The Campaign is over...

[EriktheRed]

I found Obama's comments to Senator McCain to be patronizing, egotistical, snide and uncalled for!

As were McCain's to him. Every politician KNOWS that their Campaign promises cannot all be kept, and every Politician(ever), in order to become elected, has engaged in some of these empty Campaign promises..................so you'd think in a meeting to discuss the details of Health reform for struggling American families, it's a bit frivolous and snide to bring up "gotcha's" when they've nothing to do with the discussion of reform.

ETA: In the spirit of being a 5 year-old, I'd say "McCain started it." But really, who cares>?

McCain has made it pretty obvious for a while now he's bitter about getting beaten by him.

 

[beowolfe]

p.s. Just to clarify as to why this isn't your garden-variety Mexican standoff...

Each party ostensibly has a baseline of core values that differentiates it from the other party. There's a finite limit to what can be tolerated or accepted by either party. Democrats are operating under the line. They've taken an extreme ideological position, that violates core Republican principles, and are attempting to ram it through.

You can't vote for "individual mandates" and legislation which controls every aspect of a private industry and still call yourself a Republican.

So... what exactly is it that Republicans are asking for which fatally violates core Democrat principles?

And just what do you see as the 'extreme ideological' position take by democrats and what core Republican principles does this supposed 'extreme ideological' position violate?

Huh? I named two of them for starters in the above post.

There are more. I've got to get out of here for awhile, so I'll check back later. By then, maybe you can site an example or two of how proposed Republican legislation is violating your core principles.

I don't think either party has any 'core principles' that are sacrosanct. As an example, I give you the Bush administration which grew the government more than any democrat that's been POTUS since LBJ. As for insurance, if they were trying to control every aspect of the insurance, it seems to me that they would have proposed a single payer system if that were their goal.

 

[Oldandtired]

And just what do you see as the 'extreme ideological' position take by democrats and what core Republican principles does this supposed 'extreme ideological' position violate?

Huh? I named two of them for starters in the above post.

There are more. I've got to get out of here for awhile, so I'll check back later. By then, maybe you can site an example or two of how proposed Republican legislation is violating your core principles.

I don't think either party has any 'core principles' that are sacrosanct. As an example, I give you the Bush administration which grew the government more than any democrat that's been POTUS since LBJ. As for insurance, if they were trying to control every aspect of the insurance, it seems to me that they would have proposed a single payer system if that were their goal.

I believe they debated it amongst each other (the democrats) and a single payer system neverf would have made it through the house.
But it was proposed.

 

[Murf76]

I don't think either party has any 'core principles' that are sacrosanct. As an example, I give you the Bush administration which grew the government more than any democrat that's been POTUS since LBJ. As for insurance, if they were trying to control every aspect of the insurance, it seems to me that they would have proposed a single payer system if that were their goal.

So what you're telling me essentially is that your party has no discernible core principles and that you can't name any examples of previous presidents who engaged in "perpetual campaigns" on par with Obama's website and his personal logo?

Don't get me wrong. I do think there's been quite a bit of confusion about the defining principles of each party. 2006 and 2008 didn't happen in a vacuum. Republicans, for too long, have been failing to confine themselves to Republicanism.

I don't often link to Wiki... but here's a couple of paragraphs that aren't too bad,

Democracy and republic

In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[16] The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.[17]

The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure. What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[18] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." Also, as Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him Sir, what have you given us?. He replied A republic ma'am, if you can keep it.

Republicanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lately, we've been seeing lots of different Republican groups putting out lists of "core principles". It's a sometimes contentious discussion, but a necessary one. On the path to socialism, it's like the race between the tortoise and the hare. One's moving faster than the other... but they're both headed in the same direction.

The Republican leadership is beginning to understand that this is unacceptable, and that the GOP must stand for something if it doesn't want to be left twisting in the wind like in 2006 and 2008. So, we see a new effort underway to define the basic principles of Republicanism, to coalesce around a handful of bulletpoints that can be used as a lens through which we view modern issues. On these lists, we'll find things like federalism, limited central government, constitutional law, national security, free market capitalism, minimal taxation, individual liberty, personal responsibility, ethical behavior etc.

There are lots of people verbalizing this handful of principles in their own way, but what they have in common can be summed up just fine in the founders quotes listed above.

Republicanism in America isn't about growing central government, it's about democracy on a fixed framework of Constitutional Law.

Consider Madison's quote in bold above.... Do you see the difference? Do you see why "nationalizing" private industry and centralizing power weakens us? Do you see the "faction" that already plagues us through the overuse of mob rule?

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch". It's a lovely tool IN ITS PLACE... but it is not a reliable form of government all on its own.

In my two earlier examples, the "individual mandate" violates core Republicanism because it expands central government and violates the Constitution. The government cannot mandate that a citizen buy a commercial product. There's no enumerated power to do that.
The onerous level of regulation by the federal government intended to be legislated upon the private insurance industry would dictate what product could be sold, who it must be sold to, what the prices must be, and would remove limits and caps. It is a seizure of the industry in all but name, which leaves these companies unable to manage their own risk pools and thus unstable. Again, it grows central government and there is no enumerated power in the Constitution to seize these private companies.