No kidding.
President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have made it quite clear to Americans that they’re not interested in negotiating with Republicans. At all. But WaPo’s Greg Sargent insists we just heard them wrong:
The claim Ds "will not negotiate" is a lie. The argument is over what *conditions* negotiations should take place under.
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) October 9, 2013
The dispute is not over *whether* to negotiate. It's about *what conditions* under which to negotiate: http://t.co/LQCyfK5PYg
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) October 9, 2013
Double down on the B.S. he much:
@baseballcrank The argument isn't over whether to negotiate at all. It's over whether to negotiate under hostage conditions.
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) October 9, 2013
@BenjySarlin @baseballcrank yeah, seriously, no change of any kind. Ds say no negotiations under threat; Rs say no talks w/o threat.
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) October 9, 2013
@MarkGreenFuture it's not over whether to negotiate over spending and debt.
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) October 9, 2013
@JayCaruso Jay, I'm still waiting for an answer. Why should Rs be given anything in exchange for funding the gov or raising debt limit?
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) October 9, 2013
@MarkGreenFuture Nope. Ryan and Cantor are asking for negotiations over spending/debt. Ds will do that, but not under threat conditions.
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) October 9, 2013
Recommended
@MarkGreenFuture Yes. But not over *whether* to negotiate at all.
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) October 9, 2013
@JayCaruso That's an argument for why Rs *can* demand those things. Of course they can. I'm saying t's a demand for unilat concessions.
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) October 9, 2013
@MarkGreenFuture No. The GOP position is, "Obama won't negotiate over anything." Read the op eds.
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) October 9, 2013
Uh, that’s not “the GOP position”; that’s what Obama said.
@JayCaruso In the deal you are proposing, what exactly are Rs conceding? Can you clarify?
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) October 9, 2013
@freddoso David, come on. The argument is over what conditions under which negotiations should take place. http://t.co/LQCyfK5PYg
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) October 9, 2013
@jrsalzman @freddoso that isn't what he said. He said I will not negotiate *over the debt limit.*
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) October 9, 2013
Must be hard to type when you’re carrying all that water.
https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/387951899636670464
https://twitter.com/JayCaruso/status/387952798262099968
Sargent is the one telling lies. And if he actually believes his B.S., he’s lying to himself, too.
@ThePlumLineGS @BenjySarlin "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today!"
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) October 9, 2013
True, with the conditions being "after their complete surrender." Shocking that they would pass on that. @ThePlumLineGS
— Gerry (@GerryDales) October 9, 2013
Clearly Sargent’s content to be a tool.
https://twitter.com/jrsalzman/status/387954311084265472
https://twitter.com/GOPfashionista/status/387952131161878528
Yep. Such a good little lapdog.
***
Related:
‘Boom!’ Spot-on Boehner video crucifies Obama: Who won’t he negotiate with?
Sally Kohn: Republicans are crazy if they think Obama’s the one who won’t negotiate
Foot stompin’ fiend! Obama calls Boehner to tell him he won’t negotiate
Join the conversation as a VIP Member