Thomas Frank Recently Wrote An Article That Criticized Obama Severely

[Bfgrn]

Obama didn't do anything, the law we call Obamacare came about because he sat on the sideline for an entire year and only got involved when it became perfectly clear to everyone with a brain, which obviously excludes you, that nothing was going to pass. Even when he did get involved the only thing he did was position himself as the savior of the bill in order to maintain his historic position. Believe it or not, being the first black president is not his achievement, all of you need to get over it.

Still upset because I pointed out how dogmatic you are? If you actually had facts to back up your point you would post them, the problem is that absolutely no facts exist, all that exists is one story that contains an interview from before the 2009 midterms that the pundiots from the left have backdated.

Pundiots, I like that, anyone think it will catch on?

I have posted them numerous times. But you continue to ignore the facts.

And what Republicans did during the healthcare debate should not be deemed acceptable by either side. It was dishonest, contrived, destructive, an insult to We the People who were never a consideration by the right.

"If we’re able to stop Obama on this (healthcare) it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"
Senator Jim DeMint - July, 2009

Waterloo - March 21st, 2010
By David J. Frum, former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush.


"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

...

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Thanks for proving me right by going to the article from 2010 instead of finding something from 2008.

WTF?????????

In 2008 George Bush was president, and he was ending 8 years of failing to address the healthcare crisis in America.

Healthcare costs destroyed the Bush economy

David Frum: A former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush

Posted: September 15, 2009, 4:30 PM by NP Editor

Ron Brownstein ably sums up the Census Bureau’s final report on the Bush economy.

Bottom line: not good.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked.

What went wrong?

In a word: healthcare.

Over the years from 2000 to 2007, the price that employers paid for labor rose by an average of 25% per hour. But the wages received by workers were worth less in 2007 than seven years before. All that extra money paid by employers disappeared into the healthcare system: between 2000 and 2007, the cost of the average insurance policy for a family of four doubled.

Exploding health costs vacuumed up worker incomes. Frustrated workers began telling pollsters the country was on the “wrong track” as early as 2004 – the year that George W. Bush won re-election by the narrowest margin of any re-elected president in U.S. history.

Slowing the growth of health costs is essential to raising wages – and by the way restoring Americans’ faith in the fairness of a free-market economy.

Explaining the impact of health costs on wages is essential to protecting the economic reputation of the last Republican administration and Congress.

If Republicans stick to the line that the US healthcare system works well as is – that it has no important problems that cannot be solved by tort reform – then George W. Bush and the Congresses of 2001-2007 will join Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover in the American memory’s hall of economic failures. Recovery from that stigma will demand more than a tea party.

Read more: David Frum: Healthcare costs destroyed the Bush economy - Full Comment

 

[Synthaholic]

I hope Obama, if Romney loses because of the inanity and insanity of the extremists in his party, destroys the GOP as it is. It needs to be remade for the 21st century, with the far right excluded to form their own minority party.

Here's what I predict.

When Obama wins, there will be a MAJOR backlash from the rabid right and they will rant and rave about not being right enough.

However, sober heads will prevail and the silent majority of the GOP, those saner ones will OPENLY speak out against this rabid RWism that has overtaken today's Republican Party.

A battle will ensue and I believe the saner heads will win.

If not, then the GOP, as a party...is done for and another new party will rise out of the crusty ashes.

All things being equal, I agree. But unless Citizens United is wiped away, the Koch-suckers and Adelson will still have their billions to influence the weak-minded wingnuts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have posted them numerous times. But you continue to ignore the facts.

And what Republicans did during the healthcare debate should not be deemed acceptable by either side. It was dishonest, contrived, destructive, an insult to We the People who were never a consideration by the right.

"If we’re able to stop Obama on this (healthcare) it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"
Senator Jim DeMint - July, 2009

Waterloo - March 21st, 2010
By David J. Frum, former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush.


"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

...

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Thanks for proving me right by going to the article from 2010 instead of finding something from 2008.

WTF?????????

In 2008 George Bush was president, and he was ending 8 years of failing to address the healthcare crisis in America.

Healthcare costs destroyed the Bush economy

David Frum: A former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush

Posted: September 15, 2009, 4:30 PM by NP Editor

Ron Brownstein ably sums up the Census Bureau’s final report on the Bush economy.

Bottom line: not good.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked.

What went wrong?

In a word: healthcare.

