It's an utterly disingenuous tactic, and you're well aware of it, Vosem.
Republicans have been quite open that their 'goal', their best-case scenario, is to end the shutdown and defund Obamacare. There's nothing secretive or disingenuous about it, it is common knowledge.That wasn't what I targeted as being disingenuous. Their goal is clear and straightforward enough. The idea that these mini-funding resolutions are any sort of good-faith negotiating effort is disingenuous, however, because the ultimate effect of passing a bunch of resolutions that fund/support everything but Obamacare is just...
exactly what they wanted to begin with.There is nothing to negotiate.
...the alternative is literally waiting for Republicans to change their minds about Obamacare en masse. What do you think the likelihood of that is? Spoiler: Not high.Do you seriously not understand the implications of the words you are typing, here? You are essentially saying "Look, I know what the Republicans are doing is basically psychotic and they're being completely unreasonable about how they're going about this, and it is all their fault to start with, but why can't the Democrats just go along with everything the Republicans want so we can all just put this behind us? Why are they being so unfair?"
Your position about this is the most logically inconsistent of anyone on this forum. You admit the Republicans are at fault for throwing this tantrum,
but still blame the Democrats anyway for not caving just to keep them happy anyway. That makes no sense whatsoever.
It's a law, and this is a funding debate, not a debate over a new health reform proposal.
True. Why is a funding debate less valid than a debate over a new proposal?Because one is a negotiation over law, and one is a negotiation over whether or not we should pay for the things we actually pass and has survived countless challenges to its existence. If Republicans wanted to negotiate over health law, they had their chance; but they were more concerned with tallying up their way to one million repeal attempts. There's no possible give-and-take on whether or not we should fund or implement something in a yes/no fashion. The time for that was.. the
entirety of the last Congress.
Not to belabor the point here, but there is no possible negotiation with someone who is saying No, and someone who is saying Yes. The reason Democrats have the moral highground is because this is not some sort of new law to-be-created, this is about
trying to defund and delay an existing law. Republicans are picking a fight about it, and Democrats just wanted everything on the books to be funded fairly. One side instigated this over one very specific thing. Democrats are under no obligation to
give any ground because they're not trying to
take any.