If Republicans won't ever compromise, then maybe we should stop suggesting to compromise with them?

[mtnsnake]

Maybe we should discard the idea of working with them altogether, since it's plainly obvious that THEIR entire strategy from Day One of Obama's presidency is NOT to compromise with him and Democrats one iota.

In light of what's clearly obvious to anyone observing how Republicans operate, maybe we should consider that we stop wasting our precious time trying to get them to co-operate with us if they are not willing to co-operate, period. Maybe just maybe we would be better off holding out to the bitter end for what's right (our Democratic values), and let the cards fall where they may. In the long run, we would be a lot stronger for it, and along the journey the country can decide who is right or wrong and express it in the voting booths.

To Republicans, the word "compromise" means them getting their way 97% and Democrats getting their way 3%. After two plus years of this shit, practically getting on our knees begging for the Republicans to compromise with us...with very little to show for our efforts...it's almost like admitting that everyone is only in this for re-election.

Fuck Republicans, fuck trying to compromise with them a minute longer when they don't know the meaning of the word, and let nature take its course. There is too much at stake to keep letting them get the best of us for sake of a word that has become practically meaningless.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Our system requires compromise to work...

So unless we elect a real majority or establish single party rule, some compromise will always be required.

You see, you can not pass a bill without compromise. Even when we had a operating majority, compromise was necessary because even in the Democratic caucus there was a range of political ideologies form right of center to moderate left (Kucinich and Sanders being from the POV of world politics moderate left. Democrats had big majorities back when we passed the 1964 Civil Rights act, Medicare, and medicaid. We need a large majority because we could not pass a bill unanimously with out own caucus. You can look up how party members voted for t hos pieces of legislation.

I get your angry, but unless you can come up with a way to pass bills without taking a vote in Congress, you have to have compromise. If you want nothing to go through that violates some point on the left, then the government completely ceases to function instead of just being crippled and we move merrily along toward a failed state.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. +1

Excellent response

[Warren Stupidity]

3. The other side seems to be doing fine with No Compromise. nt

[JoePhilly]

6. Because their goal is to shut the government down.

They don't care how.

[CakeGrrl]

14. Exactly. The RW's definition of 'doing fine' is tearing down the economy.

If President Obama shared that view, he'd play chicken with them.

He does not.

I don't understand why people on the Left don't get that.

[Ozymanithrax]

16. Their goal is to get total control...

If they must shut the government down, they are willing to pay the consequences to the poor and middle class, and to their own constituents.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. So if we are going to compromise and they aren't...

the end result is our capitulation to their demands.

[Life Long Dem]

40. +1

[Ozymanithrax]

9. Well, Republicans are attempting to institute single party rule...

Before FDR, the Congress was considered the more powerful of the branches of government, and the House (because funding bills must start there) ran the show.

What is on the Republicans side is that Democrats know they must govern, and to govern they must pass bills, and to pass bill they must compromise.

Elect a better Congress if you want a better government.

[LiberalFighter]

25. Educate the school children about the govt process too.

[mtnsnake]

4. Then the system is currently broken because half of the system refuses to compromise, period

So, to compromise with the Republicans in this day and age means getting completely shafted. If we can't get the other side to compromise, then our only option is to fight for what's right for the country by sticking up for our ideals and letting nature take its course.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. Yes, the system is broken.

The Constitution has no remedy when a branch of government refuses to do its job.

[Armstead]

7. The difference is the starting point and how hard Dems are willing to fight

[Ozymanithrax]

13. The bottleneck is that Republicans are willing to destroy everything.

and they do no see a political cost.

If we have a wave election that returns control to Democratic hands, the Republican party will either shatter or change, and a moderate party will reassert control and throw the left a few bones.

If we have a wave election that gives Republicans control...well that is our worst nightmare. They will see it as a vindication to take us back to the 1880's. Say goodbye to the safety net and 130 years of slow progress.

If we retain the status quo, then the system will continue to disintegrate slowly. until it collapses.

[Armstead]

17. All the more reason to call the GOP out instead of legitimizing their awful positions

That, to me would be both a political winner and benefit the country.

[Ozymanithrax]

24. If the system quits working completely, they win...

If they take over the system because we let it quit working, they win.

The only way we eke out a small victory is to keep things going until they can be removed from power.

Refusing to compromise, and letting them stop the system, is doing what they want.

[Armstead]

28. Well, I believe setting the lines is also the way to politically win

IMO, when you basically say "We will endorse the GOP position and accept it as the framework" it is also telling voters that either 1)Both parties are the same or worse 2)The GOP must have better ideas because the Democrats are agreeing with them.

And given those choices in a bad economy where people are angry and frustrated with the status quo, they are going to perceive and vote for the GOP as the real "party of chahge and effectiveness."

On the other hand, if the President and Democratic Party exposes and hammers home the wrongheadedness and dangerousness of GOP ideology and character, voters at least have somethinbg to choose between.....And if the Democrats do a good job of salesmanship (backed by actual performance) they have a much better chance to win.

