Posted on 09/03/2012 9:48:48 AM PDT by AmonAmarth
A politician who leads with compromise is like a prizefighter who leads with his chin. If you’re in a real fight, you’re not going to last long.
Some months ago, “compromise” was one of most popular words in political discourse. But the calls for compromise were suspiciously unidirectional. We were treated to portrayals of President Ronald Reagan as “the great compromiser” who, despite his professed intention to reduce marginal tax rates, actually “raised taxes 11 times.” Clearly this was a call to conservatives and Republicans, in the name of a man for whom they had great respect, to follow his example and compromise with those who wish to raise tax rates, perhaps in return for spending cuts, in order to reduce the budget deficit.
But should Reagan be remembered as a great compromiser? It is unlikely that the striking air traffic controllers or the Soviets would agree. The art of principled compromise entails giving up a lesser value to achieve a greater value. The strikers and the Soviets asked Reagan to do the opposite; they ended with nothing.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
The word of a Democrat, whether a President, Senator, Congressman, your mother, father, brother or sister or relatives or friends means absolutely nothing...they are incapable of honoring any word they give.
In 1980 when he make a DOUCHBAG BUSHIE his running mate!
Yep, I have witnessed that firsthand countless times. Not a lick of honor amongst the rats!
There is no compromise on stopping the rampaging growth of government. We just have to wallop the people who oppose us.
Its funny how they can never tell the whole story, they are stupid but not stupid enough to know that if they told the whole story it would be nothing but a lie.
Must be mental telepathy...
I for one don’t believe that compromise is always bad all the time. The Declaration of Independence would never have been signed without it. The Constitution would never have been ratified. And “Pawn Stars” co-owner Rick Harrison would never make a sale.
The republicans did not lose the Senate until 1986, six years after Reagan took office.
Incidentally, the effect of party control of the Senate is a better predictor of stock market performance than control of the White House or House of Representatives.
Compromise is not always bad, in fact it is the essence of politics.
However.
Compromise, in the definition used by liberals and the news media (I know, a distinction without a difference) is as follows:
Liberals want to increase size and power of government at a rapid pace. Conservatives don’t want to increase size and power of government. The compromise is for size and power of government to increase at a somewhat slower pace than liberals would prefer.
May I suggest that conservatives should counter by laying out plans to drastically decrease size and power of government. The split-it-down-the-middle compromise would then be to keep government size and power roughly where it is now.
I sit corrected. Thank you.
Regardless, the rats controlled the House convincingly, and that's where "Ways and Means" happens. Also, the GOP senate included a pile of liberal, go-along-get-along Republicans at the time. Weicker, Chafee, Specter, Rudman, Stafford, Hatfield, Andrews, and Lugar just for starters. Half of the rest were squishy at best. That was one pathetic "Republican" senate. In retrospect, it's amazing Reagan got done what he did.
And that is used by Democrats, to this day, to claim that Reagan signed the largest tax increase in history. A tax cut -- that never took effect -- became a huge tax increase when it was reversed before it ever even took effect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.