My memory and who needs to compromise...?

[Mach]

Ask the Republican party, they drive the majority of their (positive) talking points, just as the Democrats do for theirs.

The Democrats apparently believe compromise is a desirable behavior for government, and a marketable position to their base.
Republicans, at least in my recent memory, don't see a lot of advantage in talking up the idea of "compromise with liberals". They appear to believe that their popularity is better served from both:

1. Claiming they won't/can't compromise with liberals because to do so is wrong
2. By not working at all with Obama, they are thinking they can get his administration to not make a lot of progress, and be well positioned for the next election running against a "couldn't accomplish anything" party.

They are comfortable with those tactics and implications, they believe it's at least neutral to their base, if not a positive. The tea party also adds another potential reason they want nothing to do with compromise...they are trying to move the Republican party more towards libertarian values, and those values are very polarized and rhetorically don't fit well with "compromise".

 

[Thorgasm]

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?

The term "compromise" means that both sides have to work together.

Republicans are different than Democrats when it comes to compromise. Dems don't attack other dems that compromise as being DINOs as much. RINOs are potrayed as treasonous to the Republican party. I believe the Republican party also is better at party solidarity. That's probably why the narrative is Republicans need to compromise with Democrats and not vice versa.

 

[Mach]

I take back recent memory - didn't Newt get a crapload done with Clinton? I don't follow politics closely enough, certainly not at that time, but I seem to recall despite all the bluster and hate, they were in the background cranking out legislation.

And to Ayn Rand, quoted by Beck or Rush:

“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,

Reality disagrees with you Rand. Everything we ingest by in large, has the potential to be a poison to us, or at least to kill us. Drink too much pure H2O and it can kill you. As soon as someone studied carcinogens, they found basically everything was a carcinogen. Unfortunately for Rand, reality still trumps imagination.

 

[RestoreReason]

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?j-mac

Given that the dems originally (and still) wanted a single payer system out of the health care reform bill, but tried to get the other side on board by watering it down to a gift wrapped goody bag for the private insurance companies, patterned largely on a Republican proposal from the '90s...yeah, I think I can come up with something.

I disagree with the majority of the quoted analysis on compromise, but for the sake of argument can we assume that by citing it you feel anything the Democrats passed in the past 2 years without Republican compromise support was, in fact, good governing?

 

[UtahBill]

from Barbbtx



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.

2 half wits don't add up to 1 whole wit....
I would like to see Rush bin Limbaugh and Glenn Beckerhead in a battle of wits, a debate with no forewarning of the questions...

 

[cpwill]

I take back recent memory - didn't Newt get a crapload done with Clinton?

mostly because Clinton came to Newt's positions; particularly with regards to welfare reform. Clinton would take Republican issues and make them his own; Gingrich claims that for a while he just kept "throwing interceptions". I don't really see Obama coming out in favor of repealing his own healthcare act any time soon.