked to in her post. it’s a start.
Again, only my opinion, but the republicans would be smart to avoid such a show altogether. The dems, with 24/7 mis-information from the MSM will only confuse and distort anything that does not help advance the democrat’s advantage.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
“The Republicans need talking points that fit well in sound bites, which regrettably but realistically is how most of the public draws its impressions.”
Yeah, I sort of like mine. You can’t mix our reforms with your 2000 page bill to turn healthcare into a public utility.
I have to say that I’m pleasantly surprised by the republican letter that Neo linked to in her post. it’s a start.
Again, only my opinion, but the republicans would be smart to avoid such a show altogether.
Tim P: Agreed.
Republicans have decided that they must show good faith to show up for good faith bipartisanship. But they’ve laid out their concerns up front.
Those concerns are “far too complex” as Geoffrey Britain notes for the public to absorb.
However, it’s not clear to me what happens on the Big Day when Democrats show up with their two 2000+ page bills and the Republicans show up with some suggestions for an entirely new bill.
Do Democrats and Republicans spend three hours on TV wrangling where to start?
Do Democrats and Republicans spend three hours on TV wrangling where to start?
It’ll take that long just to decide the shape of the table. /g
Great post, great letter, great comments. Geoffrey’s post was superb, but for public consumption by the “one, two, many” set I’d simplify the Republican message even further:
1. The President will honor his campaign promise to put all bills on the Internet five days before a vote;
2. The President will further honor his campaign promise to put all healthcare debate on C-SPAN;
3. The President promises that Republican members of Congress will be present and involved in all phases of discussing and drafting any healthcare bill.
Obama had a bipartisan meeting today discussing the healthcare and jobs. After which he spoke to the press and finished the usual Obamaism that I find abominable:
As usual Obama assumes what he says is the truth about what’s best for the country and it’s up to everyone else to recognize this “truth.”
Which reminded me of this similar quote from Obama about the Middle East last June.
We’ve seen what a big success the Middle East has been since Team Obama has been on the job.
Obama has not learned anything. He is still a cocksure college student who thinks he can fix the world because he’s the guy with all the bright ideas and other people are just dolts.
That must be in the alternative universe where he’s been telling the truth, and it’s been working.
Sounds like a nice place.
I like Occam’s redraft, as long as it retains context, the simpler the better.
One caveat though, the Republicans need to get it in writing as a non-negotiable condition, verbal assurances are worth less than nothing.
Finally, thanks Occam for the compliment on the value of my comment but what I mainly did was reframe and simplify the Republican letter, trying to put it into talking points. And not to be anal retentive when it comes to semantics but our host, NeoNeoCon is the poster, we contribute what comments we may.
huxley: I would say to Obama, be careful what you wish for.
I think people have been learning the truth. That’s what has thrown a monkey wrench into the works of his health care reform plans.
From whitehouse.gov
Robert Gibbs’ response to The Letter:
“Gibbs Responds to Boehner, Cantor”
“The President is adamant that we seize this historic moment to pass meaningful health insurance reform legislation. He began this process by inviting Republican and Democratic leaders to the White House on March 5 of last year, and he’s continued to work with both parties in crafting the best possible bill. He’s been very clear about his support for the House and Senate bills because of what they achieve for the American people: putting a stop to insurance company abuses, extending coverage to millions of hardworking Americans, getting control of rising premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and reducing the deficit.
The President looks forward to reviewing Republican proposals that meet the goals he laid out at the beginning of this process, and as recently as the State of the Union Address. He’s open to including any good ideas that stand up to objective scrutiny. What he will not do, however, is walk away from reform and the millions of American families and small business counting on it. The recent news that a major insurer plans to raise premiums for some customers by as much as 39 percent is a stark reminder of the consequences of doing nothing.”
huxley Says:
“As usual Obama assumes what he says is the truth about what’s best for the country and it’s up to everyone else to recognize this “truth.””
Bush was always called out for talking just like that. Which is not a Bush bash so much as pointing out how much Obama gets away with….
My response to Gibbs,
[The President has] “continued to work with both parties in crafting the best possible bill.”
Really? How are closed room deals for Democrats only, working with both parties?
“putting a stop to insurance company abuses, extending coverage to millions of hardworking Americans, getting control of rising premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and reducing the deficit.”
Your proposals will lead to private insurance companies going out of business, you extend coverage by making seniors pay for it and you control premiums and costs by reducing coverage. The non-partisan government CBO states that your plan will greatly raise the deficit, are they lying?
