Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Thursday, October 27, 2016

WASHINGTON — Here’s where we have arrived as a country: We are so polarized that even compromise has become a partisan issue.

As the 2012 campaign closes, bipartisanship and “working together” are more in vogue than ever because the few voters still up for grabs tend to be more moderate, less partisan and less ideological.

But beneath the last-minute embrace of comity lurks a central fact about American politics now: Democrats, a more moderate and diverse party, believe in compromise far more than Republicans do. While polls find that 6 in 10 Democrats regard themselves as moderate or conservative, nearly three-quarters of Republicans say they are conservative. And Tea Party Republicans, who loom so large in primaries, are especially averse to giving any ground.

Moreover, Democrats still have a positive view of government and regard tradeoffs between taxes and spending as a normal part of governing. Republicans care most about reducing government’s size and in cutting taxes. They’re prepared to accept standoffs and crises to reach those goals.

No Republican better summarized this sentiment than Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, who defeated moderately conservative Sen. Richard Lugar in a Republican primary and is now best known for his comments on God’s will and rape.

“What I’ve said about compromise and bipartisanship,” Mourdock said on CNN last May, is that “I hope to build a conservative majority in the United States Senate so bipartisanship becomes Democrats joining Republicans to roll back the size of government, reduce the bureaucracy, lower taxes and get America moving again.” When it was noted that this didn’t sound like compromise, Mourdock replied: “Well, it is the definition of political effectiveness.”

The split on compromise itself is visible in many other contests this fall, and none more than in the Virginia Senate battle between Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican George Allen. Kaine has made working across party lines a central theme of his campaign. Allen has put a lot of energy into linking Kaine to Obama. He has also criticized Kaine for endorsing the compromise that helped avoid a crisis during last year’s debt-ceiling battle because of the defense cuts it contained. These would take effect only if Congress fails to reach — well, a compromise after the election.

Kaine argues that avoiding default was essential, and that voters seem to agree with him. The latest Washington Post poll found Kaine leading Allen by 7 points while Obama leads in Virginia by 4.

  • Richard Mourdock has a definition of Compromise. However, to most others this is actually the definition of extorti0n.

    Census Numbers October 2012
    15% of population lived in Poverty
    46 million below poverty with family income of $23,210 for a family of four
    20% of children live in poverty. 33% of Black and Latino are impoverished.
    In 2011, top 5% gained 5.3% in income. Middle saw a decline in income.
    Safety nets work.
    2.3m kept out of poverty by unemployment insurance
    21 Million kept our of poverty by social security
    3.9M kept out of poverty by Food Stamps.
    Do not help the rich get richer poor get poorer by cutting taxes for rich and cutting proven, effective anti poverty programs As Unemployment Insurance, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance, Earned Income Tax Credit, Social Security and new health care coverage.

    • montanabill

      Put up the same numbers for 2008 and compare them with 2012.

      SS, Medicare and Unemployment are all forced contribution programs, but when your take out exceeds your contribution, it becomes a welfare program like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance, Earned Income Tax Credit, Rental Assistance,
      WIC, Food Stamps, Adoption Assistance, Adoption Tax Credit, Child Care Tax Credit, Children’s Health Insurance, Head Start Program, Native American Benefits, Refugee Resettlement Programs, School Lunch and Breakfast, Vaccines for Children, Welfare (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), Social Security Disability, Home Energy (Heating and Cooling) Assistance for Low Income Households, Student Grants for Study Overseas, Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8), Public Housing – affordable apartments for low-income families, the elderly and persons with disabilities, and many, many more, including corporate welfare programs.

      All these are designed to help people in need, but have become an industry. We don’t need so many people in need. We need people working with good jobs and the current administration has shown they would rather expand the welfare dependency state than expand the economy.

      No amount of taxing the rich can pay for all of the welfare the government is urging on. To the contrary, it simply removes capital from the economy normally used for economic expansion.