Over the years from 2000 to 2007, the price that employers paid for labor rose by an average of 25% per hour. But the wages received by workers were worth less in 2007 than seven years before. All that extra money paid by employers disappeared into the healthcare system: between 2000 and 2007, the cost of the average insurance policy for a family of four doubled.

Exploding health costs vacuumed up worker incomes. Frustrated workers began telling pollsters the country was on the “wrong track” as early as 2004 – the year that George W. Bush won re-election by the narrowest margin of any re-elected president in U.S. history.

Slowing the growth of health costs is essential to raising wages – and by the way restoring Americans’ faith in the fairness of a free-market economy.

Explaining the impact of health costs on wages is essential to protecting the economic reputation of the last Republican administration and Congress.

If Republicans stick to the line that the US healthcare system works well as is – that it has no important problems that cannot be solved by tort reform – then George W. Bush and the Congresses of 2001-2007 will join Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover in the American memory’s hall of economic failures. Recovery from that stigma will demand more than a tea party.

Read more: David Frum: Healthcare costs destroyed the Bush economy - Full Comment

What does this have to do with what we are talking about?

 

[Bfgrn]

Thanks for proving me right by going to the article from 2010 instead of finding something from 2008.

WTF?????????

In 2008 George Bush was president, and he was ending 8 years of failing to address the healthcare crisis in America.

Healthcare costs destroyed the Bush economy

David Frum: A former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush

Posted: September 15, 2009, 4:30 PM by NP Editor

Ron Brownstein ably sums up the Census Bureau’s final report on the Bush economy.

Bottom line: not good.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked.

What went wrong?

In a word: healthcare.

Over the years from 2000 to 2007, the price that employers paid for labor rose by an average of 25% per hour. But the wages received by workers were worth less in 2007 than seven years before. All that extra money paid by employers disappeared into the healthcare system: between 2000 and 2007, the cost of the average insurance policy for a family of four doubled.

Exploding health costs vacuumed up worker incomes. Frustrated workers began telling pollsters the country was on the “wrong track” as early as 2004 – the year that George W. Bush won re-election by the narrowest margin of any re-elected president in U.S. history.

Slowing the growth of health costs is essential to raising wages – and by the way restoring Americans’ faith in the fairness of a free-market economy.

Explaining the impact of health costs on wages is essential to protecting the economic reputation of the last Republican administration and Congress.

If Republicans stick to the line that the US healthcare system works well as is – that it has no important problems that cannot be solved by tort reform – then George W. Bush and the Congresses of 2001-2007 will join Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover in the American memory’s hall of economic failures. Recovery from that stigma will demand more than a tea party.

Read more: David Frum: Healthcare costs destroyed the Bush economy - Full Comment

What does this have to do with what we are talking about?

Can't even remember what you posted windbag?

Post #7

One of these days I am going to figure out why the defenders of Obama think everyone on the planet is stupid. The simple fact is Obama is a typical politician, he doesn't have principles. If he actually had principles we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare, nor would we have ever increasing deficits.

By the way, the Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning.

BOTH, debunked.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WTF?????????

In 2008 George Bush was president, and he was ending 8 years of failing to address the healthcare crisis in America.

Healthcare costs destroyed the Bush economy

David Frum: A former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush

Posted: September 15, 2009, 4:30 PM by NP Editor

Ron Brownstein ably sums up the Census Bureau’s final report on the Bush economy.

Bottom line: not good.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked.

What went wrong?

In a word: healthcare.

Over the years from 2000 to 2007, the price that employers paid for labor rose by an average of 25% per hour. But the wages received by workers were worth less in 2007 than seven years before. All that extra money paid by employers disappeared into the healthcare system: between 2000 and 2007, the cost of the average insurance policy for a family of four doubled.

Exploding health costs vacuumed up worker incomes. Frustrated workers began telling pollsters the country was on the “wrong track” as early as 2004 – the year that George W. Bush won re-election by the narrowest margin of any re-elected president in U.S. history.

Slowing the growth of health costs is essential to raising wages – and by the way restoring Americans’ faith in the fairness of a free-market economy.

Explaining the impact of health costs on wages is essential to protecting the economic reputation of the last Republican administration and Congress.

If Republicans stick to the line that the US healthcare system works well as is – that it has no important problems that cannot be solved by tort reform – then George W. Bush and the Congresses of 2001-2007 will join Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover in the American memory’s hall of economic failures. Recovery from that stigma will demand more than a tea party.

Read more: David Frum: Healthcare costs destroyed the Bush economy - Full Comment

What does this have to do with what we are talking about?

