I thought the tea party arose more over bank bailouts than anything else? Healthcare just kept the movement going for a bit, but ultimately strangled it as Democrat-leaning supporters dropped out. If you recall, in the beginning the tea party and occupy movements both shared some crossover members and beliefs.
I think the only negotiation that would’ve suited Democrats in the period from January 2009 to January 2011 would have been how many weiners do we make the GOP suck? I don’t seem to recall there being much willingness on the part of either party, as the two parties were on opposite ends of the healthcare debate. The Dems wanted a government-sponsored system, the GOP considered that anathema to their core beliefs (even though it was championed by some conservative economists back in the 80s).
I mean, am I supposed to believe that if only the GOP had given a little, the Dems would’ve? But where? If one party is against the core of what the other wants to do, where is there room for negotiation but on the margins that neither side actually cared much about?
Eric Cantor? Glasses-wearing, used car salesman vibe? I remember, but also remember him being primaried over his immigration stance…
Does my memory suck this bad? Either way, this debate will require lots of Googling on my part, so instead of that I shall simply bend the knee on this one to you and @VaultHunter101.
Consider mine knee bended.