drakesfortune said:
Yeah they are, but do you think it was maybe dishonest of Obama to campaign as a guy who'd bring us all together and work with Republicans, and then come to the table and say, 'you lost, we won, tough shit', which is in essence what he did? That's not what the 5 to 10 percent in the middle that decide elections voted for. They really believed that he'd work with republicans at whatever cost to make sure that things were done in a bipartisan manner, and not deciding votes that fundamentally change the country without a single Republican vote of support.
And to prove it, look at his poll numbers! His most popular issue is Afghanistan!! Why? Because people like me, and many in the middle left SUPPORT his decisions there. Obama is doing a damn fine job on Afghanistan, and I'm not scared to say so. I wish he'd be as pragmatic domestically as he has been with regard to foreign policy.
It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it?
If you can agree that health care reform of some sort is necessary (given rising prices and so forth, can we agree on this point, even?), then what do the Republicans want in order to reform the health care system? Is it just yanking the state antitrust exemption and capping malpractice payouts? The idea behind compromise is that both sides work together to reach a middle ground from their separate positions, but I have no idea where the ground exactly is on the right on this issue. If an alternative was ever presented, it was many months into the debate before it even reared its head.
It seems that way on a lot of issues. I can't tell what the Republicans want most of the time, because it seems that all they stand for is inaction. The only remotely coherent stance I've heard (as a general platform) is the one advocating lower taxes and lower government spending, which, while impractical given the current climate, is at least ideologically consistent. But I'm not sure what actual proposals are left.
Instead, all I see are stall tactics and obstruction. The filibuster has been used more times by Republicans in this year than at any other point in Senate history. Over 30 Republican senators see an amendment that prevents companies with contracts with the federal government from exempting themselves from liability when employees are raped by co-workers as a political attack on Haliburton, rather than something that makes perfect goddamn sense. Maybe it's because I'm on the other side of the political aisle, but to me, that doesn't seem to be a good-faith effort to compromise.
It's ridiculous, because by replacing compromise with obstruction, the government is being prevented from getting important things done, and that reflects poorly on those in power. It probably should, because if you have as large a majority as the Democrats have, with a sympathetic President, and you can't pass legislation, something is really messed up. But it feels wrong to me, because I don't get why Democrats shoulder the blame among many for not being bipartisan when there doesn't appear to have been any effort in good faith by the other side.
Obama can't possibly compromise with the Republicans if they act like this without sacrificing the support of the rest of his party. Compromise requires give and take, and while the Democrats have attempted some pretty serious concessions for what they want, the Republicans haven't budged an inch.
The reason Afghanistan is working is because it's something that can't and won't be obstructed by the Republican Party, because they're going to support the troops in whatever way they can. But every domestic initiative is either being diluted severely (such that it is distasteful to many Democrats), or it isn't even reaching the floor.
It seems absolutely absurd to me that Congress can spend months and months on this bill and possibly never, ever reach an up-and-down vote on it.
