Was Patty Marray a good negotiator?

[itsrobert]

Patty Marray must of went to the Barack Obama negotiating school.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. If they reject the deal and opt for another shutdown, I'd say yes. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. How I wish Democrats ...

would act strategically. What would serve for better optics going into 2014:

1) republicans raising hell over, and rejecting, what is being presented as a bi-partisan compromise bill and Democrats nodding and saying nothing (on a bill that is unlikely to pass the House); or,

2) republicans raising hell over, and rejecting, what is being presented as a bi-partisan compromise bill and Democrats raising hell, too?

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. I was wrong! ...

The budget deal passed.

And the Democrats still came out looking better (read: willing to act with bi-partisanship) than the gop.

[AlinPA]

2. It is mind-boggling that she was able to work with that slimeball Ryan. Maybe she did not have any

personal contact with the creep and delegated that ugly task of talking with him to staff.

[yurbud]

3. there's a problem to negotiating with Republicans you have to either offer them more money ...

or a bigger threat than their owners do.

unfortunately the same is true of too many Democrats.

[yurbud]

4. and I doubt patty Murray has access to that kind of money

or the pictures of what Republicans did to that poor goat at their party

[moondust]

6. Repug male vs. Dem female?

Repug males will always be inclined to disrespect and do whatever they can to hoodwink and steamroll the female.

Murray was in an impossible situation, basically trying to cut a deal with delusional, government-hating terrorists. Her gender probably didn't make it any easier.

[yurbud]

19. since Republicans have issues with women, she could have used her gender to her advantage

Especially with an ass weasel like Ryan, like "I know you guys are uncomfortable around women so you have to act all hardass and masculine, but a real man isn't afraid to treat a woman as an equal or admit she's right when she is. You're not like Karl Rove who runs away screaming and wetting himself when he ran into an assertive woman are you?"

[pnwmom]

7. She got the first budget passed in a divided government in several decades.

And she did it without letting them touch Social Security.

She was a very good negotiator.

[itsrobert]

8. no new revenue sources

workers were sold out, federal employees and veterans.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

16. Wrong about no new revenue

No new taxes, but increase in quite a few fees did generate new revenue in the budget.

[yurbud]

14. that's setting the bar extremely low--if she couldn't get new taxes, she could have at least gored

one of their sacred cows like subsidies for oil companies.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

17. That would be hostage taking--not negotiating

Both parties understand they've reached a tipping point with the public and if they don't produce meaningful work on the people's business...then all seats are vulnerable for a wave of incumbent replacement frenzy.

[yurbud]

18. attacking federal workers should count as "hostage taking" for Democrats

[pnwmom]

20. They didn't get our sacred cows, either. It was mutually assured

protection of sacred cows.

In a divided government, what else would you expect?

But she did get some increased revenue in the form of fees.

[Mass]

10. If you do not care that federal employees and contractors go a few more days without pay

(which would have happened in case of a shutdown), no.

If you accept the reality that you cannot shame the GOP into doing the obvious good thing and that not having an agreement would have been worse than this bad agreement, yes.

Of course, I know some here think that Dems should have tanked the agreement, but, just with other cases (farm bill, immigration, unemployment benefits...) it would not have brought anything better, only something worse.

So, it is definitively not a budget that is going to help create jobs, but it is a budget that will keep a few less people without a job.

Also, as mad as I am about UE, it is true that Dems starting to care WAY TO LATE. Either they still have not understood that the GOP was opposed to this and would need pressure from their state or they just did not care enough (too busy whining about Ocare).

It may be time that Dems stop reacting to the GOP and start acting.

[Mass]

12. Also, if you want to change that fact, work on electing progressive in 2014 and on giving a

progressive Democrat the gavel. It will not change before that.

We have to accept that the current Republican team misses the concept of negotiating in the middle.

[yurbud]

15. I think the current Repubs understand that there are enough Dems who will join them to screw us

but they have to stamp their feet and wet their pants to give the corporate Democrats cover to fold.

[pnwmom]

21. Not having an agreement means continuing the sequester

and that would have been worse.

[RandiFan1290]

11. We have a great team!

Rah Rah Sis Boom Bah!!

[itsrobert]

13. Rec

n/t

[geek tragedy]

22. she had an extremely poor hand to play.

She was stuck with the sequester thanks to Obama's 2011 misadventure.

Paul Ryan always had the options of saying "screw you, we'll just take the sequester cuts."