• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Exclusive: Obama to include Republicans in hard-hitting convention

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Advisers to President Barack Obama are scripting a Democratic National Convention featuring several Republicans in a prime-time appeal to independents — and planning a blistering portrayal of Mitt Romney as a heartless aristocrat who “would devastate the American middle class,” Democratic sources tell POLITICO.

Convention planners are considering featuring a centrist Republican leader on at least two of the three nights. Nightly remotes from swing states may include a CEO or “major Republican.” On Wednesday night, a “notable GOP woman” is among the possible participants. And on the final night, Democrats may include a Republican leader — someone like former Sens. John Warner or Chuck Hagel — or a GOP woman.
Click to expand...


Read more @: Exclusive: Obama to include Republicans in hard-hitting convention - POLITICO.com

Sounds like quite the strategy. Planning on having 3 or 4 republicans speak at the convention, mostly who would be considered "centrist republicans". I think this will pay off. Also want to appeal to the "everyday man" by having "everyday men/women" speak at the convention and speak about how the policies enacted in the past couple years helped them.
 
This seems entirely in line with President Obama's dedication to bipartisanship. Contrary to the the narrative that comes from the far right, the president is pretty solidly in the center.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Exclusive: Obama to include Republicans in hard-hitting convention - POLITICO.com

Sounds like quite the strategy. Planning on having 3 or 4 republicans speak at the convention, mostly who would be considered "centrist republicans". I think this will pay off. Also want to appeal to the "everyday man" by having "everyday men/women" speak at the convention and speak about how the policies enacted in the past couple years helped them.
Click to expand...

I agree. Quite the strategy. I'm surprised any worthwhile Republican politicians would show their faces. I'd say they'd better plan on switching parties if they intend to have a future. As to the every-day men/women speaking? If they're as honest as I think they're going to be, it'll probably be just more bull****. It may just blow up in their faces.

The big question is: "Do we want to march even further down to the path to socialism? Or not."

Sooner or later, we'll realize that "from each according to their ability; to each according to their need" doesn't work.**

And that's because "from each according to their ability" is only talking about money. Not effort.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
This seems entirely in line with President Obama's dedication to bipartisanship. Contrary to the the narrative that comes from the far right, the president is pretty solidly in the center.
Click to expand...

Bipartisanship? Please explain to me how the ACA showed one iota of bipartisanship. Does "shoving it down Republicans' throats because we can" ring a bell?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Exclusive: Obama to include Republicans in hard-hitting convention - POLITICO.com

Sounds like quite the strategy. Planning on having 3 or 4 republicans speak at the convention, mostly who would be considered "centrist republicans". I think this will pay off. Also want to appeal to the "everyday man" by having "everyday men/women" speak at the convention and speak about how the policies enacted in the past couple years helped them.
Click to expand...

Hard hitting convention?

You mean the Democrat Convention isn't going to be about Hope and Change and how wonderful the country is doing under Obama's leadership?

Damn and here I was thinking Obama was going to run on his record
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Exclusive: Obama to include Republicans in hard-hitting convention - POLITICO.com

Sounds like quite the strategy. Planning on having 3 or 4 republicans speak at the convention, mostly who would be considered "centrist republicans". I think this will pay off. Also want to appeal to the "everyday man" by having "everyday men/women" speak at the convention and speak about how the policies enacted in the past couple years helped them.
Click to expand...

Could be interesting. One to see how it goes, two to see if the response and critique of their speeches are similar to what Zell Miller and the Republicans got in 2004 which I don't remember being exactly positive.
 
Paschendale said:
This seems entirely in line with President Obama's dedication to bipartisanship. Contrary to the the narrative that comes from the far right, the president is pretty solidly in the center.
Click to expand...

Please provide your definition of "bipartisanship" so I know exactly how to respond to this wonderful claim....
 
Zyphlin said:
Please provide your definition of "bipartisanship" so I know exactly how to respond to this wonderful claim....
Click to expand...

Obama tried to be bipartisan when he first came into office and you know it. His own party was getting piss at him for caving to the republicans. I think after the debt ceiling crap is when he finally woke up and realize that the repubs are not seeking to compromise and your tea party verbally made that clear. They were taking advantage of his naiveness and it was pissing demacrats off.

You guys got your Bush tax cuts extended, Gitmo is still open, and Boehner himself said that he got 99% of what he wanted. Most of the policies that Obama pass lean to the center right and you know it.
 
