My memory and who needs to compromise...?

[Zyphlin]

Alright, all you've been hearing in the media recently has been compromise, compromise, compromise. So I've been thinking a bit and started to realize something. Please, correct me if my memory is faulty.

If I remember correctly, in the early 2000's when Bush took office and the Republicans had the congress I remember the media repeatedly talking about how the republicans must compromise. That "minority rights" were important and that to properly get anything done the republicans would need to compromise with the democrats to work together. That it was wrong to just use all their power to push their agenda and they need to reach out to the Democrats and compromise with them.

Then in 2006 the Democrats won control of congress and compromise came up again. This time, it was the Republican President needed to hear the message of the people and compromise with the Democrats. The american people spoke and the President needs to reach out across the aisle and work with the Democrats.

Then in 2008 the Democrats won the presidency and the narritative that the Republicans were the party of no and must stop being that and reach out and work to compromise with the Democrats if they want to get anything of their agenda done. That the democrats had won and it was encumbant on the republicans not to be obstructionists but to reach out and compromise with the Democrats.

Then in 2010 the Republicans win the house and make gains in the senate, and we hear in the media that the Republicans must take the message of the people that they want compromise and moderation, and that republicans need to work with Obama and compromise with the Democrats moving forward.

Question, are we ever going to see a time where the primary "Compromise" narrative going around the national media is that the Democrats need to compromise with the Republicans and not the other way around?

 

[OscarB63]

Question, are we ever going to see a time where the primary "Compromise" narrative going around the national media is that the Democrats need to compromise with the Republicans and not the other way around?

quite simply...no. it's like being married. I wanted a dog, my wife wanted a cat....so I compromised and got a cat. I wanted a truck, my wife wanted an SUV...so I compromised and we got an SUV. :lamo

 

[Zyphlin]

...holy ****, the Democrat Party is the Wife to the Republicans Husband?

Somehow I think the elephant sleeps on the couch a lot.

 

[cpwill]

Question, are we ever going to see a time where the primary "Compromise" narrative going around the national media is that the Democrats need to compromise with the Republicans and not the other way around?

no; just as we will never see them discuss conservatism as anything but a 'marginalizing' ideology. :lol: because you know, the tea party's message of fiscal sanity chased away so many moderates.

 

[haymarket]

Question, are we ever going to see a time where the primary "Compromise" narrative going around the national media is that the Democrats need to compromise with the Republicans and not the other way around?

The last time I looked, President Bill Clinton was a Democrat and he compromised greatly. His cooperation and compromise with Congressional Republicans have saddled us with a host of laws long favored by Republicans that include NAFTA, welfare reform, repeal of regulatory laws such as Glass-Steagel, and others.

 

[Zyphlin]

Yes, Clinton did compromise greatly. However, I was a bit too young to be firmly into politics in 1994 when the house flipped so I honestly just don't remember or have a recollection of the media coverage at that time, thus not commenting on it either way.

 

[Cold Highway]

Compromise = Me still being screwed over

 

[haymarket]

Zyphlin
As an intelligent person who can read up on such things I would assume you could do that if you so desired and in doing so prove your opening post wrong.

Chevydriver
regarding your signature - you do realize that using your same logic that you cannot spell LIBERTARIAN without LIE either.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Chevydriver
regarding your signature - you do realize that using your same logic that you cannot spell LIBERTARIAN without LIE either.

@Haymarket
It's a signature, get a clue, it's not part of any argument. Get off his ass about it.

 

[OscarB63]

The last time I looked, President Bill Clinton was a Democrat and he was greatly compromised.

editted for accuracy. due to his personal indiscretions...Clinton was is no position to NOT compromise.

 

[Zyphlin]

editted for accuracy. due to his personal indiscretions...Clinton was is no position to NOT compromise.

Whether or not Clinton compromised with republicans, and why, is irrelevant to my question. I am not talking about reality, but talking about the general over arching media impression as to who should have to compromise with who.

Perhaps someone that was old enough to routinely remember the Media's attitude during the 1994 period of time could give insight into which way the Media was mostly suggesting needed to compromise with who, but on that one I can't comment.

