I cannot in good conscience compromise on matters of principle

therefore I would make a bad politician.

you see, good politicians compromise and bad politicians compromise.

but there's never been a good politician that DID NOT compromise.

There's something that happens once they walk through that door.

the point is that some compromise is necessary in order to achieve anything.

it's not a character flaw to compromise.

Americans are such effing Puritans.

Why should we? Liberals and progressives are the ones being asked to compromise, while blue dogs and rightwingers never do.

just screw the whole thing.

no compromises, no leglislation, no nothing.

after doing that, the happiest people will be the pro life people, who couldn't be happier if you tried.

don't you know they want us to kill our own bill?

the principle of no compromise is inherently AMORAL.

I will be more than happy to compromise on a proposal to dismantle the for-profit health care system. For example, I might stop insisting on summary executions of health insurance executives.

but ok. :hi:

and bankers and financiers that have bilked the people.

I can stop insisting that women have to get pregnant, and then have an abortion, at least once every year for which they are fertile.

Can you join me in this compromise?

Let us know.

fine.

What a brave bunch of bipartisan assholes!

do you live your life, and do your job, compromising on nothing of principle, ever, ever.

and i don't mean in the seven deadly sins sense of right and wrong.

i mean, in terms of doing what's best all the time, or sometimes because you are not the only person in the world, agreeing to do something slightly different because you are part of a group and you don't get to impose your will unilaterally.

Compromise means I give up something, you give up something, and we both gain something. This is not what is happening in our country today. What we got is surrender and appeasement. IOW, we are asked how much lubrication we want on that alien rectal probe.

now you are saying it's okay if each side gets something.

well, then what do you do if you don't have 218 votes for that core value?

wait?

is it ever wrong to wait to do a whole good than to do half of it now?

and it too was gutted in favour of an exchange that will still leave 12 million Americans uninsured.

What you do is not to vote for blue dogs at all, under any circumstances. What you do is take universal health care to the voters next year. People understand Medicare. People will understand that what you are fighting for is for Americans to have the choice to go under Medicare before they are 65. That's a vigorous public option that can be sold to the people!

Nothing good has ever come out of Democratic compromises and appeasement of the GOP and rightwingers in our midst: DADT, DOMA, PATRIOT, IWR, banking bill, etc.

you aren't willing to compromise and wait a while.

Say your salary requirements are $50,000 a year, based on your experience and the prevailing wages in the industry. But you really want this job, and you think that the company will never hire you if you say that, so you tell them that you need $40,000 a year. Silly you. They were willing to offer $45,000, but now that they see you're weak, they bargain you down further to $35,000.

That's the type of thing the Dems do all the time.

while there are some that are not.

For me personally, it is worth it to compromise to get some things covered in the health care bill.
When you never compromise on anything, you essentially get nothing accomplished.

there's no way to do things without compromise.

In our system, all have to be representative. Sometimes you have to tell unhappy constituents what they do not want to hear, but you have to consider them.

This whole perfect vs good cliche, from the pragmatists corner, refuses to recognize this notion. They refuse to recognize such recent examples of bold leaders refusing to bow to the political realities, and shape them with words, actions, and rhetoric. On the tail of an unbelievable, historic, fate-changing presidential election, they insist on talking about what is "realistic" according to their opinion. Men such as Barack Obama have the power and skill to nullify your opinion and strike a new course, if they so choose.

I don't think you can come up with one, unless we include, say, Hitler. :hide:

FDR is a good example of altering the political landscape.

FDR is also a good example of compromise.

But it's kind of hard to judge Obama in his first 10 months against years of FDR, although FDR really does show how much you can accomplish through force of will --LBJ too.

He couldn't change his skin color, after all. He is a brilliant and skilled politician to merely win the type of campaign he did, in the type of country America is. He empowered untapped masses in the country, as well as inspired the world before he ever stepped foot in office. Be certain that he altered the political landscape, and more, in America.

The man has that ability. Had he chose to run an equivalent campaign on health care as he did to get into office, our reality may be very different today. I guess we will never know now though, because he chose not to

as all politicians must do, Obama made his policy prescriptions with a fair amount of vagueness, I imagine in hopes that people would assume he had their specific ideas in mind to implement the policies --but not so.

he didn't run on the insurance mandate, as Hillary and various health care experts said was necessary. why? probably because the mandate was easier to run against than not having it. is there anything wrong with that? if Obama's thinking was that staking out a strong position would elect the other guy, then the strong position is probably not possible politically anyway --thus the current shape of negotiations and compromise.

Obama did that and for the most part, I don't think he gave away the store in doing so, which is admirable because many politicians do.

Politicians are different. Good ones know when to play and what to play.
I know enough to know the play has just begun.

Job, business, family, home, car, investments, vacation -- everybody compromises their principles somewhere along the line. They just don't recognize their own compromises as sell-outs, although they are.

For example, let's say you are a legislator. You have the choice between a Stupak-amended health bill and no health bill.

The first covers healthcare for low-income people for most procedures except abortion.

The second does not cover healthcare for most low-income people, for anything (where "anything" includes abortion).

You could pretend to wash your hands of the whole enterprise and "not compromise" (pretending to "stick to your principles"). But the result is that you make an active choice to block change and keep the status quo (by voting against the bill). The result is that low-income people still don't get abortion coverage. Most rational people would not believe that you are "sticking to your principles" when you result in an outcome that does not adhere to your claimed principles.

I don't have a problem with it.

I do think that a lot of politicians, and especially a lot of Democrats, don't understand that "compromise" involves both sides giving something up. They get "compromise" and "capitulate" mixed up.

Agree with your point.