MaggieD said:
I agree. Quite the strategy. I'm surprised any worthwhile Republican politicians would show their faces. I'd say they'd better plan on switching parties if they intend to have a future. As to the every-day men/women speaking? If they're as honest as I think they're going to be, it'll probably be just more bull****. It may just blow up in their faces.
Click to expand...

If I were to guess, the "Republican" males would be either Colon Powell or one of the other bitter poli-lifers that were ousted this year. As far as the woman, obvious it will be Sen. Snowe. Both Powell and Snowe are left of center moderates anyway.
 
Zyphlin said:
Could be interesting. One to see how it goes, two to see if the response and critique of their speeches are similar to what Zell Miller and the Republicans got in 2004 which I don't remember being exactly positive.
Click to expand...

That was my thought. The media portrayal of Miller wasn't exactly as a brave truth-teller.

Nor that of Ron Silver.

And let's not forget Joe Lieberman.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
Bipartisanship? Please explain to me how the ACA showed one iota of bipartisanship. Does "shoving it down Republicans' throats because we can" ring a bell?
Click to expand...

Haha, of course.

The individual mandate was a republican idea that should have had absolutely no struggle getting though congress. Even people like Senator DeMint was a huge fan of it until Obama and the democrats liked it also ( DeMint on RomneyCare in 2007: ‘That’s something that I think we should do for the whole country’ - Daily Kos TV (beta) ). Not to mention that conservative organizations like the heritage foundation and leaders like Newt Gingrich have praised the idea fervently before the democrats tried to pass it. That right there, the fact that democrats took the very least aggressive approach to fixing health care (no single payer, no public option etc.) and that the exact same republicans who loved this idea before now screamed from the roof tops that it's a government take over of healthcare, should be enough evidence for anyone who the people were that would not go for bipartisanship.

Also, the idea that it was shoved down Republicans throats is laughable. It was passed with 60 votes in the senate after having the MOST EXTENSIVE COVERAGE that any bill has ever had as long as I've been alive and there's a good chance the most coverage ever. Along with that , the democrats in the House completely skipped over the deem and pass rule that they could have used to pass the reconciliation bill for health care in order to make it easier to pass, and instead just took a straight up or down vote on it.

I say this with 100% certainty. If we had a Republican president and a republican congress and they had proposed the exact same legislation, you would have 80% of conservatives on board right off the bat, and you would have major conservative leaders all over the airwaves praising the idea (just as the video of Jim Demint does) for being an amazing free market solution that makes people take responsibility for their own healthcare costs.
 
MaggieD said:
Bipartisanship? Please explain to me how the ACA showed one iota of bipartisanship.
Click to expand...

I'd say the fact that the plan is based on a Republican plan produced by the Heritage Foundation and enacted by Mitt Romney counts as about a ton of *attempted* bipartisanship. Likewise, the jettisoning of the public option in a fruitless attempt to peel off even one or two Republicans. Unfortunately, like the Tango, it takes two to bipartisan.
 
Last edited:
roughdraft274 said:
Haha, of course.

The individual mandate was a republican idea that should have had absolutely no struggle getting though congress. Even people like Senator DeMint was a huge fan of it until Obama and the democrats liked it also ( DeMint on RomneyCare in 2007: ‘That’s something that I think we should do for the whole country’ - Daily Kos TV (beta) ). Not to mention that conservative organizations like the heritage foundation and leaders like Newt Gingrich have praised the idea fervently before the democrats tried to pass it. That right there, the fact that democrats took the very least aggressive approach to fixing health care (no single payer, no public option etc.) and that the exact same republicans who loved this idea before now screamed from the roof tops that it's a government take over of healthcare, should be enough evidence for anyone who the people were that would not go for bipartisanship.

Also, the idea that it was shoved down Republicans throats is laughable. It was passed with 60 votes in the senate after having the MOST EXTENSIVE COVERAGE that any bill has ever had as long as I've been alive and there's a good chance the most coverage ever. Along with that , the democrats in the House completely skipped over the deem and pass rule that they could have used to pass the reconciliation bill for health care in order to make it easier to pass, and instead just took a straight up or down vote on it.

I say this with 100% certainty. If we had a Republican president and a republican congress and they had proposed the exact same legislation, you would have 80% of conservatives on board right off the bat, and you would have major conservative leaders all over the airwaves praising the idea (just as the video of Jim Demint does) for being an amazing free market solution that makes people take responsibility for their own healthcare costs.
Click to expand...