 

[OscarB63]

Whether or not Clinton compromised with republicans, and why, is irrelevant to my question.

but it does explain why he is not a good example of democrats compromising with republicans. It's not really a compromise if you are forced/coerced into doing it.

 

[haymarket]

Here is a secret of politics Oscar - anyone who does NOT have to compromise does NOT compromise. That is a lesson you learn quickly.

 

[OscarB63]

Here is a secret of politics Oscar - anyone who does NOT have to compromise does NOT compromise. That is a lesson you learn quickly.

which is why it is stupid and disingenuous for liberals to continually harp that republicans need to learn to compromise. they should just be honest and say "republicans should just learn to let democrats have their way".

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Compromising, in legislative terms means: "We'll buy your vote and support in exchange for ornamental perks for something that your constituents would like."
That is how Washington compromises. We don't *see* the compromise, though - it all happens in closed door meetings and on sticky notes.

Ideal compromise (which is what most of US want) is becoming MORE rare because of how the House and Senate function: Majority/minority. Compromise is especially convoluted in the House where committees are used to shuffle bills and packages around like "Circle One" notes in science class.

In order for REAL and SERIOUS compromise to happen they'd have to all *get together*
And then they'd have to research and has out *the bills*
And without trying to merely *buy* support with fluffy crap that's excessive and not necessary *to the bill* - they'd have to talk it over and actually alter *the language, stance, view or enforcement of said legislation* to where both sides aren't thrilled, but tolerably happy.

And when this happens hell will freeze over.
They DON'T get together - they DON'T take the time to read and research. In essence, no one WANTS to do this type of compromise.

Congress thinks things were better off when the American people were more in the dark and bought out - less involved and less demanding of facts and solutions.

I swear - if we can mediate and negotiate with a 3rd party who is there as a neutral party and to help the process go smoothly and efficiently to avoid litigation and a stand-off in the civilian court circuits then surely they could do the same in Government.

But they actually will have to WANT to do this - which isn't happening any time soon.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Alright, all you've been hearing in the media recently has been compromise, compromise, compromise. So I've been thinking a bit and started to realize something. Please, correct me if my memory is faulty.

If I remember correctly, in the early 2000's when Bush took office and the Republicans had the congress I remember the media repeatedly talking about how the republicans must compromise. That "minority rights" were important and that to properly get anything done the republicans would need to compromise with the democrats to work together. That it was wrong to just use all their power to push their agenda and they need to reach out to the Democrats and compromise with them.

Then in 2006 the Democrats won control of congress and compromise came up again. This time, it was the Republican President needed to hear the message of the people and compromise with the Democrats. The american people spoke and the President needs to reach out across the aisle and work with the Democrats.

Then in 2008 the Democrats won the presidency and the narritative that the Republicans were the party of no and must stop being that and reach out and work to compromise with the Democrats if they want to get anything of their agenda done. That the democrats had won and it was encumbant on the republicans not to be obstructionists but to reach out and compromise with the Democrats.

Then in 2010 the Republicans win the house and make gains in the senate, and we hear in the media that the Republicans must take the message of the people that they want compromise and moderation, and that republicans need to work with Obama and compromise with the Democrats moving forward.

Question, are we ever going to see a time where the primary "Compromise" narrative going around the national media is that the Democrats need to compromise with the Republicans and not the other way around?

Probably no need for the media to point it out. Democrats tend to be rather spineless and rarely stand their ground, unfortunately

 

[mpg]

Whether or not Clinton compromised with republicans, and why, is irrelevant to my question. I am not talking about reality, but talking about the general over arching media impression as to who should have to compromise with who.

Perhaps someone that was old enough to routinely remember the Media's attitude during the 1994 period of time could give insight into which way the Media was mostly suggesting needed to compromise with who, but on that one I can't comment.

Apparently I'm much older than you and can give you some information about media coverage of politics. When Reagan was president, he had to deal with a Democratic Congress. Every year they battled over the budget and at least a couple times there were standoffs that threatened to shut down the government if they couldn't reach an agreement on time. The MSM portrayed a government "shutdown" as a very serious problem and blamed it on stubbornness by Reagan.

