Pressure on Tsai to name non-'92 consensus policy

The Taiwan blue media (plus Apple Daily), as well as a pro-China outlet, are stepping up the pressure on Tsai Ing-wen tot explain what sort of policy she can adopt to replace the "proven" '92 consensus and prevent relations from "deteriorating." Naturally, this analysis ignores that China intentionally deteriorates relations anytime they don't get what they want, which in this case is an admission that Taiwan is part of the same country as the PRC.

Apple Daily publishes a piece by Professor Chu Yan-gui (朱言貴), who not only intentionally misidentifies the US Taiwan policy as adhering to the "One China Principle" but also mislabels "One China, two interpretations" as a policy China has adopted. But the author raises another point: just as the DPP can't give up the principle of Taiwan's "independence" [even while the real policy is self-determination], China can't give up "One China," so obviously... only the KMT can work around this problem and maintain peace and stability. This analysis  ignores that China alone causes tensions, and that there was plenty of peace under Chen Shui-bian's administration. Calls to war are one-sided. The editorial fails to lay blame where it lies and also fails to admit that there can be plenty of peaceful progress without the One China principal, as there was under Chen. This progress need not sacrifice Taiwan's sovereignty.

The United Daily News asks similar questions in a signed editorial, but I found this passage most pointed:

The one character difference between "Chinese Taipei" with a national reference, as China uses and "Chinese Taipei" with a cultural reference as Taiwan uses has tortured cross-strait relations for 20 or 30 years, and that is a topic that our government disputes as it ought to.  The '92 consensus of "One China, two interpretations," involved retreating one step but advancing ten; only with this could the two sides implement the three links or sign the ECFA, and this is an example of retreating when appropriate. Stating that both sides of the strait belong to One China, or that the two sides belong to the same Zhonghua Minzu is also retreating one step to advance ten. Chinese Culture is a cultural and historical concept, not a political label.  

中國台北、中華台北一字之差就折騰了兩岸二、三十年，那是當爭則爭。九二共識、一中各表，退一步、進十步，兩岸才能大三通，才能簽定ＥＣＦＡ，那是當退則退。同岸同屬一個中國，抑或兩岸同屬一個中華民族，也是退一步，進十步。中華是文化和歷史概念，不是政治符號。

How does this paragraph at once acknowledge the Ma government's acceptance of Taiwan and China being the same country, and down play this threat down in favor of an entirely different "cultural and historical" model? I posit they aim to confuse the distinction, bolstering support for a political "same country" policy by trying to graft feelings people have about culture onto that "same country" model.

China Review News goes further, suggesting that the DPP hopes to identify "peace" with "unification" in order to frighten people onto the road of "independence." Their obvious conclusion, of course, is that Taiwanese Independence obviously means (to the DPP!) a lack of peace and a state of war. This nonsense needs no further elaboration on my part.

A fair question all these articles raise -- has Tsai answered these questions to the satisfaction of the electorate? Do people care enough about cross-strait policy, and if they do, will the medium voter be swayed to Tsai's side or be scared off?

We'll see.