I'm so tired of these bogus talking points you sheep keep bleeting that you picked up from Media Matters

Let's set the record straight one last time. It's very simple:

1. RomneyCare is at the state level. This was the intention of the Founding Fathers. States are supposed to be able to experiment with things like this. The Federal Government is not.

2. The "Heritage Mandate" as it was known was killed by prominent conservatives before it saw the light of day. The historical context of the time was a bi-partisan effort to come to some agreement in regards to HillaryCare

Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate

So why the change in this position in the past 20 years?

First, health research and advances in economic analysis have convinced people like me that an insurance mandate isn't needed to achieve stable, near-universal coverage. For example, the new field of behavioral economics taught me that default auto-enrollment in employer or nonemployer insurance plans can lead many people to buy coverage without a requirement.

Also, advances in "risk adjustment" tools are improving the stability of voluntary insurance. And Heritage-funded research on federal employees' coverage — which has no mandate — caused me to conclude we had made a mistake in the 1990s. That's why we believe that President Obama and others are dead wrong about the need for a mandate.

Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have "invented" has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders.

Moreover, I agree with my legal colleagues at Heritage that today's version of a mandate exceeds the constitutional powers granted to the federal government. Forcing those Americans not in the insurance market to purchase comprehensive insurance for themselves goes beyond even the most expansive precedents of the courts.
Click to expand...

The fact that you have to source Daily Kos to try push this lie is laughable
 
Last edited:
Hmmm. Spirit of bipartisanship.

I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.
Click to expand...

And.

THE PRESIDENT: Philadelphia, they can't have the keys back. They don't know how to drive. (Applause.) They don't know how to drive. They can ride with us if they want, but they got to get in the back seat. (Applause.) Because we want to go forward. We don't want the special interests riding shotgun. We want working families, middle-class families, up front. They're our priority.
Click to expand...

And

We can't -- we don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they got to sit in back. (Laughter.)
Click to expand...
 
MaggieD said:
Bipartisanship? Please explain to me how the ACA showed one iota of bipartisanship. Does "shoving it down Republicans' throats because we can" ring a bell?
Click to expand...

You do know that the ACA was a republican idea until Obama wanted it, right?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Exclusive: Obama to include Republicans in hard-hitting convention - POLITICO.com

Sounds like quite the strategy. Planning on having 3 or 4 republicans speak at the convention, mostly who would be considered "centrist republicans". I think this will pay off. Also want to appeal to the "everyday man" by having "everyday men/women" speak at the convention and speak about how the policies enacted in the past couple years helped them.
Click to expand...

Interesting for sure. When the smoke clears the street, it will be interesting to see how the voting goes down. Since there will be no functional difference between Obama and Romney, I kinda hope that the GOP gets crushed. Maybe that will spur them to obtain actual candidates.
 
rcart76 said:
Obama tried to be bipartisan when he first came into office and you know it. His own party was getting piss at him for caving to the republicans. I think after the debt ceiling crap is when he finally woke up and realize that the repubs are not seeking to compromise and your tea party verbally made that clear. They were taking advantage of his naiveness and it was pissing demacrats off.

You guys got your Bush tax cuts extended, Gitmo is still open, and Boehner himself said that he got 99% of what he wanted. Most of the policies that Obama pass lean to the center right and you know it.
Click to expand...

That only happened after the 2010 elections when he lost the house. Prior to that he said screw you, I won you lost.
 
MaggieD said:
I agree. Quite the strategy. I'm surprised any worthwhile Republican politicians would show their faces. I'd say they'd better plan on switching parties if they intend to have a future. As to the every-day men/women speaking? If they're as honest as I think they're going to be, it'll probably be just more bull****. It may just blow up in their faces.

The big question is: "Do we want to march even further down to the path to socialism? Or not."

Sooner or later, we'll realize that "from each according to their ability; to each according to their need" doesn't work.**

And that's because "from each according to their ability" is only talking about money. Not effort.
Click to expand...

LoLz. WHen in doubt, claim the other guy is a socilaist commie. Don't forget to tell us about how he is a muslim from Kenya to get the full set.
 
Carleen said:
You do know that the ACA was a republican idea until Obama wanted it, right?
Click to expand...

You know Romneycare is a state idea, Obamacare is a country idea, huge difference. This is called states rights. Further if you don't like what a particular state is doing, you just move to another state. This is common practice with businesses and individuals.

Obamacare is not a good idea for the country, which is why 30 states sued to kill it, and why the majority of people want to repeal it.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Please provide your definition of "bipartisanship" so I know exactly how to respond to this wonderful claim....
Click to expand...

