@UtahBlueDevil:"Lets focus on solving problems..."The problem is not so much in solving... the problem is in identifying
problems to be solved. For example, how do you solve the problem of gay
marriage or abortion? These two issues (among others) are what divides the
parties.Of course Christie and Obama 'came together' ...
Obama, because he holds the cash (FEMA) to solve problems from the storm and
Christie because his state needs federal help."Christie
demonstrated statesmanship..."Naw. Walking around with Obama
with your tail between your legs is not what I'd call statesmanship.
I'd call it grovelling. Such conduct does not make for a good future
presidential candidate.:ECR:"...President Obama has
exhibited a bipartisan spirit since he came into office. Even the healthcare
law for which he has been vilified incorporated elements previously supported by
the opposition and did not include a single payer (government) system."What? You must-a been dreaming. There was zero compromise by
Obama's party. The Repubs were entirely shut out of the process.As for the single payer system... that's step two of the Obamacare
process. We just haven't been informed of it yet.
Amazing that you concluded I am a liberal. You certainly are liberal (pun
intended) in your use of words like “always” and “never”
and yes you missed my point entirely (which was about the Civil War). The point
is that the inability to compromise inevitably leads to conflict and war. That
outcome may be at times necessary (like the Civil War), but it becomes far more
likely in a highly polarized environment of us (the good guys) and them (the
evil ones that we should NEVER compromise with). And before you list
all the reasons why you are right and pragmatists, moderates, liberals, etc. are
wrong, please remember that it was the pious Southern slave owners who were the
most intractable in their (biblically supported) views on slavery.
Re: "When we choose to take one side . . . a broad brush judicious
compromise is not possible."Most political compromises -- like
those we've made over the years on budget and freedom issues with liberals
-- while they may be broad, they're certainly NOT judicious.The
existential costs to our democracy of compromises, broad or narrow, with those
that hold re-election and political expedience in higher esteem than the
National interest, will nearly always be too high.
procuradorfiscal -When we choose to take one side and paint the
other side with a broad brush judicious compromise is not possible. There are
Democrats who want to see progress too just as there are Republicans that
can't get their head out of "politics first, second and always".No party has a corner on virtue and honor. Let's find those
statesmen who want the best for our nation no matter what side of the isle they
are on and support them."The slavery compromise was seen, even
at the time, as a catastrophe, by most of our greatest thinkers, including
Thomas Jefferson -- a slave owner, himself."As wrong as slavery
was, our founding fathers were wise not to bite off more than the current
culture could chew. They decided that to form a nation the question of slavery
could not be decided then, but would have to be left for a future time,
otherwise there may not be a nation. And - I think Tyler D meant the
Civil War, not the Constitutional Convention. In the Civil War we did not
compromise - in the end - with the South on slavery. It has nothing
to do with "moral bankruptcy".
Re: ". . . only one time in our history did we not compromise on a major,
pressing issue. And that issue (slavery) was a total no-brainer."Liberals are fond of attempting to turn history on its head -- slavery in the
Constitution WAS, of course, a compromise. You know, all that 3/5 of person,
etc.The slavery compromise was seen, even at the time, as a
catastrophe, by most of our greatest thinkers, including Thomas Jefferson -- a
slave owner, himself.Today's liberals have come to see
compromise -- tax-funded vote buying -- as their entitlement, an end in itself.
But, it NEVER amounts to more than a buy-off of whatever constituency
they're currently trying to herd back into their big tent.Compromise with today's liberals is as pernicious to the Nation, as was
compromise with yesteryear's slave owners. And, because of the damage it
wreaks on American decency, democracy, and prosperity -- just as morally
Wow! Compromise, the founding principle of our nation, what a novel concept! I
am all for the marketplace of ideas, but people should remember that only one
time in our history did we not compromise on a major, pressing issue. And that
issue (slavery) was a total no-brainer. We will only get smart,
effective solutions when we have had our fill with this current crop of
uncompromising pledge signers and start electing grownups again. By the way,
when did signing a pledge OTHER then the oath of office become a virtue?
Re: "Governing through mutual respect and judicious compromise"Respect -- of course.But, compromise with vote-buying liberals?