      • rational101

        It always amazes me when people can’t see beyond the numbers. Why, Montana, do you suppose that the numbers of people receiving government assistance, swelled during Obama’s term? Could it possibly have had anything to do with the financial meltdown, during which we were hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs a month? That’s a LOT of disappearing jobs. Do you think that some of those people turned to Federal and state government assistance programs to tide them over until they could find new employment?

        You are absolutely right that we don’t need so many people in need, and that we need good jobs so these people can go back to being self-sufficient. What absolutely astonishes me is that you don’t think this is what the government/Obama administration wants, too!

        Why did the president propose a jobs bill, to get people back to work rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure? Why did the president propose a veterans’ assistance program to help returning vets (the unemployment rate among veterans is almost double the civilian rate) get re-trained and re-employed? And why did the Republicans in Congress refuse to support any legislation that might actually bring some progress in these areas…AND reduce the numbers of people on assistance?

        I don’t know how old you are, but here’s a clue about raising taxes on the wealthy. They, like most people, don’t like to pay taxes. So if their tax rate is higher, they are more likely to invest money back into their businesses (often resulting in…job creation!) to avoid the taxes. This results in a healthier economy. This is how it was in the 50’s and 60’s when we had the greatest economic growth ever…and the top tax rate was around 90%! Google it.

        So the idea of raising taxes on the high earners is not about paying for the people on government assistance, it’s about encouraging high earners to re-invest in their businesses and grow the economy.

        • montanabill

          If the Obama administration had truly wanted jobs and had any idea how to get business going again, they would have worked on that instead of Obamacare and the other things he messed with.

          Obama got a big jobs bill and he frittered it away. So the second time he came to the well and said he had a ‘jobs bill’, it was not taken seriously. At best, it would have created a few short term jobs with more money borrowed from China.

          Why do you suppose that Republicans are against new spending and adding more to our debt and deficit? Think it is possible they might approve new spending in exchange for real cuts elsewhere?

          Your taxation scenario is fantasy. I live it. I create jobs.

          The world we live in today is far different than the 50’s & 60’s. FYI, a top tax bracket is not an effective tax rate.

          • I doubt that you create jobs, you are probably like most Republican business owners, the profit you make goes in your bank account not to create jobs or give your employees a decent salary. I am a victim of the trickle down policy twice,once under Reagan the first time I was laid off from a job well Reagan wised up and realized that trickle down didn’t work and raised taxes at least 6 or more times. Then along comes Bush 2 with his two tax cuts and his trickle down economics policy which didn’t work, for the 2nd time I was laid off and this time because of my age and the economic times I was unable to find a job, I went through my unemployment benefits which I only got for a year and all of my savings and was unable to find a job. If it hadn’t been for my siblings helping me until I reach 62 I would not have a home, been able to pay for medications and had food because of trickle down economic policies of the Republicans. I didn’t consider myself entitled to my Social Security when I started drawing 8 years earlier than I intended I consider it my right to draw Social Security because I had been paying into for 50 years because I started working at the age of 12. The borrowing of money from China also started with Bush 2 who borrowed money for his unfunded wars and used the Social Security fund as security for his loans which was illegal due to a law passed by Congress and signed into law by Bush 1 in 1990 that says Social Security money can only be used for Social Security and nothing else. Of course breaking a law never stopped Bush 2 and his cronies from doing what they wanted.

          • montanabill

            That is your projection of yourself on me, but not accurate.

            In the end, who should take the responsibility for your not being able to find work?
            Do you think that because you couldn’t because of decisions you made, it is the responsibility of the rest of us to support you?

            Does Bush’s bad behavior justify Obama’s bad behavior?

          • rational101

            First of all, Montana, I know perfectly well the difference between effective tax rates and tax brackets. Before I retired, I too, was a business owner and “job creator” and I paid plenty in taxes…and in benefits for my employees. So I lived it, too. But in all honesty, the tax rate I paid had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I hired additional employees. I hired more people when the demand for my/our services increased. Period.

            I agree that the times we are living in are quite different than the 50’s and 60’s, and that we are now operating in a global economy.
            But I don’t think that necessarily means that some of the same principles are not applicable today.

