Making Demands, Waxing Dramatic, Getting Attention

ACCORDING TO by now famous congressperson John Boehner, president Obama refuses to do business with congressional republicans unless said republicans surrender, unconditionally. The president is demanding unconditional surrender, and nothing less, claims an injured sounding Boehner. Win, or lose. Conquer, or surrender. That's what its all about to Boehner, its a matter of ego, of competitive supremacy, and working together with everyone to cooperatively govern the country in the country's best interests is irrelevant. This is the dramatic manner in which the congressperson who represents a few people in Ohio describes the situation - tyrannical chief executive unreasonably injures republican sensitivities by demanding unconditional surrender! Just what the situation demands; vitriolic hyperbole! Emotion! Exaggeration and distortion! Unconditional surrender? When one offers to negotiatie on any topic, as Obama does, if only the person holding a gun to one's head will lower the gun and negotiate, one is hardly demanding unconditional surrender. One is attemting to remove the gun, and survive. But we absolutly must portary our point of view in the most dramatic terms possible, mustn't we? We must attract attention, engender sympathy, and portray ourself as an innocent victim of someone else's dastardly perfidy. Especially when we are in a corner, desperate, sinking beneath the weight of public opinion. The republicans are making reasonable offers which the president is refusing, according to the victimized, feign offended, desperate republicans. According to the democrats, according to the president, the above mentioned republicans are attaching two separate issues to the same proposal, and refusing to consider each separately, reqiring all or nothing, holding a gun to the head of the government. Take your pick. At the beginning of this mess, the republicans were insisting that they would not pay for the government unless Obamacare were defunded, aka eliminated. That sounded rather like a demand for unconditional surrender, almost. Now the Obamacare-hating republicans are not even mentioning obamacare in their proposals. That sounds like compromise offers. What Obama is doing could be described in many different ways, each containing some truth, some positive, some negative. So what purpose is served by calling Obama's offers "surrender demands" rather than "compromise offers"? For one thing, it attracts more attention. Obama refuses to negotiation any changes in the budget unless the republicans sned him a separate debt ceiling bill, and the republicans refuse to send a separat debt ceiling bill unless obama negotiates first. Its a a matter of who goes first, it seems. What about this solution? The chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, or perhaps Miley Cyrus or someone celebritied, sets a time and date, and upon the arrival of said time and date, in the very near future, the debt ceiling bill is handed to Obama as a separate, completed measure, and simultaneously negotiations begin, on whatever topics the republicans see fit. Anyone with a better idea , feel free.