Names have been removed, BTW.
Let me ask my conservative and/or Republican friends a question or two: If there were a Republican President (say Jeb Bush), and the Senate approved a clean budget bill or continuing resolution (CR), would it be acceptable to you if a Democratic Speaker of the House refused to allow a vote on that bill/CR (thereby shutting down the government) unless Republicans agreed to a Democratic demand on some important liberal issue, say, that all ammunition sales be banned or severely limited across the country under the Commerce Clause or all abortions be fully funded by the federal government under the Spending Clause or taxes be raised on the wealthiest and businesses to close the budget shortfall under the Taxation Clause and 16th Amendment, or that spending on the military and military pensions be cut to balance the budget, or all of the above? Would this be an acceptable negotiating tactic? Would threatening a default on our credit be acceptable for the same purpose? Is this a precedent we want to set? If President Jeb Bush refused to negotiate under such threats, would you blame him or would you blame the Democratic Speaker of the House for the shutdown or default? Any of my friends across the isle have answers, thoughts? I'm just wondering what you all think about this precedent. I'm not here to argue the merits of Obamacare or deficit spending, just here to listen to your views on this tactic and its precedent as a means for a minority party to get something it wants even after the issue had already been decided by a democratic process.