"Compromise" and the Tea Party

"Compromise!"  This is the current face the Tea Party Republicans are presenting to the public.  That being said, their tactics were extremely public just days ago.  They said, in a very public way, that they were going to hold the Federal Government hostage in order to try to do what they've been trying to do for the last 3 years: remove the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) from law. 

So, what do they mean when they say that the President, and Democrats in general, aren't willing to compromise?  They mean that Democrats aren't willing to completely fold and give into the demands of the Far Right.  Yep, that's compromise.  Do it my way or you're not willing to talk about compromise.  It falls very much in line with the origin of the Tea Party where, in reaction to Obama being elected, they gathered and called forth the standard the Massachusetts residents generated originally (yes, Massachusetts, not New Hampshire) "No taxation without representation."  The Tea Party members who were asked what they meant by this stated that, since they didn't vote for Obama or some of those in Congress, they were not being represented.  The problem, of course, being that we live in a representative democracy and we elect our representatives in Congress and President by popular vote, after a fashion.  Even if you don't vote for the person elected, you had a vote, and you have someone representing your residential area, and you can lobby that person and vote for someone else in the next election and work to get that person not elected next time.  I know I joked with some friends during W. Bush's Presidency that he wasn't elected because of the issues in Florida, but that couldn't be claimed with Obama and I wouldn't have made the same joke about Reagan or Bush senior.  So, essentially, we've come to a point where we have a large group of people speaking a different language than the rest of us, and it's not Spanish, it's not French, it's English, but contorted with different definitions than those the rest of us use. 

O.k., so the Republican House finally submitted a bill that "compromised" by only delaying certain aspects of the law.  Too little too late in my opinion.  I applaud the Democrats for not taking them up on this option.  Enough is enough.  While it's horrible for many many people to be sent home without pay and with no knowledge of when they will be paid again, simply because Republicans in the House can't accept a law that they have been attempting to overturn time after time for the last 2 years, this is how you stand up and say "no! no more!" to a bunch of rebellious misfits who time and again act as the tale wagging the Republican Party, er, dog.  And maybe, just maybe this fight will prevent us from having the battle that is likely to come shortly over the debt ceiling.

compromise compromise, everywhere, but no sincerity in sight

O.k., election results are in, except for Florida for the Presidential race, because they've only had over 36 hours to tally up the votes and figure it out, not like they weren't expecting to be important or anything, just the state with the most electoral votes of the battleground states.  But I digress.  This post is not about the ridiculousness that is Florida, it's about the ridiculousness that is the Republican right.

Boehner came out and announced that "we're" eager for the President to lead, that "we" want him to succeed, and that "we're" willing to negotiate within limits.  The "we" could refer to the general population of the U.S., but I think it's more likely that he's speaking for Republicans in the House.  Let's take him at his word for a minute.  He's saying that Republicans are eager for Obama to lead (which he's been doing) and that they'll consider tax increases, but only if the tax increases are not only on the most wealthy.  I'm impressed that he actually came out and said it... the Republicans are unwilling to raise taxes unless they can raise taxes on the poor (Scott Brown admitted to this and Massachusetts kicked him out of office).  That being said, fine, let's just repeal the W. Bush tax cuts.  They helped the rich more than they helped the poor, but they did help the poor somewhat, so Republicans should be fine with it.  Admittedly, Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on those making less than $250k, but that's compromise for ya, sometimes you have to break your campaign promises to avoid the precipice.

That being said, Boehner negotiated with the President before in 2011 and couldn't deliver his end.  That's how we got here, remember?  Boehner and the President and Reed negotiated the "grand compromise", Boehner came back the next morning and said "nope, can't do it, the Republicans in the House won't accept the compromise, they insist on having it completely their way."... so, with the Tea Party backed ridiculously far right remaining in control of the House, should we really take Boehner at his word that he can negotiate for these wackos?  They've just been re-elected, they'll be feeling that their constituents have affirmed their standing firm and not negotiating.  They're probably looking at Romney's defeat and saying "he wasn't one of us, that's why he lost, if he had been a true conservative, he would have won."  Without having learned anything, with everything the same as it was a year ago, I see no reason to believe Boehner will have any more ability to pull his side to the negotiating table with him.

Election's over, bullshit keeps flowing.