A bipartisan approach to health care?

Rick U. writes:

Yesterday, Republican “leaders” came out “swinging” (eye roll) with calls for bi-partisanship, throwing water all over Scott Brown’s historic victory. This morning at American Thinker’s blog somebody got it right. We are in deep trouble here if Republicans don’t take advantage of the Scott Brown momentum and utterly reject Democrats faux calls to work together. How many times will Republicans take this bait? Bi-partisanship with Democrats is analogous to peace with Islam.

Like Islam, Democrats seek peace when they are in the minority or at a disadvantage, but it’s only a ploy with a longer term plan to slit your throat when they attain sufficient numbers. Republicans who fail to see this, ignore the history of liberal behavior, and worse they fail to turn the discussion and events from the current liberal paradigm. Scott Brown ran as a conservative in Massachusetts—Massachusetts! Republicans who miss the significance of this clear message are akin to Obama blaming it on Bush. Business as usual, ho hum, nothing new here, let’s work together … Feckless yes, but more so, just plain Disgusting. Time for new leaders who will, at the very least, contradict the liberal lexicon.

LA replies:

One problem with your argument is that Scott Brown himself is one of the Republicans calling for new health care bill written along bi-partisan lines; and I think that’s been his position all along. He wants something done about making insurance available to everyone without having the government take it over. But how is such a thing possible?

(Note: readers offer substantive answers to that question in a new entry.)

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 21, 2010 02:47 PM | Send