He makes some good points in the article. Things need to change in Washington but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Agreed.

 

Until we get either term limits or a viable third party that people will actually get out and vote for and not just pay lip service to, we will have the same old same old.

I’m not sure what Republicans wanted in terms of compromise in 2009, which is cited here as the reason for their subsequent and unrestrained intransigence (there have never been more filibusters used by any Congress than this one, the debt ceiling debacle threatened the country’s financial standing to make a political point, etc.). While the Democrats were able to get a lot of their agenda passed through their supermajority, I’m not aware of any compromise offered by the Republicans other than the presentation of their own desires. Since the American voters had just swept in a Democratic president and majorities in both houses of Congress, it’s hard to argue that Republicans were negotiating from anything but a position of weakness. What I mean is that if voters wanted Republican policies to be enacted they would have voted Republicans in; therefore Republicans were going to have to tolerate Democratic policies temporarily.

 

But, that has never been an absolute thing. Though Democrats had a supermajority, they could hardly agree enough but to make the passage of policies a tentative affair. Republican votes would have been crucial. The art of compromise allows the minority party to get at least some of what they want in exchange for some support (i.e. “add X to this bill or remove Y and we’ll give you Z number of votes,” etc. If that occurred I hope someone will point that out to me). Instead, despite Republicans being invited to several summits - both public and private - with the president and majority leaders to air their views and to negotiate (and I only mention that to say that they were formally part of the process – I’m sure it was a political show for both sides), the only rhetoric I heard from the Republican camp was that of absolutism. In fact, Republicans vowed to wholly oppose all of Obama’s agenda before he was even inaugurated and went to considerable lengths to whip wavering moderate Republicans into opposition so Democrats couldn’t claim any amount of bipartisanship. Even though I think many (including many here) think that a divided government produces better policies because it tempers the indulgences of either side, I don’t think that is the case at the moment as there appears to be an unparalleled lack of productivity in the place of compromise.

 

Now, I don’t write all of this to bash the Republican party (though I don’t have many kind words for them), Democrats are generally more incompetent if not less extreme. But, I don’t agree with the notion that Obama is the catalyst for the amount of obstruction and petty bickering we currently see and I think an alternative view of events is worth being entertained here. This also means that I don’t agree that Romney will be the savior of reasonable politics. His proposed policies are just as doctrinaire as Obama’s are criticized for being.

 

Compromise has become a dirty word at this point in our history (unless one uses Clyde’s definition above) and there don’t seem to be many willing to put country ahead of winning than there used to be. I hope it’s just a phase, but there’s reason to believe it isn’t. I’m not sure Democrats and Republicans in Congress even fraternize with each other anymore. It’s hard to see the other side as human or worthy of respect when that’s the case (I think that’s also true of regular voters too).

New definition of compromise: You agree to what I'm saying.

 

That's the problem.

 

I'm evidently doing a bad job expressing my message because you are missing it badly.

 

I believe that there is still a significant percentage of folks in Congress that are willing to compromise and work together. However, when the President pushed a very partisan agenda early on, he pushds those not agreeing with such agenda into extreme positions.

 

I assume that you've done some negotiating in your life. When one party's first proposal is ridiculously to its side, the other party's counter proposal is ridiculously to its side as it is pushed there by the first party's proposal. A whole lot of time, money and effort is wasted trying to get to a fair compromise. Sometimes it (a fair compromise) can't be reached because of the tenor set by the first ridiculous and extremely one sided proposal. Which is why I constantly tell my clients before starting any negotiations to know exactly what they want as their final deal; start with a proposal a little better than the final deal but quickly get to the final deal. Insulting the other side with an initial stupid offer is counterproductive. Even if my client has all the leverage, I still tell my client not to cram its deal down the other side's throat, particularly if it is going to be an ongoing relationship where my client is going to have to live with the other party for a while.

