Rick Perlstein
said it best, “I believe politics is a team sport. That, for awful and unfortunate reasons beyond any of our control, the American system only allows, effectively, for two teams.”Posted on 09/22/2017 8:13:53 AM PDT by NaturalBornConservative
Rick Perlstein
Is politics a team sport? The question resurfaced recently when Senator Rand Paul referred to the Graham-Cassidy Health Care Plan as — “Amnesty for Obamacare.”
Rand Paul Gives Graham/Cassidy a New Name: 'Amnesty for ObamaCare' - Big League Politics https://t.co/0RN6K9g6TG — Rand Paul (@DrRandPaul) September 19, 2017
When I saw this, I immediately fired off a tweet to Senator Paul stating, “Not again! It's a team sport. Time is up. If you are not Republican, then get off the team and go join the Democrats.”
Not again! It's a team sport. Time is up. If you are not Republican, then get off the team and go join the Democrats. — Larry (@larrymwalkerjr) September 20, 2017
An unidentified third party then replied, “Wrong - it's absolutely NOT a team sport. Members must represent their constituents' wishes - not follow some pigheaded slogan.”
In reality, it’s Senator Paul who’s following a self-contrived “pigheaded slogan”, while most Republicans in the House, 90%+ of those in the Senate, and the Trump Administration are in support of a “bill”, which repeals the main provisions of Obamacare, and takes power away from the District of Columbia, handing it back to the states.
If politics isn’t a team sport, then why do political parties exist? And, what is the purpose of winning the majority in both houses and the White House if the party in control isn’t going to stick together on major legislation? Of course, politics is a team sport.
Yet there always seems to be at least one grandstanding maverick, almost always a Republican, who wants to make a name for himself rather than play his position. Face it, Rand Paul doesn’t represent any constituents. Like John McCain and a few others, he merely represents himself.
If Senator Paul represents anyone, it should be the party he belongs to, whichever that may be. At this point, he represents constituents of the Democratic Party, who oppose the bill at all costs, and cares nothing for Republicans, the majority of whom favor some measure of victory.
Under the Graham-Cassidy plan a Federal block grant is given annually to states to help individuals pay for health care, Planned Parenthood is defunded, and the individual mandate, employer mandate, and medical device tax are completely repealed, to name a few. But even better, it’s supported by most Republicans in the House, 90%+ of those in the Senate, and the Trump Administration. So, what’s Rand Paul’s problem?
If Senator Paul can’t get 90%+ of Republican Senators to go along with his proposal, which he can’t, then perhaps he should dismount from his high horse and support the 90%+ of his party who see merit in Graham-Cassidy. If that’s not good enough for Senator Paul, then only one choice remains.
Stop calling yourself a Republican, and go team up with those more in line with your views. At this point in time that would be none other than the Democratic Party, which stands firm, in unison, against every proposal favored by the President and the majority of Republicans.
“.... a pedestal upon which to preen [or] enact legislation that helps the constituents....”
Straw man. You are presenting a false choice - nobody elects a Senator to preen - we all want honest representation and legislation that protects our rights.
But reasonable people can disagree on whether a “take what you can get” approach to legislation works better than a strictly principled approach.
The GOPe has been trying “take what you can get” with the Rats for decades and have lost ground in every transaction - and muddied the waters to boot. You can’t tell one side from the other because the GOPe are so eager to compromise.
The strictly principled approach may not fare much better, but it has the advantage of one side at least speaking the unvarnished truth.
I’m tired of both parties lying through their teeth, one in the name of “social justice”, and the other in the name of “take what you can get” - both parties have been corrupted by special interest lobbies.
I find it refreshing when a Republican refuses to play the compromise game.
‘The GOPe has been trying “take what you can get” with the Rats for decades’
This is simply not true. For at least eight years the GOP gave Obama everything he wanted. Occasionally they gave him even more than he actually asked for. Before Obama, the globalists under the guise of the Uniparty worked against conservatives full time. At no point did they take what they could get. They gave away the store and relished doing so.
