KXL is as pure bi-partisan legislation as is possible to be..

You seem to have picked a pretty bad example. Dems have indeed compromised on this one, not the GOP. Dems brought it up for a vote last year (Reid didn't have to), even if it was for crass political reasons. This year, some Dems voted for it. No GOP that I'm aware of voted against it.M

Yea, only in a vain attempt to save what's er face..

But it's interesting that you would think Reid actually DOING HIS JOB is a "compromise".. :D

Aha! See, Michale, it's not just me that can spot the flaws in your example...

And which I promptly devastated.. :D

That's got a link in it to the original Heritage Foundation document. Them's the facts, Jack.

And, as I pointed out, one uber-right group does not GOP legislation make...

It's like saying that some Truther Group that proposes some outlandish legislation is a Democrat Party legislation..

I give Republicans credit for doing what I predicted they'd do all along.

And you are the ONLY one that does so..

What does that tell ya? :D

Still waiting for a single example of a true compromise from Republicans, too. You know, "we'll give in on this issue, if Dems give in on that issue." Haven't seen one of those in a long time, personally.

That's because, as we saw with the recent DHS thing, Democrats aren't willing to give on ANY issue..

Michale

I used to worry about giving the GOP advice (would I be blamed if they actually used it?) but I don't worry so much anymore. They seem immune to basic political strategy these days...

Michale [2] -

Um, how exactly has the GOP compromised on KXL? What concessions have they offered? Name one.

You seem to have picked a pretty bad example. Dems have indeed compromised on this one, not the GOP. Dems brought it up for a vote last year (Reid didn't have to), even if it was for crass political reasons. This year, some Dems voted for it. No GOP that I'm aware of voted against it.

So the bipartisanship and compromise are all on the Dems side on this one, sorry. How about this: I'll give you a Mulligan. Come up with a better example, and I'll forget you brought up KXL. How's that for fair?

:-)

John M -

Aha! See, Michale, it's not just me that can spot the flaws in your example...

TheStig [4] -

I kind of see the Tea Party (and to a lesser extent the GOP) as the modern equivalent of the Whigs. The Whigs were created as an angry opposition to one man, Andrew Jackson. They called him a king, which is why they took the name Whig. Their entire reason for being, as a political part, was to be anti-Jackson.

Substitute "Obama" and "Tea Party" and you'd have today.

Interestingly, the Whigs could never agree on much of anything once Jackson (and his veep, Van Buren) were gone, and collapsed as a political party as a direct result.

Michale [6] -

That's almost as weak an answer. Dems allowed over 100 (130? I'd have to check) Republican amendments to be voted on. Many of them made it into the final legislation. That was indeed compromise, even if Republicans didn't wind up voting for the final package.

You're right about the single-payer/public option being torpedoed by Dem-on-Dem violence, I'll give you that. Max Baucus and Lieberman have a lot to answer for, that's for sure.

Michale [10] -

Theory? It's well-documented fact. Here you go:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/03/28/the-individual-mandates-conservative-origins/

That's got a link in it to the original Heritage Foundation document. Them's the facts, Jack.

[11] -

I give Republicans credit for doing what I predicted they'd do all along. The frustration rises from the fact that the intervening Kabuki drama was entirely unnecessary. I'll start giving Republicans a goodly bit of credit when they reach one of these deals BEFORE the last possible minute (or even AFTER the last possible minute). Fair enough?

[12] -

You can't compromise on a veto. It's a binary thing. Obama either signs the bill or doesn't. There's absolutely no room for compromise.

Still waiting for a single example of a true compromise from Republicans, too. You know, "we'll give in on this issue, if Dems give in on that issue." Haven't seen one of those in a long time, personally.

-CW

I mean, seriously...

Obama goes on and on and on about how Congress won't work together and how Congress can never get anything done..

So, when Congress DOES work together and when Congress DOES get something done, what does Obama do??

He vetos it...

"Mr Gambini. That was a lucid, rational and well thought out objection."
"Thank you."
"OVERRULED!"
-My Cousin Vinny

:D

Where is the incentive to work together in a bi-partisan manner when King Barack The First promptly decrees, "NI!!" and makes all that effort for naught..