When Clinton was president, he had to deal with a Republican Congress. The budget battles were very similar and there were also threats of government shutdowns. The MSM blamed the Congress instead of Clinton, and they further added that the Congress was violating the will of the people by going against a popularly elected president. What makes it even funnier is that Reagan won re-election by a land slide and Clinton never even got 50% of the vote.

In other words, the problem that you pointed out goes back at least to the 80s.

 

[haymarket]

from Oscar

which is why it is stupid and disingenuous for liberals to continually harp that republicans need to learn to compromise. they should just be honest and say "republicans should just learn to let democrats have their way".

In our divided system of government, compromise is necessary to get things done. Outside of the constant Republican wet dream of cutting taxes for the rich, they have no desire to getting anything done. thus the removal of any need to compromise.

 

[Barbbtx]

You don't compromise when you are offering food and the other side is offering poison.
Not sure where I heard that, but from someone with a brain. Beck or Rush maybe.

 

[haymarket]

from Barbbtx

Not sure where I heard that, but from someone with a brain. Beck or Rush maybe.

Oh - I see what you did. you put the two together and came up with one brain. i think even then you are being far too generous.

 

[Zyphlin]

You don't compromise when you are offering food and the other side is offering poison.
Not sure where I heard that, but from someone with a brain. Beck or Rush maybe.

“In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.” — Ayn Rand,

I believe that's what you're looking for.

 

[Harshaw]

Related is the general media definition of "bipartisanship," which happens to match the Democrat definition of "bipartisanship," which is: when Republicans agree to go along with the Democrat agenda. Otherwise, it's a "wedge issue."

 

[haymarket]

Zyphlin
Thank you for identifying the source of that quote as Ayn Rand. In honor of Ms. rand, allow me to give you one from John Rogers:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

 

[RestoreReason]

Call me crazy, but shouldn't they both have to compromise reguardless of who is in the majority at any given moment? Neither side should have to give up everything, but neither should be so arrogant at to think they should give up nothing. "No compromise" is not a democratic concept, but an authoritarian one.

 

[j-mac]

Call me crazy, but shouldn't they both have to compromise reguardless of who is in the majority at any given moment? Neither side should have to give up everything, but neither should be so arrogant at to think they should give up nothing. "No compromise" is not a democratic concept, but an authoritarian one.

Considering that you are on to something here, then what would you call the past two years? So far in the Obama Presidency I don't recall a single point that our President that called for division of the current political discourse, compromised on and actually gave credit to the repubs for the idea? Can you lay one out?

In fact, compromise, also known as consensus is a horrible form for governing. It is destructive, and serves more as a cover for the mistakes politicians make, than it does ever reach anything that furthers the good. Consider these five things said about consensus.

1. It embraces the status quo. Change, whether positive or not, is not human nature. We would prefer for things to remain the way they are today. So, when people get together to discuss the possibility of doing something a little different in the future, it’s normal for the majority to avoid making changes.

2. It gives the malcontents an equal voice in your decision. Reaching consensus gives everyone a voice at the table. When that happens, even the negative, bitter folks that don’t really embrace the vision have the opportunity to pull the rest of the group away from what could really be the most desirable outcome.

3. It short circuits the radical ideas that lead to the biggest breakthroughs. The big, bold ideas won’t see the light of day. Yet those are the ideas that could potentially lead to the best innovations. Consensus brings people back to the middle where the majority approves but mediocrity reigns.

4. It leaves unresolved conflict on the table. At the opposite ends of a decision are distinct opinions which, if left unresolved, could potentially lead to division. Consensus prevents tough conversations from happening. It gives people the freedom to jump to compromise without engaging a healthy debate.

5. It discourages people from dreaming big dreams. Want to neuter the creative-thinkers and entrepreneurs and visionaries in your organization? Force them to reach consensus with the rest of the crowd. These are the people that make you uncomfortable. They can drive you crazy. That’s OK. They’ll just go work someplace else if you keep forcing them to compromise their dreams.

Consensus = Bad Leadership « Mike Gothard

j-mac