Can't even remember what you posted windbag?

Post #7

One of these days I am going to figure out why the defenders of Obama think everyone on the planet is stupid. The simple fact is Obama is a typical politician, he doesn't have principles. If he actually had principles we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare, nor would we have ever increasing deficits.

By the way, the Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning.

BOTH, debunked.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Yet you use your own facts. The article you linked to does not exist, the link is broken, and it has nothing to do with what I said to you even if it did work.

I think that proves my point a lot better than it proves yours.

 

[bripat9643]

QWB, your point is meaningless. The GOP would not cooperate a plan that good Republicans, including me, had been pushing since the mid-1990s, all in the name of politics.

You're not a "good Republican," fakey. You're a RINO. Genuine Republicans believes in capitalism. You're a commie scumbag.

 

[Bfgrn]

What does this have to do with what we are talking about?

Can't even remember what you posted windbag?

Post #7

One of these days I am going to figure out why the defenders of Obama think everyone on the planet is stupid. The simple fact is Obama is a typical politician, he doesn't have principles. If he actually had principles we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare, nor would we have ever increasing deficits.

By the way, the Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning.

BOTH, debunked.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Yet you use your own facts. The article you linked to does not exist, the link is broken, and it has nothing to do with what I said to you even if it did work.

I think that proves my point a lot better than it proves yours.

1) I didn't use my own facts, I used the facts of a Republican, David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter.

You said: "Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning"

David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter said:

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

AND Senator Jim DeMint said:

"If we’re able to stop Obama on this (healthcare) it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) You said: "we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare"

David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter said:

"Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said: "The article you linked to does not exist, the link is broken"

You are right, the link is broken. The original article appeared in the National Post.

BUT, the article does exist.

The Bush Economic Record – Blame Healthcare

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION:

SO...you were wrong when you said:

A) "Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning"

You were wrong when you said:

B) "we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare"

You were wrong when you said:

C) "Yet you use your own facts"

You were wrong when you said:

E) "The article you linked to does not exist"

AND, you were right when you said:

F) "the link is broken"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your final grade: F

 

[MarcATL]

Can't even remember what you posted windbag?

Post #7



BOTH, debunked.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Yet you use your own facts. The article you linked to does not exist, the link is broken, and it has nothing to do with what I said to you even if it did work.

I think that proves my point a lot better than it proves yours.

1) I didn't use my own facts, I used the facts of a Republican, David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter.

You said: "Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning"

David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter said:

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

AND Senator Jim DeMint said:

"If we’re able to stop Obama on this (healthcare) it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) You said: "we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare"

David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter said:

"Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said: "The article you linked to does not exist, the link is broken"

You are right, the link is broken. The original article appeared in the National Post.

BUT, the article does exist.

The Bush Economic Record – Blame Healthcare

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION:

SO...you were wrong when you said:

A) "Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning"

You were wrong when you said:

B) "we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare"

You were wrong when you said:

C) "Yet you use your own facts"

You were wrong when you said:

E) "The article you linked to does not exist"

AND, you were right when you said:

F) "the link is broken"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your final grade: F

KA - POW!!!!!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

YOU are a RINO, not wanted in my and our mainstream GOP. Move on. You are not wanted.

QWB, your point is meaningless. The GOP would not cooperate a plan that good Republicans, including me, had been pushing since the mid-1990s, all in the name of politics.

You're not a "good Republican," fakey. You're a RINO. Genuine Republicans believes in capitalism. You're a commie scumbag.

 

[Sallow]

I understand his point, however, I don't agree that he was a failure

I believe that Obama stuck to his principles in trying to reach out to the Republicans, although they had decided from day 0 to attack and obstruct him at every turn.

Here's the article: Thomas Frank: Obama’s squandered hope - Salon.com

Frank isn't agreeing with nor giving the Republicans any easy either, he places the blame squarely on GWB's shoulder, where it should be. His beef is that Obama did NOT use the political he had after trouncing the Republicans in 2008 to give them the death-knell that they deserved, instead he tried to compromise...dragging the country more to the right in the process.

No one has been prosecuted, not one banker jailed, not one policy maker taken to task, non of the former Administration held responsible, in fact he's not only brought back some Clinton pseudo-Democrat RWers, but also kept many of Bush's cronies in their position as well.

This is the author's beef w/Obama, that he's not been liberal at all. The worst part about it is, that the Republicans have sworn that Obama is "the most Leftist, socialist, Marxist President this country has had since...like ever." WoW!!!

