Obama Would Drive Republicans into the Sea

Obama has learned well from his friends the Palestinians....

Republicans have no spine, no guts, no gonads. They’ve been searching for their gonads with both hands and a mirror forever and coming up empty.

Obama Would Drive Republicans into the Sea? Perhaps, but he probably wouldn’t stop there. Not likely to get his own hands too messy, but the Ayers-trained Obama would surely end up where Ayers did, and smugly murder, or arrange the murder, of his perceived political enemies.

For eight continuous years Democrats unrelentingly battered and beat up on the hapless George Bush.

...and what did it get them. He was term limited. And so hapless he wasn’t, we can thank God he was an adult President and completed his eight years without the US receiving another attack from radical Muslims.

Can we say the same for the hapless Barry Soetero?

The Republicans should go in there forcefully and if the dims wont scrap the crap of a bill they put forth (death panels, access to your checking account, etc) then the Republicans should walk out and say to the American people that the President is not serious about crafting an honest workable plan.

They can add that they will write one after 2010.

NO CONCESSIONS THIS TIME

Republicans would allow it if they didn’t have tea partiers standing on the shore preventing it.

Republicans have no spine, no guts, no gonads.

We the people will have to stop this good-statist/bad-statist con game.

Great thread. Thanks to every poster and like minded lurker.

You don’t need to excerpt your own blog. Here, I’ll post the rest of it for you:

Mark Knoller’s, “Obama Says Bipartisanship, But What He Wants Is GOP Surrender,” is a complete deconstruction of the Barry Hussein Soetoro pretense for bipartisanship. (see article)

“Despite the political posturing that often paralyzes this town, there are many issues upon which we can and should agree, he said.

It was more a plaintive plea than a political observation. His top legislative priorities are going nowhere and he’s searching for a way to get them out of lockup. —Mark Knoller
Knoller get’s it. Democrats, their leader and Spokesperson-in-Chief, president Soetoro declared jihad on their political rivals the Republican Party after the 2000 election which George W. Bush won. For eight continuous years Democrats unrelentingly battered and beat up on the hapless George Bush.

So extreme and vile was their hatred for Bush that Democrats would have preferred that America lose the Iraq war than let Bush receive credit for winning it. They did in fact declare the war lost several times. Everyone from Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to the late Congressman John Murtha on the Democrat side of the aisle called the war lost.

This goes to show that Democrats were willing to jeopardize the safety and security of the Nation and give aid and comfort to the enemies of America in order to destroy President Bush. If the war was lost, they thought, it would put President Bush in the worst possible light and ensure his defeat in 2004.

Bush won in 2004 and Democrats continued to undermine his presidency until the day that Barack Hussein Obama was inaugurated. It should be noted that during president Soetoro’s whole campaign he berated and belittled George W. Bush as most Democrats did. And as a result of their combined efforts they won the presidency and a super majority in the Congress in 2008.

It is on that background that we must understand the context of president Soetoro’s call for bipartisanship, the only thing more disingenuous then president Soetoro’s call for bipartisanship between Democrats and Republicans is Palestinians’ demand on Israel requesting land for peace.

Hamas’s 1988 charter calls for replacing the State of Israel with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.(source)

Mark Knoller notes that president Soetoro’s call for bipartisanship is really a request for Republicans to give up their principles, and their beliefs to surrender to Soetoro’s legislative ideology.

Mr. Obama said he “won’t hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party.” But he wants his way. He wants his energy policy enacted along with his jobs bill, his financial regulatory reform and his health care plan.

And if the opposition continues to block his objectives, he said he “won’t hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that’s rooted not in substantive disagreement but in political expedience.”—Mark Knoller
What that means is in the president’s mind Republicans shouldn’t exist just as Israel shouldn’t exist according to Islamic leaders like the late Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Adinemadjab.

Who could ever forget the 2000 President Clinton summit between Palestine ’s Yasser Arafat and Israel ’s Ehud Barak which was meant to produce peace in the Middle East.

According to Palestine Facts.org

Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the most substantial concessions and far reaching proposals, going beyond all the long-standing Israeli “red lines”, especially as regards Jerusalem . The US team called Barak “courageous” for these offers. When these terms were later revealed in Israel , people were stunned at the extent of the concessions Barak offered and it is unclear whether the Israeli public were prepared to support the deal.

However they were never given the opportunity to endorse or reject the proposals; Arafat rejected them out of hand.

The details were not disclosed formally, but according to media reports Barak’s offer included:
• Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
• The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
• The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
• Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
• Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
• “Religious Sovereignty” over the Temple Mount , replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967

In return Arafat had to declare the “end of conflict” and agree that no further claims on Israel could be made in the future. Despite the considerable concessions by Israel , Arafat chose not to negotiate, not to make a counter-offer but to just walk out. (source)

The issue is this reader, Democrats, like an Islamic nation state, fundamental goal is to have it all. Every point of concession that Israel or Republicans make would make them incrementally smaller and weaker.

Republicans in bipartisan negotiations with President Soetoro will be expected to concede their principles giving more and more ground when, as example, this health care bill is already written by far left ideologues.

True bipartisanship would call for the scrapping of this bill and both Parties craft a bill from the ground up. As it is presently written ideologues in the Democrat Party, Pelosi and Reid, whose ultimate goal is to impose Liberal ideology on the Western world to the exclusion of Conservative principles, wrote this bill so this bill has a Liberal makeup intrinsically.

In other words bipartisan efforts to the president and Democrats actually means, come join us forcing left wing policies on the people of the United States. And if the people don’t like it they’ll have us both to blame.

Soetoro brought the subject of bipartisanship up so if he is serious about it and he is not just trying to get some political advantage by calling for bipartisanship when he really doesn’t want it then he has to lead. And as a show of leadership he should be ready to make the first substantial concessions. Republicans wish to start from scratch, the president should do that.

Soetoro and Democrats are the ones faced with the deficit of trust so the onus is on them to make Republicans feel that this is not some kind of trick.

If the president is unable or unwilling to do this then we all know that his true motives were not to work in a bipartisanship way after all. His true motives were to put Republicans at a disadvantage and in the worst light possible.

Under the pretense of bipartisanship the president actually wanted to push Republicans into the Sea.

I understand your point however you have to agreed that the 2008 elections where run against GW and the super majorities in Congress was a result of those efforts as well.

My point is Bush’s haplessness was that he did not defend himself or the Republican Party making 2008 a cakewalk for Democrats. In the future it would be nice to have an politically astute Republican running who knows how to disarm his opponents like Ronald Wilson Reagan did.

That’s my point.

Cheers

Thank you VOB!

But it’s still “my good friend across the aisle”.

ENOUGH ALREADY!! Those are NOT your good friends across the aisle. I want PUBs to stand up and shout: “These are people who would stab me in the back; rape my wife and sell my children into slavery.”

THAT is what having a set really means. Ordo they leave that up to Governor Palin and Representative Bachman?

I understand your point however you have to agree that the 2008 elections where run against GW and the super majorities in Congress was a result of those efforts as well.

I do agree despite the ludicrous irony of running against someone not running against them. Rush had lots to say on that subject. BDS is just insanity on parade.

A real conservative with the brains to put stupidity in its place by just giving plenty of rope to the candidates, would be a welcome addition to the White House.

Amen!