It's unfortunate that the one time someone from the opposing party agrees with her she calls back on something they don't agree on (and refuses to work with them because of it).
That's not “the one time” such agreement has occurred.
Here's the bills she's cosponsored with Republicans:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse#congress=116&c...
> she calls back on something they don't agree on (and refuses to work with them because of it).
Sure, complicity in a violent, deadly attack on one's workplace (even when it isn't the national Capitol and part of a coup attempt) is the kind of thing most people would just brush off and not let get in the way of working with people: actions have no consequences whatsoever.
- It encourages others to do the same; someone doesn't agree with you on an important issue (pro life?) - just refuse to work with them. This furthers the divide in US politics and is (imo) an overall negative.
- It hurts her own cause by removing support she already has - is this what a representative is supposed to do?
Although true this is hyperbole. We're not talking about the "deadly protests" for BLM so why did the capitol protest become a "deadly insurrection"?
A lot of people are calling for Donald Trump to go to prison/etc; does that mean (if he was still president) he should stop talking to anyone saying so?
I think your fist point is making this into something more than it really is.