Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtclub
I didn't say that Obama didn't offer. I said the Ds were unwilling.
|
Yes, and you say this based on nothing. What those who were paying attention heard from the Dems was, "we aren't going to touch entitlements without revenues." Note that's entirely different from the R line of "no revenues." Note that one position is the kind of thing you say in a negotiation that indicates that compromise is possible.
Perhaps you mean to dismiss the Dem position as meaningless, because we should all just accept the Tea Party position as immutable, so the Dems were being equally irresponsible by not conceding even more. If so, that's crazy talk.
ETA: And I guess you are now admitting that at least one Dem wasn't "guilty of a no-negotiation stance on entitlements." Equivalence indeed.
EATA: Also note that one position is "let's do two things that will help" while the other is "we can't do one of the thing that would help."
Quote:
|
I don't think they had the votes, just like I don't think Boehner had the votes, for the "grand bargain."
|
We will never know, because Boehner didn't try.
Personally, I think they probably could have gotten the votes, mostly from the Dems, but we are both guessing.
Except that I think you keep using very strange language. The whole point is neither the Dems nor Boehner having "the votes" on their own.
Right. I need more news sources because my understanding of how things went down is comically one-sided and counter-factual. Uh huh.
