I’m not following this concept at all, aside from the standard “GOP is sweetness and light, and anything that disputes is either a lie or a damned lie”. Whatever idea we’ve been talking about in this thread seems to be, for you, as fluid as a rushing river. No doubt the language and imagery is magnificent — it just doesn’t have any coherence.

There is a old saying that comes to mind, sonething about not trying to wrestle with a pig because you will get mud all over you, and the pig will delight in it.

However, a lie is a lie, isn’t it? Some people do rise to the occasion rather forcefully, don’t they, which is actually undeniable in an instance or two! Gee, another saying here: the truth will out!

What did any of you think the GOP was about? Small government and low taxes?

Sorry, Mike, but you’ve gone off the rails with those last two words. When Republicans were last in power, they revealed themselves to be big government / low taxes types. The low tax half of this equation shouldn’t be controversial because Republicans don’t lie about it; they proudly proclaim it.

It’s about scared, stupid, insecure people on the wrong end of economic and demographic trends expressing that fear in a pathological hatred of the first black president.

I think that the Republican reaction to Bill Clinton’s presidency indicates that their pathological hatred is driven by something other than racism. Sure, I would expect that white racists are almost universally Republicans at this point, but for the rest of the party Obama’s race is beside the point.

In any case, you are mixing two issues here: How do the Republicans plan to regain power, and what will they do if they get it. With regard to the latter question, past experience indicates that they will increase spending and cut taxes.

??? I guess I never realized that Republicans have such high standards that they’d never call the president a liar. To his face. While he was adressing Congress. Interrupting his speech. Name of Joe Wilson.
No? Okay, then. Must not have happened.
Or is the mark of gentleman to only accuse without facts to support it? Are you claiming that only men of low morals would attempt to justify their accusations, and only “true gentlemen” would accuse without any justification or evidence? That would be an . . . interesting approach.

I am curious about the “to his face, anyways” part of the comment. It would be more gentlemanly to badmouth him behind his back, but then when confronted to smile and lie? I was always tought that was the behavior of men of low morals and weak resolution. Punks. Worms. Am I wrong? Is that truly the mark of upright and honest people?
And if it is . . . does that mean your contention that Democrats will say one thing to the body public then do another thing behind closed doors mean that Democrats are the height of civility and genteel upbringing? For some reason, I suspect not. I wonder what the difference is between one party acting in such a manner and the other party acting in such a manner? Aside from “Me party good, you party bad”, of course.

Nor can I believe that such a session would be a true free-for-all, with the GOP members thrashing the President right and left, instead of trying to maintain a modicrum of comity. There is a certain reluctance by Republicans, and for that matter, any collection of real gentlemen, to call the sitting President a liar, a dummy, prig, or an ideologue–and to back the accusations up with detailed chapter and verse–to his face, anyway.
Apparently, Obama had no such compunctions, if what you claim is right. So, if you want to give Obama that day, fine. It doesn’t change anything, really, that I can see except Obamaite’s morale, which is or should be at an all-time low about now.

Well, it just might also help to dispel the idea that Obama needs his teleprompter to make sense, which would be a rather good thing. It is not very comforting to think that we are being ruled by a true dummy for the next three years.

God Bless America!

“Ripping into the GOP by that excuse for a President is most certainly not the same as letting the public see and hear about all of the Democratic behind-the-scenes vote-buying for health care. ”

Why?

As an aside, if he truly is the most pathetic, scum-sucking mouth breather that ever walked the planet . . . what the hell does it say that the GOP got spanked by him? At their own luncheon?
Not defending Obama’s policies, or his credibility, or his veracity, or anything like that — just pointing out that the GOP couldn’t have asked for a better opportunity to call him out, and they utterly failed to do it. Anybody that tried to get into a verbal sparring match with him was soundly beaten. Not defensing Obama . . . but I think pretty much everybody can agree he whupped up on them. Either Obama has some skills, or the GOP is pretty incompetent.

Don’t watch American Idol. Actually aside from football, I don’t watch television (at least on tv — I may watch a show I want on the computer). Pretty much just use my television for games and football.
Almost forgot — Lost. I don’t watch it (refuse is more accurate), but my girlfriend is hooked so she watches that on the TV when its in season (which is unfortunately now).

Obama is worth ignoring since you cannot tell when he is serious, telling a truth, or merely speaking out of his teleprompter voice, but watching Dems do their dirty work on TV would be just about as interesting as watching 24. Far more depressing, however, and far more impacting this Fall. Since the show would last for some time, it would gather quite an audience as it went from $100 million bribes to $300 million bribes. Transfixing!

So you watch American Idol with the other 99%? Well, well!

“A video of Democratic legislators and Obama horsetrading away on national TV to buy votes for the Obama Healthcare bill would be instantly devastating to the entire gaggle of politicos shown!”

Doubtful. The broadcast of Obama ripping into the GOP didn’t change anything. People who pay attention giggled, and the other 99.997% of society kept watching American Idol.

It is clearly, clearly reserved for those times when they read the tea leaves; that is, when they realize that a significant sector of the public wants to insist on one way and the politico wants to go in exactly the opposite direction. Thus, they claim up front that they are going with the public desire, but behind the scenes they are working in the opposite direction.

This tactic was employed by Clinton quite often, and it appears to have been fully embraced by Obama. It is designed very cynically to misdirect and neutralize some part of the public as to the real intentions of the politico and his party at a critical point, such as before an election or a key legislative vote.

The open government theme of transparency is a perfect example of such a meme readily embraced by the public(out of many), so stated as absolutely necessary over and over by Obama, and almost totally reversed in practice by him and by his party once he was elected.

A video of Democratic legislators and Obama horsetrading away on national TV to buy votes for the Obama Healthcare bill would be instantly devastating to the entire gaggle of politicos shown!