A thing of beauty:
[Tim Geithner's] offer lacks any concessions to Republicans, most notably on the core issue of where to set tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. After two weeks of talks between the White House and aides to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), it seemed to take Republicans by surprise.
What's wrong, boys? It's not as though you have any principled objections to coldcocking, right?
Compromise is either dead, or--and here I'll use that dreadfully idealistic word--it should be. Not permanently, of course, for that way lies contemporary conservatism's madness. But compromise should remain righteously kaput as long as Republicans insist on confusing their ethical bankruptcy with honorable necessity, like mafiosi in church.
Elections have consequences. Wasn't that the GOP mantra in 2000 and 2004?
Posted by: dr.e | November 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Compromise should be dead as long as it is defined the way the current manifestation of the GOP wants it to be defined: My way or the highway. To them, compromise means I will let you live as long as I get what I want.
Compromise should not be dead if it is defined the way compromise is supposed to be defined. Give some to get some, as long as what is given does not create a major negative reaction.
The problem for the Republicans is that what they don't want to give, raised taxes for the 2%, if given does not represent a major negative reaction. For all the wealthy complain about the impact it would have on them and job creation, once it occurs they would live with it quite well.
Posted by: japa21 | November 30, 2012 at 10:32 AM
The republicans seem to like the old Soviet negotiating strategy: What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable.
Posted by: Peter G | November 30, 2012 at 02:25 PM