Aides Disagree Whether GOP Softened Stance at White House Meeting

[ProSense]

Source: Roll Call

Senior Democratic and Republican aides are sparring over whether GOP leaders sounded a newly conciliatory tone in Tuesday’s meeting with President Barack Obama.

Aides in both parties agreed privately that there was no real progress made in the high-profile huddle between Obama and Hill leaders at the White House.

But some Democratic aides said GOP leaders acknowledged privately that they are going to have to make more of an effort to work with Democrats than they did in the past two years. “There was a measurable attitude shift by the Republicans,” one senior Democratic aide said. “We will see how long that lasts.”

Republican aides pushed back on the idea that their party leaders were softening their stance when it comes to advancing their agenda. “What a ridiculous assertion,” one GOP leadership aide said.



Read more: http://www.rollcall.com/news/-200988-1.html

[Drale]

1. If I was president the first thing I would do is

find as much dirt on the republicans as I could (It wouldn't be that hard) and hold it over their heads. Is it completely right or moral no but hell I'm from Chicago and thats just how we do things. It used to work but it seems as of late the Chicago politician has grown soft.

[dave29]

2. in other words, the President should resort to extortion to advance the Democratic agenda

facepalm

[Igel]

6. I have to wonder if it was intended to use the government to dig up dirt.

Sort of like J. Edgar Hoover on steroids. That fine supporter of civil liberties, admired by progressives for his stellar work on behalf of humanity.

And they report that the average child's neurological capacity for real introspection is formed by age 12-13.

[gratuitous]

3. Did the unnamed senior Democratic aide find out how long the new attitude lasted?

Like, as long as it took for his/her remarks to make it back to the Republican caucus? Why should the Republicans "bargain" or "negotiate"? They get pretty much what they want without it. If there's some negotiating that needs to go on, the Democrats seem perfectly willing to handle all that themselves.

But what do I know? I'm just some peon clear out here on the left coast, far removed from the 12 level Vulcan chess game, hopelessly deluded by the plain facts of the developments before my eyes. The subtleties and the nuances of the cunning Democratic plan are lost on the likes of me. I heard they made the Republicans sit with their backs to the door in this last go-round of craven concessions, totally messing up their feng shui!

[Kali]

5. ...

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[Igel]

7. "Privately" versus when asked on the record.

There is often a big difference between the two.

Politics is often poker. I've seldom heard a person claim it's breaking the rules and unfair if his opponent fails to lay all of his cards on the table, face up, as they're dealt, or that he fails to state his strategy. Even in bridge, where there's a lot of communication available for interception and even decoding by one's opponenet, this is is an unreasoned attitude.

On the other hand, it's also a reasoned thing to make claims about what your opponent said, even if it's hedging the truth and is self-serving. So these are statements by (D) to get (R) to either yield to (D) or be embarrassed and implicitly accused of lying. Also poker, where bluffs are part of the game and people don't get to say, "You lied when you implied by your bets and body language that you had 4 aces!"

Eh.

[bemildred]

4. "Send in the clowns, there ought to be clowns ..." nt