Last edited by PogueMoran; 09-14-09 at 11:54 AM.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
There's more to it than what was put into the bill -- there's also what is taken out, or in this case, not taken out. You cannot expect the GOP to vote for something that they cannot, as the GOP, vote for, even if you include some things they WILL vote for.So if the republicans wont vote for a bill even with their own provisions added why should the democrats even try to compromise.
I then asked:[the dems lost] in 2000 2002 2004.
Did the Dems roll over and give GWB the tax cuts?Did they roll over and give GWB everything he wanted?
Did the GOP argue that 'we won, give us what we want'?
You really need to stop creating strawmen by putting words in my mouth.So in other words...
The issue here is comprimise.
You're arguing that the Dems have tried to comprimise by adding some things the GOP wants included -- and as far as that goes, you have some degree of credibility. What you fail to recognize, willfully or otherwise, is that, in order for the GOP, being the GOP, to support the bill, the bill has to NOT have things in it that the GOP CANNOT support. When the Dems start talking about the removal of those things, then the issue of comprimise and the GOPs supposed unwiliingness to do so, will be open for discussion.
That is, you cannot expect a party to vote for something that goes against its core political positions; you then cannot refuse to address the difference in that position and argue that you tried to comprimise because you added a few things that said party might like.
Last edited by Goobieman; 09-14-09 at 12:27 PM.