Another pimp of the election industry who does not understand that COMPROMISE to a LIBERAL or a DEMOCRAP means accepting their position on everything. If anyone fails to that they are branded as Right Wing Extremists or Racist or Homophobe or the current BRANDING LABEL!
Yeah. I would love to have “Democrat style” compromise from our moderates. If that were so, they’d toss the Democrats a rare bone while getting 99% of what we conservatives wants. That’s what compromise means to Democrats—give me nearly everything I want.
Don’t ask me why the moderates can’t get it through their thick heads that we conservatives aren’t really purists—at least many of us aren’t. Most of us would settle for far less than that 99% compromise so long as we see some sort of smaller government.
I would be perfectly happy to see the moderates reach a real “moderate” result which would mean smaller, more efficient and less intrusive federal functions. So maybe the EPA doesn’t go away, but certainly moderation would mean they might not keep expanding control over virtually every aspect of life with the C02 nonsense, right?
I’m just using the EPA as an example, but I’m sure you get my drift. Since when have the moderates produced moderate/centrist results? Am I really supposed to believe there isn’t a single government program, rule or regulation anywhere that can’t be cut or eliminated—not one???
Using another example, most conservatives I know don’t really want Social Security eliminated overnight. We might want other options that would allow the younger folks to opt out, but nearly all of us don’t really want to cut off the elderly who are dependent on their SS checks. Why isn’t providing more flexibility while protecting current recipients a “moderate” approach?
Reasonable compromise to me is when both sides get something they want, but again, the moderates seem incapable of actually delivering any moderation.