Republicans learn you need to have more than talking points when you go to a debate
 

If you haven't seen the incredible exchange today between Obama and Republicans, it is well worth the watch.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/o...es/speech/173/

Republicans are already regretting the inclusion of cameras at the event, as they did nothing but catch Republicans being whipped in a one on one policy debate. About time real debate returned to Washington. Hopefully more of this is in the works for the future. No matter who wins these exchanges, they are nothing but good for moving forward.

I guess I don't understand why Obama goes to the Republicans. If he wants his agenda passed, he should concentrate on Democrats, Pelosi and the House leadership in particular. I'd like to see some transparency in those meetings.

The Republicans actually invited him. They were originally not going to have cameras thinking the White House wouldn't want them, but at the last minute they requested them, and the R's were more than happy to oblige.

I've only seen clips, but I think both sides won from this exchange. Obama may have benefited a little more because it makes him look like a bi-partisan guy (which I firmly believe he is not). But by the same token, the Republicans got him on record as acknowledging them as having legitimate ideas. (Up to now, he's been pretending they haven't).

The real loser in this exchange is probably Nancy Pelosi.

Obama can't win with you, can he. If he works with Dems, he is overtly partisan and dismissive of the minority party. If he goes to Republicans, he is dumb because he could just do everything with Democrats.

Have you watched yesterday's exchange? If not, please do. It was the most refreshing 90 minutes of political television in years.

And he can't lose with you.

I watched it. He loves to lecture others.

But my question remains, if you would like to answer it. Why was he there? Was it merely for the optics? Your initial post would suggest so. Your conclusion is that Obama whipped the Repubs in a good old fasioned debate. Was that his purpose? What happened to bipartisanship?

My next question is why doesn't he simply work with House Dems to pass the Senate approved health reform legislation? Does he need Repubs for that?

One repeating talking point: Repubs are obstructionist; we can't get anything done in Washington.

He was there because House Republicans invited him. Do you think he should have turned them down?

Quite clearly from your comments you haven't watched the exchange at all. Rather than have an uninformed discussion, check it out and come back.

Do you think that was his only motivation, just because he was invited? Why did he proceed to whip them in a debate? Do you think that was his intent, or did things just get away from him?

I ask again, why doesn't he just work with House Dems to get them to pass the Senate health reform bill? He doesn't need Repubs, and after whipping them so soundly in such a public manner, is unlikely to be able to bring many of them along if he did. Indeed, why does he need Repubs for anything going forward?

These are fairly simple questions. You seem very strong in the Obama camp, so I'm seriously interested in what your answers are to them.

This may be the first time I have ever heard someone blame a politician for being superior in a debate. Odd. The Q&A was the Republican's idea. Obama was prepared, as I would expect him to be. Republicans weren't, and they got stomped. You may be putting blame in the wrong place.

I'm not sure what you mean by "just go after House Dems" to get them to pass the Senate health reform bill. Are you saying he should just tell them to do what he says and pass the Senate bill? That isn't how the process works. There is give and take. Democrats aren't a mindless bunch of automatons. They come from varied backgrounds with varied interests (which is why the 60 votes in the Senate was always a bit of an illusion).

Obama's preferred approach to passing health care seems to be instead to get the House and Senate to work out their differences, embody their agreements on amending the Senate bill in a reconciliation bill, pass that bill in the Senate, pass the reconciliation bill in the House, and then pass the Senate bill in the House. I also view that as vastly superior to simply passing the Senate bill. The object isn't just to "pass a bill" but to pass the best bill possible. It can be improved through reconciliation, so it should be.