“The President looks forward to reviewing Republican proposals …He’s open to including any good ideas that stand up to objective scrutiny.”
The President constantly evokes partisanship, how objective can his scrutiny be if he won’t accept the CBO’s analysis?
“The recent news that a major insurer plans to raise premiums for some customers by as much as 39 percent is a stark reminder of the consequences of doing nothing.”
No one has suggested we do nothing. But you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and turning over 1/6 of the US economy to government regulation and control will kill the baby.
Geoffrey, thank you for your kind comments. I liked your version better than the Republican Party one, and intended my little contribution to serve only as an executive summary/ soundbite/ bumper sticker version.
Part of the idea was to reinforce (or for many people, plant) the notion that Obama has flagrantly broken campaign promises that he could easily have kept. Candidates often promise things that in the event they are unable to do as President, but putting bills on the Internet and broadcasting debate on C-SPAN are not those kinds of promises. He could do each with a stroke of the pen.
As many commenter’s have noted, the summit is a gambit by Obama, but so what? That is, after all the political game. Like all of these things, its both a risk and opportunity for the Republicans: an opportunity to show they have improved their political game.
I think their best game plan is to be really straight, require a genuine negotiation based on pragmatic incremental improvement: health is too big and complex to resolve in one go, especially in a three hour meeting.
The letter was a very good start, and it’s a reassuring opening play.
While Obama may end up fouling the Republicans with this summit, I thinks it more likely to be perceived as the useless political stunt that it really is, and backfire on Obama. Obama runs the major risk of demonstrating he has lost his persuasive magic., and since that’s his biggest asset, that’s a huge risk. Someone needs to explain to him the concept of “keeping your powder dry”.
Artfldgr Says:
February 9th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
If true, this is even worse than the health care takeover. By an order of magnitude.
I like what Bill Kristol advised yesterday on Bret Baier’s Special Report Panel. Kristol makes the point that the Republicans have been debating the Democrat health care proposals for a year and have been winning the debate handily and so should not be afraid of more debate. The more Democrat proposals are debated the more the public doesn’t like them.
He advises the Republicans go to the talks at the Whitehouse, demand that the House and Senate bills be ditched, which is what most Americans want, and then propose their own plan for health care. The GOP plan could entail high-risk insurance pools, allowing people to purchase health insurance policies across state lines and instituting medical malpractice reforms — the so-called “Small Bill” proposals outlined in this Weekly Standard article:
http://tinyurl.com/ydwo8zp
These proposals have the value of being much cheaper, according to the CBO just 7 percent as much as Obamacare, of lowering the cost of private insurance to American buyers, an implementation time of next year versus a 4-year implementation date for Obamacare and the bringing in of 10 million folks not currently insured. It also leaves the private insurance industry intact and the government out of 16 to 17% of the economy. There would be no unaccountable government panels or boards deciding who gets treatment and deciding what type of treatment is delivered. I think the American people would go for this type of sensible plan.
The Republicans will not lose public opinion by refusing to go along with the highly unpopular Obamacare. Looking back it seems to me that a socialistic healthcare plan may be a political “third rail.” It frightens folks(rightly so) because it messes with their lives too much and because it is too expensive. Folks want more people to have healthcare but not at the expense of drastically changing their own situation and a highly socialistic answer like Obamacare can’t help but do this. And the average citizen realizes it. The Special Report panel discussion can be viewed at the link below.
http://tinyurl.com/ydh6xlv
While Obama may end up fouling the Republicans with this summit, I thinks it more likely to be perceived as the useless political stunt that it really is, and backfire on Obama.
Rathtyen: That’s a legitimate view. Maybe it will go that way.
However, I notice that when Obama speaks to both Houses, he has trump level control, he lies and smears, and even the slightest contention from conservatives (Wilson and Alito) rebounds upon them.
OTOH, I can’t tell what Obama’s strategy is. No matter how it’s sliced, his health care bill looks dead, dead, dead.
Is Obama willing to compromise to produce something, anything called health care reform? Is he appeasing his base and honoring all the hard work that Dem congress folks have put in? Is he laying the groundwork to blame Republicans?
Congratulations Artfldgr, that is the best and possibly most profound comment you’ve made in quite some time! I knew you could do it. Concise, relevant and very important. Leftist liberals are attacking our culture on many fronts and none are more important than the education (or lack of it) that future generations are receiving.
“If true, this is even worse than the health care takeover. By an order of magnitude.”
