Reply #65: It isn't clear what you're referring to as over the top.

[frustrated_lefty]

Sorry, the polarization on DU of late makes it difficult for me to determine what's over the top? That "Hamsher doesn't have the administrations best interests at heart?" Or, that someone is making the claim that Hamsher doesn't have the administration's best interests at heart? After following the link back to the original article, it looks like Hamsher was simply saying that slapping progressives in the face isn't a great motivator...but that's a separate issue.

Compromise is a good thing, a necessary thing in many instances. But, compromise is give and take, not give and give or take and take. Much of what passes for compromise in this administration is far too lopsided. If, for example, you're going to require every single citizen pay for health insurance, you'd better make sure they receive quality health care. Don't bail out banks and the auto industry, turn a blind eye to the criminal behavior of the oil industry in the gulf, and then have the audacity to tell the working man that it's time to suck it up and make sacrifices. I think in the wake of the 08 election, the vast majority of this country was ready and willing to make sacrifices for a common good. That good will has been pissed away, and I doubt it will resurface unless and until there's some sign of more balanced compromise being pursued.

In some other areas, though, there isn't a whole lot of room for compromise. Torture is ok, or it isn't. It's ok to assassinate American's or it isn't. GLBT citizens have equal rights under the law, or they don't. So, yeah, sometimes principles over party is also necessary. When you start letting the layers of principle fall away, you end up with a party that stands for nothing, whose only purpose is its mindless pursuit of power.