 

So I am thinking and hoping that if Romney gets elected and DOES NOT quickly and dramatically attempt to move the needle in a drastic way in the conservative direction, but rather shows the American public and Congress that he realizes, even though he got elected President, there is a large percentage of Americans and folks in Congress that do not support an extreme conservative agenda, that he can build a willingness amongst enough members of Congress to compromise.

I'm evidently doing a bad job expressing my message because you are missing it badly.

 

I believe that there is still a significant percentage of folks in Congress that are willing to compromise and work together. However, when the President pushed a very partisan agenda early on, he pushds those not agreeing with such agenda into extreme positions.

 

I assume that you've done some negotiating in your life. When one party's first proposal is ridiculously to its side, the other party's counter proposal is ridiculously to its side as it is pushed there by the first party's proposal. A whole lot of time, money and effort is wasted trying to get to a fair compromise. Sometimes it (a fair compromise) can't be reached because of the tenor set by the first ridiculous and extremely one sided proposal. Which is why I constantly tell my clients before starting any negotiations to know exactly what they want as their final deal; start with a proposal a little better than the final deal but quickly get to the final deal. Insulting the other side with an initial stupid offer is counterproductive. Even if my client has all the leverage, I still tell my client not to cram its deal down the other side's throat, particularly if it is going to be an ongoing relationship where my client is going to have to live with the other party for a while.

 

So I am thinking and hoping that if Romney gets elected and DOES NOT quickly and dramatically attempt to move the needle in a drastic way in the conservative direction, but rather shows the American public and Congress that he realizes, even though he got elected President, there is a large percentage of Americans and folks in Congress that do not support an extreme conservative agenda, that he can build a willingness amongst enough members of Congress to compromise.

 

So a President who is a democrat put entitlement cuts on the table, compromised down on his health care bill so much that it's the exact plan enacted by the republican nominee for president and the republican health care reform proposed in the 90's but he's the problem? The republicans did Obama a favor by saying no when he offered up entitlement cuts during the debt ceiling debates. Your version of the events of the last 3 years are the exact opposite of how they occurred. This president is a pragmatic problem solver who'd rather compromise and negotiate away his position any day of the week than be an idealogical rock.

It's amazing how differently we each see the same thing and filter reality.

I'm evidently doing a bad job expressing my message because you are missing it badly.

 

e.

 

You were crystal clear. I was just commenting on the new definition of the word "compromise."

 

I do not believe we will see what you hope for. I think if the Rs win the Rs in the House and Senate will push hard to make changes.

 

My problem is not party specific.

So a President who is a democrat put entitlement cuts on the table, compromised down on his health care bill so much that it's the exact plan enacted by the republican nominee for president and the republican health care reform proposed in the 90's but he's the problem? The republicans did Obama a favor by saying no when he offered up entitlement cuts during the debt ceiling debates. Your version of the events of the last 3 years are the exact opposite of how they occurred. This president is a pragmatic problem solver who'd rather compromise and negotiate away his position any day of the week than be an idealogical rock.

 

Nice comedy.....LN is spot on, and Obama blew it.

You were crystal clear. I was just commenting on the new definition of the word "compromise."

 

I do not believe we will see what you hope for. I think if the Rs win the Rs in the House and Senate will push hard to make changes.

 

My problem is not party specific.

 

And you may be right. I'm just hoping that Romney has the skills and experience needed to convince enough Rs that dramatic and fast extreme changes to the right would be stupid politically. All he has to do is ask them to revisit 08 and 09 and ask them how it worked out for the Ds.

 

As for your new definition of compromise, it's not what I'm talking about.

Just for some context. What overarching piece of legislation needs 'compromise' right now?

Just for some context. What overarching piece of legislation needs 'compromise' right now?

 

Tax cuts.

 

Even Lindsay Graham has decided that the Grover Norquist pledge is hurting the process.

I'm evidently doing a bad job expressing my message because you are missing it badly.

