Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak stood next to Greta Van Susteren on her program last night with several small stacks of paper.  Each one of those stacks represented an existing federal law that banned using public money for abortion.  He said anyone of them, pick one, is acceptable to him to get him to vote for the Senate version of the health care bill.  He said President Obama signed a law, just ten weeks ago that had similar language.  He was baffled as to why he could not get an answer from the President or his committee chairman, Henry Waxman, why they would not just continue existing federal law.  Let me put forth my hypothesis.

The Real Healthcare Objective

President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the statists have as their goal one, national health care provider, and that is the federal government.  I know that the “public option” has been in and out of the bill, and that the stated plan is for private insurers to continue to provide heath care insurance, but here is what I see as the real game plan:

1. Do whatever it takes to cajole health insurance companies to sign on or at least shut up.
2. Make sure that individuals do not take control over their health care purchasing decisions through high deductable plans and Health Savings Accounts.  Keep the 3rd party payer as the primary choice, which will allow health care costs to continue to rise.
3. Put in a federal oversight panel to make sure health insurance providers do not make “excessive” profits.  In other words, price controls.
4. With steps 2 and 3 in place health insurance providers will eventually leave the business or go bankrupt.  The federal government will have no choice but to step in so that all Americans continue to be covered.
5. Eventually, the federal government is the last man standing and the de facto public option, or should I say, public mandate is in place. Voila.

The Stupak Problem

If the scenario unfolds as I have described, then the only way to pay for an abortion is through your federal health care insurance provider.  If the language Mr. Stupak wants is in the bill, abortions will be near impossible and Roe v. Wade will be dead.  Do you think President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, NOW, or other pro-abotion groups are going to stand for that?  Not a chance.

So the Democrats have to find a way to either hoodwink Stupak into voting for the bill without the language he wants or find a way to peel off the 29 or so other Democrats who agree with Stupak.  Watch closely what happens.

As President Obama said while campaigning to be President of the United States, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig!”  How true.  Yesterday President Obama reached for the lipstick to dab on four proposals suggested by the Republicans to the massive pig of a health care proposal clinging to life.  The four proposals are:

1. Use undercover medical professionals to conduct investigations to fight waste and fraud in Medicare, Medicaid and other Federal programs.
2. “Demonstrations of Alternatives” to the current malpractice mess.
3. Increasing doctor reimbursement for Medicare.
4. Expanding Heath Savings Accounts (HSA).

The pig smiled.  She thought she looked beautiful.  Just don’t try to put a bikini on her because, as President Obama famously said, she’s still a pig.  Let’s look at the President’s magnanamous attempt at bipartisanship in detail.

1)  Undercover Medical Professionals to Uncover Fraud

It is estimated that somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion is lost or stolen each year from Medicare and Medicaid.  This program has been in place for 40 years.  If those numbers are consistent over that period, that’s $4 TRILLION.  Gone. Stolen from you and me.  How much better shape would we be in if we had that money back?  That’s government efficiency for you.

The President of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer in the country.  The amount of Medicaid and Mediecare losses each year are four times the entire budget of the Department of Justice.  How’s this for a proposal?  Create a Medicare/Medicaid fraud unit within the FBI and fund it so that we can stop thses losses.  If you stop the fraud, it’s free money.  What you save in fraud should more than pay for the FBI funding.  Why take medical professionals and give them law enforcement duties.  Are you going to ask police to operate on you?  Mr. President it’s your job to enforce the laws and prevent this widespread fraud.  You don’t need a new act of Congress.  Just Do It!

2) Tort Reform –No; “Demonstrations of Alternatives” — Yes

Trial lawyers are one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.  Do you think such “Demonstrations of Alternatives” will amount to anything other than hush money?  “Shut up , we’re looking into tort reform.”  The counter argument is that Americans have a right to their day in court when they have been injured.  True enough, and I am reluctant to arbitrarily limit their awards through a fixed dollar limit.  I would take aim squarely at the lawyers.

John Edwards, one-time Senator and presidential candidate, was involved in about 63 cases as a personal injury attorney and amassed a fortune of about $70 million.  In one particular case, he stood before the jury and took on the persona of a child in the womb crying out for oxygen to appeal to the emotions of the jury and win the case.  Oddly enough he voted against a ban on partial birth abortion.  Gee, in the once case it’s a child who can actually speak while still in the womb!  But on the other hand it is just a mass of tissue at birth that can be disposed of with the trash.  We have learned a lot about the moral character of John Edwards.  He is the poster boy for the old joke, “How do you know a lawyer is lying?  His lips are moving.”

Here is a simple solution to tort reform.  Fixed fees for attorneys and loser pays.  The lawyers should set their hourly rate and bill according to hours worked, not how much they can squeeze out of the jury.  The award should be for the benefit of the injured party, not the lawyer.  The second part is to prevent frivolous lawsuits.  The loser pays the legal fees of the winner.  The argument here will be that the tables will be turned and no one will sue corporations for damages because of the risk of paying their legal fees.  Right now lawyers are running a lottery fishing for lawsuits of any kind becasue they know that most corporations will settle for less than it would cost to defend the suit, even if they know they are right.  All customers of that corporation pay more for their products (e.g., drugs, medical devices) and the lawyer gets rich.  I am sure that if such a proposal as this gets passed a new market for “legal fee insurance” will open up where a plaintiff with a strong case can buy insurance to cover the cost of the other sides legal fees if they do lose.

3) Increasing Doctor Reimbursement for Medicare

So much for bending the cost curve down.  The real way to curtail spending on health care is to eliminate 3rd party payers.  (see It can be done).

4)  Increase Health Savings Accounts

These plans exist today, however, they are not all available across state lines (see It can be done).  I had such a plan in New York while employed by a company, but when I went out on my own I could not buy the same plan in New York State.  We don’t need ObamaCare, we just need states to allow these plans to exist within their borders or allow individuals to buy across state lines.

The Pig Lives!

Three of the  four Republican proposals that Presidident Obama likes don’t cost anything.  But he $1 trillion to $2 trillion health care castastrophe is still alive and until we slay that beast and start over we will go from a serious health care problem to a fiscal crisis and end up with both.  If you don’t believe me, read how the model for ObamaCare is working in Massachusetts.

In baseball they call it a brush back pitch, a high hard one.  It lets the batter know that they don’t own home plate, and if they try to get too comfortable there they may be inviting a little “chin music.”  Jim Bunning, Republican Senator from Kentucky and a Hall of Fame baseball pitcher with a perfect game on his resume, just gave the Democrats a brush back and they don’t like it one bit.

Out of Control Spending

You would have to be Rip Van Winkle not to know that spending is out of control  and America is speeding toward bankruptcy.  President Obama and Nancy Pelosi have tried to hoodwink the country by implementing what is called “Paygo” short for Pay As You Go.  The idea is that you cannot spend money without first funding it either through cutting speding somewhere else or raising taxes.  The last element is the real reason Democrats support it, so that they would be “forced” to raise taxes.  Here is how the Wall Street Journal described Paygo back in January.

The truth is that paygo is the kind of budget gimmick that gives gimmickry a bad name. As Mr. Obama knows but won’t tell voters, paygo only applies to new or expanded entitlement programs, not to existing programs such as Medicare, this year growing at a 9.2% annual rate. Nor does paygo apply to discretionary spending, set to hit $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2010, or 40% of the budget.

The Democrats passed Paygo to appear fiscally responsible.  Jim Bunning merely called them on it.  He is not opposed to spending the money.  He has the courage, though, to stand up and say, Mr. President we’re broke, and we are accountable to the American people to be good stewards of the money they give us to run this government.

“If we can’t find $10 billion to pay for something that we all support, we will never pay for anything on the floor of this U.S. Senate,” he said. – Jim Bunning, Floor of the U.S. Senate, 3/1/2010

Immediately was heard much wailing an gnashing of teeth, that the lone Republican, had the temerity to challenge the “flexibility” of the Democrats to apply their rules willy nilly to tighten their grip on their power while trying to appear like the kindly nannies they really are.  Rules are passed to much fanfare in front of the cameras and then ignored with a scoff or a sneer, when they really mean something.

Gimmicks Instead of Guts

Democrats have proved uncapable of controlling their spending.  With the mad push of profligacy that came with winning the Presidency and both houses of Congress with large margins, they now find themselves unable to dial it back without an intervention or a rehabilitation program.  So they pass Paygo, and ignore it; convene a debt reduction commission and name Andy Stern of the SEIU union to it.  If that is not a clue to what’s coming I don’t know what is.  What does a labor union president know about reducing debt?  All they know how to do is take someone else’s money and put it in their own pockets, so you can bet their solution to the debt problem is taxing you to the eyeballs.

Rather than the scorn that is being heaped upon him, Senator Bunning deserves our thanks.  Find the money first, then spend it.  Enough of the IOUs.  We cannot afford this liberal spending binge.

Stand strong, Senator, the Tea Party Patriots hear you and help is on the way.

This week we had President Obama hosting a seven hour talkathon on his stalled healthcare initiative.  His purpose was to show his reasonableness and willingness to listen to Republicans.  Republicans took the position that the Democrats couldn’t pass their bill despite having large majorities in both houses of Congress, so why not start over and be truly bipartisan?  Doing so might actually produce some bipartisan legislation.

But this was not about bipartisanship it was about a performance.  If the Republicans didn’t subscribe to the Democrats definition of bipartisanship (see previous post), then the Democrats would jam it through using  a highly controversial technique.  Although 60% of Americans oppose the healthcare plan, President Obama will ignore the will of the people because, “a majority vote makes sense.” (See video: Obama Defends Reconciliation: A majority vote makes sense).  He is referring to the Republicans using the filibuster in the Senate to block the legislation.

That was Then,  This is Now

But it wasn’t too long ago when Republicans objected to Democrats stonewalling President Bush’s judicial nominees.  Republicans threatened to change the rules so that judical nominees could not be filibustered.   Now tradition holds that a President generally gets approval on his jutidial nominees unless they are unqualified, even if you disagree with their judicial philosophy.  For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg clearly votes with the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court with regularity.  The Senate confirmed her 96-3.  Stephen Breyer, another solid liberal won confirmation 87-9.  President Obama, the great uniter, while a memeber of the Senate voted against both John Roberts and Samuel Alito.  So much for bipartanship.  So when the Republicans talked about changing the rules for confirming judges, not nationalizing 1/6 of the U.S. economy, Democrats had a very different view.  (See video:  “Nuclear Option” is Arrogant Power Grab Against the Founders Intent).  Could there be a greater hypocracy?  Biden: “”I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”  Joe Biden, call your priest.

Americans are Disgusted

Americans are rightly fed up with Washington incumbents who are only interested in increasing the scope of their power and getting themselves re-elected.  Their pompous arrogance borders on nauseating.  They should all be voted out.

President Obama has just created a panel to figure out how to get our debt under control.  Even when he makes a decision, such as this one, it is to pass the buck to someone else to do the heavy lifting.  His attempt to overhaul health care turned into the Harry and Nancy Show.  Obama campaigned and gave speeches while Pelosi and Reid shut out the Republicans and created the bill that could not be passed.  Obama is now trying to put lipstick on that pig, by calling for a bipartisan meeting.  But instead of starting over and getting ideas from everyone, they are basically going to pick over the stinking corpse of the bill that the Democrats could not get passed.  It is obvious that the real objective is to either get some Republicans to sign on or to use the meeting as a club to beat the Republicans as the “party of No.”

Stop Me Before I Spend

This president can’t seem to control himself and he finds that he painted himself into a corner.  If he tries to raise taxes on those who make less than $250,000 per year he will be breaking a major campaign promise.  If he stops spending on his own, he will lose the left which is about the only support he has remaining.  So he calls in Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles to co-chair a committee charged with making the president a tailor made fig leaf, to allow him to cut spending and raise taxes, while shrugging his shoulders and saying, “I can’t go a gainst the excellent advice of this august commission.”

If he wants to cut spending, he can just cut spending.  He doesn’t need a commission to do so.  How about an across the board spending freeze, except for national defense, until the the economy grows enough to balance the budget and not with gimmicks like increasing discretionary spending now 24% and then saying you will freeze that same spending for the next threee years?  How about freezing government hiring?  How about returning $500 billion in unspent stimulus money and $400 billion in repaid TARP money, plus interest, to the Treasury?  Don’t hold your breath.  That would require someone with executive experience who knows how to make a decision, rather than deliberating, like a legislator.  Sarah Palin comes to mind, as does George Bush (I & II), Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan.  These experienced executives knew how to put together a budget and make decisions.  Chris Christie in New Jersey was just sworn in last month as governor and he immediately identified the problem as too much spending and got to work cutting it back.  All that President Obama seems to know how to do is talk. 

If we start advertising now, we may get enough resumes to review to find a replacement by 2012.

Conservatives, do not lose heart.  Tea Party people, stand firm.  Like many great turning points in history, they often involve an historic battle that is lost.  The Alamo. Remember the Maine. Dunkirk.  Pearl Harbor.  9/11.  What they do instead is rally the troops, get them fired up and motivated.

The Battle

In New York’s 23rd Congressional District, the aloofness of the professional pols came to a head.  It was the epitome of a recent Rasmussen poll that said 74% of Republicans said their elected leaders were out of touch with the base.  On the Democratic side, the opposite was the case were most Democrats felt their elected leaders held similar views to their own.  So what happened in the special election in New York’s 23rd district?

Republican party bosses chose Dede Scozzafava to defend a seat that has been Republican since the Civil War.   Ms. Scozzafava is pro-abortion, pro-”reform in workers ability to organize”, pro-gay marriage,  pro-Obama stimulus package, and endorsed by the Working Families Party, an ACORN front group.  That was more than conservatives could stand.  Doug Hoffman threw his hat in the ring, conservatives from around the country rallied to him, and Scozzafava eventually dropped out of the race and threw her support behind…the Democrat!!

So the race was between a Democrat and a Conservative, with the Republican candidate a footnote.  The Democrat prevailed by about 5% and picked up a seat for Nancy Pelosi.

The Talking Heads

The liberals started rubbing their hands and crowing over the Republican party self-destructing.  I see it differently.

In a Gallup poll, 40% of Americans considered themselves conservative, 20% described themselves as liberals.  That leaves 40% in the middle.  The prevailing wisdom among the Republican Party leadership is that we need to run “moderates” and have a big tent to win elections.  I say, do the math. 

If you need 50% to win the election, and many times you don’t, then run a conservative candidate.  You will start off with the 40% that call themselves conservative, and then you only need to win 25% of the middle to put you over the top.  (40% in the middle x 25% = 10%; 40% conservative base plus this 10% = 50%). 

Liberals have the tougher job.  Starting out with only a base of 20% self-described liberals, they need to win 3/4 of the middle to get to 50% and win.  It’s even tougher for them because they typically have to go hard left to win the primary and then try to swim upstream to get back in the middle without anyone noticing.

Putting Elections on a Platter

So what has been the strategy of the Republican Party leadership?  Run moderates, because “we can’t win elections with the conservative base alone.”  That’s true but neither can the Democrats win with just their liberal base and as I just proved, theirs is the tougher job.  But when you run moderates, here’s what happens.  A good portion of the conservative base stays home, disgusted.  So from starting with 40%, you maybe now have a 20% base.  You just let the Democrats pull even.  Now you have to win not 25% of the middle but half of the middle.  Let’s say the middle is a continuum from almost conservative to almost liberal.  If Republicans keep their base, then they can just go after the middle group that is “almost” conservative.  If they alienate their base then they have to get every vote in the middle that is the least bit conservative and maybe some liberals.  On the flip side, if they keep their base by running conservative candidates, that forces the Democrat to get all the liberals, all moderates, and some who lean conservative, to capture 3/4 of the middle.  After going hard left to get nominated, that is an almost impossible task.

Don’t Let Obama Fool You

Obama’s election had an historical element to it that we are not likely to see again.  He is an incredibly good speaker, that is, until you realize that is all he is.  Put up a moderate like McCain, and it was no contest.  The only time it became interesting was when McCain picked Palin, which got the base energized.  But the McCain campaign completely mismanaged bringing Palin on board, and the moment was lost.

Remember the 23rd!

So, conservatives have to rally and the Republican leadership has to pay attention.  As Margaret Thatcher used to say, “Don’t go wobbly.”  Start putting conservatives on the field and turn the tide of the battle. 

The next battle is Florida where Charlie Crist…better update his resume, there is a new kid in town, named Marco Rubio and he’s a conservative.

Dred Scott Redux

In case you didn’t believe me in my post Stay on the Plantation that liberals think all “good” blacks belong to the group labeled “blacks” and if you don’t conform, watch out.  California Senator Barbara Boxer, blithely walked into a buzz saw named Harry Alford, when he called her on gratuitously trying to put him in a box with the NAACP.  Watch here: Senator Boxer Accused of Race Politics

The Audacity

You see, Harry Alford, CEO of the Black Chamber of Commerce, which represents business interests, has an issue with some legislation before Senator Boxer’s committee.  He had the temerity to oppose what she wanted to do.  So she said she was going to enter into the record a study by the Pew Research group (okay), a resolution by the NAACP (uh-oh), and a statement by John Grant, the CEO of “100 Black Men of Atlanta,” (huh?).  And Harry pounced.  What do these other black groups have to do with what he’s saying?  He was quite incensed that as a black man, the Senator obtained documents from other black organizations who agreed with her, despite the relevance to energy policy.  It was clear, the point was to isolate Harry Alford.  Clearly show that he was off the plantation and that he better get back on the plantation, or trouble was coming.

Dred Scott Redux

Blacks are supposed to belong to the Democratic party.  If a black person should be so audacious as to speak their mind and not in concert with Democratic party orthodoxy, then send out the troops to bring them back.  It doesn’t matter if what they bring to bear on the recalcitrant person is relevant, just pile it on until they are shamed into returning to the fold or fading away into obscurity.

Liberty is under attack in the most vile way.

Politics Over Core Beliefs

Now that Arlen Specter has jumped ship to the Democratic Party, there is outrage amongst the Republicans.  Sorry, folks, but I don’t share your outrage so point that muzzle away from your other foot.  In 2004, Arlen Specter had a strong primary challenge from Pat Toomey, a conservative.  Toomey came within two percentage points of beating Specter and taking the Republican nomination.  Not sure that Toomey could win the general election and fearing losing control of the Senate to the Democrats, President Bush and Senator Rick Santorum, also a conservative, threw their weight behind Specter, a moderate at best, though a liberal label would fit all the same.

So, where do we stand today?  Bush is gone. Santorum is gone. The Democrats not only control the Senate but are a whisker away, with Specter’s help, of gaining filibuster-proof control.  It’s the same old story.  Republicans get weak kneed about being strong conservatives and then wonder why they lose?  They cut deals with liberals, or statists as Mark Levin aptly calls them, and then get their heads handed to them on election day. Bush and Santorum should have either stayed out of the race or thrown their support behind Toomey back in ‘04.  Specter won the primary and the general election and proceeded to thank Bush by sticking his thumb in Bush’s eye whever he got the chance.

So spare me the angst, the hand ringing, the “how could yous?”.  Republicans had the chance to fix this in 2004 but they went wobbly, as Margaret Thatcher used to say.  So stop your whining and learn your lessons and don’t do it again.

New York, like many states, is in the midst of a state budget crisis.  The state is facing a $14 billion budget deficit.  The cause of the problem is pretty clear, too much spending.  State spending has grown far in excess of inflation and population growth.  What provided the wallop is the sharp downturn on Wall Street, which drastically cut revenues to the state.  But the state does not have any reserves to speak of.

We’re All in This Together, Right?

Everyone is being asked to tighten their belts.  The Democrats had previously held the State Assembly and now control both houses of the legislature and the governorship.  Among the strongest supporters of the Democrats in this very blue state are the labor unions.  They wholeheartedly support the spending increases that the Democrats propose every year especially where those increases shower wages and benefits on their members.

So while the Democrats, with no place to hide, are scrambling to close the budget gap why do I see commercial after commercial on television urging me to tell the governor and the legislature to make the necessary cuts elsewhere and not to touch their sacred cow.  The commercials are from the police unions, the teacher unions, the health care worker unions, the university professor unions, the public employee unions, all urging us to rise up and make sure the cuts are not directed at them.

Chutzpah

After years and years of spending increases under both Republicans and Democrats, and year after year of fat labor contracts for these unions because the politicians were too cowardly to confront them or turn down their money and electoral support, we are now in this mess.  But now instead of shouldering their share of the burden, some of which was a result of their greed, they are telling their fellow New Yorkers to take on more of the pain and spare them.  How about a little bipartisanship on behalf of the unions and suck it up and help your fellow New Yorkers carry the load you created.

Where’s Ronald Reagan when you need him?

“marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties” — Miriam Webster Dictionary

The talk about bipartisanship and the accusations about a lack of bipartisanship are flying back and forth with such intensity, who could blame the casual observer for throwing up their hands and wishing a pox upon both houses?

President Obama and Bipartisanship

I believe that President Obama is sincere in his desire for bipartisanship.  His willingness to meet with and listen to conservative columnists, and Republicans is indicative of his desire to change the tone in Washington.  On the stimulus bill, I think he just painted himself into a corner by letting Nancy Pelosi write the bill while he held those meetings.  Listening to the other side is a start, but it falls short of the definition.  It remains to be seen if President Obama recognizes where this approach fell short or if it really is just window dressing.

Democratic Leadership and Bipartisanship

The Democratic Leadership has a very different view of bipartisanship.  Their view is, “we stake out a position and you (Republicans) agree with it and that’s bipartisanship.”  If they don’t agree, they are rabid partisans, doing it strictly for future political gain.  But if you look at the definition of bipartisanship above, the Democratic Leadership is just not interested.  The stimulus bill was put together solely by the Democrats and when asked by a reporter if the bill was bipartisan Nancy Pelosi responded, “That depends on how the Republicans vote.”  That’s pretty much it in a nutshell.

When President Bush came into office, he brought with him his experience in Texas where he worked very successfully with the Democrats in the legislature.  However, the Democrats in Congress were so angry with the outcome of the election in 2000 that they never gave him a chance, voting against anything he proposed.

Republicans and Bipartisanship

The Republican leadership has expressed their appreciation to President Obama’s efforts to reach across the aisle.  However, as genuine as the gesture was they were still pretty much excluded from the legislative process.  They fully understand that elections have consequences, but they want to be heard, they want to offer alternatives, they want the opportunity to persuade.  If denied that by the Democratic Leadership, they will take their case directly to the American people and in 2010 get the public’s decision.

Is Bipartisanship Possible?

Is there such a divide that bipartanship is just not possible?  Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is trying to tackle that issue through a non-profit organization called American Solutions.  That organization polled Republicans, Democrats and Independents to find areas of widespread agreement.  The key to bipartanship is to first find areas where you agree. Then look for areas where you differ but not so significantly that there is not room for negotiation and compromise.  Lastly, is to recognize those areas where the difference is so wide that you simply have to agree to disagree.  This is a list of ten initiatives that a majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents agree on.

1. English should be the official language of government. (87 to 11)
2. We want our elected leaders in Washington to focus on increasing the energy supplies of the United States and lowering the costs of gasoline and electricity. (71 to 18)
3. The option of a single rate system should give taxpayers the convenience of filing their taxes with just a single sheet of paper. (82 to 15)
4. Every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union. (79 to 12)
5. Keeping the reference to “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is very important. (88 to 11)
6. Congress should make it a crime to advocate acts of terrorism, violent conduct, or the killing of innocent people in the United States. (83 to 12)
7. We should dramatically increase our investment in math and science education. (91 to 8 )
8. We believe that if research indicates we could build clean coal plants in the United States with no carbon emissions, it would be important to build such plants as rapidly as possible. (71 to 8 )
9. Illegal immigrants who commit felonies should be deported. (88 to 10)
10. We support giving a large financial prize to the first company or individual who invents a new, safer way to dispose of nuclear waste products. (79 to 16)

As you can see by the percentages, the support for each of these ten measures is rather substantial.  Bipartisanship on any one of these issues should be very easy to obtain.  You just have to ask yourselves: how many of these are supported by the Democratic Leadership or President Obama?  You can see that a number of them are not only not supported, but adamantly opposed.

So what is your view of bipartisanship?  Is it where you surrender your principles and fall in line with your opponent?  Or is it trying to find common ground amoung all Americans and not pushing a partisan agenda where government runs the smallest aspect of your life?