What is going on behind the scenes as President Obama and the Dems prepare to meet with Republicans in a "bipartisan" meeting later this month to discuss healthcare? This is nothing more than a dog and pony show because Obama got caught breaking his promise to include CSPAN coverage on healthcare negotiations. Now, he will play to the emotions of Americans in his efforts to make Republicans look as if they are unreasonable.
Of course, the Republicans should attend the meeting, but they had better be prepared, preferably with well-informed physicians among their ranks, Senator John Barraso(R-Wyoming) and Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), to offer solutions to lowering the costs of healthcare, such as selling policies across state lines to increase competition, thereby lowering costs and major tort reform which would stop much of the unnecessary tests physicians order to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits. Both are ideas that the majority of Americans support.
Read about the trap that Obama and his cronies are planning for the Republicans, via the New York Post:
It's a trap: jump in
The GOP & O's 'health summit'
by Jonah Goldberg
"President Obama has invited Republicans to sit down and talk through health care at a big 'bipartisan summit' on Feb. 25.
Some think it's a little late for such a conversation. After all, the Democrats have built their health-care palace from the ground up, using only Democratic labor and input; they just can't get it to pass inspection. So general contractor Obama invites Republicans to debate the blueprints, and just the blueprints. Oh, and he wants to debate them, not change them.
'The president doesn't think we should start over,' White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer explained.
Obama himself has said he's committed to the existing bill[s] in the House and Senate. He just wants to hash out ideas with Republicans, in front of TV cameras, at a summit because he thinks it would be good for America, or something. The Republicans can get whatever fixtures they want in the guest bathroom. Beyond that, they should just co-sign ObamaCare and shut up.
The best you can say about the effort is that it fits into the White House's universal answer to all of its problems: 'We just need to explain to these confused Americans how we've been right about everything.' To that end, the White House wants to use Republicans as a skeptical prop-audience in one last infomercial for ObamaCare.
The worst you can say is that it's a cynical trap, designed to make the GOP look out of touch, ill-informed and ideological. Indeed, there's a bipartisan consensus growing in Washington that the whole thing is a setup. Obama is going to say 'nice doggie' to Republicans right up until the moment he smashes them with a rolled-up 2,000-page health-care bill.
Liberals like the idea because they want the Republicans to get brained. They think that the GOP either doesn't have real ideas on health care, or that conservative ideas won't go over well with voters. They hope that Obama the law professor will expose all of this, forcing the American people to come to their senses and support legislation they've been hearing about nonstop for a year.
Again, liberalism is never wrong, it just has a problem explaining to the mule-headed electorate that it's right about everything. Liberalism is always one more tutorial away from sunshine and lollipops for everyone.
Even so, the GOP should go.
Boycotting the event, as some have recommended, would rightly be seen as a sign of cowardice. Although there's no reason why the GOP has to play to the White House's script. Republicans should be respectful and serious, but they should also designate one or two representatives to speak for them.
That's what Democrats did when they designated then-Sen. Obama as their sole voice in the White House meeting on the financial crisis in September 2008. Sen. John McCain had conceived that meeting as a grand showcase for his statesmanlike leadership. That didn't work out too well for McCain, and there's no reason to expect that Obama's plan is any more foolproof.
That's the great irony in this whole stunt. Since he took office, Obama has been trying to use Republicans as one kind of foil or another. He started by castigating them as mindless drones of Rush Limbaugh. When Republican leaders opposed Obama's hyperpartisan stimulus, the president chastised them. 'You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,' he told them.
Then the White House and its supporters started casting the GOP -- and the burgeoning tea-party movement -- as a Hieronymus Bosch scene of racists and gun nuts. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid compared opponents of ObamaCare to opponents of civil-rights legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi flatly questioned the patriotism of anyone who objected to Obama's policies. And so on.
At every turn, Obama's agenda became less popular, his support among independents cratered, his promises to change the tone in Washington looked ever more transparent, and his magic spell over the press weakened. Gallup now has Obama in a statistical dead heat against a generic Republican opponent, and the Democratic Party is in near total free-fall, despite the fact it still has almost total dominion over Washington.
