Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans believe that the two parties must try to work together to get things done. We got sequestration because neither side would budge. We face the fiscal cliff because neither side will budge.
The evil word to many on this board is compromise.
Reagan compromised because it was the best way to get things done for the good of the country.
Clinton compromised for the same reason.
Look at how both are perceived today.
Romney compromised with the 87% Democratic, veto-proof Democratic legislature in Massachusetts, and actually got some things he wanted in exchange.
Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill, Clinton worked with GOP congressional leaders.
Compromise offends purists and I understand that. But when trying to manage a superpower, there has to be give and take, the goal being to take more for your side than you give.
Bi-partisanship was mentioned a few times in the debate. Romney came across as far more willing to work across the aisle, referencing the situation he dealt with for four years in Massachusetts,while everyone knows how intransigent Obama has been in that regard.
The reaction to the debate certainly indicates that mainstream America recognizes that without some degree of bi-partisanship in the next four years, the economy will be further crippled.
Compromise is an art, not a weakness. It does not mean a 50-50 split between two proposing sides - it could easily be 75-25. The alternative is a hardline no-compromise Obama Part 2.0, with predictable economic results.
Off to watch the Tigers ...
This post was edited on 10/6 at 2:33 pm