He’s not wrong though. There are issues on which there can be no compromise. If only liberals saw things that way on the world stage. Then you wouldn’t have Liz Warren calling for the Iraqi government to negotiate with ISIS.
Hopefully her call to negotiate with terrorists will forever bar her from serious consideration as Commander-in-Chief.
The fact that you treat this as if it’s two equal sides governing two separate countries is telling. I live in the United States, what country do you and the Republicans live in?
I don’t deny this. I don’t think most Republicans are bad people, but I think most of their ideas are bad for America and for Americans. It doesn’t surprise me in the slightest if many or most Republicans think my ideas are bad for America and for Americans.
If I didn’t think their ideas were bad for America, I wouldn’t oppose them. This isn’t particularly complicated.
The principles of diplomacy apply to relations with adversaries and friends in general. If anything, one should be tougher with foreign enemies than domestic opponents. iT’s only the Democrats that never seem to get that.
Then there’s the simple reality of the American system vs. the outside world. We don’t HAVE to ever talk to a nation like Iran if we don’t want to. But in the American system, things can’t happen effectively if strong majorities don’t back them. There are so many veto points in the system, and the opposition party is bound to control one of them. The Republicans control the House and a majority of the states. There is very little Democrats can do without negotiating with the Republicans, and vice versa.
All of this is opinion, and (in my opinion), completely wrong opinion. Hannity-light.
Wrong that Democrats do this, or wrong that Democrats should do this, or wrong that the principles of diplomacy apply to relationships in general?
The last should definitely not be an alien concept to anyone who is married.
You should sometime read about the intense negotiations Barack had to have with Michelle to get permission to run for President.
Both – the Democrats might do this sometimes, but so do the Republicans… and sometimes it’s a good thing, sometimes it’s a bad thing. Diplomacy is complicated.
They can apply, but, again, in a very complicated way.
How can you possibly say this with a straight face? The GOP’s “diplomacy” for the past 6 years has been “give me everything I want or the answer is no.” That’s NOT diplomacy.
Republicans have a more consistent approach: there are times to negotiate and times to not negotiate. Both domestically and in foreign policy. Democrats believe you always negotiate in foreign policy. at least now. It wasn’t always the case. JFK, when asked about negotiating with the Soviet Union, said that negotiations could actually be harmful if there was little likelihood of success. Summits where the two sides just shout at each other increase international tension, they don’t reduce it.
The good news is that Republicans and Democrats have been talking over the years, and quite amiably. The problem is that then the President goes out and attacks them, which tells Republicans he’s not serious about coming to agreement, he wants the issue instead. He even attacks Republicans AFTER coming to agreements for making him have to negotiate. To him, these issues are just common sense, not political, and he just doesn’t get how Republicans can make him have to negotiate over them.
Either it’s an act(probably), or he’s dumber than GWB was and actually sees the world as that black and white.
Completely wrong. Name one issue and let’s explore what the sides wanted out of that issue.
I’ll concede that Republicans have been unnecessarily obstructive in many ways, especially with Presidential appointments. But that has less to do with Obama than Reid. Harry Reid keeps on filling up the amendment tree and refusing to bring bills to the floor that have majority support, so Republicans retaliate.
More nonsense (in my opinion).
And even more.
Pretty much everything you say relating to the President, adaher, is driven by your extreme personal bias into Hannityesque gibberish.
Actually, it’s driven by reading Bob Woodward books. He really does suck at diplomacy, both domestic and foreign.
You may think that, but considering that many of the articles you’ve cited refute the point you thought they would support, I’m not convinced you’re reading them correctly.
Debt ceiling.
Republicans wanted dollar for dollar spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. Democrats wanted an unconditional debt ceiling rise, despite not supporting such rises when they were in the minority and despite many Democrats promising constituents that they did not support an unconditional debt ceiling rise.
Even money.
When the Congress passes a balanced budget, then they can stop raising the debt ceiling. Raising the ceiling is no more than agreeing to pay debts you already incurred. To use the faith and credit of the US as a bargaining chip in a hostage negotiation is a trick more worthy of the Mafia than the Congress.
Sadly, I agree. I have no problem refusing to pass a budget bill because you believe it overspends. But refusing to pass a debt ceiling increase that covers your previously-agreed spending is not good governance.
The time to make a principled stand is the budget.
Two on-line betting sites both show GOP as about 65% to win control of the Senate in November. I admire rationalists’ optimism but even-money is a sucker bet.
A graph of the prediction over the past 20 months might be interesting. In October 2013, Demos were rated 80% to keep control.
