Rosen vs Romney: That's what she saidFollow

So, if the Democrats can't find a "middle ground" with the GOP, they should just shrug, give themselves a hearty pat on the back for trying, and pass into law one of the most unpopular bills in recent history?
The Heritage Foundation != The GOP.

Also, the difference between State-level and Federal-level is not insignificant.

Obama has had the most success finding a centrist position when he doesn't have to drag the rest of the party along. Things that don't have to go through congress and get put up for a vote and what not. Like when he went with the compromise position on off-shore drilling, and decided to expand it on a limited scale.

Then the oil rig blew up like 3 weeks later.

Without bothering to argue that, it doesn't answer the question. Should one party hold themselves captive to the petulance of the other party even when they have the means to move forward on their own? I'd say no.

Even a "token" effort beats the hell out of a party too busy promising that this will be the president's "Waterloo" and guarantee his defeat to actually concern themselves with improving the legislation.


"The times" haven't been that far off given that, again, the current GOP nominee for president embraced the same idea for his own state. And who said it could be the model for future programs.

Again, and to restate the point, there's no sane way this can be called "extremely partisan". It can be called that by people stretching their hyperbole skills because they want to make some point or another but the facts just don't support it.

If we're still talking about the health care plan that passed, I'd just point out that it was first proposed by the Republicans. They only came down against it when it was re-proposed by the Democrats.

And if the Dems adamantly insist on forcing people who earn money to pay for benefits for those who don't, there can't BE any middle ground can there?

See how it works both ways? Finding a middle ground means looking at the things that both parties agree on, instead of focusing on the areas we don't. What Obama did was deliberately push an agenda that he knew was partisan and he knew neither side could agree on and made that the centerpiece of his first 2 years in office.

That was his choice. That was the Dems choice. If he'd wanted to reach across the aisle, he could have actually had his party and the GOP sit down and look at issues like health care, the economy, energy policy, etc and find the areas where they agreed and move forward on those things. He not only did not do this, he did the exact opposite of this.




Sure. But do you see how this goes both ways? How does deliberately focusing on the aspects of various political issues that are the most partisan and the most divisive meet his claim of "bridging the partisan divide". There's a whole hell of a lot of governance that is not so strongly disagreed upon. He choose his agenda. Not the GOP. It's more than unfair to blame the GOP for the fact that his agenda met with partisan resistance. Did anyone think that it wouldn't? So doesn't that make him responsible for the partisan outcome?



Um... Because we exist in an adversarial political system? If the GOP were tomorrow to adopt a "middle position" on say funding for contraception, or gun control, or taxes, do you think that the Dems will then meet them in the middle? If you do, you are an idiot because that's not how it works. You take the far side and then compromise towards the middle (where you can) or find areas where you can agree when you can't. That's how the system works.

What the Dems did was make their own far left demands and when the GOP didn't agree, declared the GOP the "party of No", and then proceeded with their far left agenda anyway. Now, we can certainly say that if they had the political power to do so, then that's their choice. But if you buy the whole "GOP==party of no" line, you are a sucker. That whole bit was invented so as to preemptively distract you from noticing how partisan the Dems were being. See, by doing that, then every time the GOP opposes something the Dems are doing, it's not that what the Dems are doing is a monumentally stupid thing to do, but it's just the GOP being the party of no.


Which would be a clever bit of political razzle dazzle if it weren't for the unfortunate fact that most of what the Dems did in 2009 and 2010 was actually monumentally stupid. I can see being snowed by their BS at the time, but for anyone to still repeat that tired "party of no" line today just smacks of an amazing ability to bury your head in the sand.

Jesus Joph. You seriously need to get your head out of the "Romney care is just like Obamacare" punch bowl. That's some pretty tired rhetoric there.

This coming from a guy dismissing a whole set of questionable agenda choices by the Obama administration with a simple "Obamacare is Romneycare" handwave?