It'll destroy us.Most Americans know what needs to be done to
return America to greatness -- a return to morality and decency, and a
meaningful reduction in the size of a bloated, unaccountable, ineffective,
inefficient government.Even Democrats, in unguarded moments, admit
as much.But their deranged "big tent" political strategy
requires frequent deals with the devil, and can produce only unstable,
demanding, unreasonable constituencies.Attempts at compromise with
the modern Democrat establishment require such massive buy-offs of its
narcissistic components, they invariably amount to total, abject surrender to
one or another nefarious scheme, or moral or financial dimension.Sadly, the days of Democrats being able to make decisions in the interest of
America are just a distant memory. This renders any compromise with Democrats a
compromise of America's interests.
The only people who criticize Christie's appreciation for President
Obama's help are the people that can't get their heads out of
"politics" long enough to realize that the real world is not about
"us" verses "them".Our constitution never would have
been written if it hadn't been for compromise. No-one left that
constitutional convention completely satisfied, yet in spite of that we became a
nation that has weathered civil war, world wars, assassinations, devastating
natural disasters, terrorism and economic down-turns.
Its too bad that New Jersey's Governor should have to explain himself like
this or that anyone would criticize his actions in working with the federal
government rather than treating it as an opportunity to make political capital.
People in these areas are hurting. If we can't pull together in these times
what does it say about us as a society?
this should be published far and wide
Through their interaction, President Obama and Governor Christie put the welfare
of the Governor's state and the country first, before political concerns.
In doing so, they set a high standard for oher poliicians to follow. Good for
them. I hope other politicians will follow suit.
I hope all the Republican Leadership reads this Editorial. Criticism of
Governor Christy's bipartisanshship is comming from his own party.
Impressive editorial, and very true. Whoever wins the presidency will face a
very divided nation, which is not at all uncommon in the past 12 years. But the
Founding Fathers also had what might have been irreconcilable differences,
namely slavery, and yet they were able to compromise to move the nation
forward.The upcoming seismic budget deal will require similar
fortitude. Republicans will have to cede their insistence that taxes never be
raised, and Democrats will have to accept unpopular cuts to favorite programs.
There's no way around this massive issue, and the nation's future
depends on it. It's time for statesmen to swallow their pride, put their
political capital on the line, and make things happen.
I have to tip my hat to the DN editorial writers. They managed to write a whole
essay about the cooperative effort in New Jersey in the wake of Hurricane Sandy,
the willingness of politicians to compromise and work together for the good of
the nation and the fact that we are moving out of the devastating economic
downturn, without ever mentioning the name of President Obama. Governor
Christie's honest assessment came after the president dedicated himself,
despite being in the midst of a tight presidential campaign, to the people of
New Jersey and to helping Governor Christie get the help he needed for his
state's citizens. He personally toured the devastation with the governor
and supported him for days, despite past history and the harsh words spoken by
the governor. Yes, the president was just doing his job but he did it in
exactly the same spirit that this essay suggests.Despite what has
been claimed, President Obama has exhibited a bipartisan spirit since he came
into office. Even the healthcare law for which he has been vilified
incorporated elements previously supported by the opposition and did not include
a single payer (government) system.
I am almost left speechless. This is by far one of the best written political
pieces the DN has published this entire political season. I congratulate the DN
for rising above the sophomoric sensationalized dribble pushed by much the
media. Lets focus on solving problems, not winning seats, or if
someone is blue or red. Christie demonstrated statesmanship... and if he gets
punished by his party because he was more loyal to the people he represents than
to his "party", good for him. It shows character and back bone many in
office fail to show, in either party.Just perhaps he was the right
candidate for the Republicans..... maybe we will find out in 4 years.
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately",
is attributed to Benjamin Franklin. Radical obstructionism in Congress has set
our Nation back. We should tolerate no more of it from our so-called
"representatives". Hold their feet to the fire. If they can't
work with each other, throw the bums out! Even children know you've got to
"play well with each other"! But whatever we do on Tuesday, we must be
careful not replace an uncompromising incumbent with someone even worse.
I could not agree more. It is a sad day when a politician can't say
anything positive about their political "enemy" without their
"side" shrieking about how traitorous they are. The goal shouldn't
be to damage "the other side". The goal should be to work together,
COMPROMISE, and get things done -- some of what you want and some of what I
want. Because only a spoiled toddler thinks they can get their way 100% of the
time. Time for everyone to grow up. And time to stop listening to hate filled
commentators who make more money the more riled up they can get you. It started
on the right, but I'm seeing it now on the left as well. Why listen to
people whose sole job is to make you so mad you feel actual hatred for others?