Friday, April 11, 2008

Is compromise really that hard?

Another chance to demonstrate either my political naivete or my ability to see the obvious when all around me are blind. It's probably the former but let's pretend it could be the latter.

The President wants a trade agreement with Columbia. He doesn't bother to work with Congress on an acceptable agreement (which is his right) but instead works it out and sends it to Congress for consideration. The Democratic Congress balks at tying the hands of the next President (which they assume will be a democrat) and delays consideration. The President pulls out his "you're not a patriot card" and accuses the naysayers of endangering the deal, all future trade deals, damaging our economy (as if the economy needed any more help in it's freefall), damaging our national security as well as damaging our relationship with Columbia. Basically the standard kitchen sink approach that this Administration uses to pooh-pooh anyone that opposes their heavy-handed approach to an issue.

Is this really that hard? Can't the trade agreement run through January 20th 2009 with clauses to allow renegotiation or dissolution by the incoming administration? What am I missing here?

It seems to me that the aim of this administration is to ratchet up the us vs them mentality and brand the naysayers as traitors as well as questioning their intelligence. This is one of it's biggest faults (among many). This administration believes that their way is the only way and should be followed unquestioningly. Differences of opinion and alternate scenarios are highly discouraged in the oval office. The President wakes up every day and put on his rose-colored sunglasses (much like the citizenry of the Emerald City of OZ who view their world through green prisms) so that his optimism and certainty about the country's direction will remain intact regardless of all evidence to the contrary. The cadre that surround this President ensure that all appearances are populated by those that agree with the administration so that Mr. Bush won't be subjected to any negativity that could mar his rosy outlook.

This administration does not believe in compromise. It's all or nothing. The damage to our country is self-inflicted and starts in the oval office. Until an administration is in place that will restore the word compromise to the political lexicon we are doomed to spin our wheels in all the things that Washington tries to accomplish. Without the word compromise, it really is that hard.


At 1:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can we make any kind of treaty with another government that will only by good until the next President takes office? If some other country tried that with us, we'd laugh them right out the door.

And, I'm sorry to say, but the liberals idea of compromise is for conservatives to simply knuckle under to their way of thinking. There is no compromise on their side.

And if you'd bother to look at things honestly, you'd see that Bush has been the most compromising President we've had in our lifetimes, and look where its gotten the country. I voted got him, twice, but I sure wish there had been a more palatable conservative alternative.

Now we don't have ANY conservative candidates left. This country is going down the tubes, no matter who wins the White House.

At 5:09 AM, Blogger PurplePol said...

Presidential election year politics are an entirely different breed due to the changing of the guard dynamic. If you read about Bush's actions after taking office in 2000 you would see that he made a concerted effort to rollback much of the legislation that Clinton approved. All treaties have timelines associated with them and I see no problem with treaties that call for renegotiation after a new administration takes office

Compromise is not a word that comes to mind when conservatives govern either. Each side wants it their way and sees compromise as a sign of weakness. Conservatives were quite gleeful during their 12 years in power in pushing through their ideas on legislation and forcing liberals to "knuckle under". Compromise is a two way street and neither side practices it.

"Bush is the most compromising president in our lifetime?" Put the glass of kool-aid down and come into the light. He is the most arrogant, uncompromising Commander-in-Chief that we have ever had. He's the poster child for "my way or the highway" politics. If you truly believe your statement we have no common ground to even start with for an intelligent disagreement.

At 12:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So sticking to your convictions and refusing to do things that you fee would be disastrous boils down to "my way or the highway" for you?

The Democrats wanted him to "negotiate" more with Saddam, and he did. But he finally said "enough is enough". And you fault him for that.

The Democrats wanted him to declare a deadliine for pulling our troops out of Iraq, and he rightfully pointed out how dump that would have been. And you fault him for that.

The Democrats wanted him to grant amnesty and citizenship to tens of millions of illegals, making good little Democratic voters out of them. And he said, "sure, why not" But the conservatives stopped him. And you fault him for that.

Look, I don't like the guy anymore, either. But in my mind, its because he doesn't stand up to the Democrats enough, not because he walks all over them.

I know a lot of people have never gotten over the 2000 election, and thus nothing he could ever have done would have been right. As much as I've been disappointed in him, thoough, the one thing I have admired about him and have been grateful for is his steadfastness on the war on terror, of which Iraq is a part.

If you think it is arrogant to refuse to adopt policies that would weaken our security, so be it. But don't think for a minute that the lack of any further terrorist attacks here at home since 9/11 is due to anything BUT that arrogance.

At 6:46 AM, Blogger PurplePol said...

I fault the current President for not listening to other points of view, not being willing to abandon a failed course of action despite facts to the contrary, trampling of constitutional rights and dishonesty with his dialogue to the American public, as well as destroying our standing in the world theatre not just with our enemies but with our allies.

He has sacrificed our morals and the principles which are the foundations of this democracy in the name of national security. The price is too high.

Arrogance, unwillingness to bend or even see other viewpoints are not good qualities in a leader.

At 2:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So I ask you, where are your facts? Which of your constitutional right has he "trampled" on? When has he lied to us?

As for "destroying our standing in the world theatre", poppycock! It hasn't happened. People the world over still look to America for leadership (political and cultural) and stability. They still flock to this country whenever they can.

So if that is a destroyed standing, I say let's crush it a little bit more. Stop reading the liberal press, both here and abroad.

At 7:05 AM, Blogger PurplePol said...

Maybe it's you who should start reading any kind of press.

There is no way we can agree on anything. This administration has authorized warrantless wiretapping of American citizens despite the fact that there was a process in place to legally obtain warrants after the fact (that's important because Bush claims that the warrants delay the wiretap when in fact they don't). This administration has detained American citizens and held them without charges and without access to legal counsel. This administration has lied to the American people to advance it's agenda.

Those three statements are factual. If you don't believe they are a violation of your rights then you are uninformed or you don't wish to be informed.


Post a Comment

<< Home