*SMH*

We can only hope that when Obama wins this 2nd term he learns his lesson and decides to take these hard RWers to the woodshed like he SHOULD have done earlier this term.

Interesting article indeed.

It doesn't sound like he will. But what might happen is that Republicans will "declare" victory and say that Obama has moved to the right, therefore they will cooperate a little more. And in the end..the economy will improve, because it has been, and republicans will gloam the credit.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yet you use your own facts. The article you linked to does not exist, the link is broken, and it has nothing to do with what I said to you even if it did work.

I think that proves my point a lot better than it proves yours.

1) I didn't use my own facts, I used the facts of a Republican, David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter.

You said: "Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning"

David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter said:

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

AND Senator Jim DeMint said:

"If we’re able to stop Obama on this (healthcare) it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) You said: "we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare"

David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter said:

"Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said: "The article you linked to does not exist, the link is broken"

You are right, the link is broken. The original article appeared in the National Post.

BUT, the article does exist.

The Bush Economic Record – Blame Healthcare

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION:

SO...you were wrong when you said:

A) "Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning"

You were wrong when you said:

B) "we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare"

You were wrong when you said:

C) "Yet you use your own facts"

You were wrong when you said:

E) "The article you linked to does not exist"

AND, you were right when you said:

F) "the link is broken"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your final grade: F

KA - POW!!!!!!!

MarcATL, I see you quote Bruce Bartlett in your signature lines. Bruce wrote an interesting op-ed shortly after David Frum was fired by the American Enterprise Institute for revealing the truth about the collectively planned Republican obstruction of health care reform (Waterloo). In it he reveals a real whopper...

AEI "scholars" had been ordered not to speak to the media (on the subject of health care reform) because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind

 

[MarcATL]

I understand his point, however, I don't agree that he was a failure

I believe that Obama stuck to his principles in trying to reach out to the Republicans, although they had decided from day 0 to attack and obstruct him at every turn.

Here's the article: Thomas Frank: Obama’s squandered hope - Salon.com

Frank isn't agreeing with nor giving the Republicans any easy either, he places the blame squarely on GWB's shoulder, where it should be. His beef is that Obama did NOT use the political he had after trouncing the Republicans in 2008 to give them the death-knell that they deserved, instead he tried to compromise...dragging the country more to the right in the process.

No one has been prosecuted, not one banker jailed, not one policy maker taken to task, non of the former Administration held responsible, in fact he's not only brought back some Clinton pseudo-Democrat RWers, but also kept many of Bush's cronies in their position as well.

This is the author's beef w/Obama, that he's not been liberal at all. The worst part about it is, that the Republicans have sworn that Obama is "the most Leftist, socialist, Marxist President this country has had since...like ever." WoW!!!

*SMH*

We can only hope that when Obama wins this 2nd term he learns his lesson and decides to take these hard RWers to the woodshed like he SHOULD have done earlier this term.

Interesting article indeed.

It doesn't sound like he will. But what might happen is that Republicans will "declare" victory and say that Obama has moved to the right, therefore they will cooperate a little more. And in the end..the economy will improve, because it has been, and republicans will gloam the credit.

You know I haven't even thought of that. My angle has been their insistence on lurching more and more to the right. However, now that you've said that, that would be THE only HOPE they have of maintaining ANY sense of relevance going forward. Feigning a victory, by making up an excuse to cooperate with Obama.

Good one Sallow.

 

[Synthaholic]

Can't even remember what you posted windbag?

Post #7



BOTH, debunked.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Yet you use your own facts. The article you linked to does not exist, the link is broken, and it has nothing to do with what I said to you even if it did work.

I think that proves my point a lot better than it proves yours.

1) I didn't use my own facts, I used the facts of a Republican, David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter.

You said: "Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning"

David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter said:

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

AND Senator Jim DeMint said:

"If we’re able to stop Obama on this (healthcare) it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) You said: "we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare"

David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter said:

"Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said: "The article you linked to does not exist, the link is broken"

You are right, the link is broken. The original article appeared in the National Post.

BUT, the article does exist.

The Bush Economic Record – Blame Healthcare

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION:

SO...you were wrong when you said:

A) "Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning"

You were wrong when you said:

B) "we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare"

You were wrong when you said:

C) "Yet you use your own facts"

You were wrong when you said:

E) "The article you linked to does not exist"

AND, you were right when you said:

F) "the link is broken"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your final grade: F

Thank you for today's installment of: "Quantum Windbag Is A Dishonest Moron"

It's a recurring series.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can't even remember what you posted windbag?

