GOP and terrorists: our way or the highway

The main objection to negotiating with terrorists is that it encourages them to repeat their tactics, the Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) explains in a policy brief dated March 2009. Dividing terrorists into two groups, contingent and absolute, each is distinguished by their end goal. While the contingent terrorist will negotiate with authorities to achieve the desired aim, an absolute one believes only in defending an ideal at any cost--no negotiations.

Recently Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa) have bandied about unfavorable comparisons between terrorists and the tactics of the Tea-wagged Republican majority in Congress. This after weeks of frustrating deal posturing between the house speaker and the president about the approaching federal debt ceiling deadline. Avoiding a catastrophic default be damned, the Tea Party wing asserted. Never mind that members of Congress like Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) voted for Paul Ryan's debt inflating budget, yet no draconian budget cut would appease them enough to support raising the debt ceiling.

Last Dec. Sen. Bob Menendez expressed a similarsentiment about working with Capitol Hill Republicans on Bush-era tax cuts. To maintain tax cuts for the top 2% earners they were willing to tie down extending jobless benefits and the new START treaty with Russia to the tracks. No extended tax cuts, no deal.

In the stonewalling GOP you find a fanatic zeal shared with violent extremists of whatever political persuasion. With the determination of an absolutist and the contingentist's aptitude for favorable deal making, Republicans will most likely continue their assault on the consensus building aspects of the democratic process. When will voters summon the will and produce a mandate to end this nation's captivity?