Today’s Post Brought to You by the Word “Compromise.”


That’s the buzz word that has been going around Washington and the country.

Much of the talk has to do with the debt ceiling and budget negotiations where the Democrats are charging that Republicans are unwilling to “compromise.” It is not that compromise is not a good thing. There isn’t a successful marriage or relationship where people do not compromise. But compromises in government and in marriages pre-suppose that both parties have the same goal. In marriage, the goal is to stay together, to love one another, to be supportive, to achieve fiscal well being, etc. Generally speaking, in a marriage the goals of the wife and the husband are similar. It is the path to those goals that cause frustrations that require compromises.

In government, the goals are not always the same. Nowhere has that been more pronounced and evident than in the budget talks. When one looks at the proposals (or the talking points because the White House never put to paper any budget other than one that was voted down without a dissenting vote in May) one sees the difference in the goals of the two parties.

For the Democrats, it is more spending, more taxes on the so called “rich,” and a more centralized, less accountable Federal government.

For Republicans, the vision is one of less spending, less taxes, less regulations and a smaller Federal government.

Because of the difference in visions and goals, meaningful compromise is not possible. Republicans and Democrats have a different vision for the country. There is no way that they can compromise.

Even if the goals were the same, the word “comprimise” doesn’t mean the same thing to Republicans and Democrats. As an example, take a look at a story that coming out of South Carolina where the governor is under fire for the Confederate Battle flag flying atop the statehouse in Columbia.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley isn’t retreating from her decision to keep the Confederate flag atop the north end of the Statehouse in Columbia despite complaints from the NAACP, whose president this week said the ethnic minority governor is a “contradiction” for allowing the flag to fly.

Speaking to a crowd at an NAACP national conference in Los Angeles on Monday, NAACP President Benjamin Jealous attempted to shame Haley into removing the flag by comparing African American slavery to oppression Haley’s ancestors in India faced under British rule.

NOTE: The flag in question is not the flag of the Confederate States of America. The flag is actually the battle flag of the CSA. People that call the “Stars and Bars” the “Confederate Flag” do so out of an ignorance of history.

Governor Haley responded through her press secretary:

“More than a decade ago, under the leadership of a Democratic governor, South Carolinians Republican and Democrat, black and white, came to a compromise position on the Confederate flag,” said Haley press secretary, Rob Godfrey.

“Many people were uncomfortable with that compromise, but it addressed a sensitive subject in a way that South Carolina as a whole could accept. We don’t expect people from outside of the state to understand that dynamic, but revisiting that issue is not part of the governor’s agenda,” Godfrey said.

Instead of accepting and respecting the compromise that was reached by the people of South Carolina on the Battle flag, the NAACP is saying “remove it.” The NCAA has said that it will not allow any championships to be hosted within the state until the flag is removed, despite having member institutions within the state that support the compromise.

For the left, compromise means “our way.”

Nothing more. Nothing less.

It was difficult for us to watch Harry Reid, Charles Schumer and Dick Durbin stand at a podium on Friday night and rail against the Republicans for not “compromising.” Luckily there were no bricks or rocks handy, and we were a thousand miles away from them. Lord knows we wanted to call them out when they started postering about “compromise.”

The second of two House budgets had been sent to the Senate. Reid and the rest of his stooges had the House budget tabled without discussion.budget Not an up or down vote. Not a word of debate. Nothing. Through a procedural rule, the Democrats got rid of the Republican bill labeling it as “dead on arrival.”

Where is the compromise in that?

Reid, Schumer and Durbin then went on to discuss how the Republicans in the Senate were being unfair by not allowing Reid’s bill to come to the floor. The three Democrats had a singular theme that the Republicans should compromise and allow the bill to be voted upon.

If anyone was paying attention, the three Democrats were calling for the Republicans to “compromise” without any compromise from the Democrats.

As we said, for the left, “compromise” means “our way.”

To illustrate the hypocrisy of Reid, Obama and Durbin when it comes to “compromise,” and specifically “compromise” on raising the debt ceiling, the Washington Examiner notes:

A look at Reid’s record, however, shows that in the last decade his own voting on the issue of the debt ceiling is not only partisan but perfectly partisan. According to “The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases,” a January 2010 report by the Congressional Research Service, the Senate has passed ten increases to the debt limit since 2000. Reid never voted to increase the debt ceiling when Republicans were in control of the Senate, and he always voted to increase the debt ceiling when Democrats were in control.

How about Durbin? Surely he believed in “compromise,” right?

Not so much:

At look at Durbin’s record shows that he, too, has voted along absolutely partisan lines. In the last decade, Durbin never voted to increase the debt ceiling when Republicans were in control and always voted to increase the debt ceiling when Democrats were in control.

And Obama? His record not only demonstrates a willingness to never compromise, it shows he didn’t show up:

As for Obama, there were four votes to raise the debt ceiling when he was in the Senate. He missed two of them, voted no once when Republicans were in charge, and voted yes once when Democrats were in charge.

We have seen the idea of “compromise” meaning “our way” in the Justice Department, in the EPA rules designed to kill businesses, in the CPSIA rules from the Consumer Products Safety Commission, the raising of the CAFE standards, on ObamaCare, the Stimulus Package, and this:

To Democrats “compromise” is having a paddle in their hand and telling the rest of the world to bend over and pull down their pants.

They will proudly say that they came to the table and were willing to negotiate and compromise as to whether we should all count the blows, or say “thank you sir, may I have another?”*

That is “compromise” to them.

*NOTE: If you actually thought which answer you would choose, you have missed the point of this article. In the end, the correct “compromise” answer from the Democrats is “neither. What you ask for doesn’t matter. You’ll take what we give you and like it.”

One Response to “Today’s Post Brought to You by the Word “Compromise.””

  1. Jerry says:

    How can one compromise with dishonorable people?

    The democrats are asking telling republicans, specifically newly-elected tea party types to compromise their integrity.

  2. […] we wrote what is now “part one” of these posts describing how to Democrats and the left, the word “compromise” means “doing it […]