So Much For Any Chance of Bipartisan Compromise

Well it worked out well for them in NY's 23rd district...lol..

Actually, I think just as troubling as the Steele quote is the way the reporter wrote it up: Coming after you for supporting Obama (on stimulus and health care). That's what everything is about for most politicians and their bases. Supporting person X or destroying person X. You would think that the health care of millions of Americans and hundreds of billions of spending would be worth this sort of rhetoric. But all of that is far less important than taking down your political opponent.

More context:

So candidates who live in moderate to slightly liberal districts have got to walk a little bit carefully here, because you do not want to put yourself in a position where you’re crossing that line on conservative principles, fiscal principles, because we’ll come after you,” Steele continued.

Looks to me like Steele is talking out of both sides of his face. He's saying you don't have to be conservative, but you can't vote against "conservative principles." In short, I think he might want a big tent, but he's powerless to make it happen.

Re the headline, bipartisan compromise would not equate to supporting Obama, they are different.

Actually after reading the ABC News article on this, the link by Joe Gandelman really doesn't reflect Steele's comments very well at all.

Of course I am biased, but, I thought Steele did a good job. He probably should have left out the remark about coming after you, because that is usually said in private, by both parties. Of course you try to keep the troops in line, and I hope some people ignore arm twisting if a principle is involved. I also liked that he admitted they screwed up in the NY 23rd

Conservatives were unable to put those principles into action when they were in charge of running the country. It is so much easier for them to sit back and say they are not going to compromise on them, now that the opposition holds the majority.

They have a stake in obstructing any solutions that the Democrats come up with. Steele's comments reinforce the notion that no cooperation or compromise will be tolerated.

Re the headline, bipartisan compromise would not equate to supporting Obama, they are different

This.

Very little bipartisanship has been shown on those democratic measures, Just because one party doesn't want to make a gift of the other party's fantasy dream list doesn't mean they are not open to some real compromise. If you wanted bipartisanship McCain would have been the better choice. He would have brought a divided government and a history of working across the aisle not a 95% partisan voting record and not real record of bipartisanship, just pretty talk. Give me a guy who walked the walk, and not just talks the talk.

Not to get too picky here, but it's been a long time, if ever, since conservatives were in charge. I don't confuse liberals with Democrats or conservatives with Republicans -- we have separate labels for a reason.

Elwood:

Yes I agree-- they didn't act like conservatives when it came to creating a budget, but these are the same people who are now complaining about rising deficits. There WERE some conservatives in and out of government who DID criticize government spending, but when push came to shove, they voted for those pork-laden budgets.