I was told this morning that one democrat signing onto a republican bill made it bipartisan.
 
Bronson said:
I'm so tired of these bogus talking points you sheep keep bleeting that you picked up from Media Matters

Let's set the record straight one last time. It's very simple:

1. RomneyCare is at the state level. This was the intention of the Founding Fathers. States are supposed to be able to experiment with things like this. The Federal Government is not.

2. The "Heritage Mandate" as it was known was killed by prominent conservatives before it saw the light of day. The historical context of the time was a bi-partisan effort to come to some agreement in regards to HillaryCare

Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate



The fact that you have to source Daily Kos to try push this lie is laughable
Click to expand...

The only thing I used the daily kos for is to show a video. If you want to argue that they video is out of context, but don't be cowardly and act as though my entire argument rested upon something in the daily kos.

I don't read media matters. Go bark up another tree.

1. Ok, so socialism is ok only at the state level? How stupid do you sound right now, lol. Apparently the federal government is allowed if you'd care to actually read the supreme court ruling.

2. it wasn't killed by prominent conservatives. Regardless, there were people that actually sponsored the republican bill with an individual mandate in the clinton days, Sen. Grassley and Hatch for example, that voted against ObamaCare and it's individual mandate. The only reason for his switch? Politics.

Did you read your own source?

But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.
Click to expand...

So you post a source saying the difference between obamacare and there bill is that there's only imposed a tax on those that went without heath insurance rather than make an actual legal requirement (the exact same ****ing thing that obamecare does, jesus christ...) and that they really liked it because it would prevent hospitals or taxpayers from footing the bill from catastrophic injuries to the uninsured (one of the samd ****ing reasons that the individual mandate was passed in ObamaCare!). Read your source, it was the same thing, lol.

And this is my last response to you. I'm not going to go out of my way to educate someone that doesn't even read the sources that he posts, and lies about what I posted. You have fun now.
 
MaggieD said:
Bipartisanship? Please explain to me how the ACA showed one iota of bipartisanship. Does "shoving it down Republicans' throats because we can" ring a bell?
Click to expand...

Of course. That line was complete and total bull. If it had been shoved down anyone's throat, it would have been the public option, which is what the left actually wanted. With a Democrat controlled white house and congress, very little compromise would have been required. Filibusters not withstanding. Instead, it was watered down into a pro big business bill that incidentally helps people get health care. That it was batted around for so long and huge concessions were made to Republicans and the final version was modeled on a Republican plan from Massachusetts proves how bipartisan it really was.

The right wing has been whining nonstop since the 2008 election. Crying wolf about the horrible communist/anti-white racist/secret Muslim/anti American out to destroy the economy... It's been ridiculous. The president spent two full years trying to play ball with a completely obstructionist Republican party whose sole objective has been to make the president look bad so that their candidate, whoever it was going to be, could take the white house. They have sacrificed their duty as elected officials for power-mongering. Governance is compromise, and compromise has been extremely one sided these last few years. Examine the congressional record. Look at the modifications to the major legislation. Lots of obstruction, and minimal activity from Republicans that actually push any kind of positive change. Even their wrong-headed brand of what they think is positive change. It's been primarily obstruction, refusing to even address problems, and only taking a serious stand to protect big business and tax cuts for the rich.
 
rcart76 said:
Obama tried to be bipartisan when he first came into office and you know it.
Click to expand...

Again, please define what you mean by bipartisan. In discussing this issue with people I've found that people have HUGELY varying opinions on what constitutes Bipartisanship, bipartisan legislation, bipartisan action, etc. Unless you define your definition of bipartisanship it's useless to discuss it because there's a great chance that an entire argument will be worthless because you're operating off definition D instead of definition A.

Are you saying your definition of bipartisanship is taking action that gets your own party pissed at you?
 
Bronson said:
Hard hitting convention?

You mean the Democrat Convention isn't going to be about Hope and Change and how wonderful the country is doing under Obama's leadership?

Damn and here I was thinking Obama was going to run on his record
Click to expand...

You'll hear plenty on his record

OBL-is-Dead2.jpg
 
MaggieD said:
Bipartisanship? Please explain to me how the ACA showed one iota of bipartisanship. Does "shoving it down Republicans' throats because we can" ring a bell?
Click to expand...

Obama made plenty of concessions on that. He dumped the public option and went with the GOP/Romney plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom