Email Exchange

February 25, 2010

in chronological order;

My introduction to the topic: This is why it was important to have a plan

We debated last night whether Republicans could run on what would essentially be a “change” theme in 2010 or whether they actually had to have a plan.

I argued for the need for a plan.

If today’s health care summit has any meaning at all (and impact on public perception would give it meaning), then I believe today’s actions is an indication of the need for a plan.

The headline of the referenced article from the Associated Press is “GOP to Obama at summit: ‘We have a better idea’

Most people will only read the headline and without any kind of plan, the headline would have been quite different. I’m actually surprised the AP ran this headline regardless of the underlying facts.

Today CNN released a poll that both in which both sides can take comfort. On one hand only 25% of the public wants Congress to pass the existing bill. (25% just want them to stop working on health care altogether.)

On the other hand the public likes most of the provisions of the bill independently. Which part of this poll each side focusses on is not a mystery. We’ll see how perception changes, but for many, I think it’s obvious the President and Congress were never sincere in soliciting input from the GOP.

But, we’ll have to see how opinion shifts.

On thing’s for sure, the Democrats are not going to stop pushing for this, not matter what any polls say.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ first friend’s reply:

I think the first part of the plan should be to explore whether the states can be convinced to start working on an amicable divorce arrangement to scrap the “United States” as it currently stands.  I’d be willing to become a citizen of whichever side comes closest to keeping the Bill of Rights and providing constitutional guarantees against slavery, abortion, gay marriage, and unlimited federal borrowing (maybe throw “medicinal” use of marijuana in there too).  If that’s not workable in the short-run, then maybe an interim arrangement to trade Illinois to Canada for province to be named later would suffice.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{second friend’s reply:

I’m thinking it would be worth taking all those parts of the US that would fit in non-FriendOneLand and make them (us) part of Canada, while Alberta and parts west could join the USA.  I know that New England would become part of Canada (probably would do it today if a plebiscite were held).  I’m guessing that Virginia would be part of Scott’s USA, unless it voted county by county.  My question is where Maryland would fall.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{ {Back to Friend One:

Whether the old Civil War divisions would hold up or not would be intriguing. Another interesting scramble might be out on the Pacific Coast. And whether TX would align at all or just go completely independent.

A county-by-county split would make for a lot of isolated islands on both sides, no? There might have to be a grace period during which a county of the opposite color of its surrounding counties would be permitted to come into line with that country’s Constitution, at least in FriendOneLand. Since Non-FriendOneLand would be tolerant of all behaviors that didn’t threaten the power of the central government, I suspect that the foreigners in their midst would probably just be ignored.

Hey, it would be cool to just have one of these new countries named after me, let alone both.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s