Point one: Rush was spot on in predicting the Speaker’s plan would get thrown back into his own lap rather than leave Reid holding the bag.
Point two: so what was Reid talking about today?
Point three: where were you during the Bush administration? Rush is not deceptive just because you lack the guts to press an advantage the way the Democrats have ALWAYS done...majority OR minority.
Point four: how enormous can the “pressure” be when the Democrats preach compromise, but don’t even have to outline a position to be compromised with?
The only pressure they had to endure came from Bob Michael Republicans, or should I say “Quislings?”
Point five: Von Clauswitz said “war is politics by other means.” The converse is also true.
What wizards like you don’t seem to understand is “compromise” is what you offer your enemy as an acceptable alternative to complete victory...It’s not the frickin’ goal!
There is no “complete victory” when conservatives don’t even control ONE house of Congress. It is BS to make there was.
No, Rush was being deceptive since ANY plan would have been amended. Anyone who has ever watched the Congress knows this.
We don’t have an “advantage” to press. We have a conservative minority in the House. Nothing will happen until there is a conservative majority in the House and, at a minimum, a Republican Senate.
The pressure comes from the media and the deluded electorate not the Democrats per se. Plus, there are the clowns constantly attacking the GOP for being RINOs and not doing more.
I don’t care what Reid is talking about.
You act as though the Michaels of the world just pop up and exploit the People, they don’t. They are what the People WANTED.
No the converse of Von Clauswitz’s maxim is NOT true. Unless you are talking about ancient Rome maybe. There is almost never a “final victory”. We do not kill the enemy or destroy their property. It is very little like war. This is why Rush’s analogy was deceptive. There was NO final or complete victory.
Wizards like me understand enough about politics to see through false analogy and invalid arguments even when used by those we admire.