No Compromise on Principle

Flopping Aces ^ | 11-08-10 | Wordsmith

[Starman417]

“Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if [we] win, and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan,”

That was Nancy Pelosi, 2 years ago, prior to the 2008 election. And of course, the "do as I say, not as I do" San Fran Nan liberal and the "you can go sit in the back" president have governed as anything but in a bipartisan manner. Their idea of bipartisanship is zero House Republicans and 2 Republican Senators voting for Obama's stimulus package. It's "agree with me, and we have bipartisanship."

The Democrats, this time around, received a sound thumping. (And no, Mr. "I won" President, it's not because you failed to communicate to the American people (if anything, it's been overcommunication and constant campaigning) your agenda and all you've "accomplished"- it's a rejection of your policy objectives).

Pelosi, as we all know, is out of touch with the American mainstream (as well as with reality).

But is "bipartisanship" really what the American people want? Certainly, not what the conservatives who voted Democrats out of office are itching for:

The fact is, compromise between diametrically opposed worldviews -- in this political case, the state's view (Democrats) versus the individual's view (Republicans) -- is just a nice word for the ploy Democrats use when necessary to leverage any disparity in strength into an asset.

When they're strong, they sound like President Obama, who just a few weeks ago described compromise, Democrat-style: "We don't mind the Republicans joining us," he said. "They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

When they're weak, Democrats make mournful little appeals to "comity" and "civility" that Republicans can't seem to ignore, especially with the media piping up with the manufactured threat of "gridlock" -- another creaky ploy.

Honestly, who really believes the country can't wait just a little longer for another thousand new pages of congressional laws?

If our new Republicans are as gullible as our old ones, instead of cutting taxes across the board, they just might "compromise" with Democrats, and that's the end of that. Or, instead of refusing to raise the national debt ceiling another trillion dollars, they just might "compromise" with Democrats and up it goes. Or, instead of repealing Obamacare, they just might "compromise" with Democrats and fine-tune a few colossal programs.

When the all the votes are cast and backs patted, of course, "compromise" is a poor substitute for principle.

Let's hope the new House Majority Leader wields the gavel in the same spirit of "bipartisanship" that Speaker Pelosi did: No compromise of principle. Do your job. Play by the president's rules:

[madamemayhem]

by democrat standard, the congress has been more bipartisan. dems idea of bipartisan is “we will tell you what we want to do, you will agree with us or we will steamroll right over you and do what we want anyway.”