Compromise is dead - today's Dems need to stand their ground

derby378

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Aug-13-10 01:59 PM
Original message

Compromise is dead - today's Dems need to stand their ground

How many people do you know of that say complaining about the HCR bill is like complaining about getting a plain vanilla shake instead of the strawberry shake with whipped cream and a cherry on top?

What if you never even got a milkshake at all? What if Big Insurance drank it for you?

Compromise is like mixing water and dirt. The end result might still technically be liquid, but it's still undrinkable. And you're still thirsty.

Bush didn't feel the need to reach across the aisle. Why should Obama and the Democratic Congress?

Or perhaps that little nugget of nuance has been lost on people like Emanuel and Gibbs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

damntexdem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Aug-13-10 02:07 PM
Response to Original message

1. But they're so used to being compromised.

Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 02:08 PM by damntexdem

I mean, so used to compromising.

Many Dems in Congress must really like that dirt and water mix because they keep getting led to it down the garden path.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Deep13

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Aug-13-10 02:11 PM
Response to Original message

2. Compromise is only possible if the opposition acts in good faith.

If both sides have honorable goals, they can make a deal. If one side is simply using the prosect of compromise to get the opponent to back down, it will never work.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

derby378

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Aug-13-10 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #2

5. Okay, I'll give you that

At least if both sides were honorable, we might get a vanilla shake out of the deal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Deep13

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Aug-13-10 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #5

6. I mean if the Ds and Rs were both truly concerned about the country...

...and each was convinced its side was the way to do that. As it is we have a D. party representing a variety of points of view while the Rs are simply talking robots working to end any oppostion to corporate rule or promotion of human rights.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kenny blankenship

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Aug-13-10 02:12 PM
Response to Original message

3. I will just say that deciding to "stand on principle" presupposes something.

which may make it an impossible option for us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zipplewrath

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Aug-13-10 02:14 PM
Response to Original message

4. Compomising good with evil

just dresses up evil in the trappings of good.

Compromising the good with the bad, merely damages the good, and preserves the bad.

Compromise is only fighting for the things you need, not necessarily all the things you want. Compromising two steps forward with 2 steps back gets you no where.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Melissa G

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Aug-13-10 02:20 PM
Response to Original message

7. K&R. It got us the mandated lack of health care we now enjoy.

Is the insurance better than it was? sure. Is it the Health Care reform we were promised? No. Sadly, no.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

RandomThoughts

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Aug-13-10 02:22 PM
Response to Original message

8. There are some things that can be compermised on.

Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 02:23 PM by RandomThoughts

But anything unacceptable is equal to anything else unacceptable, so below the acceptable line it does not matter if you get no shake, or some shake that is not acceptable.

And with a pun, you can't let someone shake you to accept something you do not.

Although I am mostly thinking on self finances for travel and stuff right now. Not sure what congress is doing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Blue Owl

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Aug-13-10 02:36 PM
Response to Original message

9. Was GWB known as "The Compromiser?"

If anyone should be "The Decider" it should be Barack Obama.

What GWB took from us, bipartisanship will not get back.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jgraz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Aug-13-10 02:40 PM
Response to Original message

10. Whatever happened to not negotiating with terrorists?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Odin2005

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Aug-13-10 04:03 PM
Response to Original message

11. "Compromise" = Capitulation

It's an excuse to ignore what the majority wants and keep on sucking up to their corporate masters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sun May 05th 2024, 09:49 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.