And here I thought I was replying to the "OMG! The GOP was so partisan to oppose that bill" ********* that was already going on? You're right though, saying it takes two sides for something to be partisan is just so so crazy and out there. It's just crazy talk!



Yeah... So when I provide a list of areas in which Obama failed to deliver and the best you can do is zero in on just one of them, then zero in on just one aspect of it, and dismiss it because that one part of that one thing is sorta kinda similar to something else Romney did, I'm not supposed to call that a handwave? No. I think I will continue to call that exactly what it is: It's a handwave dismissal, and a pretty weak one at that.

The whole "Obamacare is Romneycare" bit was weak a year ago Joph. Maybe you missed a memo or something?

You mean when the Republicans were spouting it?

No. You responded to broad statements about how Obama's claim to reach across the aisle was false and his agenda was partisan with the same consistent silly/tired "Romneycare == Obamacare" bit. Um... That's great Joph. I think it's a stupid comparison because it fails to take into account the whole state versus federal level aspect (and several differences in the laws themselves), but how exactly does that address Obama's economic policy? Does it address his stimulus bill (which was just as partisan). Does it address his energy policy?


Health care is just one of a whole list of things that make up Obama's agenda, and upon which we can establish a clear pattern of partisan behavior. If it were just the one thing, it would be a stretch to use that to make the kind of broad statements about Obama's approach to governing that I (and other conservatives) have made. So you responding to those statements with a stupid handwave response about just one aspect of just one issue is pretty absurd.


Is Romney the same as Obama on energy policy? Is he the same on economic policy? Education? Welfare? Military? No? So what exact value does your input have on the partisan nature of Obama's agenda? Pretty much zero. I guess I find it somewhat amusing that your best defense of Obama's term in office is to find the one thing he did that is kinda sorta similar to something the guy running against him did. That's pretty darn pathetic if you stop and think about it. I'd think that if I were liberal and wanted to support my guy's agenda, I'd be looking for all the things he's done that is different from what the other guy has done (or plans to do) and show how those differences make him better.

It speaks volumes about how even liberals don't think their own agenda is very good when the best argument they have is to find things they are doing that is similar to what the GOP says they'd do differently. I mean, stop and think about it. You have to know that's a pretty pathetic argument. Hell. It's practically an admission by liberals that conservative ideas are the ones that win elections when all you seem to do is find ways to argue that what your guys are doing is really the same as what the conservatives talk about. Like I said: Weak as hell.


Don't you ever want to declare your principles and stand on them? No word games. Just say what you believe and then say why that's the better choice. Ever? Cause it seems like liberals work really hard to avoid doing this. Which seems strange and dishonest.

First off, there were many partisan things about the health care bill, and no amount of oversimplifying the issue to a single component of that bill that kinda sorta if you look at it sideways is similar to something Romney signed in Massachusetts changes that fact.

Secondly, do you see how making that (weak) argument about just the health care bill does not really answer the core point that Obama claimed during his campaign that he would be a post-partisan president and would reach across the aisle to find common ground with Republicans but has demonstrably failed to do this? Cause that was the point I was making. So if your best counter is that he was extremely partisan in a whole bunch of different areas, but there's this one bill he signed that was only just mostly partisan, you really aren't saying anything. Unless you think that "sure your honor, my client did rob 5 banks, but in one of them he didn't shoot anyone" is a great defense?



It's not about how I feel. It's about whether Obama has met the claims he made while running for office. He clearly has not only not come close to doing so, but certainly appears to have actively done the opposite when it comes to some of them. Let's also not forget that the non-partisan angle is only one of several that he's failed to meet. There's also the whole "post racial" thing, which he's consistently failed to achieve. Then there's the whole "not hiring lobbyists" bit. And the whole "eliminating waste fraud and abuse" bit. I could probably think of a few more if I thought I needed to in order to make my point.

In that context, obsessing over what is a pretty weak comparison between Romneycare and Obamacare as your best answer really does come across like a desperate attempt to change the subject.

Last word.