As soon as they play the race card, they've signalled that they can't be taken seriously. Nobody gives a crap about the race card anymore.

Nah, I'll pass. Shouting isn't my style, although I reserve the right to do so if someone really pisses me off.  LOL!

To business ... Your evidence of Obama's bi-partisanship undercuts nothing. His overtures of bipartisanship are all superficial.

• He made cabinet appointments ... well not really. He nominated a Republican to Commerce, and then immediately withdrew the census from his jurisdiction, which prompted the Republican to back out. That wasn't bipartisan ... that was sheer political cover. And Gates? That wasn't a concession to Republicans. That was a concession to the Pentagon.
• The fact that his base is worried about his collusion with Republicans is not really evidence of collusion - it's only evidence that the base is threatened by overtures. And that's what all these things are ... overtures. He doesn't deliver on bipartisanship. He won, remember?

Obama's very good at seizing upon a fringe criticism, and then running with it to hammer down all criticism as if it was cut from the same cloth. The death panel comment was from Sarah Palin, and it had to do with concerns about rationing coverage. Obama portrayed that as irrational fear, and pushed it to the extreme as "pulling the plug on grandma." And then he lumped all criticisms together. By the time of his speech to Congress, he had manufactured the myth that all criticisms of his plan were irrational. Was that honest? Does that give us cause to trust this guy? 

As for this particular bill, where is the evidence of bipartisanship? What has he given up? And how about those assurances that his bill won't do what his opponents claim?

• Obama says that nothing in this bill will cover illegal aliens. That's a distinction without a difference - the bill doesn't say it will cover aliens, it just refuses to say they won't. Same ambiguity with abortion: the text doesn't say it will, but the Democrats prevent it from saying it won't. Normally, that's no cause for alarm, but in both cases, the common sense expectation is that illegals will still get free care at hospitals that we'll all have to pay for, and that abortions would be covered indirectly.
• Obama throws slime against people who suggest that he can't possibly pay for this without raising taxes and the deficit. But then he offers no way to pay for it, except an absurdly ridiculous idea that he can scoop up loose change from waste and fraud.
• Wait! I have one! He promised to consider tort reform.

Finally, you're right, Jer. I have given up on negotiation with this guy. That doesn't mean that I'm being unreasonable, or that I'm closed-minded. It just means that our experience with him is that he's all take and no give. We've come to the point where I can't reasonably expect that he'll consider any of our concerns, and all he's willing to do is grandstand. (Jer, the president assembled the Congress, and all he did was tell his opponents that they were stooges and liars. That was pure grandstanding. And we're supposed to negotiate with him after that?)

Negotiation isn't going to solve this problem. This is a political impasse that can only be resolved by votes. If we win, great. If not, we'll try again next time. I don't regret it coming to a vote. Votes are how we maintain democracy.

Right now, negotiation is causing more problems and acrimony than it's solving. Ain't worth it. Let's just vote and be done with it.

That's rhetoric, Jer. While no opinion is absolutely certain, that doesn't mean that a man should judge his own beliefs as uncertain as the opposite. That's the distinction between true belief and justified knowledge. Just because the justification isn't accepted doesn't mean that the belief is untrue.

Second, it's a logical fallacy to argue by authority. So, when you cite the National Review as an authority that conservatives should follow, that's a fallacy.

Finally: "Have you heard a single Republican leader in the House or Senate say it was appropriate conduct?  I don't think so, and I don't think you will." You're correct. But consider that Joe Wilson himself denounced it, as did the leadership. The argument isn't that what he did was wonderful ... it was that his bad behavior (we agree it was bad) is at least partly mitigated by the fact that he was reacting to being lied to.

Jer: 

Your post did not unduly bother me.  We have political differences and, I think, enjoy spirited debate.  I hope that on occasion rare you have been moderated in your thought by me as I have in kind by you.  Suffice to say, respect, never in question, remains intact.

Now that we have reaffirmed our male bonding... back to the acrimony!

From the NRO Editorial, Rationing and Rationality, you quote from:

"The view that medical care should be withheld from people based not merely on the likelihood of success or the cost but on judgments about the quality of their lives is no longer held only by a fringe."

Do you really believe a government bureaucrat gives a rat's ass about quality of life (QoL) for the patient?  They will use pre-determined algorithms containing decreasing valuation of QoL to decide rationing of care.

Quality of life should be determined by those with "boots on the ground" -  the patient, their loved ones, and the physicians involved in the intimate care relationship.

Obama fretted over whether his mother should have received a hip replacement, or whatever it was, so close to her death.  This from a guy who spouts off about "respirators", tonsillectomy thievery, and taking pain pills for your cardiac problem.  What did his mother want?  We haven't heard that yet - Barry relates everything eventual to himself.  His thoughtlessness and narcissism signify his lack of care for the issue, IMO.

If government mandates everyone over 65, including any age having certain ailments, must receive "end of life" counseling every 5 years, then the heavy handed imprimatur of Government subtlely and overtly sends a message of "die or suffer for your Country".  This is part of the "death panel" mentality of Obama and his capo's.  Then there is the rationing issue - what safeguards will there be in a monopolistic government system?  Less than those placed upon private enterprise, IMO.

I can not stress this enough:

I do not want Government involved in deciding end of life care issues.

Jer, I don't care if it's Dem, Rep or the man on the moon (Kucinich), keep Government out of these care decisions.  These decisions should be made by the people involved directly in the care, albeit hospital ethics panels and the courts may be involved in rare cases).

"It was unprecedented, it was wrong, and it is indefensible." 

(Jer)

Not so sure of that (eg Civil War era) / yes, given modern day tradition / not necessarily.

I stand by my previous comments.  Had Obama not behaved so petulantly then Wilson would not have responded in kind.  Cause and effect.

Only condemning Wilson's insolence without condemning Obama's is a partisan barricade sure to continue the political divide in this country.

I personally do not want a repeat of this behaviour in that venue from either side again. 

What about booing and hissing?  Since the Dems did it to Bush, does that mean those are acceptable behaviours in Congress?  Or is this more an issue of which political faction is the aggreived party?

Obama had the mantle of trust and respect bestowed upon him by virtue of obtaining the Office of the Presidency.  Obama then failed to maintain this reverent compact due to his actions and associations while president. 

We do not owe Obama fealty.  We do not owe Obama respect when he disrespects the Constitution, domestic political opponents, and America while abroad.

BTW, where was the condemnation from Obama and Dem's after

• Reid explicitly called President Bush a liar?
• Murtha explicitly called Marines cold blooded murderers?
• Pelosi explicitly called the CIA liars?
• Hilary Clinton circuitously called General Petraus a liar in the Senate?
• Various Dem politicians and Obama Administrative personel call political dissenters "domestic terrorists"?

The more the Dems keep this subject going, the more opportunity it gives the Reps to expose the churlish and divisive behaviour of the Dems.  Maybe it's best to keep that double-edged blade in its scabbard.