View Mobile Site

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos


Brian Baker: What’s Obama’s idea of a compromise?

SCV Voices

Posted: November 12, 2010 8:16 p.m.
Updated: November 13, 2010 4:30 a.m.

Just as they made the claim that their 2006 midterm takeover of Congress was a referendum and rejection of the policies of Bush, the Democrats are now trying to claim that Nov. 2’s election results weren’t an identical rejection of Obama’s policies.

But the fact is, they went from having lopsided majorities in both houses of Congress to a closely divided Senate and a House with Republicans in charge by a wide margin.

By any measure, it was a clear statement by the electorate. If we lived in a parliamentary democracy instead of a republic, Obama would already be vacating the White House as the result of a vote of “no confidence.”

Obama and the Democrats spent the last year or so deriding the GOP as the “Party of No” in their attempt to secure electoral victory. Clearly, that strategy failed; evidently the country’s ready for a little “no” when it comes to profligate spending that would shame a drunken sailor. Hopefully, even a lot.

Interestingly enough, when he hears hoofbeats, Obama’s still thinking of zebras instead of horses. He still claims the people simply don’t understand the wonderfulness of his policies. Apparently in his view, we’re just too dense for our own good.

Obama did mention a “midcourse correction,” but what does that mean? Over the last couple of years, all his talk of “compromise” basically boiled down to Republicans and conservatives having to give up all the ground.

In other words, it can more readily be summarized as “my way or the highway.” He facilely uses a word that a lot of people supposedly like to hear — compromise — but then doesn’t give up an inch, castigating his opponents as being obstructionist when they don’t forsake their own principles and cave in.

Now don’t get me wrong. I think compromise on basic core principles is not a good thing.

Obama is a true believer in his liberal/socialist policy ideas and is determined to fight for them to the bitter end.

But then his opponents must be given the same credit for their positions, too.

There are some things for which there simply is no such thing as compromise.

That’s why we have elections.

It was Obama who said  “I won” to the Republican negotiators when they were squabbling over spending. Now the GOP can turn around and say the same thing.

Elections do have consequences. And whether Obama wants to acknowledge it, his policies were the core issues over which the election outcomes were determined.

Like it or not, the representatives and senators who stood for election were his proxies, and they stood or fell pretty much on the basis of their support for Obama’s policies.

It promises to be an interesting couple of years. Hopefully, conservatives can finish the job in 2012.

Brian Baker is a Santa Clarita resident. His column reflects his own views and not necessarily those of The Signal.


Commenting not available.
Commenting is not available.


Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...