            I’m not sure what big jobs bill Obama got that he “frittered away”. Are you talking about the stimulus? Maybe I’m wrong…it’s hard to know for sure…but I think that what little growth we have seen in the economy is attributable to the stimulus. Sure, we’d like to see it grow faster…but at least it is growing.

            Since you say you are a job creator, I’d like to know–and I’m being sincere, not snarky, when I ask this–what you think needs to be done to get the economy moving and get those good-paying jobs created?
            Because if you know something they don’t know in Washington, I sure wish you would pass on that wisdom.

          • montanabill

            And where did you get the money to hire more people?
            In the 50’s and 60’s, the rest of the world was buying our goods. That is not so true today, since productivity has developed world wide.
            The big jobs bill Obama frittered away was the first stimulus bill. It was supposed to be a jobs bill but wound up being a political payoff bill. There is NO growth attributable to that bill. Whatever growth we are seeing would have been substantially greater if Obama had done nothing and stayed out of the way. If you follow Dilbert, just add pointy hair to Obama.

            I managed to create jobs every year, regardless of the administration, for 40 years. I did it by having sufficient profit to be able to adjust to changing circumstances and take advantage of opportunities. I also used it to develop products superior to my competitors and hire the best people I could find. Obama is threatening to reduce my available capital with increased taxes that will not do a single bit of good for our economy or nation.

            What I see with those I do business with is the lack of capital and/or confidence in our economy. I can simply pass on the same wisdom that Romney is espousing. Quit demonizing business and success. Quit threatening them with higher taxes. Quit imposing needless regulations. Quit dictating how they must run their businesses. American business is poised to wildly expand, but we must have confidence that our leaders won’t attack us. We do not have that with Barack Obama.

          • rational101

            Thank you for your response, Montana, which has caused me to wonder if the difference in our perspectives is not related to the fact that my business was more service-related, while it sound as if yours was more manufacturing or product-related.
            In my service-related business, more employees meant I could bill their services at a higher rate than what they were paid in wages and benefits, with the difference going toward overhead and extra profits for me. So as long as the demand for our services existed (which it did), the employees paid for themselves. Regulations created no barrier for us.
            So our experiences just seem to have been different.

            The whole regulation thing is certainly problematic, but don’t you agree that some regulations are good and necessary? While I am not a big fan of anything that bills itself as “zero tolerance” (George Carlin said it best: It’s a cosmetic nonsolution designed to impress simpletons.), I am a big fan of clean air and water and safe food and drugs. Government regulations should be constantly reviewed to make sure that they actually accomplish their intended purpose, and scrapped if they don’t. But I, for one, do not want chemical waste going into our lakes and streams just because it cuts into the chemical or oil or manufacturing company’s profits to properly dispose of toxic waste.

            I would hope that people with different perspectives (like you and me ;-)) could come together and find practical, common-sense solutions to these, and other problems facing our country.

          • montanabill

            My primary business is both product and service oriented. The others are real estate and service businesses.
            Regulations on our primary business have been exceedingly burdensome and, in our case, mostly bureaucratic, costly nightmares that have done little to achieve their objectives. Prior to ACA, it was HIPAA. It created enormous compliance costs while it has so many back doors it is like trying to hold water with a sieve. Now ACA (Obamacare). The number of totally frivolous and costly regulations, required infrastructure changes and compliance costs are mind boggling. All of which generate cost that will be passed on to the consumers.
            Try building something or simply modifying an existing structure. The red tape of regulations and bureaucracy adds significant costs, even for the most trivial of projects.
            Did regulations protect us from the compounding pharmacy in MA that sent meningitis tainted vaccine throughout the country? There is simply no way to effectively enforce good regulations when there are so many ridiculous regulations that clutter the field.
            I agree with you that there is a place for regulations and some are needed, but we have simply overloaded the books with both needed regulation, unneeded regulations and unenforceable regulations. If a regulation cannot be adequately policed or do the job for which it was intended, it doesn’t need to exist.