Hell, Obama should have just signed the damn jobs bill just as a reward for Congress doing SOMETHING together...

Michale

And did Obama compromise with his veto?? No he did not..

Name the last time a similar percentage of Republicans did the same to support a Democratic legislative proposal!

Uh... How about the most recent DHS legislation to go thru Congress??

How about every time Republicans capitulated to Democrats in the last six years??

By the bi...

"WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD

:D

Michale

Yea, but usually those deals are struck across the aisle. Not within one's own Party..

We're talking compromises between Democrats and Republicans. Not between factions within the same Party...

I'll ask again, thereby driving home the point as factual..

Why should Republicans compromise with Democrats when Democrats attack Republicans so viciously??

Where is the incentive to compromise when there will be no credit given??

The recent Amnesty For Criminals/DHS issue is a perfect example.. Republicans finally compromised in the manner that Democrats want. Give Democrats EVERYTHING...

Did the GOP get any credit around here??

Of course not. They were still attacked..

So, I axe ya.. Why should Republicans compromise??

Michale

The Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare (or what you call train-wreck-care in what I assume is an attempt at humor)

It's an attempt to call a spade a spade, but why quibble.. :D

. The central idea of the law was created by the Heritage Foundation (a Conservative Think-tank) in the 1990s.
The problem is ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome, AKA racism) on the part of the ultra-right-wing of the GOP.

Yea, I have heard that schtick before and I have already shot down that theory...

Michale

The Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare (or what you call train-wreck-care in what I assume is an attempt at humor), is nothing but compromise. The central idea of the law was created by the Heritage Foundation (a Conservative Think-tank) in the 1990s.
The problem is ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome, AKA racism) on the part of the ultra-right-wing of the GOP.

First off, welcome to the site! Your first comment was held for moderation, but you should now be able to comment instantly from now on.

One caution: don't post more than one link per comment, as multi-link comments are automatically held for moderation, which can take a while (sorry for the delay in posting your initial comment, I should add). Just keep it to one link per comment, and you should be fine.

Again, welcome to the site!

-CW

"And that is different than House Democrats...."

No Dem equivalent to the Tea Party posing primary challenges....that's different

and

Different R & D constituencies....

Otherwise, no fundamental D-R differences, just follow the money and you understand a large measure of the political dynamics driving health care position. Different sides, same basic play book.

5) Did I raise single player? You have a habit of putting words in other peoples mouths...or posts.

The Democrats did what they had to do to get the votes to pass AHC. That's the way representative government work.... deals are struck.

We saw how Democrats were all about "compromise" over TrainWreckCare...

And don't give me the BS about "Single Payer"...

DEMOCRATS killed Single Payer all on their own based on pressure from the health insurance industry lobbyists...

Democrats idea of "compromise" is simple...

"Do it our way and then we can talk about what you want"...

Michale

And that is different than House Democrats....

How, exactly??

Michale

In an historical nod to the Native American Party/American Party 1845-1860, I suggest "All For Know Nothingism." There are strong parallels between the Know Nothings and the modern Tea Party wing of the Whigs - oops, Republicans.

House Republican behavior makes political sense to me.
It's about Representatives winning local elections, not about passing federal legislation. Follow the money.

Two words prove this..

KEYSTONE PIPELINE...

Really? Nine Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans in the Senate to support the Keystone pipeline and overturn Obama's veto. Name the last time a similar percentage of Republicans did the same to support a Democratic legislative proposal!

Two words prove this..

KEYSTONE PIPELINE...

Where is all the talk of "compromise" when it comes to the pipeline??

The reason Republicans have given up trying to compromise with Democrats is because Obama has threatened to veto each and every compromise attempted..

Besides, why should Group R compromise with Group D when Group D is always saying that Group R are nothing but "terrorists", "arsonists", "hostage takers" and other vile names??

Would ANYONE compromise under those conditions??

Democrats have poisoned the well too often and too much for compromise ever to be a possibility..

These are all good, solid and logical points...

Which is why they will be ignored.. :D

Michale