It is true. For anyone interested, just google “Critical Pedagogy” I’ve even written on it;
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=10846
“The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” Abraham Lincoln
I applaud the President.
If the President is hell bent on making Democrats lose and discrediting liberal philosophy he is doing a great job.
The Republicans letter was very good. I disagree with the commenter who thought it was too complex for public consumption and that it should be on a bumper sticker.
A bumper sticker slogan is EASILY attacked. The bumpers sticker would become the Palin. The machine would spit out tacks and nails until people thought of the slogan as ridiculous.
Maybe I’m too smart. The letter was very good. Not too long. Hit a bunch of points and really put Obama in a tough spot. Gibbs response could be said to be a non-response.
The Republicans can say – go back and respond to the letter. You haven’t responded to the questions there-in.
“OTOH, I can’t tell what Obama’s strategy is. No matter how it’s sliced, his health care bill looks dead, dead, dead. Is Obama willing to compromise to produce something, anything called health care reform? Is he appeasing his base and honoring all the hard work that Dem congress folks have put in? Is he laying the groundwork to blame Republicans?”
It is dead but he can’t admit it and he refuses to let it go as he’s gambled everything on passing this legislation. No, he’s not willing to compromise, as he’s an ideologue.
Appeasing his base is fairly low on his priority list, they’re not going anywhere.
Yes, he is laying the groundwork for blaming the Republicans and, even more. After he holds this next televised meeting and “exposes” their “unreasonable obstructionism” to the nation on TV, (with the MSM ‘carrying his water’) he will claim to have no choice but to use reconciliation to ram through health care ‘reform’ over the obstructionists.
That is, I believe his strategy. I see no other possibility that fits the behavior.
Pelosi is quietly working on bringing enough House members on board to pass the Senate Health Reform Bill with promises that they will use more reconciliation later in the Senate to ‘fix’ the health Reform Bill to the House members liking if they will agree to vote for the Senate version unchanged.
When they do this, it will force Americans to pay for abortions, the abhorrence for many Americans of which, the left is incapable of appreciating. The resulting political backlash will prevent the reconciliation that Pelosi and Reid have promised which will create a political firestorm like this country has never seen.
The left is playing with fire and it’s going to be a conflagration come November. Obama is dragging the Democrat’s over the “political cliff’s edge”, one that they will not recover from for many decades to come.
This will simply reinforce hardening perceptions among independents that the dems are out of control and seeking to force America to emulate Europe, which is the case for the hard left in the Obama administration and their leftist supporters in Congress.
This is their chance and they are not going to go quietly into the night. Come hell or high water they’re going to see it through.
As if that wasn’t enough, we are, according to Obama’s CIA Director, in recent testimony before the Senate Intelligence committee, 3-6 months away from terrorist attacks and, Brennan and Napolitano, shills for Obama, haven’t a clue as to how to fight terrorism. When those attacks occur, the political earthquake that will follow is going to be literally off the charts.
Events in 2010 will lead to a political upheaval such as this country has never seen.
Buckle up folks, the ride is shaping up to be historical, even Biblical in degree. I fear that circumstance and the fanatical dogma of the left will have it no other way.
Baklava,
I am the commenter who thinks the letter is too complex for the public. You are ‘too’ smart and I too like the letter very much and think it was a fine effort. But then, we are political junkies, interested in the issues and willing to work at truly understanding them. Most are not, their interests lie in other areas, which is as it should be.
Most people want their politicians to be honest, principled, reasonably pragmatic and quiet. If they were, I wouldn’t be interested in politics either. Fly fishing on a beautiful river is really a much better way to spend my time… or whatever activity moves your soul to higher aspirations.
A bumper sticker slogan is only easily attacked when the slogan is superficial and lacks substance. Clinton’s “It’s the economy, Stupid!” worked because when he ran, that slogan resonated with the public perception and thus, nothing the Republican’s could respond with, gained traction. The Massachusetts election demonstrates a similar mood waiting to be captured by a simple expression that fits the times.
In their interactions with Obama the Republicans should use a two-pronged strategy, complex for those inclined and simple for those inclined toward the ‘bottom line’.
I didn’t mean to imply that simple should be the sole strategic tactic Republicans use.
The Republicans have the advantage now but could lose it if they were to refuse to go to the meeting. Obama and the Dems have only one card left to play and that is to brand the Republicans as obstructionists, as the party of “no.”
The Democrat plans for health care are no good and are perceived as such by Americans despite the biased reporting of the MSM on the issue this past year. The MSM has been frantically pushing Obamacare but America is not buying it.