[primavera]

41. Oh, bravo!!!

:applause:

It's a huge mistake to allow fear of a potential short term loss become the final arbiter of every policy decision. Then the opposition knows that all they have to do is ratchet up the ante enough and you will fold every time. The opposition never even needs to make good on their threats and endure the political fallout of their intransigence, all they need do is hint that they're willing to go the distance and you'll immediately surrender. Sooner or later, you have to put your money where your mouth is and stand up to bullies, otherwise, you're enabling them to greater and greater excesses.

And caving is not without a consequence. Apart from the immediate consequences to constituents of allowing bad policies to pass, by lending bad policy the legitimacy of bipartisan consensus, you communicate to the electorate that all parties agree that there is no better option on this particular issue, so that becomes the new baseline. Tomorrow, when Repukes want to negotiate a new unilateral "compromise" from the Dems, the spectrum has shifted just that much closer to their goal posts and their job is made just that much easier.

There was a recent CNN commentary that someone here on DU cited which observed that the great irony about the debt ceiling crisis is that the policies favored by Dems are ones the vast majority of the American public wants, i.e., taxing the rich, protecting Social Security, etc., yet Dems were too petrified to advocate on behalf of them. We whimper about how we don't have filibuster proof majorities in both houses of Congress, so we can't be expected to advocate effectively on behalf of responsible policy. Yet the Teabaggers, with only 56 out of 435 members in the House, have been extremely effective in advocating for their psychotic positions, while we stand around and wring our hands and make excuses. Sorry to be the one to break it to you folks, but no one ever promised that legislating was easy or risk free. Yeah, it's a bitch that there are nutcases in Congress, but that's the job, if we can't handle the challenge, we don't deserve to be in office.

[Armstead]

42. Bravo back -- you should post this on its own

[State the Obvious]

20. Exactly...and if you DON'T want our system to work, you don't compromise!

...which perfectly describes the Republican commitment to bring down the system. Bye-bye Constitution.

Why else would they be so elated with the "corporations-are-people" ruling? They don't just want smaller government.....they want "corporation-run government"..

[awoke_in_2003]

37. yes, compromise is necessary...

but our side of the bartering always starts at what we want as the goal- just look at the public option. If we wanted it, we shouldn't have started at that point. If you are haggling to sell something you want $100 for, you don't start discussions out at that point. You start at, say, $150 and work from there.

[sudopod]

46. define "work" nt

[JoePhilly]

5. Their entire goal is to shut the government down.

So by doing what you suggest, they actually get everything they want.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. Particularly since the assholes are trying to destroy our country.

I don't understand the reason for being reasonable with thieves and criminals.

[mtnsnake]

11. +1000

Exactly. When will everyone finally accept that Republicans are out to take over this country entirely for themselves? It should be plain as day by now, but for some reason, it just isn't yet.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

12. Yep. It'd be like trying to be reasonable and come to an agreement with a pedophile. Uh - why? nt

[Ozymanithrax]

15. The want total control, not to destroy the country...

They have their view and want to institute that view across the land. They are willing to pay the consequences to get total control.

[JoePhilly]

18. A key part of that is shutting down the government.

Every social program goes away.

Plus, EPA, DOE, everything but the Ministry of Christian Faith and the Military.

[Ozymanithrax]

22. Yes, you are right. Their control is a nightmare.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

19. They don't realize they're destroying the country? Or maybe they don't give a damn? nt

[Ozymanithrax]

23. They know there are consequences to create the country that exists in...

their fantasy. They are willing to pay the consequences of their actions. Essentially, they are fanatics creating a utopia. Being fanatics, they are incapable of seeing the flaws in their reasoning. If they do create their utopia, they will blame liberals for anything that goes wrong, because they are fanatics who will never see the flaw in their dream.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

34. My anger comes from the fact that Democrats are mellow and don't fight back...

When one's children are being threatened, one fights, if necessary onto death. If one's country and one's children's future is being threatened, one fights, and yes, often if necessary one dies doing it.

Democrats don't. We're being told that we must watch our words. That we must not insult. That we must get along with the enemy.

I think that's bs. All it is is encouraging Democrats to take the punishment the enemy is meting out. It does not protect our country, nor does it help the country's future. What kind of place are we leaving for our children? And why are we just standing idly and doing nothing about it?

[ProSense]

21. Despite Republicans,

compromise is not a bad word.

Feingold and McCain compromised to get McCain-Feingold.

There are any number of people across the political spectrum advocating compromises involving Ron "Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional" Paul.

With Republicans in control of the House, compromise is the only way a piece of legislation is going to pass.

[mtnsnake]

26. Compromise is wonderful if it is truly a compromise

If we cannot seem to get them to compromise with us on just about anything without giving up the majority of what we are fighting for in the so-called name of compromise, then maybe we should not stress the word "compromise" 24/7 as if that one word is the defining word of Obama's legacy. The more that Republicans here us begging them to compromise with them, the more they know they have us in the palm of their hands.

