[Jim Robinson]

What they mean here by "bi-partisan negotiate and compromise" is that we should bend over and let them have their way with us. Wham bam thank you ma'am.

[ConservativeDude]

it’s true: we aren’t interested in “governing”. We’ve had enough of that.

But we are interested in freedom.....

[Eagle of Liberty]

This triumvirate of the Republican far right seem to have decided that they no longer have any obligation to engage in basic governance of our people through bipartisan negotiations and compromise

It has NEVER been that way! Here is what happened the last time that the Democrats had both houses of Congress in terms of "bipartisan negotiations and compromise":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imUyBlc7NHQ

If the Gate Is Closed, We Will Go Over the Fence, If the Fence Is Too High, We Will Pole Vault In

As I said to some friends yesterday in the press, we will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people for their own personal health and economic security and for the important role that it will play in reducing the deficit.

[Tzimisce]

The Tea Party ran on a platform of making the government smaller.

In 2 and 1/2 years, has the government gotten any smaller?

[Louis Foxwell]

Hopp is without clue. Compromise is not possible when it means the destruction of all we hold dear. One does not compromise with those who seek our destruction. In a war the obliteration of the enemy is the only legitimate goal. This is war. Liberalism and Islam are the 2 horns of satan that must be ground into dust.

[SMARTY]

“This triumvirate of the Republican far right seem to have decided that they no longer have any obligation to engage in basic governance of our people through bipartisan negotiations and compromise.”

Not really.

But, since Republicans CANNOT/WOULD NOT arbitrarily force laws into place by Executive order ...we have chosen to engage in governance in a LEGAL, authorized, formal and traditional way, which our constituents approve!!

[CaptainAmiigaf]

Bi-Partisan Compromise is when the LIBERAL make demands they know in advance they have NO chance of achieving.
They enter into a “bi-partisan” negotiation with the RINOs and thus achieve that which they really wanted in the first place.
It’s an old union ploy. Demand what you’ll never get, and end up shaking hands over a ‘compromise” that gives you what you actually sought.
And because they met the opposition half way, the MSM extolls their virtue.

[Dracomeister]

In the DemocRATs lexicon, Bipartisanship and Compromise both mean “Conservatives give in to Liberals” and all is well.

[Political Junkie Too]

This triumvirate of the Republican far right seem to have decided that they no longer have any obligation to engage in basic governance of our people through bipartisan negotiations and compromise.

Do as I say, not as I do.

How about how Obamacare was passed?

-PJ

[LibLieSlayer]

SHOW ME IN THE US CONSTITUTION WHERE IT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT BI-PARTISAN COMPROMISE AND SHOW ME ANYTIME SINCE REID, PELOSI AND OBAMA WON WHERE THE DIMS HAVE COMPROMISED ON ANYTHING. **** THE DIMS... **** COMPROMISE AND **** THIS AUTHOR.

[LibLieSlayer]

NO KISS OR REACH AROUND FOR REPUBLICANS!

[KarlInOhio]

Tea party conservatives have recently laid out their continuing disinterest in compromise

I am more than willing to compromise how the Democrats do it. If I want 10 government programs eliminated, I'm willing to compromise at eliminating 5, reducing 3 and leaving 2 alone for now. We can then start compromising again tomorrow on how to eliminate the remaining ones.

We shouldn't compromise by tossing our demands for program elimination away on the first step and then agreeing to 95% of what the Dems want.

[Ohioan]

Compromises on how you exercise Constitutional power, are perfectly proper; as are compromises on the appointments of honorable men, who may have some differences of opinion.

But a compromise that in effect ignores the obligations of one's oath to uphold the Constitution, either by funding what the Constitution does not permit, or by approving the appointment of a scoff-law, who will not acknowledge his or her Constitutional duty, can never be acceptable to the principled public servant.

In charity, ought we to assume that John McCain's arteries no longer allow the flow of blood to those parts of his brain that understand the above? Or does he really want to be seen as putting "getting along" with usurpers above his duty?

William Flax

[Impy]

This triumvirate of the Republican far right seem to have decided that they no longer have any obligation to engage in basic governance of our people through bipartisan negotiations and compromise.

So what are Baraq, Harry and Nance the "triumvirate" of?