The GOP has a much better health care plan and I believe that given the high exposure potential of a televised discussion that the GOP can win over the public’s approval for the GOP plan’s principles. The MSM will never willingly give the GOP plan any exposure, probably most Americans are completely unaware that the GOP has put forth an alternative plan, but the MSM will have no choice but to give the GOP plan exposure in such a televised meeting. In a live broadcast the MSM can’t control the message by selective editing — as a wise fellow by the name of Ronald Reagan once realized.
If the GOP publicly offers a superior plan and the Democrats reject it then public opinion will turn away from Obamacare and the Democrats even more than it already has. If the GOP plays this the right way they can really hammer the nails in the coffin come November. If there’s a landslide of GOP victories then you will see Democrats crawling over each other to adopt the GOP healthcare plan.
Heres a sound bite for republicans…
“Yes…We’re obstructionist. Just like parents who obstruct their kids from a monthly trip to Disney World by choosing to pay the mortgage instead”.
You could get some slogans and bumperstickers if you focus on approach, not end products.
Fix What’s Broken First
You Can’t Fix A Computer With A Bulldozer
A Pie In The Sky Causes Deficit Obesity
Think Smaller And Get It Right
If the current bills are brought up for votes or even debate, the Republicans have a winning counter that should allow Democrats to join: This bill has not been presented to the American people for the seven days that is needed for them to evaluate it. This the President promised. This he must do before any of us can consider voting for it.
I think Machivelli suggested such a meeting would be a perfect way to dispose of the opposition. Obama gets everybody in Blairhouse, gets held up with some “security concern”, and blows up the meeting. Then no more obstructionists and, of course,he’d have to declare martial law, for the good of the country. Nah… too far fetched
And Artfldgr, dude. Please, try an outline first. Just once.
I have… it doesnt work.. in fact, telling people things they dont want to hear.. that are factual… tends not to be taken easily no matter what form you put it in.
thats the point that all miss in their advice. let me know how i can tell you to your face that your wrong, lazy, not willing to come prepared, not willing to check your own facts before asserting them etc… there is no way to do that.
and thats how they see my posts… they contain ideas they never heard. history they never read. people they have no knolege existed. sometimes its facts are 180 degrees to waht they learned. sometimes they find that a fact is a non fact, and a non fact becomes a fact.
resistance to the truth ends up being futile.whether they read jonas book, tune in now to glenn beck, study american hsitory, study european history, etc. they are going to constantly run into the same things that i am telling them to their face. the difference is that i am not waiting for them to wake up and decide to take the journey and read. i have come to them, for if i waited for them to come to the truth, they might never bother.
mostly because sitting aroudn with equal ignorance is more fun than it is to actually get somewhere. one is entertainment masquerading with purpose, the other is work as defined as work. ultimately, those willing to work, and do so, understand me. they go out and start to search the names. they realize that what i put up is a tiny tiny tiny part. just a tiny thread that they can follow back to a whole lot more. when they get there, they realize that what they thought was a long post here, was nano material compared to where it resides normally.
there are 38 volumes to lenins treatise on marx. obama has read it, i know, as i said you can hear the turns of phrase. parrots copy turns of phrase, not make them up. I have tried many many things. and nothing really works to get those who wont follow to follow. its a false argument they make that says that they would act differently. its a sham. as they are betting that i wont do it, and so they dont have to comply. but i HAVE tried, and they have proven to be liars by not following the links and that.
why would i listen to liars openly lying to manipulate me to put me aside to acheive a better social position for themselves?
i am not as stupd as other people that fall for such manipualations and methods. they challenge, i put up, they continue ignoring…the only time they dont ignore is when the post is too big to flash past. now, they have no means of ignoring a reality. thats really why they get irked..
they have princess and the pea syndrom. and as long as what they dont like is low and they can side step it, they are reasonably satisfied. but as soon as there is no way to do that, they cmplain. not about the content. but about the quality that creates the obstical to their previous internalized method of avoidance. their avoidance habit then becomes my problem through projection.
while i admit i am not the best writer in the world. my grammar can suck being complicated. like reading old old books. but guess where i learned to write and read? back when 13th grade was common, not 5th grade.
is it any wonder that those who had the first, have no problem with the whole panoplay of offerings? and those that have the latter, require everyone above them to bow down? but to do so in a way that does not reveal what the real issue is.