There is nothing refreshing about Paul joining with the Democrats and uber-leftist GOP to stick us with Obamacare forever. It’s pig headed, self-stroking and asinine. You can’t hide betrayal under a cloak of ‘principles.’ At some point adults need to grow up and face the consequences of their actions.
I couldn’t disagree more
Here are the problems with Paul. First, his ethical maturity level is that of an approximate 12 yo. Second, there is not a shred of evidence that he is able to empathize.
The confluence of these two issues produces unspeakable disaster when it comes to Obamacare. I’ll take them in reverse order.
Empathy. Obamacare is destroying people. The destruction runs a complete circuit from financial ruin to deteriorating health and even death. Yes, Obamacare is killing people. Many cannot afford the premiums. Few of those who can, qualify for assistance due to astronomical deductibles. Others are squeezed dry by the penalties, but still cannot afford basic health care.
The suffering is very real and in may cases disastrous. But I defy you to find a shred of evidence that Paul gives a flying fruitcake. A, he has a taxpayer-subsidized platinum plan, and B, he doesn’t/cannot empathize.
*IF* he could empathize, here is what an adult ethic would sound like:
“I’m against Graham-Cassidy. It’s not a full repeal and it perpetuates most of the problems of Obamacare. It is a very bad bill.
“HOWEVER, people are suffering far too much under Obamacare. It is literally destroying lives and health on multiple levels. Bad as Graham-Cassidy is, Obamacare is worse. But more importantly, if we miss the September 30th deadline, we will never realistically repeal Obamacare. The suffering it inflicts will steadily worsen and will be permanent.
“People can’t wait any longer for relief. Graham-Cassidy will ease the worst of the pain. Afterward, we will have time to address the issues of Graham-Cassidy. But the most important thing right now is to stop the Obamacare bleeding before it destroys even more lives. If we miss this chance, we’ll never get another.”
That’s how an adult with the capacity for empathy would respond. But Paul is a child with hopelessly stunted, self-centered ethics. The only chance of King Paul ‘granting’ the peasants relief from Obamacare is if someone can convince him it’s in his own best interests to do so. And that’s unlikely.
“..,.Paul is a child with hopelessly stunted, self-centered ethics. The only chance of King Paul ‘granting’ the peasants relief from Obamacare is if someone can convince him it’s in his own best interests to do so. And that’s unlikely.”
I get it. You are convinced that supporting this compromise GOP-care bill now is the best strategy for ending the disaster of ACA. Many would agree with you.
But saying that since Rand Paul doesn’t agree with you, he must therefore be an immature child with hopelessly stunted, self-centered ethics, no empathy, and “not give a flying fruitcake” about the pain and suffering caused by ACA - is quite a stretch.
Please tell me you see the gaping holes and wild assumptions in your fallacy ridden argument.
In any negotiation there’s a time for compromise and a time for standing firm. You can disagree all you want with Rand Paul’s strategy - but argue it on the merits - not by impugning his character, doubting his motives and ethics - and all these ad hominem attacks - they are beneath you - leave those tactics to the leftists.
Perhaps you have been fortunate enough never to have known an empathy-less person up close and personal. I can’t say the same. Once you’ve known one, you recognize the signs. It hit me like a ton of bricks, when I was thinking about why Paul creeps me out to the core. It’s his lack of empathy. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
The stunted ethics follow like thunder follows lightning. If you are your sole focus, your ethics will remain childish. It’s only by considering others that maturity and complexity enter into the ethical equation.
Btw, you are doing to me what you accuse me of doing to Paul. You are completely ignoring the case I laid out for adult ethical actions re Obamacare. Argue against the case I made, please, or let it drop.
“Perhaps you have been fortunate enough never to have known an empathy-less person up close and personal. I can’t say the same. Once you’ve known one, you recognize the signs.”
I’m more than happy to yeild to your superior intuition in these matters
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.