          • rational101

            Well, Montana, now we are in almost total agreement. All that disclosure stuff from HIPAA seemed to be overkill…and now that the system has changed–ACA–all the medical providers probably have to do it all over again. Seems to be a lot of trees killed for very little benefit…like, who actually reads that stuff, anyway? It would make more sense to post it on the wall in a doc’s office, have the staff direct people’s attention to it, and offer a copy IF they want it.

            I also see a LOT of regulations regarding building and construction that are overkill…but those come mainly from the local level, or perhaps the state level, not so much from the federal government.

            Again, I think every regulation should be reviewed at least every 5 years to determine if it is achieving its intended purpose and if the extra cost it imposes is really worth the benefit it brings.

          • montanabill

            We are in agreement.

      • AMADAL

        Yeah, right–how has over 11 years of tax cuts to the rich created jobs? It has not worked and will not work–proof of that is the number of jobs created by the rich over the Dubya Bush years along with the forced continuation of the last 3.5 years. The rich need to pay the same per centage of taxes as everyone else. Period. Trickle down economics is nothing more than a ruse to keep more money in the pockets of the rich–it does not create jobs. Anybody that does not have their head up their ass can see that.

        • montanabill

          Actually was working pretty well after 9/11. It was the push for ‘affordable housing’ and the bad loans that created the crash with a very complicit Democrat controlled Congress.
          The rich pay 70% of all the income tax. Would you really like them to pay the same percentage as everyone else?
          Since you believe trickle down doesn’t work, you must be unemployed. So next time you look for a job, find a poor person to ask.

          • AMADAL

            You really do have your head up your ass. When 9/11 happened, the entire congress was controlled by Repukelicans, as well as Dubya being President. Your uneducatable mind is stilll stuck on overall per centages. The rich may pay 70% of the taxes, but they make 98% of the money. It stands to reason that they should pay 98% of the taxes. I’m talking about INDIVIDUAL income tax per centages–I paid 28-30% of my income for over 50 years of working before I retired. What is wrong with the rich paying the same per cent? RoMoney only paid 14% or less—what’s right about that? Of course, he most likely paid less than that, but he will not release his tax returns because we will then know for sure what amounts he paid and how much money he is hiding off shore. Trickle down has never worked and never will. Where are the jobs–oh, I forgot, instead of creating jobs they gave themselves an average of $3 million yearly raises. Think of how many jobs that would create if they were not greedy.

          • montanabill

            You need to get your facts straight. The rich earn 50% of the income while paying 70% of the income taxes. The rich pay who earn their income typically pay the maximum which is effectively 33%. The same thing you would pay if your income warranted it. The rich who get their income from capital gains pay exactly the same as you would if your income come from that source. Romney has released two years of taxes. They are published on the internet.

            Do you have any understanding of what happens to the money earned by rich people? Do you think they hide it under a mattress or put it into a room to wallow in like Scrooge McDuck? You are letting envy cloud reality.

          • neece00

            You must be one of the 1% and of course you are upset if you will have to pay more taxes than you have in the past. It just goes to show that Romney is the rich man’s president and not the president for the middleclass.

          • montanabill

            Just keeping buying the kool-aid.

          • AMADAL

            If everything you say is true, why is RoMoney continuing to hide his taxes over the last 10 years–and when he starts paying 33% instead of 14, I might listen to you. Like I’ve said before, I paid 28-30% of my income in income taxes for over 50 years. Look at Mitt–his money is mostly hidden over seas and not paying taxes on any of it–and only paying 14% on what he released. The last two years of his returns are still in the time frame that can be ammended, so 2 years means nothing. I have no envy–I’ve made plenty of money while I was working. And my retirement is plenty for me to live and do anything I want. I just think everyone should pay the same per centage of taxes, period.

          • montanabill

            Why did Roosevelt hide his taxes until after he was dead? Why didn’t Kennedy release 10 years of tax returns? The answer: they are not relevant. Why doesn’t Romney pay 33%? Because he earns his money with capital gains which is taxed, by law, differently. His money is not hidden overseas, he reports it to the IRS. See his tax returns.
            You are simply looking for a excuse not to support Romney and those are bogus excuses.
            If you want everyone to pay the same percentage, contact your Congressman. But you had better learn why the tax structure is set-up as it is.
            The Democrat Party of today is far different than it was 20-30 years ago. If you want more that 20 million people to remain unemployed. If you want people’s take home pay to continue to severely decline. If you want a militarily weak America. If you want more people on the government dole. If you want a higher cost, less effective medical system. Vote for more of the same. Vote for Obama.