If true, this is even worse than the health care takeover. By an order of magnitude.
of course its true.
its a constant since bella dodd was both head of the teachers union when they voted to indoctrinate not teach, and was head of teh communist party USA. (before she defected realizeing when she was older what she was being used for)
you got the poitn i was making.
and you read my posts.
so you should also see that all they are doing now is tying up the loose end. the ones here who dont want to learn, dont think my history counts, and so forth… were all taught to think that way by the people they are discussing and opposing!!!!!!!!
the only thing that can break them out of it is to learn history. to learn how they have been betrayed to the very core of how they think. all done by the selective allowance and censorship of historical events, and respinning them.
they sit here and belittle other people who are their anscestors who they fault for not rising up and changing things.
but they dont get that they are crippled. they cant even bring themselves to call what they see what they see and move on to the next step.
they are permanently stuck in a place where they have no ability to draw a conclusion and move on, unless a leader dialuges them to that consensus.
no amount of anything will get them to do that, because they fear expulsion.
how do i know?
they tempt me with it and threaten me with it.
but an individual needs that not
only a domesticated thing requres the other for their survival and fitness.
🙂
Congratulations Artfldgr, that is the best and possibly most profound comment you’ve made in quite some time! I knew you could do it. Concise, relevant and very important.
yes… but i would never have hit that if i couldnt have refined my messages over and over.
you have no end with no process…and failure to accept the process…is a death sentence to the ends. you have read other things and dont realize that withotu those other things internalized from prior reading. you would not see the insight. and without my trying to find the pattern of info that would unlock different people, i would never have written that.
even worse. would i have written it if i was worried abotu what hux, and others would think? would it be good if i decided to cut it down to less? how about more. the concept of what is right is right and not more or less is lost today. to tell you the truth. that to have such insight takes slogging through all the stuff i try to summarize. there is no way to say what i said without knowing all that in the background. and my method was not to rely on how witty i can be, but show you the background and then let you discover the truth.
witty is not a requirement of truth…its only the requirement of bored lords wishing to be entertained or else they will withdraw their precious company. (saying it that way tends to make ti clear how they are making demands from a position of worthlessness.)
to pay a mobster to not break my windows, is the same as to change my writing so i dont get grief
both are blackmailers. and i am surprised how socially acceptable blackmail is among people who claim to be for freedom. how is political blackmail resulting in censorship a goodness we stand for? to cave to them would be like patrick henry worried about his new neck length…that is, if patrick henry was like they want me to be. we would not have a republic to argue over preserving. he would have accepted the blackmail, gone home, and let you, his posterity deal with it. which is what their missives amount to.
i never did listen much to blackmail…then again, i have never been taught to think that blackmail was the normal way intelligent people deal with each other. do you?
expat,
can i add to your list
you cant repair without knowing how it works
to think that we could get out of the psition we are in by thinking our way out from a position of ignoraance.
is to accept the same false mentally facile position that oen could fix the economy and not know economics.
by the way…
imagine how the earth would shake if those complaining would take my post, re-research the points, then show me how to write the same thing in 200 words.
shows that they are taking a false superior position
they have not the skill they think they can create by yelling at me. (kind of like mini despots who think that by threatening people they can get them to comply and aquire the talents to make outcomes)
Artfldgr: Most of us have better things to do than to read your posts or try to rewrite them to your satisfaction.
Dealing with you is exactly like dealing the doctrinaire leftists and feminists of my youth.
All discussions go down the same long-winded ratholes, with the same appeals to superior knowledge, the same certainty of historical justification, the same condescension towards those who disagree, the same conspiratorial paranoia, the same complaining and whining about not being appreciated, and the same occasional cries of vindication.
I’m so relieved not to deal with those people on the left anymore. I’m chagrined to find they have their counterparts, thankfully fewer, on the right.
Hux – how can you say this:
‘All discussions go down the same long-winded ratholes, with the same appeals to superior knowledge, the same certainty of historical justification…’
When every other time you post you claim not to read artfldgr’s posts? I read his posts and find your characterisation grossly innacurate – unlike some, his posts are backed up with data, not the kind of fuzzy opinions and generalizations which anyone can write to try and make themselves sound intellectual.
