Thursday, January 03, 2013


You know why Barack Obama is an awful human being, according to Fred Barnes today? Obama just won't compromise:
He faults congressional Republicans for his inability to achieve the impressive compromises that other presidents attained. But the biggest hindrance to a bipartisan breakthrough has been the president's own style in dealing with the GOP opposition.

Unlike prior presidents, Mr. Obama doesn't believe he is obligated personally to bring about a compromise....

He is strikingly un-conciliatory....

The essence of bipartisan deals is win-win: Both sides are satisfied, even if not elated. Mr. Obama's approach is that he alone gets to win.
Yes, that's terrible! And I'm sure it would be equally terrible if Republicans were similarly uncompromising! Right, Fred Barnes on August 23, 2009?
Republicans are discovering just how effective an opposition party can be in Washington. Their strategy is simply to aggressively and relentlessly oppose the liberal agenda of the president and the Democratic Congress. As a result, Barack Obama's agenda is in jeopardy, and the president is disconcerted, less popular and on the defensive....

What the GOP has done best has been to make and win arguments. This is the key to successful opposition. Seeking compromise, being conciliatory, pretending bipartisanship exists when it doesn't all play into the hands of the majority. These tactics are a ticket to permanent minority status. By making the case against Mr. Obama's policies, Republicans have given themselves a chance to again win favor with voters.

...many Republicans wince when accused of being obstructionist and "the party of no." They shouldn't. The willingness of the GOP to oppose is a deterrent.

... The party out of power must first discredit the majority's ideas and agenda. Public approval comes later. It shows up on Election Day.
And if the party in power wins on Election Day and then tries to assert that power? Why, that's divisive! Logically!


Victor said...

I love ya, but, give up trying to compare and explain the words and actions of the same Conservatives over the past few dozen years.

By trying to do that, you'll find that, there, lies madness!

You'd be better off trying to teach sub-atomic particle theory to your ficus, or, if you have a pet, trying to teach it to speak Mandarin, and beg for scraps in Klingon.

They can twist logic better than any clown who comes to a kid's party, and makes balloon animals.

The only consistency in Conservative thought, is its remarkable

Examinator said...

Well it all depends on how you view politics or more specifically, what is the purpose of a representative in a government.
IMO sadly political parties are a latter (AFTER THE WRITING OF THE CONSTITUTION) concoction.
Like all on going institutions their purpose is their own existence and longevity. That isn't necessarily synonymous with the interests of the majority of people in their district, state or the nation.
What it does do is corporatize i.e. give disproportionate power to the hierarchy.
This then makes government a battle for power rather than what is appropriate.
In order to facilitate this the party message is overly simplified and emotionally based. (its easier to manipulate people through their emotions than by explanation.) i.e. party differentiation is often superficial. e.g. who would argue that both parties are tied to corporate world and many of the taxpayer benefits are solely aimed at them . See
Surely the some of the benefits in the above article comes under the heading of "WTF?"
What is clear is that the Republicans DID get largess through under the fiscal cliff emergency legislation.
If that isn't part of a compromise what is it ?
BTW the wall street Journal is a News (very) limited paper. As such it is as biased as it can be.