          • AMADAL

            I don’t need an excuse not to vote for RoMoney–he is a flip-flopping etch-a-sketch lying scum-bag. Try paying attention to what he says and what he has been saying–constant change depending on who he is talking to. No thanks. He has a record of shipping jobs to China, He wants more military money that the military don’t want or need. Obamacare is much better than no care “let them die”” RoMoneycare. I worked in the medical field most of my life and believe me, there is a lot of waste that Obamacare eliminates. No death panels like the insurance companies that decide what they will pay for and what tests and treatments you can have. And I don’t want the elimination of the Department of Education, SS, Medicare, FEMA, etc. All that will do is shift the cost to the states and increase the state taxes to cover what help they don’t get from the Federal govt. It’s too late to change my vote and I wouldn’t change it even if I could. I don’t want to return to the Dubya Bush policies that got us in this mess in the first place. We are digging our way out, and RoMoney will stop the progress we are making. What is he hiding in his tax returns that he dosen’t want anyone to know? If they are all that great and he has nothing to hide, he would be happy to provide them. He has no concept of what it’s like to not have ready money for everything you need.

        • Replying to AMADAL –

          Trickle down is a misnomer. it should be re-labeled “TINKLE DOWN”.

          That is the yellow liquid waste poured on the lower 99% after the 1% are finished with it.

      • Define your idea of what a good job is then Bill. I define it as a manufacturing job that pays at least $20.00 per hour with benefits not a $2.13 plus tips and then you move on to your next McDonalds shift making minimum wage. You talk about money for capital expansion, how much money is in Wall Street? How much do they “need” for capital expansion? Money that is invested only makes money not jobs and does nothing for capital expansion. When a company needs to expand their business because of increased business that function belongs to the banks to provide the capital for expansion. Going to a venture capitalist is like going and getting a “loan” from Guido the loan shark. Eventually you fall so far behind you get eaten up and spit out.

        • montanabill

          The least paid of my employees makes more than that with full medical & dental, and a 15% of salary contribution to their 401K.
          Money that is invested only makes money….how? What do you think that money does? Is it just there for market swings? What do the companies that receive market capital do with it?
          Under normal circumstances, banks would be receiving deposits and paying interest. Since they can borrow money from the Fed at virtually no interest, they are not paying depositors interest. Nor do they have any interest in loaning at current interest rates when they can loan it back to the Fed and make 3% without risk.
          Going to a bank is one way to finance expansion. Or they can sell stock, or they can create bonds (which are basically loans). Or they can grow with retained capital. Borrowing always has risk and a cost. Bonds have a cost.
          I’ve never borrowed money from a bank to fund a business, maybe just because I’m a tightwad. So I have always funded my expansions with retained capital.
          Now Obama wants to grab more that retained earnings which means I will have less money for expansion or the next new venture.

          • rustacus21

            I tried to let my comments suffice, I can’t help jumping in MontanaB & just asking if all those numbers really mean anything? To the average American, that is? We get all bent out of shape w/stat’s when all that matters are whether we’re at close to full employment & government effeciency in making sure the playing field is level between us (citizens & business) overall. Under conservatives, something is ALWAYS out of whack, so I don’t get where U’r maligning the President, that he could have done this or that, when U know conservatives determined they WEREN’T compromising at all, stopping the recovery from happening more fully! U know this! We all do!!! & the problem wasn’t ‘business’. It was the banks & investors & their corrupt practices that tipped the economy over & is STILL in the position to do so @next opportunity. So, since conservatives are incapable of being mature enuff to realize they’re inept as they have proven (2001-now), it’s up to voters to implement our ‘WILL’ & vote for a Liberal/Progressive President/Congressional majority that understands we’re past that point now. We’re in ‘imperatives’ territory, where our choices are fewer b/c of non-cooperation in the 1st place. If we truly intend to rescue the nation from conservative incompetence & sabotage of the last 31 years – a 31 years that has seen progress to all income demographics ONCE (Clinton) & declines for the working class in ALL 20 of the remaining years, this is what voters MUST DO in this years election. What say ye?…

          • montanabill

            As he has clearly demonstrated for the past 4 years, there is no compromise in Barack Obama. That means that 50% of the country is not on his agenda or radar. If he re-elected and does not have to stand for election again, he will simply get worse.

