The problem with your scenario, TheDaemon, is that the reason Obama used Executive Action so frequently is because Congress is pretty much dysfunctional. They have done nothing major in the past 6 years except for blocking any initiatives from the White House.
There is more than a bit of a disconnect here. Part of the problem with negotiating with the Obama Administration is that they're often very disingenuous negotiators. The Democrats in general are leagues ahead of Republicans in General, and the Obama Administration is in a league unto itself in terms of spin control.
Negotiating with someone who comes to table with a my way or the highway position in fact, regardless of rhetoric claiming otherwise, is someone that will be impossible to compromise with. Not because you're unwilling to compromise, but because they won't. It takes two to tango, and Obama knows that when it comes to spin and rhetoric, his side will win almost every time. As such, he has no reason to compromise, particularly since it has worked for so long and the Republicans have essentially given up.
You are absolutely correct here, Daemon, except you have the players mixed-up. And we have clear evidence of that.
Twice Speaker of the House Boehner made deals with the White House. Twice these deals were rejected by the House because the deals were not good enough for them. And twice the House blamed the White House for not compromising.
Think about that for a second. Two opponents come to a deal. Probably neither of them like the deal that much, but it is something they both can agree upon, if only by holding their noses, because it was best compromise they could come up with. Then one side walks away because the deal isn't good enough.
If this was a real estate deal, which side is the one who is unwilling to compromise? Which side is saying "my way or the highway?"
It was the side who walked away from the deal.
You are correct, Daemon. You can't negotiate with someone who come to the table with a "my way or the highway" attitude. And that someone, at least twice and doubtlessly more times, is the Republican House.
The fact that some members blamed the White House only puts icing on the cake, because they didn't even have the guts to admit that they were the ones who were obstructing a compromise. But, really, what other conclusion can you come to? If you don't like the deal, you don't like the deal. But if you then blame the other side for not compromising
after they have compromised, then that is pure, unadulterated spin the stinkiest kind. Or simple self-delusion.
