Why compromise with Republicans if they won't vote for the final bill anyway?
One of the great mysteries of Washington DC these days is why Democrats spend so much time negotiating with Republicans. I can understand negotiating with them if it gets some of them to vote for a bill, but that hasn't been happening. So why bother? Or why keep the Republican compromises in the bill once it's clear Republicans won't vote for it? I understand the notion of wanting bi-partisan cover for a bill (though I think that notion is highly over-rated), but when it's clear that's not coming, why let them contaminate the bill? Do they actually think Republican input makes the legislation better? Ezra Klein wants to know the same thing, and speculates as to an answer: Republicans aren't just getting some technical amendments passed into these proposals. They're helping to design the entire architecture. They're securing long negotiation processes that give them much more input than your median committee Democrat. And then they're abandoning ...