            You blame Wall Street and banks for our economic situation. I blame the insane push for affordable housing at any cost. It came first.

            You think the liberal/progressive/socialists are a majority. Not yet. There are still more people who want individual responsibility, not government dependency. But as ever more people are forced onto government programs for survival by the policies of the big government group, the more quickly we will become a Greece, with riots when the money finally runs out. Only the riots will be larger and much more violent here. You can take that to the bank.

            Romney has demonstrated an ability to be bipartisan. Obama has not. Not in the Illinois senate, not in the U.S. Senate and certainly not as President.

            As I write this, it is the day before election and this will be my last response to you. I’m about to wrap up my comments on this site so in the interest of disclosure, I have shared this before, but not the full amount. I was born and raised in about an 800-900 sf house sitting on the ground on a dirt street on the poor side of town. I started working at age 10 buying papers for a nickel and selling them on the street and in bars for a dime. I’ve worked in fields, orchards, feed mills, and became an entrepreneur at age 17. I worked my way through school, no family money, no government money, no scholarships, no loans. I have advanced engineering and science degrees. I’ve had several careers. Been fired a number of times. Been out of work with a wife and kids to support. Never took unemployment comp. Moved around the country following available work. Started a business over 40 years ago on $300. That business and a few more are still operating, doing well and we have grown and hired people every year. We do not do business with the government unless they will take our product and services under exactly the same conditions as the general public. I am not in Romney’s league, but I am a member of the 0.1% and I didn’t get here by cheating anyone, stealing or any other nefarious ‘dark money’ scheme. I could do it because of the freedoms and opportunities of America. I use the money I make to continue to grow my businesses which results in the hiring of more people.

            I got to where I am because of the decisions I made, which are usually pretty good. You got to where you are by the decisions you have made.

            I’m supporting Mitt Romney because I want your kids, my neighbors kids and my kids to have the same chance to achieve their dreams as I did. They won’t get that chance with an America that has an enormous debt to repay, getting used to any government payment or a controlled business climate like Europe’s. Put aside your anger at the system because it is misdirected. Romney’s business did nothing illegal or unethical with the many companies in which he was involved. Some companies simply find they are building typewriters in a computer age and are doomed to fail. Look instead at his successes and he has had many. His personal life is exemplary and that says a lot about a man and how he operates. He has real experience and that will serve him well. He knows how to compromise, something Obama mouthed, but never attempted. He is not George Bush or Bill Clinton. He is not Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter. He will be his own man, as he has always been.

            Now you have to make another decision. Think carefully about it.

          • rustacus21

            The corrupt mortgage app’s started in ’04, NOT ’95, ’99, ’01. There were no problems w/the syst til conservatives got their hands on it. Joblessness wasn’t a problem until ’02, remember? The same year Romney began exporting jobs, via Bain. Bi-partisanship isn’t making the other side do what U want ONLY – which is what conservatives demand. It’s giving & getting. Conservatives have given NOTHING IN 4 YEARS & if they have, PROVE IT HERE W/FACTS!!! Not all the propagandized regurgitation of Fox network dementia. The ‘Obama’ U describe above does not – I REPEAT – DOES NOT & never HAS existed! That’s a make-believe figment of conservatives imagination, just like U’r image of Romney – FICTION. As governor, he was as pliable as silly putty, making him ‘seem’ bi-partisan’. I have no anger – just a determination to see American’s stop behaving like infants & being led – instead of critically thinking things thru & realizing they OWN America, by virtue of their collective voting presence. Once they realize, as they did in ratification of the Constitution, ending slavery, worker & women’s suffrage, robber baron political domination & the denial of human rites to non-White, non-male Americans, they’ll end the conservative domination of policies destructive to America & the natural world & then we can get on w/the business of healing our civilization & planet – w/or w/out conservative assistance. Conservative policies have (during 1981-92 & ’01-’09) decimated the Middle Class. Wage increases tell the tale since U like facts so much. Liberal/Progressive policies are the only one’s addressing anything beneficial to that end. Prove me wrong w/the FACTS otherwise!!!

