Skip to main content

And a compromise is all we are going to get unless and until we take back Congress.  

A commonly cited (and ever so slightly snarky) definition of a compromise is when both sides are dissatisfied.  Consider the following two blog comments, which were posted earlier this evening--one from here on DKos and the other from NRO, with only the party labels removed (along with one derogatory adjective that would be a giveaway):

A bunch of _____ _____ backslapping and praising each other after being taken to the cleaners by the ____.  Anyone who votes for this abomination should be primaried.
Once again, the _____ have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.  _____ fell for it (again) and folded like cheap suits (again) and now will try to sell us another bag of shit (again) of the same miserable 'this is the best we could do' (again) bullshit.  I have had enough.

Can you tell which comment is from which site?  (No fair if you saw the DKos comment.)

Poll

How do you explain the similar reactions from left and right?

26%5 votes
47%9 votes
21%4 votes
5%1 votes

| 19 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (7+ / 0-)

    -9.00, -3.69 "The purpose of a campaign is not to answer their attacks, but make them answer our attacks." - Paul Begala

    by SlackerInc on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:05:59 AM PDT

  •  Well Repbulicans are probably displeased (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sk4p

    because Obama wasn't impeached, and Democratic Congresspeople weren't hauled off as traitors.

  •  I'm guessing the second one was DKOS (5+ / 0-)

    because the first one references backslapping, but you are right, pretty much indistinguishable.

    `You needn't go on making remarks like that, ... they're not sensible, and they put me out.'

    by seanwright on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:23:28 AM PDT

  •  I'll still call it a hostage situation. eom (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, FiredUpInCA, SlackerInc, sk4p

    The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. -FDR

    by SoCalSal on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:27:55 AM PDT

    •  Agreed. (0+ / 0-)

      When the criminals get all the ransom money, and the victims get fleeced for all the money but not shot, we don't use the term "compromise".  We use the term "crime".

      That's what we've just seen.

      "A good president does what's possible and a great president changes what's possible." --sterno

      by sk4p on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 04:47:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Second comment came from DKos, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA, SlackerInc

    that's easy. Sadly.

    The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. -FDR

    by SoCalSal on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:29:28 AM PDT

  •  True enough about the "definition" of a good (5+ / 0-)

    compromise, in general. I've spent most of my career in negotiations, and we say that. BUT if the leadership or representatives of one side dont educate their team, you can also get cranky people even when they walk  away with 70 or 90% what was on the table.

    In this case, the GOP did well. It is a rather awful deal (as I told my senators and congressman). I feel the trigger needs to be pulled because hitting the debt ceiling, default and losing our credit rating are worse. But it is  a bad deal for us. (And no, I don't want to argue this with anyone here. I mention my opinion simply to explain what I told my representatives.)

    They got about 85% of what they wanted. They just weren't educated, and many (the teabaggers) don't care about the consequences.

    That axiom doesn't always hold up. Sometimes you just pull the trigger because theyre about to shoot the hostage anyway.

    But it's a bad deal for the Dems and a good deal for the GOP. The quote you cited above is probably from someone on the far right who wanted stuff that would would never realistically be on the table except as a bargaining chip you give up early. But s/he didn't realize that. It's about educating....

    © grover


    The library is a wonderful place with books to read and you can listen to records like "The Air is Alive with the Sound of Music." -- grover, the furry blue taxi driver

    by grover on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:41:31 AM PDT

    •  Only one "would" needed above. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10

      Sigh. It's late, and I'm typing  on my phone.  

      Brain blip...

      © grover


      The library is a wonderful place with books to read and you can listen to records like "The Air is Alive with the Sound of Music." -- grover, the furry blue taxi driver

      by grover on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:45:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't buy into the theory (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    that because both sides equally loathe something that a proposal must necessarily be good. There are different expectations behind both of those comments. Compromise for the sake of compromise also does not imply that a proposal is necessarily good.. especially when done for the sake of political expediency.

    •  !! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SlackerInc, valadon, elmo

      it a good deal, but it's generally a pretty good indication of being about the best deal either side is going to get.

      What I don't understand is why so many people here don't grasp what would have happened if there had been no deal:  

      Unless we wanted to see a drastic increase in interest rates, we would have had to prioritize paying interest on the debt, and rolling over maturing debt.

