And of course you can not avoid going for the fallacy of reducing that last item to absurd levels.
But once again, just another item to show Hispanics what Republicans really think.
And this is absurd too, all reports show that the Republicans that worked on the bill compromised, that is, the democrats did not get all what they wanted. Unless you want to also create a new dictionary definition for “compromise”.
Overall, it seems to me that the Republicans of late have obstructed so much and assume that that is supposed to be normal, many Republicans then think that a compromise means that Republican congressmen have been tricked by Democrats into abandoning his own principles to strike an immigration deal. They are indeed befuddled and confused when a bill comes that was a compromise.
And the sad thing is that compromise like this one was more common when the congress had more common sense Republicans and not the virulent purity partisans that most conservatives are nowadays.
Well what Mourdock said in the quote provided is true. You don’t compromise on principles. If you are opposed to abortion and cap and trade, you stay opposed to those. Compromise does not mean giving up your principles, it’s a strategic thing you do. Maybe your opponents are firm on cap and trade but are willing to give a little on an abortion-related issue. So you offer them something in the way of cap and trade in order to make a gain on abortion, which is more important to you. You are still opposed to both, you are just making a compromise.
I do not think Republicans “get” this, but it’s kind of the Democrats fault, mostly Obama’s, for being SO ready to make concessions at the least sign of intransigence, especially during Obama’s first term. Obama generally STARTED negotiations by giving the Republicans most of what they wanted, and gave more if they balked. The Republican’s got the idea they could run the country entirely to their own liking by balking.
Eventually, Obama and the Democrats figured this out, but too late, the Republicans are now firmly set in “balk” mode.
I might have agreed with this if the Republicans had not decided, in a now-notorious meeting, on Day 1 of Obama’s first term to be obstructionary. Obama may have conceded too much but the GOP were never going to do anything but balk.
If the Democrats hadn’t chosen such a liberal course, and an unpopular course, I might add, the Republicans wouldn’t have balked.
The only reason the Democrats wanted Republicans on board was because a bipartisan unpopular bill creates less political backlash than a partisan unpopular bill. The Republicans refused to play ball, the Democrats passed their partisan solutions, and then the public did what the public does when a single party takes advantage of a small window of opportunity to pass bills over public objection.
An equally important question is, “Will the Democrats ever figure out why they lost in 2010?” And 1994, for that matter. Or 1980. Not since LBJ have Democrats managed to hold unified control of the government for more than four years before losing it in a landslide. What’s amusing is that Democrats seem to think those days are behind them. Well, sure, as long as the GOP controls Congress, Democrats have a foil. When they lose that foil, they tend to go down in flames very quickly.
All that is necessary for Democrats to become a permanent minority is for Republicans to find half a clue.
Only after the GOP had been given the biggest Congressional landslide most of us have seen in our lifetimes.
With the Democrats unable to directly piss off the public for two years, Obama didn’t have to run on his accomplishments. If anything, he downplayed health care, the stimulus, and his attempt to pass cap and trade.
The Democrats didn’t make the GOP choose their course. Explain to me, however, what possible incentive the GOP could have, even a moderate GOP, in signing onto unpopular bills they disagree with ideologically?
You’ll notice Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe weren’t rushing to sign onto these bills either. Nor McCain and Lindsey Graham, frequent champions of bipartisanship. None of those four are particularly prone to listening to leadership either.
GOP opposition was unanimous, and it wasn’t because John Boehner and Mitch McConnell decided on a strategy.
Because they weren’t unpopular with the general public? Because they were necessary for the running of the country?
You mean the Olympia Snowe that decided not to run for re-election in 2012 citing hyper-partisanship and a dysfunctional Congress? That Olympia Snowe?
Have you listening to either of them lately? Graham has embraced the Crazy in the past few years under threat of being primaried by the Tea Partiers and McCain is prone to bizarre outbursts.
The stimulus and health care bill were not particularly popular, the former especially given that it didn’t even come close to meeting the expectations the Democrats set while selling it.
Um, who is in the Gang of Eight again? Graham and McCain haven’t changed a bit. Their usefulness to your side is just at an end because they no longer attack Bush.
The stimulus was unpopular because it didn’t was not going to be having the full results that were about to have been promised. You’re aware that cause usually precedes effect, right?
However, the fact is, the Democrats got a lot passed in 2009 and 2010, and the public hated it. If the GOP had signed onto those bills, then the GOP would not have won the House. Which was the whole purpose of Democrats trying to get GOP buy-in. Share the blame.
See, the idea is to pass GOOD bills and then use the fact that the GOP opposed them against them. The Democrats did the opposite. Well played, Democrats. 70-seat loss, nice.
On the contrary, when my side loses, we ask, “What did we do and what can we do better?” When Democrats lose, they are either victims of lies, or they lost due to circumstances beyond their control.
And when the answer to that question is “Change the message” you double down on the very policies the voters rejected. Since the 2012 election, Republicans have proposed more restrictive immigration laws and enforcement, more stringent anti-abortion laws, more cuts to the social safety net, less support for marriage equality, less support for gender equality, less support for equal opportunity for minorities, less support for tax rate fairness between rich and poor, and on and on.
You are simply not reporting the attitude of the Republicans accurately.