Skip to content

Negotiating with Terrorists?

House Republicans say “This is the line in the sand.” House Speaker John Boehner has given in to the radical fringe of his party who say they will shut down the government unless Democrats agree to repeal healthcare reform.

So here is the choice they are demanding: If Obamacare is repealed, people will die. If the government shuts down, people will die. You choose.

In fact, just threatening to shut down the government is already damaging our economy. Even the conservative US Chamber of Commerce warned that it was “not in the best interest of the U.S. business community or the American people to risk even a brief government shutdown.”

This is why you don’t negotiate with terrorists. You give into them, and they just keep upping their demands. This time it is repealing a law they themselves passed, and which they don’t have the votes to repeal. But the House leadership has already announced plans to make additional demands, including approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline and changing the tax code to further favor big corporations and the rich.

We do need a line in the sand. The Republican fringe who “came to Washington with the radical agenda of ending as many government programs as they could, practically welcome the prospect of a shutdown or even a default.” We need to say no to the party of no.

The Reprimand Project
© The Reprimand Project



  1. TJ wrote:

    This is why it was such a bad idea to give in to these morons as much as Democrats/Obama did in the first 4 years of Obama’s term. They should have let the fiscal cliff “crisis” just happen too. Radical Republicans have in fact proven themselves to be nothing more than terrorists in suits.

    Thursday, September 19, 2013 at 7:20 am | Permalink
  2. Hassan wrote:

    I do not understand many things. We can blame the party, but eventually people voted for them. And they are representing/advocating for things the people who voted for them, wanted.

    So there should be something in system itself to stop that. Perhaps this is inherent flaw in democracy. The opposition is much more stronger sometimes than the party in power. Governing is more difficult than just hijacking the governance.

    Thursday, September 19, 2013 at 7:34 am | Permalink
  3. Patricia wrote:

    The complication arises from who “the people” allowed to educate them: screaming radio personalities, lazy media reporters, snake oil religious zealots, etc.

    The job of being a citizen is not easy. It requires study, not ignorance.

    Thursday, September 19, 2013 at 7:43 am | Permalink
  4. Iron Knee wrote:

    With enough money pushing for someone (especially if the media is owned by corporations who would benefit), almost anyone can get elected. People vote more from their emotions than rationally, and fear can be used to influence them.

    This is why limiting corporate political speech is so important, and we need to enforce and strengthen laws to limit media consolidation.

    Ironically, in our original constitution neither the president nor senators were directly elected to try to avoid this problem, but that didn’t work as hoped.

    I have to say that I do have faith that eventually what the Republicans are doing will backfire on them.

    Thursday, September 19, 2013 at 10:49 am | Permalink
  5. ebdoug wrote:

    ignorance in 70% of the population. Pew Research polls on current events tells it all. Had a lay preacher tell me once that he only wants to know what is happening in the immediate vicinity. He has no interest in anymore. And “I just hate to see people getting handouts because I went to work when I was eleven.” Of course, he gets huge financial hand outs from the military from hearing loss he acquired before he ever went in.
    Cut the educational funds, keep the populace interested in sports and shows, preach hate and fear and you have full control of the people of this country.

    Thursday, September 19, 2013 at 11:10 am | Permalink
  6. Michael wrote:

    Plenty of great points above. Here’s my $0.02 to consider: People have a fundamental difficulty with understanding aggregate effects. They hate all of Washington’s “pork barrel spending” but love when their Representative can brag about getting federal funds to keep their town’s manufacturing plant open. They don’t see the latter as being part of the former. “It’s different in this case,” is always the rationale.

    It’s easy to apply bad labels such as “fraud, waste, and abuse” when somebody else is reaping the benefits of the spending. It’s much harder to accept those labels when applied to something that you benefit from.

    Thursday, September 19, 2013 at 2:34 pm | Permalink
  7. Michael wrote:

    Btw, that was intended as a response to Hassan’s point about people voting for the GOP. And this does tend to be more of (but not exclusively) a Republican phenomenon. That side of the political spectrum tends to be more openly hostile toward Washington and is generally more inclined to want to keep the federal government out of local affairs.

    Thursday, September 19, 2013 at 2:38 pm | Permalink
  8. Iron Knee wrote:

    “more inclined to want to keep the federal government out of local affairs”

    Well, as long as it is other people who benefit, and also as long as it doesn’t involve abortion, being gay, or drugs.

    Thursday, September 19, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Permalink
  9. Jon wrote:

    Is the same GOP that keeps clamoring for “more democracy?” Holding the economy hostage for any reason is not democracy, but the height of arrogance.

    If the threat works, then at what point does this behavior end? Is ANYTHING off limits? Holding the economy hostage for any reason cannot be allowed to succeed. Period.

    And anyone who supports this effort MUST be held accountable next election.

    Saturday, September 21, 2013 at 3:46 pm | Permalink