      Unless the President wanted to infuriate the most heavily voting demographic group in America, Social Security payments would have had to come next.

      No President could realistically deprive troops in the field of pay, or ammunition, or food and water, or fueld.

      If you next prioritze things like Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, SSI, Pell Grants, and TANF, there's basically nothing left that can be financed from current revenues.

      Does anybody REALLY think that a superior alternative to this deal would have been closing down most of the federal government, including the courts, the prisons, and entire agencies such as the Weather Bureau, the EPA, OSHA, and a hose of others?  I, for one, certainly don't.  But the problem is that the Teahadists had absoutely no problem with closind down most of the federal government -- in fact, that's pretty much precisely what they want!

      PROUD to be a Democrat!

      by leevank on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 01:34:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well, that depends (0+ / 0-)

        on whether one might think that this was the best way to handle this situation. He argued for this based on a "balanced" approach and a "shared sacrifice", but the outcome didn't seem to match any sense of "shared sacrifice." And one could be legitimately angry about that. I think at some point he should have taken control of the situation, but he wanted this deal. He promoted it.

        However, I do think that most people do understand what was at stake...

    •  I'm not saying it's good (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      valadon

      In fact, I think we need to have Americans make a clear choice between one party's vision or the other, as limping along with these compromises is not workable over the long term.  

      I'm just saying that I think we did okay considering that we were like police negotiating with well-armed terrorists who have taken over a preschool and are threatening to kill the kids if their demands aren't met (and the negotiators and profilers all believe the terrorists are actually dogmatic enough and sociopathic enough to follow through on their threats).

      -Alan

      -9.00, -3.69 "The purpose of a campaign is not to answer their attacks, but make them answer our attacks." - Paul Begala

      by SlackerInc on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 02:42:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I hear you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SlackerInc

        I was responding more to the notion that some people have that if everyone hates something it must be good or we're doing something right!

        I suppose one could say that considering the circumstances, it was the best we could get, but I seriously think, as I said above, that this whole "crisis" might have been handled in a different way.  

        TY Alan

  •  What does getting the congress back (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sk4p

    have to do with it?  Obama "compromised" in December 2010 when Democrats had control of congress.

  •  You're very naive. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sk4p

    Republicans have to invent their displeasure so they can continue to portray Obama as unreasonable and extremist, otherwise they have no chance of defeating him in 2012.  The actual "compromise" has everything Republicans wanted and nothing Democrats wanted.

    I'll Rochambeau you for it.

    by Rich in PA on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 03:56:19 AM PDT

    •  I imagine somewhere out in Republican land (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SlackerInc

      they are saying the same thing, that we are only pretending to be upset about this deal, too.

      It's like that scene in Annie Hall. The character played by Diane Keaton tells her therapist "We have sex all the time! Three times a week." And the Woody Allen character tells his therapist "We never have sex. Only three times a week!"

      •  You have to look at the substance. (0+ / 0-)

        Is there anything in the bill that reflects Democratic views?  Is there anything in the bill that fails to reflect Republican view?  I see one thing in our favor, defense cuts (smallish ones pre-trigger and big ones post-trigger), and while that's quite significant both fiscally and culturally, it's the only thing I see.

        I'll Rochambeau you for it.

        by Rich in PA on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:08:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's a pretty big thing (0+ / 0-)

          And it was something we would have had a lot of trouble pulling off on our own, while now by seeming to reluctantly agree to it under pressure, we insulate ourselves from "weak on defense" blowback.

          There's also the fact that programs for the poor were disproportionately protected, making the overall thrust of government spending more progressive.  And the bulk of the cuts are postdated to 2013.  That means that if we win the next election, we can restore spending for things we consider a priority, while quietly leaving the military cuts in place.  Similarly, at that time we can lower taxes for middle and low income workers while allowing tax rates for the rich to go back up.

          If we don't win that election, it will be a lot worse; but that would have been the case anyway.

          -Alan

          -9.00, -3.69 "The purpose of a campaign is not to answer their attacks, but make them answer our attacks." - Paul Begala

          by SlackerInc on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 03:11:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site