Centrist group in House 'will never' meet with Freedom Caucus

[geronl]

Indeed.  It's so very easy to pass something you know has no chance of ever actually becoming law.  A totally unaccountable gesture.

When it came down to making something that would get signed.... turns out to be a bit more difficult, because people can be held accountable for that. It's like being sentenced to hang: it focuses the mind wonderfully.

But why are the ones who meant it are the bad guys? The ones who would call for repeal and then support a crap sandwich are the ones we can't trust, IMO.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Democrats don't think like that.  They scratch and claw for every tiny concession they can get over the alternative of getting nothing, and look at where there strategy has put them today.

So Obamacare was a tiny concession?  I thought it was a massive fell swoop!   

Why must our side sit at the back of the bus when we win power?  Why don't we get fell swoops too? 


You talk about Democrats clawing for tiny concessions,  but the more accurate cause of their success is iron party discipline.   

I will absolutely agree with you that if we can pass a full repeal, we should.  But if we can't, then how does doing nothing help us?

Obamacare becomes increasingly worse.  Perhaps people will get their fill of this idea that the Government should be involved in healthcare.   


Something else the Democrats do is to set up for future success by insisting on an intractable ideological point in the present.  (Don't ask don't tell.)   

[DiogenesLamp]

Indeed.  It's so very easy to pass something you know has no chance of ever actually becoming law.  A totally unaccountable gesture.

Which argues it's own solution.   Make them accountable for lying by making certain their constituents know they lied, deliberately,  and as a meaningless gesture.   


Now if we only had a trillion dollar broadcast infrastructure like the Democrats posses... 

[Jazzhead]

So Obamacare was a tiny concession?  I thought it was a massive fell swoop!   

Why must our side sit at the back of the bus when we win power?  Why don't we get fell swoops too?

"Our side" transposed in the context of the Democrats means the far left, the ones who want single payer, and who pressed hard for a robust "public option" as part of the ACA.   They didn't get it - they had to settle for a bill that satisfied the centrists in the Democratic Party, which is why the ACA includes such things as the individual mandate,  an idea straight out of seventies conservative think tanks!    There's a reason that Mitt Romney was criticized for the similarities between RomneyCare and the ACA.   It wasn't a bill intended primarily to satisfy the hard left - but the hard left went along with it because they saw it as a step in the right direction.   

You talk about Democrats clawing for tiny concessions,  but the more accurate cause of their success is iron party discipline. 

That's correct - to get the ACA passed, Dem leadership told the far left to accept half a loaf, and they agreed. 

[r9etb]

But why are the ones who meant it are the bad guys? The ones who would call for repeal and then support a crap sandwich are the ones we can't trust, IMO.

There are plenty of bad guys to go around on this one.  Ryan's roll-out of this plan was very poorly executed.  Neither the "moderates" nor the "conservatives" seem to have any interest in finding common ground, and thus guarantee that the current unsupportable situation will continue.

The problem I have with the FC is that they're such "principled" fellows that they'd apparently lose everything, rather than accept incremental gains. 

It pretty much seems that they won't work with anybody who's not willing to give them 100% of what they want.  And so ... nobody's going to work with them, and the effective majority in the House transitions to the Democrats.

To get anywhere at all, is going to require the GOP to figure out how to put together a bill that will allow members from across the political spectrum to vote for it.  Nobody's going to get everything they want.  Everybody's going to have to bend a little.

[txradioguy]

That's correct - to get the ACA passed, Dem leadership told the far left to accept half a loaf, and they agreed.

No they were told it would have to be done in stages.  Obama laid out the ground work for this plan early on:

In 2003, as a state Senator in Illinois, Obama publicly supported single payer.

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program,” Obama said at the time. “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/12/obama-obamacare-and-single-payer/

Now it looks like Trump wants to finish what Obama started.

[DiogenesLamp]

"Our side" transposed in the context of the Democrats means the far left, the ones who want single payer, and who pressed hard for a robust "public option" as part of the ACA.   They didn't get it - they had to settle for a bill that satisfied the centrists in the Democratic Party, which is why the ACA includes such things as the individual mandate,  an idea straight out of seventies conservative think tanks! 

They won *EVERYTHING*  regarding the only part that matters;   The principle that government would be involved in Health Care.   It's like negotiating for a rape and winning penetration.   You may not have gotten as much as you wanted,  but you got *ALL*  of the only part that mattered.   

