(06-27-2015 05:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote: (06-27-2015 05:24 PM)bullet Wrote: (06-27-2015 05:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote: Obama care is the perfect example. Obama included many republican ideas in order to compromise. The republicans abandoned those ideas. Rubio and McCain have also walked away from their own proposals when they discovered that democrats would support them.
Do you really believe what you write? He completely shut them out of the negotiations for the bill.
Read this
http://www.eclectablog.com/2013/08/10-id...ident.html
Obviously biased perspective, note the source. There are a lot of half truths and a few outright lies there. And one or maybe two valid points.
The individual mandate that republicans supported in 1994 was a provision that operated differently, within the concept of an entirely different approach to health care from Obamacare. And it's not that republicans opposed the mandate per se, many thought it was the best part of Obamacare (an opinion with which I concur). It's that they opposed Obamacare in general, and chose to attack the mandate in the legal system as an impermissible extension of interstate commerce, because that was believed to be the most vulnerable part of the bill. And a majority of the Supreme Court agreed with them. What save the law is that the Chief Justice decided to buy the lie that the president's lawyers were selling and call it a tax, despite consistent and repeated denials from its supporters that it was a tax. Had Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al, been honest from the start and described it as a tax, the mandate is not where the legal challenge would have been launched. But honesty is not a strength for any of those listed. One Pinocchio.
End-of-life counseling does not constitute the "death panels" that republicans oppose (except for Palin, who is not exactly the brightest crayon in the box). The true "death panels" are IPAB, HCC, and CCO, none of which have fully kicked in yet. I'll give them a partially correct here.
The DISCLOSE Act did contain some provisions that republicans had supported in the past. Republicans didn't change and start opposing those provisions, contrary to what the blog suggests. They opposed the DISCLOSE Act because it also included a bunch of additional provisions that were unacceptable to them. Two Pinocchios.
Republicans supported some reasonable clean energy proposals and balked at some others as counterproductive. The specific clean energy proposals they supported are different from the other "clean energy" proposals they opposed. They didn't change their position on clean energy. But calling a bad proposal a "clean energy" proposal does;t change it into a good proposal. Three Pinocchios.
The comment about medicare cost saving is taking two different proposals and pretending they were the same. They didn't favor one and oppose another because they changed on a matter of principle. They favored one but opposed the other because they were two different proposals. Even the sketchy description in the blog makes that clear., Four Pinocchios.
I'll give him the point about the deficit reduction commission. I've made it pretty clear on here that republican treatment of the deficit reduction issue (along with failure to provide a better alternative to Obamacare) is pretty much where I broke it off with them.
Like so many other points in the article, the welfare flexibility proposals that republicans backed were substantively different from the Obama proposals that they opposed. Five Pinocchios.
Same for the START treaty. The Reagan/Bush treaty that republicans supported was substantively different from the Obama one that they opposed. Six Pinocchios.
Same for the gun control issues. The "assault weapons" ban expired in 2004 under GWB, not Obama, and was not extended in large part because available data did not suggest that it had a materially positive impact. Again, the provisions that republicans opposed under Obama are not the same as the ones they favored earlier. Seven Pinocchios.
As for the last point, I can't speak for anyone else, but my very first post on the issue stated that as long as Obama's mother was a US citizen, it mattered not where he was born (I think my words were that he could have been born on the moon), he was a natural born citizen. Same for Cruz. Just like George Romney (Mitt's father) a generation ago, and for that matter Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was still a territory, not a state. It's a non-issue.
I'll add one more of my own. Leftists keep saying the Obamacare exchanges were a republican idea. The purpose of republican exchanges was to facilitate the purchase of health insurance interstate from out-of-state providers, just as they are used in Germany, which is where Heritage got a lot of the ideas for its proposal. But Obamacare does not allow interstate purchase of health insurance. So it defeats the purpose of republican exchanges. Therefore the Obamacare exchanges are a republican word but not a republican idea.
That's what a lot of this article is doing, taking a word used by republicans and failing to note that the word was given substantially different substantive meaning by democrats. It's the substantially different meaning that republicans opposed, not the original republican idea.
![[Image: harry-reid-731.jpg?w=600&h=318]](https://americanglob.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/harry-reid-731.jpg?w=600&h=318)
