Compromise a dirty word?
There are those that think you should never compromise on anything, while others are always looking for a compromise right out of the starting gate. The situation should be tested prior to even considering a compromise. Is it a matter of principle? If so, compromise should rarely even be considered. If it is not a matter of principle, compromise should be considered right away.
In the recent Senate judicial confirmation saga, compromise should have been nowhere on the table. Confirmation of judges is an area of principle. Tradition, history and the will of the people were behind allowing a vote on these judges. Traditionally judge confirmations are not filibustered. They are given a vote based on ability not their judicial philosophy. Historically presidents have enjoyed a high percentage of their judicial confirmations including appellate level and higher. The will of the people is reflected in the growth of the Republican Senate majority in recent elections including the ouster of obstructionist Tom Daschle.
Other factors to consider are: Do I need a compromise seeing I will win what I want? What would the other side do if they were in my position? A compromise is supposed to be used to eliminate a road block. There was no road block here. A simple vote would have removed the road block, so why compromise? Also, if the tables were turned and the Democrats were in the majority and had the votes for a rule change, it would be done without the blink of an eye. It is shocking that the Democrats and liberal leaning media insist that Republicans play by lower rules than Democrats. It is more shocking that the Republicans stoop to obey this demand while in the majority. It is like being challenged to a fist fight but the opponent insists you tie your hands behind your back. That spectacle is an embarrassment to see.
Well it is done. Let us hope that when the Democrats inevitably break the spirit of the compromise by claiming every nominee is "extreme", that these weak kneed Republicans utilize the escape clause to do what needed to be done today.
In the recent Senate judicial confirmation saga, compromise should have been nowhere on the table. Confirmation of judges is an area of principle. Tradition, history and the will of the people were behind allowing a vote on these judges. Traditionally judge confirmations are not filibustered. They are given a vote based on ability not their judicial philosophy. Historically presidents have enjoyed a high percentage of their judicial confirmations including appellate level and higher. The will of the people is reflected in the growth of the Republican Senate majority in recent elections including the ouster of obstructionist Tom Daschle.
Other factors to consider are: Do I need a compromise seeing I will win what I want? What would the other side do if they were in my position? A compromise is supposed to be used to eliminate a road block. There was no road block here. A simple vote would have removed the road block, so why compromise? Also, if the tables were turned and the Democrats were in the majority and had the votes for a rule change, it would be done without the blink of an eye. It is shocking that the Democrats and liberal leaning media insist that Republicans play by lower rules than Democrats. It is more shocking that the Republicans stoop to obey this demand while in the majority. It is like being challenged to a fist fight but the opponent insists you tie your hands behind your back. That spectacle is an embarrassment to see.
Well it is done. Let us hope that when the Democrats inevitably break the spirit of the compromise by claiming every nominee is "extreme", that these weak kneed Republicans utilize the escape clause to do what needed to be done today.
posted by All_I_Can_Stands @ 2:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home