  There's a reason that Mitt Romney was criticized for the similarities between RomneyCare and the ACA.   It wasn't a bill intended primarily to satisfy the hard left - but the hard left went along with it because they saw it as a step in the right direction.   

Because it concedes the principle involved.  It establishes the premise under which all future debate will take place. 

That's correct - to get the ACA passed, Dem leadership told the far left to accept half a loaf, and they agreed.

You have that backwards.   They told the non-far-left to accept all of a principle.   The hard left got all of the only piece that mattered.  The rest is details and trivia.   

[bolobaby]

Oh good grief @txradioguy -- please try and connect all the dots.  The HFC is the problem in that they want it their way at 100% or they threatened to shut everything down.

Since you appear to have such close ties to them, why not suggest to them this is no way to govern and remind them of Reagan's 80/20 rule. 



PS:  don't forget to add the "@" when "quoting" a poster:   @DCPatriot @Jazzhead

@Right_in_Virginia

Gee... invoking Reagan again. But I see that when I asked you to invoke Reagan in *this* post...

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,256231.msg1276313.html#msg1276313

...you suddenly went missing.

What's the matter? Did the emperor suddenly realize the she had no clothes?

You need to stop invoking Reagan when Trump does things that Reagan would never, ever do. Also, moving your account to TOS would probably help your case, too.

[DiogenesLamp]

The problem I have with the FC is that they're such "principled" fellows that they'd apparently lose everything, rather than accept incremental gains. 

Losing the fight over the principle involved can never be assuaged by whatever minor operating details are conceded.   Lose the "gay marriage"  fight,  and you will be baking gay wedding cakes whether you like it or not.   Anyone who has watched how this stuff works,  knows that if you lose the principle involved,  the rest of your objections will also be swept away eventually.   

It pretty much seems that they won't work with anybody who's not willing to give them 100% of what they want.  And so ... nobody's going to work with them, and the effective majority in the House transitions to the Democrats.

Democrats with an "(R)"  behind their names.

To get anywhere at all, is going to require the GOP to figure out how to put together a bill that will allow members from across the political spectrum to vote for it.  Nobody's going to get everything they want.  Everybody's going to have to bend a little.

Yeah,  the many bills they had previously voted for are simply not good enough,  because they were lying back then,  and now they are telling us that they sorta like socialized medicine because it helps their corporate donors save money. 

They are probably also in favor of the US Government absorbing their corporate donor's failing pension systems.   

[r9etb]

Losingthefightovertheprincipleinvolvedcanneverbeassuagedbywhateverminoroperatingdetailsareconceded.Losethe"gaymarriage"fight,andyouwillbebaking
gayweddingcakeswhetheryoulikeitornot.Anyonewhohaswatchedhowthisstuffworks,knowsthatifyoulosetheprincipleinvolved,therestofyourobjectionswillalsobesweptawayeventually.
Democratswithan"R)"behindtheirnames.Yeah,themanybillstheyhadpreviouslyvotedforaresimplynotgoodenough,becausetheywerelyingbackthen,andnowtheyaretellingust
hattheysortalikesocializedmedicinebecauseithelpstheircorporatedonorssavemoney.TheyareprobablyalsoinfavoroftheUSGovernmentabsorbingtheircorporatedonor'sfailingpensionsystems.

All of that to say, you'd rather lose.

[Jazzhead]

No they were told it would have to be done in stages.  .

And so the Freedom Caucus was told that more conservative reforms would occur in stages 2 and 3.   The difference is that the hard left compromised to move its agenda along,  while the FC refused to compromise and its insistence on purity ended up restoring the leftist status quo.   

[DiogenesLamp]

All of that to say, you'd rather lose.

To speak more slowly so that you might better understand:


"I'd rather lose a battle than lose the war." 

[Sanguine]

And so the Freedom Caucus was told that more conservative reforms would occur in stages 2 and 3.   The difference is that the hard left compromised to move its agenda along,  while the FC refused to compromise and its insistence on purity ended up restoring the leftist status quo.

"The hard left compromised to move its agenda along"   

What exactly did they compromise on @Jazzhead?

[txradioguy]

And so the Freedom Caucus was told that more conservative reforms would occur in stages 2 and 3.   The difference is that the hard left compromised to move its agenda along,  while the FC refused to compromise and its insistence on purity ended up restoring the leftist status quo.

And that's not what the Republicans got elected promising.  There was no "three buckets" pledge if Candidate X got sent to Washington.

The hard left...of which you are a part...NEVER compromises on anything...it's either their way or they destroy those that oppose them.