Post #7



BOTH, debunked.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Yet you use your own facts. The article you linked to does not exist, the link is broken, and it has nothing to do with what I said to you even if it did work.

I think that proves my point a lot better than it proves yours.

1) I didn't use my own facts, I used the facts of a Republican, David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter.

You said: "Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning"

David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter said:

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

AND Senator Jim DeMint said:

"If we’re able to stop Obama on this (healthcare) it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) You said: "we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare"

David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter said:

"Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said: "The article you linked to does not exist, the link is broken"

You are right, the link is broken. The original article appeared in the National Post.

BUT, the article does exist.

The Bush Economic Record – Blame Healthcare

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION:

SO...you were wrong when you said:

A) "Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning"

You were wrong when you said:

B) "we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare"

You were wrong when you said:

C) "Yet you use your own facts"

You were wrong when you said:

E) "The article you linked to does not exist"

AND, you were right when you said:

F) "the link is broken"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your final grade: F

You are citing an article that does not exist to back your claims, how does that make me a failure? The little blurbs you keep pointing to say nothing about health care causing Republicans to set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning. At best what you have is a call for Republicans to do something about the cost of health care vis a vis labor costs. Doing that would require us to uncouple health insurance from wages, something Obamacare does not accomplish. My guess is that Frum, being an ardent supported of Obamacare, has changed his tune on that issue. Unfortunately, the universe still works the same way, and health insurance is still going to be the biggest factor in lowering actual wages workers get paid.

In order to prove me wrong you have to find something from 2008 or early 2009 that shows that Republicans were working against Obama, yet all you could come up with was a quote from 2010 during the midterm elections. I wonder why Republicans would be working against the other party during an election.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yet you use your own facts. The article you linked to does not exist, the link is broken, and it has nothing to do with what I said to you even if it did work.

I think that proves my point a lot better than it proves yours.

1) I didn't use my own facts, I used the facts of a Republican, David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter.

You said: "Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning"

David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter said:

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

AND Senator Jim DeMint said:

"If we’re able to stop Obama on this (healthcare) it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) You said: "we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare"

David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter said:

"Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said: "The article you linked to does not exist, the link is broken"

You are right, the link is broken. The original article appeared in the National Post.

BUT, the article does exist.

The Bush Economic Record – Blame Healthcare

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION:

SO...you were wrong when you said:

A) "Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning"

You were wrong when you said:

B) "we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare"

You were wrong when you said:

C) "Yet you use your own facts"

You were wrong when you said:

E) "The article you linked to does not exist"

AND, you were right when you said:

F) "the link is broken"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your final grade: F

KA - POW!!!!!!!

Wow, look at this, the board idiot Democrat supports dogmatic idiots who support his tokenism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yet you use your own facts. The article you linked to does not exist, the link is broken, and it has nothing to do with what I said to you even if it did work.

I think that proves my point a lot better than it proves yours.

1) I didn't use my own facts, I used the facts of a Republican, David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter.

You said: "Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning"

David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter said:

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

AND Senator Jim DeMint said:

"If we’re able to stop Obama on this (healthcare) it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) You said: "we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare"

David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter said:

"Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said: "The article you linked to does not exist, the link is broken"

You are right, the link is broken. The original article appeared in the National Post.

BUT, the article does exist.

The Bush Economic Record – Blame Healthcare

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION:

SO...you were wrong when you said:

A) "Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning"

You were wrong when you said:

B) "we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare"

You were wrong when you said:

C) "Yet you use your own facts"

You were wrong when you said:

E) "The article you linked to does not exist"

AND, you were right when you said:

F) "the link is broken"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your final grade: F

Thank you for today's installment of: "Quantum Windbag Is A Dishonest Moron"

It's a recurring series.

He has a long quote from an article that can no longer be accesses, if it ever existed, and I am dishonest for calling him on it.

Proof that the dogmatic people on this board do not include the guy with windbag in his name.

 

[bripat9643]

Apparently you believe no one has noticed that you side with Democrats on almost every single issue.

Who do you think you're fooling?

YOU are a RINO, not wanted in my and our mainstream GOP. Move on. You are not wanted.

QWB, your point is meaningless. The GOP would not cooperate a plan that good Republicans, including me, had been pushing since the mid-1990s, all in the name of politics.