[ProSense]

27. So

"Compromise is wonderful if it is truly a compromise"

..if no one advocates compromise how does one end up with a "wonderful" compromise?

"The more that Republicans here us begging them to compromise with them, the more they know they have us in the palm of their hands."

What do you suggest, that the President eliminate the word compromise from his statements and say: Republicans need to do it my way because it's the right way?

Seriously, what are you suggesting?

The big news today is a NYT piece that focuses on an alleged division in the administration. Here are a few points from the piece:

<...>

Even if the ideas cannot pass Congress, they say, the president would gain a campaign issue by pushing for them.

<...>

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House director of communications, said that there was no internal debate. “The president’s first priority is to work with Republicans and Democrats to grow the economy, create jobs and reduce the deficit, but if the Republican House continues its ‘my way or the highway’ approach, he will make sure the public knows who is standing in the way and why.”

<...>

I agree with Pfeiffer. Things that cannot pass Congress are not going to create jobs.

[mtnsnake]

29. "..if no one advocates compromise how does one end up with a "wonderful" compromise?"

Advocating compromise is one thing, but overusing the word "compromise" in the manner our administration has been doing so gets to be a little more than counter productive (if not old) if true compromise is rarely reached and almost always ignored by the other side.

I am all for compromise, I'm just not for bending over backwards for the sake of a word that has little meaning anymore....and ending up with deals that are tilted heavily for the other side...just so we can say we compromised?

[ProSense]

30. Actually,

"Advocating compromise is one thing, but overusing the word "compromise" in the manner our administration has been doing so gets to be a little more than counter productive (if not old) if true compromise is rarely reached and almost always ignored by the other side. "

...no. That is why the teabaggers are losing support, why Boehner's approval fell 16 points since April, why this Congress, not the President, is seen as historically ineffective.

[Odin2005]

31. No compromising with lunatics. If they keep on obstructing, then...

Obama should declare emergency powers.

[Marnie]

33. The spineless Dims and the whimp Obama could a least

be expected to stand up for their party's principles.

They don't, and having gotten into the looser's bracket mentality I doubt that they will.

That is why I want primaries for Obama. To make the party leaders remember what they are supposed to stand for.

The entire party's leadership has given up its virtues so often, I doubt that they can remember what they were, unless the have to face real Democratic challengers and have their lost principles shoved down their throats.

[jimlup]

35. I've never understood why Obama was so anxious to compromise

and yet he was ready to denounce a large portion of his base (the left) without even a minor consideration.

Why the jump to compromise? I mean "compromise" is one thing but to give up the whole damn thing (which in my opinion is what happened each time) is quite another.

Yes - the Republicans have shown that they are not able to compromise. We should not be dealing with them. We should exclude them from any consensus and let them explain their failure to get anything done to their voters.

I'm noticing that I'm pretty god damn mad this week! Anybody else feeling helpless and hopeless politically?

[Phx_Dem]

36. Or maybe we should refuse to compromise too so we can be just like them.

If the progressive caucus had it's way, we would be just as bad as the Republicans and equally to blame for the dysfunction in DC. So thank God they aren't in charge.

[TheKentuckian]

38. What policies brought us to where we are? What wisdom is there in perpetuating them?

Especially when any "compromise" means giving the the lion's share of what they want which is more dangerously cancerous policy?

There is more to dysfunction than failure to reach compromise. If you implement counter-productive policies there will be dysfunction.

They want to drive us off a high cliff, compromise will always mean we are stuck in a ditch at best and we go off a medium height cliff, at best.

You are flat out talking out of your ass. Did you even look at the progressive budget? It is not a hardliner proposal by any stretch and actually would do the job without damaging the safety nets or putting the weight on the backs of those who have already sacrificed over and over.

You wildly misrepresent the positions of the progressive caucus just like a TeaPubliKlan would.

[Skittles]

39. it would be nice if Obama quit bending over for them

but it ain't gonna happen

[Autumn]

43. I find it troubling that their policies are what got us here and

the Democrats are so eager to go along with what they want. So what can be done? More of the same? It's all too depressing.

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. You are so emblematic of what's actually wrong. We aren't teabaggers.

This firebagger strategy might work for Bernie or Kooch, but this president is actually intelligent, and a genuinely nice person. :eyes:

[mtnsnake]

45. & your post tells me you're emblematic of those who love getting pushed over a cliff by teabaggers

This firebagger strategy might work for Bernie or Kooch, but this president is actually intelligent, and a genuinely nice person

Ohhh, I get it. Because President Obama is a "genuinely nice person", he should continue letting the Republicans bully him around when it comes to making compromises. Yeah, that's worked out really great for us so far, hasn't it.

BTW, as far as your Bernie comment, Bernie Sanders is intelligent, a genuinely nice person, AND he is a fighter who doesn't let Republican assholes push him around.