  • dtgraham

    The sentence that jumps out is, “Republicans now live in fear of losing primaries to Tea Party candidates such as Mourdock.” Now the question should be, why don’t Democrats live in such fear from some liberal/progressive pressure group version of the Tea Party?

    I think Americans on the left and center/left had better start realizing that this is an era of virtually no compromise due to what the GOP have become. These people are serious. Norquist is serious. The plutocrats are serious. The religious right is serious. The conservative media is serious and the low information Tea Partiers, who’ve been brainwashed by their masters to go against their own self interest, are serious. George H.W. Bush’s minor tax increase of 1990 was the last straw and they won’t allow that again. If Romney were to be elected and tried something like that, he’d be primaried for 2016 and likely successfully. I’ve read that and it’s probably true. Oh, and say goodbye to the ACA, Roe v. Wade, contraception coverage, and equal pay.

    Liberals have to get equally serious and form their own group(s) to ensure that the Progressive reforms of the 20th century aren’t done away with. The candidates that they get nominated have to be committed to keeping those reforms intact…as is——-no compromise, and advancing and promoting others whenever possible. The present day Progressive caucus isn’t enough. The very real threat of “Progressive Party” primary challenges have to be driven home to Democratic incumbents in the bluer states at least.

    I, frankly, don’t know how this kind of governance would work exactly in the unique, American, equal and divided, 3 branch government. It’s a system built for compromise but how’s that been working lately? If the thrust of my post isn’t done, we may be looking at an America that none of us recognize before long and that would be worse than paralyzed government to my eyes. Getting Obama/Biden into the White House for a second term is a start but much more needs to be done. To heck with compromise for the time being. These aren’t George Romney–Eisenhower–Rockefeller Republicans.

  • Lovefacts

    Obama’s biggest mistake was is continued reaching across party lines seeking compromise. You can’t compromise when the Republicans sole object is to destroy you (Obama) at the expense of the country.

    As for Romney, his definition of compromise is working with “GOOD” Democrats. What the heck is a good Democrat? Somone who will bow before Romney and the Tparty’s agenda?

    Should Romney win and the Republicans control both the Senate and Congress, I fear there will be another civil war or revolution by 2020. We the people are unwilling to live in a feudal society or become serfs/peasants again even if Romney and his cronies see us and the country that way.

    • dtgraham

      As Governor of Massachusetts Romney vetoed about 800 pieces of legislation coming out of the houses. Around 750 of his vetoes were overridden by the state legislature. That’s not a sign of someone reaching out to the other side and compromising. I’ve only heard this once and don’t understand why Obama has never brought it up. It’s the kind of info that he has to be made aware of and to use.

  • We can return to a Government of bi-partisanship by not voting these extremist into office. The first question a candidate should be asked under oath will you put the Country before your party and do you understand and support compromise.

  • Anyone who can believe that his way of accomplishing good is, indeed, the only way is most apt to be a mentally distubed individual. If there is no compromise on the things that are important to the majority, how then can you have harmony? Without harmony, were is the progress? No progress, no growth. No growth- stagnation, frustration, anger, anarchy and rebelion. Do we want that kind of life for our children? Have our ancestors gone through the things they did for nothing? We should be a more progressive country than this by now. Right?

