But that’s equivocation: one can be in favor of change without supporting the particular changes under review, or even by backing the exact opposite changes. Obama, for example, used to routinely score points against Hillary Clinton during the campaign by saying that he of course wanted to make sure kids got coverage but rejected the idea of making grown people buy policies; Republicans keep talking about how great it would be if we could enact tort reform while letting insurance companies compete across state lines; one can think the system does “need to be changed” and yet mean any one of a number of things.
AAAAAAUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH.
OK, so here’s the problem. Is the Republican position that “health care doesn’t need to be reformed?” Fine. That’s fine. I can respect that position, even if I don’t agree with it. Let a Republican Senator stand up in front of cameras and say something like this:
We know that roughly 80% of Americans are happy with their health insurance at this moment. We do not believe that any plan, no matter how expensive, is ever going to increase that number to 100%. We don’t think that pouring billions upon billions of dollars into an effort to chase a few percentage points - to increase the number from 80% to, say, 84% - is a wise investment of our money at this time in history. We propose abandoning the expensive effort to overhaul health care and instead invest those dollars in X, Y, and Z. We believe that the American people as a whole agree that these priorities are more important than chasing percentage points, and we’re asking you to tell your representatives this, using both your voices and your votes.
Let something like this become a talking point. And you know what? I might not agree with it. On the other hand, I might. I might eventually be convinced because the above (bolstered with presumed data and a suitably compelling value for X, Y, and Z) represents an actual, defensible, intelligible argument.
And see, then we all benefit. Then each citizen can listen to the opposing sides and develop a coherent, informed opinion. Each citizen can then make their choice and where we go represents the actual democratic process at work.
But when instead you nominally agree that health care needs reform, and then refuse to offer a coherent opposing reform plan; when you do not say that “health care doesn’t need to be reformed;” when you shout “socialist” and “communist” and “you lie;” when you create boogeymen out of whole cloth and then describe them in the most inflammatory terms possible as a way to scare people into looking at things in a simplistic way; when you abuse procedural tactics to ensure gridlock; when everything becomes spin:
Now I don’t respect you, or your opinion.
Look, “bipartisanship” doesn’t mean that both sides capitulate into nothingness. It doesn’t mean weakness, nor does it even have to mean compromise. Bipartisanship simply means abandoning the Yankees vs. Red Sox approach to the political process. It means engaging in debate in good faith, presenting your ideas and representing your opponent’s ideas honestly. It means creating a political discourse based on trying to find the optimal solution - and the solution that the populace actually prefers - to our problems, and not on engaging in all-out Total War where winning the argument becomes more important than solving the problem.
That is what I want when I say I want “bipartisanship.” I want all sides to present their case, openly, honestly, and then counter the opposing case(s), again, using facts and reason. Let those who are undecided see the fault lines, the essential places where the arguments conflict, and make up their minds who to support. Let the process work naturally.
I also want a flying pony with the power to transform into Jessica Alba.
It occurs to me that we had a better chance of getting some kind of reform if we had given the two houses to the Rs, if not the White House too (/barf). In that case, the Rs would have put forward a bill that was mostly tort reform, tax cuts, and dropping state lines. Nobody would make a fuss about paying for it. The Ds would cave to the Rs. The Rs would cave to The Industry (way better than the Ds have tried to). It would have been signed six months ago. It would be mostly ridiculous, BUT… I bet it would also include about half of what’s in the current bills, even though today the Rs have no choice but to hate on every last word of the Ds bills. There is more common ground in play than they let on. So we’d have some crazy deregulation schemes, and pass the buck on the long term problems, but at least we’d get something. With “60” Ds, we get no reform at all.
I expect this is how the gears will turn next year.
This is good news, so it probably won’t happen, but:
““I believe we have been invited to speak to the Senate Republicans, and we will do so,” Gibbs said during his daily press briefing.”
They’ll probably turn the cameras off this time.
Of course, they seem to have settled on the spin that Obama was “lecturing” them by answering their questions, so they can always try that again if kicks their asses the way he did in the House.
The thing the other day was the first time Obam has actually looked good since he took office. Obama should demand a monthly meeting between him and the GOP whether it’s Senators or congressmen or whatever. Even if he has to sit round a table and face them as wquals. Because they’re completely full of shit abouit what Obama wants to do and they don’t have one single credible policy themselves. Obama should take every chance he gets to show that to the public, he should publicise these things and get America watching.
I’m impressed you typed all that with one hand.
Since you omitted even the fig leaf of a smiley, I am telling you to take your insults to the BBQ Pit and leave them out of Great Debates.
[ /Modding ]
Oh drop it. You’re just too sensitive about this simply because it’s a meme that latched on to Obama with good reason.
It’s not with good reason, actually.
Sure it is. And that reason is “the Republicans can’t think of anything TRUE to criticize him with.”
That’s also the excellent reason for the “socialism” and “kenyan” stuff.
Cite?
I apologize - I forgot which forum I was in.
In a slightly more constructive phrasing: although I have a relatively positive opinion of Obama, I did find the post to which my previous remark was attached a tad…effusive…even within the context of this thread.