Reid vs Frist: a contrast in compromise offers

Senator Reid wants to compromise by being able to cast a minority veto only on selected nominees and not all of them. Senator Frist wants to allow all nominees out of committee for a floor vote but allowing up to 100 hours debate on each one.

In one case, the offer is a purchase agreement about the price of the sale. In the other, the case is a matter of politics where each side has plenty of time to present their case and the majority will prevail after due consideration.

Democrats’ Dangerous Game of Indifference by Christopher G. Adamo (Newsmax 05ma09) describes the implications of the win/lose tactics such as those being played by Senator Reid in his ‘compromise offer.’

The Democrats have been losing elections, but that apparently only makes them more strident, more partisan, more extreme. They have changed the game from accepting the will of majority and pursuing honest means to convert parts of that majority to their views to obfuscation and obstruction. They lambast the majority as “extreme” and go to great lengths to find any example from the fringes to support their views. Meanwhile, anyone who cares can spend a few hours on CSPAN and find examples of extremism on the part of the Democrats from the floor of the House or Senate with little difficulty.

The contrast in the compromise offers is as clear as Reid calling the President a “loser.” Do you want a country where important issues are resolved by barter or do you want a country that allows all sides to air their views, attempt to sway the argument with honest debate, and then accepts a vote?

Comments are closed.