Now the president has another brilliant plan. Once again he has Republicans exactly where he wants them. Only someone who thinks Obama is one explanation away from total victory should think the GOP has reason to worry.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Why should Republicans feel compelled to "make their case"? They've already made their case, over and over again.
Here it is:
Even nothing is better then what the democrats have to offer, marxism, communism, higher taxes, massive entitlement programs, cap & tax, massive spending, corruption and a unsustainable growing deficit.
I'm sure the people of Massachusetts were thinking how much they love the democrats plan for America when they voted for a Republican Scott Brown, a seat that was held by a democrat since 1962.
Anybody but democrats will be the only thing on the minds of the voters in 2010&2012.
The hyperbole of rightwingnuts apparently knows no bounds. Marxism? Communism? Massive entitlement programs? Let us know when you're talking about real life instead of deep dark rightwingnut fantasies. There is a difference of opinion between the left and the right, but rightwingnuts misusing labels to demonize the left will not aid the rightwingnut cause one bit. It throws red meat at the rightwingnut crowd, but it isn't fooling anybody in the center or left.
BOOGAH BOOGAH BOOOOOOGAAAAAAAH
Diogenes: In Massachusetts, more than 50 percent of voters actually register as independents, 30 percent of American voters are Independent and the democrats can't win elections without the Independent voter.
The Independent voters are walking away from this administration and the democrats with their leftwing agenda, it's kind of like buyers remorse.
The voters in the 2008 election were similar to first-time buyers; they just didn't read the fine print.
And what part of Conservatives outnumbers liberals 2 to 1 and that America is center-right country not a center-left country don’t you understand?
If you want center-left, I’m sure Europe has more then enough room for you and the rest of the leftwingloons, but with most socialist forms of government there comes a price, they’re going bankrupt so you might have to cut back on your booze & porno rentals.
Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend."
How come rightwingnuts insist on calling liberals "Marxists" when that is so far off the mark? Should I start calling you a fascist, AnonyMouse? I wouldn't really feel comfortable doing that (since I doubt it's true) but that IS the ridiculous extreme of being a rightwingnut.
But, on second thought, go aheda and hurl your epithets... it simply diminishes your almost nonexistent credibility even more.
I didn't say anything about liberals being marxist.
Are their marxists that are democrats?
Are their fascists that call themselves Republicans?
I would guess there is, wouldn’t you?
You really are intellectually quite challenged, aren't you, AnonyMouse!
Your initial comment was that Democrats offer marxism, communism, etc etc etc
That's saying "Democrats are Marxists and Communists."
And now you say you DIDN'T say Democrats are Marxists (which you clearly did) but that SOME Democrats are Marxists.
Why don't you just concede that you don't have a clue as to what you're saying, that you're just reciting mindless rightwingnut rhetoric that you've cut and pasted from some other rightwingnut blog somewhere, or heard on today's (fill in the blank) Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity show?
It's one of the simplest, most elementary pieces of logic. A third grader should understand it:
If all Ford automobiles are made in America, it does NOT mean that all automobiles made in America are Fords.
Are you really this stupid, or are you simply playing dumb? I'm oping, for your sake, that it's the latter.
Democrats?
Van Jones - self-proclaimed communist, including his association with a Marxist group1990s
William Ayers - co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary
Bernardine Dohrn - a member of the Weatherman Underground Organization and a self-described communist revolutionary
Frank Marshall Davis - an identified Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member.
George Soros - a self-hating Jew and anti-Semite with progressive (communist) intentions for America.
Angela Davis - associated with the Black Panthers and joined the Communist Party in 1968.
Mike Klonsky - an unabashed communist whose current mission is to spread Marxist ideology in the American classroom, also was a CP(ML)'s chairman.
to name a few diogenAss
Go back to sucking your thumb boy!
Well, I guess that answers it, once and for all: you are, sadly, that stupid.
Post a Comment