If you don’t like the posts, be assured there are those of us who do. Posters who don’t interest me – like yourself – are easy enough to scroll past without me trying to recruit the rest of the forum into my camp via complaints and whining.
to have known the enemy in detail and to try to tell you that tigers are real… does not mean that its false.
the same conspiratorial paranoia
ie.. there are no such things as conspiracy, so if i hear something that sounds or requires it, i have to say it doesnt exist, and then say the person has a mental desease. thats how i hux debate.
so the Molotov—Ribbentrop Pact never happened. why? because to learn that in history and beleive it is to know a conspiracy of leaders against nations of people without their knowing. and you know thats paranoid, right? so it didnt happen.
of course a man who our president says he is emulating was also there at YALTA. oh, wait… cant bring up yalta!!!! it was a conspiracy of the big countries plotting to sell out small countries nad their people. that way stalin stayed in latvia (a place he had a forever peace treaty with!!), and could finish exterminating the people and then move more of his pepple in. oh… and it was at YALTA that FDR gave stalin the concentration camps that hitler used, and so rather than dismantle them, stalin USED Them to continue the progressive revolutionary holocaust (fdr was a progressive)…
it was an interesting history… we learned falsely about it from walter duranty.. oh wait… cant bring up walter duranty. he was a spy, got a prize for lying, and was part of a conspiracy of the press. so walter has to be removed fromdiscussion, otherwise i know a conspiracy and must be paranoid.
well, how about bella dodd? oh, no cant do that, she was a communist who was head of the CPUSA and the TEACHERS UNION…and to bring hier up would be to say there was a conspiracy not to teach our kids well in school and you know how wonderful schools have been since her people.. i mean.. since communism a failed ideology amazingly and with no impetus attached itself to the children whos fathers and grandfathers werent around to teach them otherwise as they were dead in europe.
wait. they arent dead!!! there was no war, as there was no conspiracy between stalin and hitler.
let me guess. jimmy hoffa really skipped off and went to sweden to be like christina jorgenson, he was never a part of the labor conspiracies and manipulations. right?
Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.[1][2]
and see.. .you took the old meaning, then took the leftist liberal bs meaning that stretches it out of shape, and then employed it the way they do to your advantage. never realizing its the things they are wiling to do to win, that makes them who they are. not what point they are promoting to win!!!!
a cheat is still a cheat even if they win…its the cheating that makes its so. not other things that have no meaning to it.
in a conspiracy theory… it’s the fact that moer than one person colludes in secret to manipulate the situation to advantage against a third. to you its an impossible state that never happens (even if it does) and so is a good way to not have to listen to someone that has informatino in that area.
chapter one: how to keep peopoe from going or thinking things you dont want.
ancient primitive societies would put up skulls and dead bodies to show that to cross a line would result in death and such. in the absence of a warden with force, such simple minded reasoning can be given to the people. then the smartest ones taking it in will make sure to use that as social standing methods. in so doing, one does not have to pay a guard to protect the cheese. one only has to induce in a smart person that its not so. they will then spend their time doing so to others who will not question the meta rule on top.
modern versions of this are terms like slut, conspiracy, fascist, pleb, malthusian, etc.. rather than stake bodies out along a property line, they stake philsophical bodies where they dont want the mind to go. and so, those who wish social standing, can take up the job put before them. and prevent them from ever leaving the area. and as long as they stay inside that mental area, the person doing so seems to know and be followed.
a recent horror movie showed this. it seemed to take place in a small town in the middle ages. but it turned out to be fake, and that the leaders of the town were able to keep the people from every crossing the wood and forest and seeing the highway!!!! of course, everyone who wanted to do that and go was called a conspiracy theorist and such… but eventuyally they found out that they were not in a real town, but a contrived potemkin one. that the leaders used monsters and scary terms in place of rational debate as a means of not HAVING to debate and win by default!!!
in this way, we no longer punish liars, as they are now debaters.
Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism by the scientific community and academia, and often ridiculed by pundits, because they are seldom supported by any conclusive evidence and contrast with institutional analysis, which focuses on people’s collective behavior in publicly known institutions, as recorded in scholarly material and mainstream media reports, to explain historical or current events, rather than speculate on the motives and actions of secretive coalitions of individuals.[3]
again… you seek to use other means to win. you do not actually refute our points. you instead call names and attack in a way that you dont think its attacking.
but if you read the damn definition of what your doing, its OBVIOUS that you like the left do this because in a straight debate on facts you would lose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe. Such characterization is often the subject of dispute due to its possible unfairness and inaccuracy.[4]
by discrediting me you dont have to actually debate me. how collectivist you are!!!!!!!!!!!
you basically choose not to debate facts fairly… so instead you try to move the collective to put negative pressure on me or anyone else you disagree with.
[edited for length by neo-neocon]
Sorry lex
i didnt see your post!!!!!!!!!!!!