Murf76
Senior Member
- Nov 11, 2008
- 2,464
- 593
- 48
I'm going to assume you're not being a Republitard and you are honestly answering that question.
How was he bipartiasan?
1. he gave equal talking time to Republicans
2. when McCain and Cantor both tried to attack him personally, he tried to bring things back to issues - so that it wasn't a tit for tat
3. he, as opposed to others, didn't make personal attacks on other members of Congress
4. he tried to build the discussion off of areas common to both sides (like the list of republican ideas Biden reminded people about that were already in the bill)
1. Obama 119 minutes; Democrats 114 minutes; Republicans 110 minutes
That is nowhere near equal time. Obama clearly had taken a position on the issue. It's worse than merely disingenuous to act like he didn't.
2. Neither McCain nor Cantor "attacked" anyone personally.
3. While snarky remarks, like "the election is over" and accusations of using talkingpoints and props aren't necessarily "personal attacks", they are certainly ill-mannered, petulent, and not conducive to productive bipartisanship.
4. Obama's "transparent" maneuver to force admissions of agreement was for the sole purpose of using it to ram his bill down through reconciliation. Sorry, but Republicans didn't just fall off the turnip truck.
There are issues upon which consensus could be built... in an honest effort. This was by no means an honest effort. If it was, he would have pulled reconciliation off the table and started from scratch.
By all means.... thrill us.I could go on and on.....
Republicans tried to start over with a new bill when only 20% was in contest and the Dems were willing to work together on the other 20%.
And you wonder why the Dems are going to ram it through???? Because Republicans dont want to play ball. They want to delay and kill the whole idea.
Remember just a few months back when Republicans didn't even want the issue to get brought up? Now, finally, they realize they look idiotic for not wanting to work on this...
so the new tactic is to fake interest, but attempt to delay.
So fucking typical.
There's no 80% consensus. That's a Democrat meme that's been cooked up over the last couple of weeks. Republicans have had healthcare plans all along. And the differences between them are substantive. It's not enough to say, "We all want affordable healthcare, hence we are in agreement". It's not enough to say, "We want a solution to the problem of pre-existing conditions, therefore we're all on the same page". To agree on what the problem IS... doesn't necessarily mean we agree on how to solve it.
Hell, they had one Democrat gasbag trying to tell us that their "exchange" system was the same thing as group purchasing pools.
Ummm... one of those things requires insurance companies to comply with government "quality standards" and serves as the default choice for employers who don't line up their own government-approved, mandated health insurance, and the other is a private association that people and businesses enter into freely with the insurance company of their choice for the policies of their choice.
Not the same. Not even close to the same
Last edited: