Senate Blocks Boehner Bill, Focus Shifts To Reid Plan, McConnell Won’t Negotiate
The Senate killed the Boehner Plan but the debt ceiling crisis is still unresolved and the way out is murky.
It took only a matter of hours for the United States Senate to block the bill that the House of Representatives had passed earlier today:
The United States Senate quickly dispatched the debt ceiling bill passed by the House Friday evening, tabling the Republican bill indefinitely and moving quickly to start consideration of a Democratic plan that would avoid default on Tuesday.
Less than two hours after House Speaker John A. Boehner pushed his bill through the House over the strenuous objections of nearly two dozen of his own Republican members, the Democratic leadership in the Senate followed through on their promise to kill his legislation.
But the move now sets up an uncertain 72 hours as the Congress moves ever closer to the Tuesday deadline when the Treasury Department says the country will default on its financial obligations without an increase in the debt ceiling.
Immediately after the Motion to Table (which was also supported by six Republican Senators) passed, Harry Reid began the parliamentary maneuvers required to get his bill considered by the Senate. At the earliest, it looks like we won’t see a vote on that until Sunday night at the earliest. Meanwhile, the House is supposed to vote on its own version of the Reid Bill tomorrow. This is purely a political maneuver by the GOP designed to send a message to the Senate.
Logically, it would be in the Senate where negotiation would take place and we’d get to a deal that could pass both the House and the Senate. However, this tweet from Senator Claire McCaskill just before the vote on the Motion to Table, seems to indicate there will be no negotiation:
If this is truly McConnell’s position and it doesn’t change in the next 72 hours then I don’t see how this get resolved before Tuesday.
If
It gets solved at 11:55pm on Monday night, when President Barack Obama is given the same one page document, passed by the House and Senate, that has signified the raising of the debt ceiling all previous 73 times.
Of course, the market may drop 700 points on Monday, which would send the strongest signal to the Tea Party yet that they’re out of step with the mainstream of the country.
Disgusting.
Is this true or is this is more political posturing? I would guess the latter.
We are so f*cked…. all the adults are in kindergarten.
“If this is truly McConnell’s position and it doesn’t change in the next 72 hours then I don’t see how this get resolved before Tuesday.”
McConnell doesn’t need to compromise with Reid, at least not on the substance of a bill. They need to negotiate a UCA to appoint conferees when Reid gets tired of the political theater and wants to get down to business, just like Boehner needs to get a motion through the Rules Committee to appoint House conferees, but that’s another issue.
But at least he’s playing his part in the charade nicely for the Democratic base, I’ll give him that.
Cantor, Coburn, and Boehner have all walked out of negotiations. McConnell just wants his own chance at the nut-case big-top.
People lament the Tea Party as the obstructionists yet, they ignore the fact the Democrats disallowed debate twice on bills sent to the Senate. Blame the Tea Party all you want, but there is equal or more blame to be had on the Democrats in the Senate. The real irony is that the Democrats are talking about bi-partisanship even though when they were in power in both the House and the Senate they shoved legislation through bi-partisanship be damned.
@Mike: At least in the last bill, no. That bill with the BBA would never have passed – to waste time debating it would have been about as useful as Ryan’s cover-the-moon-with-yogurt example. And the TPers KNEW this when they demanded it be inserted. ‘Both sides’ may do it, but here the TPers are playing the role of ‘both sides’.
@Brian:
So you’re saying the Democrats aren’t playing politics with this?
@EddieInCA:
This bill is no longer in the House. It’s in the Senate, where no bill has passed, only lots of talk. Follow the bouncing ball, please, Eddie:
The House has just passed it’s second bill dealing with the debt ceiling problem. Supposedly, this bill reflects many of the perimeters already worked out in other bipartisan sessions, especially those involving Biden, and supposedly they are also similar to ones already ‘voiced’ (not presented yet) by Reid.
Now, everyone is saying it’s the teas who are taking the country over the cliff…however, who just tabled this very similar bill —-> the Democratic Senate. In fact, the Senate majority already had their minds made up, nixing it before it even came over for them to vote on it, even though they still had no formal alternative bill on the table. Why have they been holding back on their bill? Are they playing some kind of strategic game?
Who is braying the loudest about defaulting on Tuesday —-> the progressives, and the President. However, they are gleefully turning down bills that would supposedly fix the debt ceiling, albeit it isn’t exactly the terms they want. So, I guess the fear of defaulting isn’t as great for the progressives as they are saying, or else they would be grabbing this similar bill, passing it, and turning their efforts to the business of trying to get the economy out if it’s slump.
BTW, this debt ceiling has all but overshadowed the terrible economic data coming out today. Those numbers alone could cause the rating agencies to downgrade us, even if the debt ceiling were passed at the last minute. And, this has absolutely little to nothing to do with the teas. It’s all about how the progressives have been running the country, for two years with absolute power and for 4 years with a Progressive Congress shaping jobs, healthcare, stimulus plans and what not.
Also, Boehner only walked away from the 4 Trillion grand deal, after he had given in to Obama for 800 billion in revenue raises, when Obama suddenly wanted another 400 billion thrown in for good measure. Boehner felt scammed, which is when he called the president’s negotiations as being “like jello,” and said no deal to the changed deal. Had Obama not gotton greedy with his negotiations, this current last minute drama may have been circumvented entirely. One will never know….
The Tea Party caucus forced a bill that passed the house with zero Democrats voting for it, and 22 Republicans voting against it, with no hope whatsoever of ever passing the Senate or being signed by the President.
That’s not leadership. That’s delusion.
Two Step? Never gonna happen.
BBA? Never gonna happen.
Politics is the art of compromise, and the Tea Party has shown it’s unwilling to take a win when offered.
They turned down a 4Trillion dollar deal with supporters on both sides of the aisle, which hadh 3-1 cuts to tax increases, for a 1 trillion dollar deal that has no chance of passing.
Who needs to keep their eyes on the bouncing ball?
There is all this talk about the Balanced, Budget Amendment being such a deal breaker. However, the polls show that about 70% of the people are in favor of such an amendment. But, of course, those crazy, uneducated people. Why listen to them…..
But, anyway, that may be one reason that the BBA was included in the republican deal, in representing what people have indicated how they want the government debt managed in the future — even though the progressives called such an amendment DOA.
BTW, when the economy is only growing at 1.3%, there will be no new hiring, no great consumer spending, no risk-taking by business. And, if you continue to grow only debt, and not the economy, there will be a crash somewhere out there at the end of all this political posturing, speculation and finger wagging.
@jan: as Chris Lawrence has pointed out, there’s almost no point in the Senate passing a bill before the House due to procedural rules of Congress.
@Mike: the only reason there is a “crisis” is because conservative Republicans created it. So no, Democrats are not at fault more than Republicans. At anytime Congress could raise the debt ceiling. Unfortunately for us, Republicans have decided they don’t mind if they cause a recession in pursuit of their political ideas. I’m all for forceful advocacy of what you believe, but risking another recession to further one’s advocacy efforts is ridiculous.
jan says:
“We passed a bill that would raise the debt ceiling as long as the congressional Democrats all promise to smash themselves in the face with a sledge hammer. Clearly the fact that the Democrats are not on their way to Home Depot means they don’t think the debt crisis is that big of a problem!”
@EddieInCA:
One more time….
It was Obama who soured the grand deal, not Boehner. Boehner only walked away when Obama changed what was already agreed on. But, your needle is stuck on displacing the blame.
@lunaticllama:
I’m sure jan will tell us that she was at one time in charge of running an entire senate office and that in her experience, this is not true.
I’m going to go out on a limb, here, and say that the same House that wouldn’t pass a spending-cuts only bill without an attached constitutional amendment rider, even after Boehner spent a few days twisting arms, would also not pass a deal that included revenue increases.
@Mike: In this particular case, no. The Democrats (and you note 6 Republicans) did the smart thing and quashed it. The BBA, at the BEST of times, is going to be a long, drawn-out debate. No one sane thinks this is the best of times to start that debate. Again, I call attention to who demanded the BBA be added in relation to the ‘no one sane’ description.
@jan: Ignoring the BBA rider attached to said bill in your attempt to claim the Democrats are at fault here is much like, to borrow John Cole’s excellent analogy of the Tea Party demands, asking your date where she wants to eat; you suggest Chinese and she suggest tire rims and anthrax. Yes, TECHNICALLY you’re not open to negotiations when you refuse to entertain the notion, but realistically, she’s the one not bargaining in good faith and possible good mental health.
Jan:
Just a helpful note: the Fox news talking points never hold up outside the echo chamber.
@jan:
Jan…in your world, you can ALWAYS rationalize the actions of the GOP, as they can do NO wrong in your eyes…so yeah, all you are doing in your long post is whining that Democrats are not laying down and letting Boehner and his tea party friends run over them with a mack truck.
I think you are slowly coming to the realization that maybe, just maybe, the Democratic party has finally realized they need to stop bringing a knife to a gunfight, and that concerns you…because the long and short of your post is that you are crestfallen that the Democratic party does not simply say, awesome Mr. Boehner, your bill is fantastic, it is good for the country and good for us, lets pass that sucker and go grab a bite to eat.
If you would like, I can write another thousand words, but there are only so many different words I can use to convey the same thought, that you simply want the Democrats to let the GOP stampede over them like an out of control herd of cattle, because again, the GOP can do NO wrong in your eyes.
Feel free to point out how wrong I am, bring up other posts you have put down on this site that prove I have not been paying attention to how you do see both sides of the same coin, etc.. I can tell you right now I am not going to go back and forth with you…going to act like certain people in this country who simply want to plug their ears and resist hearing the truth…what is that, the moon is not made of cheese, nah, nah, nah…not hearing any of it…Limbaugh said it is, so all that is left is to wonder how I can get up there to taste the moon, as I am rather curious if it taste like jack cheese or sharp cheddar (please, please, please be made out of sharp cheddar, so delicious 🙂 ).
@jan:
Around 60-70% of the people also favor raising taxes on “the wealthy” or those “who make more than $250,000/year” (exact numbers and wording vary depending on the poll). Do you think we should listen to them?
@EddieInCA: @lunaticllama: Right genius, as if were not in a depression already….How much worse can it get? What has Barry done to put us a path to economic recovery in over 2+ years? NOTHING…Spend your way out of debt….That’s Ivy League Economics for liberal schools of higher learning..California…Welfare capitol of the U.S. They really know how to run that state well.
You morons must like being taxed to death, and re-electing idiots year after year..Yea the few take care of the many (leaches), that’s how you become broke genius….
Indeed! How dare they not give the Tea Party crowd everything they want! Just who in the hell do they think they are?
In other words, the “progressives” better do exactly what the Tea Party crowd wants, or else the country defaults, in which case, it is all the fault of the “progressives”…
That’s rich coming from someone who keeps telling us that “the teas” are blameless in this debacle and that it is all the fault of the President and the “progressives”…
My deal on Monday prediction is looking pretty solid.
@jan: This is simply not true. Boehner is lying, as has been documented again and again. But you continue to repeat his lies. I wonder why.
@Mark: Let me guess. You live in one of those wonderful freedom-loving states like Alabama that suck down the Federal dollars that we in California are paying. You think we’re the welfare capital of the country? You’re right. We’re paying the welfare bills for all the meth-loving, trailer dwelling mouth breathers in the South.
If I think back to my educational cartoons of youth the legislative process goes like so:
– The house passes a bill
– The senate passes a bill
– There is a conference committee where the two bills are brought together into one
– The new bill is voted on in the house and the senate
– If the bill passes both chambers it goes to the president for their signature
So if we look to today the house has passed not one but two bills.
The senate has not passed anything.
The house is controlled by the Republicans, who have passed two bills that can be taken to conference.
The senate is controlled by the Democrats, who have not passed any bills to take to conference.
But it’s all the Republican’s fault that we can’t move forward?
Like or dislike what’s been put forward in either chamber I’m not sure how much credence can be given to leader Read when he’s blaming republicans.
The speaker got his bill through a darn near civil war. Get your bill through the senate then let’s try and levy blame on whose holding things up.
And that’s not even touching the president’s secret plan that his chief of staff will cite but not distribute – really?
@avidus: I guess those educational cartoons from your youth didn’t teach you that debt ceiling increases are simple procedural votes that aren’t usually taken hostage by particular factions of Congress and used for purposes of extortion to get policy changes that said factions couldn’t get under any other circumstances…
I wonder if the Koch brothers and the Chamber of Commerce are beginning to realize what a monster they created. I guess they didn’t read Mary Shelly when they were in school.
@avidus:
It’s the house of distorted mirrors we live in today, avidus.
As far as the retort that passing the debt ceiling is some kind of procedural vote automatically done in the past….well, it’s a different set of circumstances today. We are sinking financially, economic numbers are going down, and yet there are those who still want to continue business as usual (?) It’s that old question, if you are in a hole why keep digging?
Sometimes paradoxes work better than the same old, same old approaches, which is why there are other people who want to put a break on automatically adding more debt, without first enacting serious ways to bring it down.
My husband would actually like to see a reverse debt counter — one where you could watch the debt diminishing rather than rapidly increasing. What a novel idea!
jan:
How sure are you that Boehner actually agreed to actual new revenue? The GOP’s “A Pledge to America” says this:
So Boehner agreed to new revenue even though the GOP promised to permanently stop “all tax increases?” When did Boehner or any other GOP leader announce that the “Pledge to America” is now inoperative, and they are ready renege on that pledge?
And then there is this:
How does it make sense to say that Boehner agreed to new revenue, but then also said he couldn’t make a deal because Obama “insisted on raising taxes?”
The GOP has made their position clear: any increase in taxes is unacceptable. So I’d like to understand why I should believe the claim that Boehner ever agreed to new revenue.
Sweetie, if you think we’re sinking financially now, just wait and see what happens if the debt ceiling isn’t increased…
Indeed…here’s a little hint, though…the debt isn’t going to decrease without the government taking in more revenue and part of doing that will involve tax increases…sorry if that shatters your little house of distorted mirrors that assumes the budget can be fixed with spending cuts alone…
@Ron Beasley:
.
The Koch Brothers are nothing more than a libertarian antidote to the leftist Soros. They are both proactive billionaires who are at opposite ends of the political continuum. While The Koch Brothers have supported and funded the teas, Soros founded, supported and funded the very politically active and successful moveon movement. No difference in how they play the game. It’s just they each play for a different political team.
It’s so interesting how people try to demonize their opponents when their side uses the same tactics.
@jukeboxgrad:
Boehner’s explanation has been retold frequently since that meeting with Obama. If you want to doubt Boehner, then you must also even doubt there was a 4 trillion dollar deal from Obama too.
I do find it quite amusing that some of the posts in this thread are alternating between “the GOP would have accepted 800 billion in tax increases” and “no tax increases ever”. I find it hard to see how those could both be true.
Also, the House passed one, not two bills dealing with the debt ceiling as the original CCB bill did not raise the debt ceiling. Why do you think Boehner getting the GOP together and finally passing the bill was such a big deal if they’d already done it? Also, feel free to check out the excellent post by Chris Lawrence on why the House needed to pass the bill before the Senate.
Lots of things get “retold frequently” even though they are complete bullshit.
As usual, you didn’t answer the question. If Boehner offered to raise taxes, why did he say he couldn’t make a deal because Obama “insisted on raising taxes?”
If Boehner offered to raise taxes, he was violating the GOP “Pledge to America.” When did any GOP leader announce that the pledge had been withdrawn?
There are only two possibilities: Boehner didn’t actually offer to raise revenues, or the “Pledge to America” is worthless. Which is it?
Jan is either a paid GOP shill or someone with no life to degree that she gives Jay a run for his money.
In case anyone is wondering about the $400 billion Jan keeps referring to, here’s a good summary, including the part how there never was a deal to begin with.
@An Interested Party:
Unless the rating agencies are rigged there will probably be a downgrading no matter what happens to the debt ceiling. The economic numbers that came out today were awful. There was no encouragment as to signs of recovery or even an easing of the economy’s terrible malaise. Some people have suggested the only reason we haven’t already been downgraded is that the USD is still the world’s accepted reserve currency. If that ever changes, then we’ll be in even worse shape than we are now.
Somehow, though, the panacea, as seen by many of you, continues to be a drum beat of raise revenue by raising taxes (financially putting more of a burden on the client/consumer), and then layer more debt on an already skyrocketing debt. That makes no sense to me. Any business operating under that kind of model would soon go out of business.
Not novel at all. It’s an idea Clinton actually put into practice. And remember, it was you that said a President “owns the economy” so please don’t tell us how Clinton’s success was due to luck and a GOP Congress.
At any rate, it took GW little time to destroy the fiscally responsible practices we had under Clinton. And Republicans cheered at the top of their lungs as he did it.
@David M:
I could not click onto that link you supplied for the $400 billion reference. However, I saw, by the link’s discription that it was written by Jonathan Chait, who is the left wing juxtaposition of Fred Barnes, a right wing reporter. Both men’s reporting is flavored by their own political bias.
@anjin-san:
Clinton’s success was due to a fiscally prudent Congress, and to Clinton’s own political savvy and flexibility. He adapted and eased his political stances and was awarded the credit of having his monetary house in order. Also, the economy under Clinton was helped by the dot com boom going on at that time. The bubble from that era was just starting to burst when Bush arrived on the scene in 2001.
Jan, the federal government is not a business, nor it is a family budget. It has responsibilities laid out by law that no business or family must follow. It can print money. It can engage in treaties. And it can create wealth simply by projecting strength through positive credit worthiness. Credit is based on perception, and your bunch look like complete amateurs.
The country was built on a tax rate three times what it is, and your bunch wants to maintain it on less than 30% of that, and you wonder why it’s falling apart?
So more taxes are coming. A large majority of Americans get it, because they do not want the hell-hole your theocratic oligarchy would create for the rest of us. That’s the goal, right? Drown our democratic institutions in Grover’s’ bathtub so you can usher in your awful retro-theology? Seems like all arrows point thus. The craziness of your bunch only makes sense in that light, what sense there is.
Too bad you remain a minority of a minority in actual numbers.
Hence, why her fellow travelers are using the vote to raise the debt ceiling as a means of extortion to get their preferred policies enacted…
Actually, the NASDAQ crash took place on March 10, 2000. But don’t let things like facts distract from your Bush apoligia. At any rate, Bush inherited a relatively mild downturn from Clinton, and it had very little to do with the way Bush quickly turned surplus into deficit. (with applause from the right ringing in his ears all the while)
And while we are on the subject of inherited economic conditions, lets keep in mind that Bush left an economic disaster of historic proportions on the desk in the Oval Office for Obama to deal with – you know, the one you dismissed as “a bummer”.
And Jan, you kind of ducked the point that deficit reduction is not novel, it is something a Democratic President accomplished not so long ago. Then, tax cuts, 2 unfunded (1 unnecessary) wars. Cheney said “deficits don’t matter”, and “conservatives” cheered.
But sice Bush did not quite succeed in actually destroying the economy, so the GOP still has work to do.
A Californian calling names about another welfare state. I believe Calif. is almost bankrupt! LOL
The Democrats in the Senate refused to allow debate on the Boehner plan, thanks to a procedural action.
Similarly, the authors of OTB have set up a procedure where the readership can likewise limit debate by hiding comments they dislike, and the liberals consistently vote out of sight comments they don’t like, and don’t want others to read.
The parallels are quite interesting…
J.
@lunaticllama:
What planet do you live on? Or are you one of the lucky few who is still making good money? The country is in deep recession, except for DC, Wall Street, Hollywood and Silicon Valley-all Democrat strongholds. What do the “Great Unwwashed” have to lose at this point by forcing the government to take notice of the disparity?
Jay Tea:
Yes, we know, another god-fearing patriot silenced by the liberal horde. You should see Alex’s post here.
Hey, you’re a righty, right? Don’t you
worshiplove the free market? You should think of OTB’s commenting system as the free market of ideas gloriously selecting the best comments with its hidden hand and paring down the worst.@Jay Tea:
I’m no fan of this, either, but, really, you’re protesting too much. Everybody, but everybody, clicks on the blanked comment to see what that moron wrote. So, perversely, maybe, the system only boosts the prominence of what that moron wrote. Shorter: To make sure you’re read, piss off a lot of people around here.
I’d suggest Jay and Jan step back, and look at why exactly they face resistance. It could be because they draw different conclusions from our common world, or it could be because they try to sell the alternate universe.
I’d say down votes are applied to arguments that “aren’t real.”
… I guess it’s ironic that conservatives reject moral relativism, but embrace reality relativism.
lolz, some loser tries to down vote my comment about down votes 😉
anjin-san:
And not just that. The same Rs who cheered at the top of their lungs as he did it, and who helped him nearly double the debt, are now the leaders of the GOP. Boehner, Cantor, and Ryan all voted for Medicare Part D, even though it “added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation’s indebtedness.” Those three also all voted for TARP.
Yes, this definitely signals that the current house GOP is quite serious about deficit reduction: they selected as their leaders people who voted for both TARP and Medicare Part D.
Does Republicanism cause amnesia, or is it the other way around? Hard to say.
@jukeboxgrad:
As I say, that kind of thing is easy, when you have subjective reality. If it feels like Boehner, Cantor, and Ryan want to spend less, then it’s true.
… we used to call it truthiness.
You know, there is an ancient one-liner:
Those few people who show up here to defend the far right do it with separate facts. That is not a coincidence.
Here is my idea to eliminate the deficit:
Scrap the current tax code. Everyone over 18 would pay 3% tax on any income. This would also include ss, welfare, etc. No deductions except for charity. Illegal immigrants would also have to pay (if they aren’t currently in the system).
By my calculations, the country would be running surplus in 3 years.
Now who can argue with that?
@jan:
According to this timeline you’re just plain wrong.
“July 3 – Obama and Boehner meet secretly to discuss “grand bargain” that would save roughly $4 trillion over 10 years through a tax code overhaul and trims to benefit programs.”
“July 9 – Boehner says grand bargain is out of reach because Republicans will not accept the tax increases Democrats are demanding. He calls for a more modest $2 trillion package that would rely mostly on spending cuts.”
Boehner’s comment about Obama wanting an additional $400 billion comes later.
“July 22 – Boehner breaks off talks with Obama over impasse on revenue increases. Boehner says agreed to $800 billion in increases but that Obama was seeking $400 billion more.”
But even if what Boehner says is accurate, do you really think he could have passed a bill with any revenue increase in the house?
Sometimes visualization of the problem is helpful.
……and, people just want to do a procedural vote adding to this, while calling others crazy for seeking alternative means to reduce it? Now, that’s pretty crazy, all unto itself!
@jan: Wait, if one of these men who are telling different stories is lying, then they must both be lying? I realize the Tea Party doesn’t believe in silly things like logic or facts, but even by your standards this is ludicrous.
I have to admit I’d take the GOP claims that they’re against the deficit a lot more seriously if they hadn’t happily ran a huge deficit under Bush – what was Cheney’s comment? Something to the effect that deficits don’t matter. Apparently they don’t matter if its a GOP deficit, but they do matter if the president is a Democrat.
This is all team sports, and on both sides. But on this particular debate, at least the Democrats are being sane. The ceiling was raised without issue numerous times under GOP Presidents (notably Reagan and Bush), why is it suddenly a problem now? Team sports.
@Dot: Do a little research, hon. California pays more to the Federal government than we get back — and that extra money goes to the Tea Party strongholds, who snort up out taxes like meth.
That was exactly what he said: “deficits don’t matter.” And conservatives defended that statement. An example of the Weekly Standard defending that statement is here.
Conservatives were quite willing to defend Bush and pretend that his spending was consistent with conservatism. For example, Fred Barnes said that “the case for Bush’s conservatism is strong.”
And William F. Buckley Jr. himself said that it’s wrong “to denounce Bush and his policies ‘in the name of conservatism,’ ” and it’s wrong to claim that Bush’s policies are “unworthy of conservative benediction.” Never mind that Buckley made this statement 109 days after Bush signed Medicare Part D into law.
Modern conservatives are definitely in favor of small government, except when they’re running the government. They’re also in favor of amnesia, and attempting to rewrite the history of GOP support for Bush’s deficit spending.
The all time best reference to conservative amnesia was that written by Austin Bramwell when he left National Review. Everyone should read it.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/nov/20/00008/
Steve
@Racehorse:
“Scrap the current tax code. Everyone over 18 would pay 3% tax on any income. This would also include ss, welfare, etc. No deductions except for charity. Illegal immigrants would also have to pay (if they aren’t currently in the system).”
That’s not a bad idea at all. I’d scrap the over 18, though. Everybody pays.
Jay, when you were a kid, were you a run home crying to mommy kind of guy? It certainly would explain a few things about your behavior as an adult…
Steve, that’s excellent, thanks, I never saw that.
So where is the Compromise from the Democrats? Why is compromise only good when Republicans back down?
@Eric Florack:
Eric –
You’re delusional.
Almost every legitimate media/news report has stated that the Dems, and the President, have compromised on MANY issues. The GOP refuses to compromise on ANY.
Are you choosing to ignore that fact, or do you just not know it?
Your questions above shows either a profound intellectual dishonesty, or lack of knowledge. Either way, it should keep others from taking seriously anything you say.
That’s something most of us learned long ago…