 

I believe that there is still a significant percentage of folks in Congress that are willing to compromise and work together. However, when the President pushed a very partisan agenda early on, he pushds those not agreeing with such agenda into extreme positions.

 

I assume that you've done some negotiating in your life. When one party's first proposal is ridiculously to its side, the other party's counter proposal is ridiculously to its side as it is pushed there by the first party's proposal. A whole lot of time, money and effort is wasted trying to get to a fair compromise. Sometimes it (a fair compromise) can't be reached because of the tenor set by the first ridiculous and extremely one sided proposal. Which is why I constantly tell my clients before starting any negotiations to know exactly what they want as their final deal; start with a proposal a little better than the final deal but quickly get to the final deal. Insulting the other side with an initial stupid offer is counterproductive. Even if my client has all the leverage, I still tell my client not to cram its deal down the other side's throat, particularly if it is going to be an ongoing relationship where my client is going to have to live with the other party for a while.

 

So I am thinking and hoping that if Romney gets elected and DOES NOT quickly and dramatically attempt to move the needle in a drastic way in the conservative direction, but rather shows the American public and Congress that he realizes, even though he got elected President, there is a large percentage of Americans and folks in Congress that do not support an extreme conservative agenda, that he can build a willingness amongst enough members of Congress to compromise.

 

What you describe as a reasonable negotiating stance is exactly what President Obama did during his first year. The stimulus bill was over 1/3 Republican ideas in the form of tax cuts. Instead of embracing that part of the bill, the Republicans called those tax cuts runaway spending. In what universe are tax cuts spending. The health care bill ended up a right of center bill. It incorporated many Republican ideas. My problem with the President's first year isn't that he was too extreme. My problem is that he gave in too much to Republican's without any votes in return. If the Republican's weren't going to give him any votes no matter what he offered, he should have just ignored them. A gaff in Washington is when someone tells the truth. That is exactly what Sen. McConnell did when he stated his highest priority. If President Obama had let Mitch McConnell write the health care bill with only one condition, that no one could ever know that he wrote it, Mitch would have opposed that bill.

Tax cuts.

 

Even Lindsay Graham has decided that the Grover Norquist pledge is hurting the process.

 

OK, thanks.

 

So lets see if this is correct.

 

The majority of Repubs have signed the equivalent of the Bush 41 statement - "read my lips, no new taxes!". And we all know how that worked out for him. So they have put themselves in a political box. If they vote for any new taxes they break this silly pledge and it will hurt them at some point. Any compromise will likely include some back tracking on at least some of the 'Bush Tax cuts' that 'expire' at the end of the year. And since the House is now Repub controlled and all new revenue bills (taxes) have to start in the house nothing is really happening and there is no meaningful debate and no actions being taken. Hence everyone is just sitting around and the default action will be a rise in tax rates January 1, 2013 since the Repubs are in box on this.

 

Is that a decent summary?

Nice comedy.....LN is spot on, and Obama blew it.

 

Ok, name me one position that Obama has been unwilling to move from? I'll wait...

Ok, name me one position that Obama has been unwilling to move from? I'll wait...

 

Getting a budget done. Getting rid of Eric Holder. He, of course, is a person with an important position.

OK, thanks.

 

So lets see if this is correct.

 

The majority of Repubs have signed the equivalent of the Bush 41 statement - "read my lips, no new taxes!". And we all know how that worked out for him. So they have put themselves in a political box. If they vote for any new taxes they break this silly pledge and it will hurt them at some point. Any compromise will likely include some back tracking on at least some of the 'Bush Tax cuts' that 'expire' at the end of the year. And since the House is now Repub controlled and all new revenue bills (taxes) have to start in the house nothing is really happening and there is no meaningful debate and no actions being taken. Hence everyone is just sitting around and the default action will be a rise in tax rates January 1, 2013 since the Repubs are in box on this.

 

Is that a decent summary?

 

The part about putting themselves in a box is absolutely true. They have left no room for compromise.