  • onedonewong

    Compromise?? The Senate under Harry Read hasn’t passed a budget in 4 years

    • rustacus21

      … now, was that the fault of Senate Dems like Harry R. or the obstinate, obstructionist Congressional & Senate conservatives that decided on 1/20/09, they were NOT – in any way, shape or form cooperating w/President Obama or any other Democrat? Please be rational in answering honestly… Please… It’s a sign of maturity as well as “COMPROMISE” in debate…

      • onedonewong

        lets see who had total control of congress in 2009 and 10 with a super majority in the Senate?? So in answer to your question it was Harry Reids and his obstructionist Dem’s in congress

        • rustacus21

          To – onedonewong: What?! If memory serves correctly, conservatives held up negotiations on the budget every year since 2009. There was also that little matter of Bluedog Democrat defections to the Republican side, that torpedoed any and all ‘NEGOTIATIONS’ that could have been achieved. Or do I remember that wrong? I’ll research it however & post back SOON!!!

          • onedonewong

            Your memory is in fact WRONG. Dem’s held a complete majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate in 2009 and 2010
            Blue dog defections?? you mean the few remaining moderates in the democratic party??

    • Sick of everything

      Ya I wonder why? I believe it’s called a filibuster?! And don’t forget the Republicans in Congress have done NOTHING in four years which has hurt this country way worse then anything Harry has done. You need to find a new complaint, this one is really old and not relevant. Kind of like the useless GOP.

      • onedonewong

        Earth to mars Dem’s held both houses in congress from 2007 to 2010 and held filibuster proof majorities during this time. The republicans couldn’t stop any legislation that they wanted to pass

  • rustacus21

    In our current dysfunctional political climate? Liberal/Progressive! Today’s jobs report, this weeks Hurricane Sandy cataclysm, the slow pace of an otherwise determined & consistently ‘PROGRESSING’ recovery foretells of the superior nature of Liberal/Progressive (be it an Independent, Republican &/or Democrat) philosophy over contemporary conservative ‘theology’ that promotes only madness & selfishness. From Romney’s advocacy of allowing GM & Crysler to ‘die’, to Ryan’s ‘privatization’ of Medicare/Medicaid, to the continuation of tax cuts for the wealthy only, which has only meant greater dysfunction in our politics & in our minds, as we (or alot of American’s) have accepted the tax cut-funded propaganda of Global Climate Change being a fiction, when our (now) annual extreme weather event (Hurricane Sandy) tells us we’d better wake up & do something about it NOW!!!, to the proposed privatization of Social Security (in 2005), which would have meant the loss of 5-7 trillion in lost income for seniors, we can clearly see that conservatives have no business whatever anywhere near the levers of government! As they don’t understand Democracy, it clearly shows in their proposals & policies. Why all the hand-wringing when we know what the results will be is the real mystery. A mystery tied up to the mass (corporate) media culture that we as a nation are obviously enslaved to. Detachment from it is only as simple as turning it off every now & then & picking up a book or magazine & reading!!! ‘Why Freedom Matters’ edited by Daniel Katz is one such example. Try that out & see if your perspective on Liberty, equality & opportunity in a Democracy isn’t changed – if not totally reinforced to the understanding that our Liberal/Progressive foundation is still there… awaiting us, the founders ‘progeny’, to continue adding to a fuller, more ‘perfect’ structure…

  • daniel bostdorf

    Folks—-you can talk all you want and post all you want….but you can’t beat the math: Obama is going to win. He has Electoral college wrapped up. 277 as of today.

    He also has a 1% lead in Florida that would mean 29 more Electoral College votes.

    Even if Romney takes the toss up states, he can’t reach the magic 270. Even if Romney wins popular vote, he can’t win the Electoral College.

    Don’t be complacent… must vote even though Obama has Electoral College wrapped up.

  • boyno

    Obama’s mistake was to take the Republican position on an issue, such as Obamacare, and try to negotiate with the obstinate Republicans from there. He couldn’t get much Democratic support, and got called a socialist Kenyan by the Republicans. Dubya used to start from an extreme right wing and give just a little so that the end result was huge tax cuts for the rich and modest ones for modest folks–plus two failed wars, an attack on American soil and the Great Recession as his legacy.

  • widollar

    Lets face it our political system is badly broken and will not be fixed anytime soon. Maybe after the great real depression that is coming, somethings in the next ten plus years might change things somewhat.