- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,719
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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?
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?
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?
@HaymarketChevydriver
regarding your signature - you do realize that using your same logic that you cannot spell LIBERTARIAN without LIE either.
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.
Whether or not Clinton compromised with republicans, and why, is irrelevant to my question.
Here is a secret of politics Oscar - anyone who does NOT have to compromise does NOT compromise. That is a lesson you learn quickly.
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?
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.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.
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".
Not sure where I heard that, but from someone with a brain. Beck or Rush maybe.
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,
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.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?