Why are Democrats getting credit for being reasonable and willing to compromise, George Will asks, if they are in fact turning down reasonable compromises such as Senator Susan Collins’s? These days, there are potential turning points everywhere, and each side is shifting its demands and negotiators. Why didn’t Collins’s proposal, which asked only minor concessions from the Democrats, prove a solution?
Well, answer the leftier commenters, because they can get more.
When one party has debased itself as the GOP has, they are obliged to sue for peace, to go to the Democrats and try to avoid repercussions the GOP detests. However, politically, they are in no position to insist the sequester is inviolable, or that tax increases are forbidden.
Compromise is replacing the revenue lost, putting out additional revenue and more cuts. That has not happened. Reid wants to spend more without any cuts, the GOP wants to cut more without any revenue. A pox on both houses.
The public despises the Republican Party and blames them for the government shut down and threatening to default on the debt. Mr. Will is disheartened that the Democrats are taking political advantage of the Republicans shooting themselves in the foot? Why should the Democrats compromise when the Republicans are losing?
Also, say some more lefties, because as Will points out, Democrats lost big time the last time the debt ceiling was up for discussion, and if Republicans keep using it to bargain with, they’ll probably lose some more.
If the “concessions” that Will demands are so virtuous, why can’t they be legislated in a normal way absent the threat of a shutdown or default? I actually support the sequester and the entitlement reforms the GOP is seeking, but their tactics stink. Will is just making excuses for GOP blackmail. The GOP started this crap and they deserve no concessions whatsoever.
Raising the debt ceiling is not a concession from Republicans, it is their obligation, since the government has to borrow to pay for the spending those Republicans had already approved. Funding the government at sequester levels is a concession all right, but from Democrats. If you don’t believe me just read what Will has to say in the same column, “And all House Republicans should understand that the victory won in the summer of 2011 — the sequester, achieved by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell — still torments Democrats.”
sold2u wonders if the rhetoric will turn against Democrats when they are the ones refusing the compromise that would solve the big ol’ immediate problems:
Does this make Democrats jihadist terrorist hostage-takers too?
satxusa doubts it, expecting even the people here who love argument are going to get sick of it soon:
WaPo commenters will still be blustering even after a compromise, which will happen, is reached and signed by Obama. No one wants to keep this going, regardless of how satisfying it is to blame each other.
PostScript would venture to say that even if we do default on the debt and lizards rise to rule the planet once again, we WaPo commenters will still be blustering about how the neosaurs aren’t arguing in good faith. Some things can survive any disaster.