The mainstream media, the Obama administration, liberals, progressives, those on the left and many members of Congress have decried congressional Republicans' lack of willingness to compromise.
Republicans are being vilified as the "party of no" because they will not compromise on many of the bills that President Barack Obama and the Democrats would like to pass. Many of which, by the way, according to economic experts, would do more harm than good.
As a well-known radio talk show host recently commented, "Compromise is for losers. Winners don't need to compromise simply because they won.
A South Carolina senator also recently stated, however, in another context, that elections have consequences. So what part of the 2010 congressional elections do Democrats not understand?
The defeat of so many Democratic candidates running for Congress, statehouses and legislatures all over America sent a message to every government official at every level in America that the status quo was totally unacceptable.
However, in fairness, if Republicans should agree to some sort of compromise, what model should they follow? Perhaps the best example might be the one that started when Obama became president and the Democrats captured both Houses of Congress. Was there one piece of legislation on which they compromised with Republicans? The answer lies somewhere between zero and none.
Hilton Head Island