A Real Debate
February 1, 2010
Last week the President accepted an invitation to speak and take questions at a House Republican retreat. What I liked most was the fact this was a real substantive debate – not filtered through the media or the usual partisan talking points:
Though it’s over an hour long, it’s worth listening to the entire question and answer session.
Posted in Politics
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
content rss
February 1st, 2010 at 8:06 pm
I loved the part where he said he wasn’t an ideologue, and everyone laughed, and he said “I’m not!”
He, along with at least the majority of his officials, and at least half those in Congress, are ideologues who think that we the people should listen to them, and they do not have to listen to us.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:33 am
To me an ideologue is someone who never compromises. I think the President has compromised on several substantive issues important to conservatives because I think he understands he can’t govern without at least some of their support.
But if it’s true that the majority of elected officials are ideologues, how do you think we will ever get real entitlement reform? Realistically, that is the only way we will ever deal with the deficit and ultimately the national debt.
If what you say is true it won’t matter which party is in the majority because the party out of power will always block real reform. How do we do it, Teach?
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:00 am
I watched the whole thing, and I must say I was impressed. What I liked most was how he really focused on changing the way Washington does (or doesn’t do) business. There’s so much political posturing, that it’s hard to get anything done, and it was evidenced by most of the questioning he faced, which was generally prefaced by loaded and misleading political statements.
These Republicans have been complaining that they haven’t been included in the process (even though they have), and yet as the President correctly pointed out, many of them have made so many derogatory and inflammatory statements against him to their base, they’ve made it virtually impossible to cooperate with him on anything. In this political atmosphere that they’ve fostered, they can’t possible work with the President on anything, no matter how much he compromises, because they’d be chastized by their base and by any potential challengers. The President is now the enemy.
You can’t have it both ways. Either you want to be a part of the process or you don’t. I would personally rather see more cooperation. We’re not going to agree on everything, but we don’t have to be so divisive about it. I think we can still find common ground, and focus more on our similarities than our differences.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:50 am
Reasic said: These Republicans have been complaining that they haven’t been included in the process (even though they have),…
I don’t think that’s entirely true. With respect to the Democratic leadership in both houses of Congress I think they have been largely shut out. Yes, they’ve tried to get a few moderate Republicans to compromise and vote with but that’s not the same thing.
In this political atmosphere that they’ve fostered, they can’t possible work with the President on anything,…
Let’s not forget the Democrats were guilty of this too during the Bush administration. There are many conservatives who probably see this as payback time but what nobody seems to understand is that it ultimately hurts all of us if we are so paralyzed by political gridlock that we can’t make the hard decisions that are necessary for a stable and prosperous economic future.
I think we can still find common ground, and focus more on our similarities than our differences.
After watching what happened to health care reform I’m not very optimistic. I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Teach. How do you get either party to work in the country’s long-term interest (i.e. entitlement reform) when it’s not in their own party’s short-term interest (i.e. hard and unpopular choices)?
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:01 am
Silke,
I believe the argument was that they haven’t had a voice, but the truth is that their ideas have been heard, and some were even inserted into the bill. What they generally mean by not having a voice is that the President hasn’t tried to pass exactly what they want.
I will agree that there was rampant animosity from liberal activists, but I don’t know that most Democrats made arguments against Bush that were on the level of the unfounded demonizing that Obama has endured. As far as I remember, most of Bush’s prominent Democratic opponents were rightly criticizing policies, such as prewar intel and going into debt to provide tax cuts for the rich, rather than engaging in baseless rhetoric about Bush trying to drive our country into the ground. If that did occur, I’ll gladly accept it. Remember though, that I’m making an important distinction between prominent Democrats and liberal commenters.
That being said, I will agree that both sides get carried away sometimes, and that when either side crosses the line from constructive criticism to demonizing, they make it difficult to work together. Therefore, something has got to give, and it has to start somewhere. This will require action on BOTH sides. Republicans need to distance themselves from the crazy limbaugh/beck rhetoric, and Democrats need to involve those Republicans who demonstrate that they are truly interested in working in a bipartisan fashion, rather than just pushing for as many concessions as they can get only to vote against the measure in the end anyway.
That a good question that I don’t have an answer to. It’s obviously not easy. However, my understanding is that there is some entitlement reform written into the health care bills. I’m also against Part D, which was a huge win for the pharma industry on government dime. I’m okay with major cuts to that, if not a complete scrub.
I think we have to at least assume that both sides, for the most part, really believe that they are acting in the country’s best interests, no matter how much we disagree with their proposals. Then, we need to enter into a constructive discussion on the facts in order to determine which is really the best way forward. I really believe that’s the part that’s missing in this process. There’s so much misinformation on so many subjects these days. People get all worked up, and many times, it’s based on falsehoods, which means it was a wasted effort. Imagine what we could accomplish if only we were working from the same set of facts.