And again I will point out...it wasn't the Freedom Caucus that sunk this measure.  But drones like you and others here just follow Trump's lead and blame whomever he tells you to blame via twitter.

[Hondo69]

And so the Freedom Caucus was told that more conservative reforms would occur in stages 2 and 3.

Shall we take a walk down memory lane and do a quick review on how that strategy has worked out in the past?

[Jazzhead]

"The hard left compromised to move its agenda along"   

What exactly did they compromise on @Jazzhead?

They wanted single payer and instead settled for a federal version of RomneyCare.   

[Jazzhead]

And that's not what the Republicans got elected promising.  There was no "three buckets" pledge if Candidate X got sent to Washington.

The hard left...of which you are a part...NEVER compromises on anything...it's either their way or they destroy those that oppose them.

And again I will point out...it wasn't the Freedom Caucus that sunk this measure.  But drones like you and others here just follow Trump's lead and blame whomever he tells you to blame via twitter.

Oh, stop whining.

[txradioguy]

They wanted single payer and instead settled for a federal version of RomneyCare.

They "settled" for nothing...they got exactly what they wanted...having learned the lessons from their failure under Bill Clinton to get a "compromise" with the GOP passed.

They completely shut out Republicans...accepted no changes to the bill and passed it with absolutely every single member of the House voting for it.

Then Harry Reid used some downright dirty tricks to pass it in the Senate.

If you honestly don't think the Dems didn't know what they were doing...you're more clueless than some people here give you credit for.

[DiogenesLamp]

They wanted single payer and instead settled for a federal version of RomneyCare.

No,  that was just their bargaining position.   What they wanted was to establish the principle that government should be intimately involved in Health Care.   


They got that.   They got 100% of that.   


Don't you know how this bargaining stuff works?  You always ask for far more than you want.   

[skeeter]

And that's not what the Republicans got elected promising.  There was no "three buckets" pledge if Candidate X got sent to Washington.

The hard left...of which you are a part...NEVER compromises on anything...it's either their way or they destroy those that oppose them.

And again I will point out...it wasn't the Freedom Caucus that sunk this measure.  But drones like you and others here just follow Trump's lead and blame whomever he tells you to blame via twitter.

It's so disheartening to see the GOPe, now under Trump, going back to the same old play - offer up lame half baked socialism as an answer to the left, toss in a scrap or two obstensibly for the benefit of conservatives, then drop the hammer on conservatives when they refuse to play along.

And all we're asking is that they fulfil their promises.

[INVAR]

Losing the fight over the principle involved can never be assuaged by whatever minor operating details are conceded.   Lose the "gay marriage"  fight,  and you will be baking gay wedding cakes whether you like it or not.   Anyone who has watched how this stuff works,  knows that if you lose the principle involved,  the rest of your objections will also be swept away eventually.   

Great wisdom posted there in that statement folks.  Read it again and recognize what is being demanded of us by those who tell us that we need to support maybe getting a partial loaf instead of insisting in a full loaf, or risk getting none.

We surrender the principle, we surrender everything - even if we are being beguiled with a partial loaf.

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

What's the matter? Did the emperor suddenly realize the she had no clothes?

I've already addressed this @bolobaby, but since I'm sensing you're bored, I'll give it one last shot:  I limit the amount of time and energy I waste during a day.  Haters gonna hate Bolobaby --- and neither fact nor reason will change that.  I've simply chosen to let the haters spew and carry on without interruption.  I apologize if this shortens your playtime.

You need to stop invoking Reagan when Trump does things that Reagan would never, ever do. Also, moving your account to TOS would probably help your case, too.

If only you had the power and the right to tell me or even suggest to me what I should and should not do -- this would be a damned powerful statement Bolobay.  But, all you did was waste my time ... yet again.   I will be checking every now and then to see if you change this, so keep trying.   I'm rooting for you! 

   

[Jazzhead]

And all we're asking is that they fulfil their promises.

The votes aren't there.  The real world is a fine place to live - try it sometime.   

[Jazzhead]

We surrender the principle, we surrender everything - even if we are being beguiled with a partial loaf.

We stood for principle when the ACA was passed - not one Republican voted for it.

But now the task is a pragmatic one - how to undo the damage.   

Martyrdom is, well, just selfish and stupid.   

[skeeter]

The votes aren't there.  The real world is a fine place to live - try it sometime.

Sounds like a miserable, cynical place.

No thanks. I'll keep insisting on something better.