wpostServer: http://css.washingtonpost.com/wpost2

Most Read: Opinions

direct signup

Today’s Opinions poll

Will Rep. Paul Ryan's anti-poverty proposal help the poor?

Submit
Next
Review your answers and share

Join a Discussion

Weekly schedule, past shows

Post Partisan
Posted at 03:15 PM ET, 06/13/2012

PostScript: Dana Milbank and compromise

Dana Milbank’s column today on Jeb Bush’s oddly controversial call for political compromise was fine fare for the commenters, who are uncompromisingly good at the art of disagreement. Milbank and Bush had both observed that Republicans, in particular, are mostly to blame for the compromise-challenged atmosphere in Washington. A common point among commenters was: Yeah? So what? As long as not compromising is working for them, why should the party be more conciliatory?

bls2011 thinks it is not, in fact, working for Republicans:

How many people will have to leave the Republican Party before they realize [anti-tax gadfly and leading proponent of non-compromise] Grover Norquist is just a snake oil salesman and that they should pay no attention? Who would vote for anyone who has signed away his or her decision-making ability to some guy who hollers a lot and has a website?
All I know is all of my family are now registered Democrats.

Ah, but the stonewall strategy may be working says Outofthebox1. So long as obstructionism doesn’t lose votes, it will become the new normal:

The scary thing is that if the bad economy gets Obama defeated, the GOP will figure they’ve validated their approach. The only way the GOP gets redirected is by significant electoral pain.

Rimantas1 argues that obstructionism not only is what the Right is doing, it is also the right thing to do:

Liberals just refuse to accept the fact that people overwhelmingly voted Republicans in the Nov 2010 to stop Obama from the excessive spending. These Republicans are doing the will of the people when they say no to Obama.

And ad9inaz points out that an advantage the conservative side has over the liberal side is that conservatism is more about preserving the status quo, which doesn’t take as much legislation as changing things. This means, ad9inaz contends, that it’s a tool only the Republicans can use — it can’t be turned against them:

If the Democrats find themselves in the position of today’s Republicans after the election, that will be proof that obstructionism works. However, the Democrats may not be able to use it against the GOP because the GOP doesn’t have to accomplish anything to satisfy its voters. Religious conservative Republicans will always vote GOP. The gun advocates will always vote GOP. And the rich will always vote GOP. Congress doesn’t have to pass many laws to accomplish those groups’ goals.

PostScript was delighted to find Dana Milbank himself doing some slumming among the commenters, where he found proof that he and Jeb are right:

danamilbank

Sometimes I find a comment that illustrates my point better than I did. Today that contribution was made by “dryrunfarm1” who writes:
“No sugar coating: the left must be destroyed. Completely. Mercilessly. Until not the slightest vestige of it remains. The left is unqualified evil. It stands for slavery and death — that’s ALL it stands for — and it must be met on the terms of slave owners and murderers.”
Milbank asks: How can you negotiate with an opposition that thinks this way?

Ooh, a fight! dryrunfarm1 responds to the thread’s response to him:

In reply, I was accused of all sorts of things, called names, had my sanity called into question — but not one liberal offered to compromise with me.
Imagine that.

Being completely beneath the fray, PostScript is not, officially, “liberal.” However, we will take a whack at that, just like Ronald Reagan would have. A tendered compromise on behalf of liberals:

We’ll cut our murders in half, but we get to own you.

By Rachel Manteuffel  |  03:15 PM ET, 06/13/2012

 
Read what others are saying
     

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company