You're not a "good Republican," fakey. You're a RINO. Genuine Republicans believes in capitalism. You're a commie scumbag.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I side with the GOP on common sense points.

I oppose the far right RINOs most of the time because they are wrong for America.

I want the far right crazees disagreeing with me so we can spot them and get them out of the party.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yet you use your own facts. The article you linked to does not exist, the link is broken, and it has nothing to do with what I said to you even if it did work.

I think that proves my point a lot better than it proves yours.

1) I didn't use my own facts, I used the facts of a Republican, David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter.

You said: "Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning"

David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter said:

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

AND Senator Jim DeMint said:

"If we’re able to stop Obama on this (healthcare) it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) You said: "we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare"

David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter said:

"Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said: "The article you linked to does not exist, the link is broken"

You are right, the link is broken. The original article appeared in the National Post.

BUT, the article does exist.

The Bush Economic Record – Blame Healthcare

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION:

SO...you were wrong when you said:

A) "Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning"

You were wrong when you said:

B) "we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare"

You were wrong when you said:

C) "Yet you use your own facts"

You were wrong when you said:

E) "The article you linked to does not exist"

AND, you were right when you said:

F) "the link is broken"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your final grade: F

You are citing an article that does not exist to back your claims, how does that make me a failure? The little blurbs you keep pointing to say nothing about health care causing Republicans to set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning. At best what you have is a call for Republicans to do something about the cost of health care vis a vis labor costs. Doing that would require us to uncouple health insurance from wages, something Obamacare does not accomplish. My guess is that Frum, being an ardent supported of Obamacare, has changed his tune on that issue. Unfortunately, the universe still works the same way, and health insurance is still going to be the biggest factor in lowering actual wages workers get paid.

In order to prove me wrong you have to find something from 2008 or early 2009 that shows that Republicans were working against Obama, yet all you could come up with was a quote from 2010 during the midterm elections. I wonder why Republicans would be working against the other party during an election.

We have reached the point in this discussion where there only 2 choices. Either you are REALLY, REALLY dishonest, or you are REALLY. REALLY obtuse. Which one is it?

The articles exist. I gave you a link to Waterloo, and a new link to the article that first appeared in the National Post. The date of Frum's Waterloo article, which was right after the Affordable Healthcare Act passed makes his accusation MORE credible and relevant. If you had READ the article you would understand why. So you never even read the article. Why is that? Is it a dogma over truth thing? Doctrinaire over knowledge?

Here are the links again. No more excuses...

About

FrumForum.com is a site edited by David Frum, dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.


LINK: Waterloo

LINK: The Bush Economic Record – Blame Healthcare



Who is David Frum? He is a former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

Political views

In a Newsweek column, Frum described his political beliefs as follows:

I'm a conservative Republican, have been all my adult life. I volunteered for the Reagan campaign in 1980. I've attended every Republican convention since 1988. I was president of the Federalist Society chapter at my law school, worked on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and wrote speeches for President Bush—not the "Read My Lips" Bush, the "Axis of Evil" Bush. I served on the Giuliani campaign in 2008 and voted for John McCain in November. I supported the Iraq War and (although I feel kind of silly about it in retrospect) the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I could go on, but you get the idea.

 

[Synthaholic]

1) I didn't use my own facts, I used the facts of a Republican, David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter.

You said: "Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning"

David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter said:

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

AND Senator Jim DeMint said:

"If we’re able to stop Obama on this (healthcare) it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) You said: "we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare"

David Frum, who was Bush's speechwriter said:

"Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said: "The article you linked to does not exist, the link is broken"

You are right, the link is broken. The original article appeared in the National Post.

BUT, the article does exist.

The Bush Economic Record – Blame Healthcare

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION:

SO...you were wrong when you said:

A) "Republicans did not set out to obstruct Obama from the beginning"

You were wrong when you said:

B) "we would not have a repackaged Hillarycare"

You were wrong when you said:

C) "Yet you use your own facts"

You were wrong when you said:

E) "The article you linked to does not exist"

AND, you were right when you said:

F) "the link is broken"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your final grade: F

Thank you for today's installment of: "Quantum Windbag Is A Dishonest Moron"

It's a recurring series.

He has a long quote from an article that can no longer be accesses, if it ever existed, and I am dishonest for calling him on it.

Proof that the dogmatic people on this board do not include the guy with windbag in his name.

He linked to it in the very post you just quoted!