Thursday - July 19, 2007

Republicans Who Don't Get It:  Our Favorite, Trent Lott

I guess We in Hell are going to have to explain what compromise is and isn't.

First, compromise only works when both sides are willing to stick to agreement.  

Second, the further the sides are apart on an issue, the less likely the compromise will last.  

Third, there has to be some common ground between the two sides.

Fourth, compromise for the sake of compromise is a mistaken policy that accomplish little, but to build up animosity on both sides.

Fifth, compromise works best when both sides share common values.

Sixth, compromise is not a value in of itself.  To say that one has compromised can either be a good thing or a very bad thing.

What brings this up you minions of Satan ask?  A piece today in Congressional Quarterly where our leaders come across as whiney, dimwitted, and lacking any statesmen like qualities at all.

To start, we have this gem attributed to the Democratic leadership:

From Reid and other Senate Democrats, the prevailing complaint was Republican obstructionism.

“At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is extraordinarily discouraging,” Reid said after the Homeland Security bill was temporarily blocked from floor consideration Wednesday.

“First they prevented us from acting on the 9/11 commission’s recommendations,” the Nevada Democrat said. “Then on changing the course in Iraq. And now this.”

“They’ve slowed everything down,” said Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill. “Very little gets accomplished. That is their goal.”

Satan only has this to say, "whaaaaaaaaaaaaa."  Dear Senators Reid and Durbin, what opposition that is loyal to their country, that loves their nation, would support the 9/11 surrender commission or vote for a bill that would force us to flee from an inferior enemy in Iraq?  They wouldn't be the opposition if they supported bills harmful to the United States of America.

Now to the opposition.  Unfortunately, the Republican Party is the position of being the opposition because of nominal conservatives like Trent Lott.  While Lott only uttered two sentences here, his words speak volumes:  “The Senate is designed to force parties and members to work together. It’s just not happening, and that’s unfortunate."

Oh Senator Lott, where does Satan begin?  Maybe he should look at the rules of compromise listed above.  You should only compromise with people with whom you have something in common.  

The Democrats are the Democrats of the 1950s and 1960s.  They have been taken over by the extreme left.  Forty years ago, Republicans might have proposed funding an army of 3 million while the Democrats wanted to fund an army 2.6 million.  Both sides wanted a strong defense and the difference was split.

But what do you do when the Democrats want to surrender to an inferior enemy in Iraq?   What would a compromise look like?  Half of a surrender still equals surrender.  Or what would a compromise with Barack Obama look like on sex education for kindergartners?  Half of a sex education program will equals a sex education program.  On amnesty for 12 million people who have criminally entered our nation?  Splitting the difference on this issue still produces amnesty.  How do you compromise on gay marriage?  Any compromise on gay marriage ends up legitimizing the act of two men screwing each other in the ass (once again for those leftards out there, Satan and the Virtuous Republic DO NOT CARE if two men screw each other in the privacy of the bedroom.  What we do oppose is the legitimization of such an act.  There is nothing socially redeeming about two men blowing the skin flute.  Therefore it does not deserve the sanction of the government as something wonderful and desirable.  I know that is not a nuance you can understand, but there it is.)

Do you get the drift?  You can only compromise with people who share your basic values.  When you compromise with extremists,  you end up implementing some or half of their agenda.  Ask DeWine about the great compromise on Bush's judicial appointments.  What did that accomplish?  It simply bought the left time until the next election rolled around.  Or how about McCain-Feingold?  What happens when you compromise with one side who wants to restrict speech?  You end up restricting speech. Or ask G.W. about immigration?  By negotiating with leftists like Kennedy, the entire bill focused on granting amnesty.  It even gave amnesty to criminals?  What would have conservatives gotten out of this great compromise?

Senator Lott, and Hagel, and Voinovich, and Graham and McCain and all the other "great compromisers" out there---it is not your job to halfway implement the left's agenda.  It is your job to enact the agenda supported by Republican voters.  And what is the agenda, let Satan remind you:  secured borders, victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, a strong defense, legislation that supports morality, and fiscal restraint.  And if you can't deal with that, then do absolutely nothing but obstruct the left.

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Webloggin, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Author: Satanic Source
Technorati Tags: Compromise Senate Lott McCain
Technorati Cosmos:
Technorati Watchlist:
Add this entry to: