J_W, My posts have everything to do with what you are trying to say. Let's review, as this is what you said:

We weren't really abstractly theorizing. We were discussing the fact of Congressional performance. Our comments are also borne out by multiple public opinion polls showing that Republicans are seen as less likely to be seen as honest negotiators in the last few major legislative fights.

Except the Ramussen poll I linked to from just 2 days ago showed an opposite effect in that more people would vote for republicans in their districts than democrats. It's a slim margin, but it's nothing like what you are trying to say. Combine that with the other poll results, (Obama's current -18 net approval and public disagreement on policies) and it's not as cut and dried as you are trying to characterize it as. I don't know what you mean by "not being honest negotiators." I don't know which polls you are looking at. And you haven't bothered to clarify either. Pointing these discrepancies out, I also agree with you that the GOP is acting in opposition to the administration. It's obvious that they are. That's what a opposition party is supposed to do..(at least an effective one) What I disagree with is your characterization of the voting effects. Maybe the public responds to strong leadership over politicians who defer the issues? Maybe the proposals being opposed by the republicans still need to be worked out? I don't know. It seems that you might think that my posts have nothing to do with what you're saying because you're not looking at the big picture. You seem to be so hung up on making the republicans look like the bad guys and then stopping there, that you're ignoring the entire political process.

Either that, or you are simply taking a stance that whatever the GOP politicians do is wrong, but that's the easiest debate in the world to counter. This is exactly the shortsighted critical error that was made back 3 years ago when people here were predicting the end of the GOP, and speculating that the democratic party would be the sole party in the US "for a generation or more..." simply based on the expectations tied to a single election.

Not all that one party does over the other is going to be 100% correct, and nothing that one party is going to do is going to be 100% wrong either. Is it worth it to oppose a payroll tax cut until there is money allocated to make up the difference? Or is it simply better to throw the masses a bone even if the details aren't worked out? Is it better to demand a decision, either way mind you, on an issue like the US-Canadian oil pipeline and not allow the administration to defer the decision until after the election? I've got to say it was a pretty weasely move by the President, and I'm glad we have a strong opposition party in the US for such things.

 

Except that Rasmussen is well known as being right-leaning. They tend to portray the GOP in a better light than other polling sites.

What does Real Clear Politics say? I find them to be a bit more level than say, ABC News/AP on the left and Rasmussen on the right.

Peace,

V-03

 

What 44 said sounds fair and even-handed, but only if it were someone else saying it. At this point I think people are looking for the more tolerable party. And unfortunately I don't think that's the GOP at the moment. Social conservativism doesn't work--if it did we'd see its benefits in countries in the Middle East. I'm not saying lefist policies are always the best, but in measured amounts they've proven to be more successful. The problem is that this country has no leftist party. We don't even have a truly conservative party. We're livingwith two corporately owned parties who've fixed the rules to the point we're stuck with them. The parties are somewhat socially conservative and 'Little Kid With The Banjo In Deliverance' conservative. So what's my point? Beats me. We're all screwed unless people stop electing these corporatist whackos.

 

Well FID, the universally recognized truth is that my posts have always represented the very definition of perfection. I certainly can't be held responsible if you only now acknowledge that fact.... I know that's what you really meant to say buried under the trademarked FIDish backhandedness.

 

Merry Christmas Everyone

44, I wanted to follow up on our discussion.

I think taking that quote of mine is helpful. At issue here is indeed what I was trying to say. As it happens, you seem to be a lot more into my post than is actually on the page. I've not said anything about which party people want to vote for. The current discussion started when the other Jabba made note of the low volume of legislation that worked through Congress this year, and suggested Republicans were more responsible for the lack of productivity. Kimball objected, and I gave him reasons why it wasn't unfair to apportion them more responsibility. I didn't even comment about whether it was a positive or negative thing. Indeed, I noted that it "has won them a lot of significant victories."

It's up to each individual to decide if they feel ashamed of the behavior of Congressional Republicans. Given that you read my comments as negative, I'm assuming you did. Interesting. But my posts on this subject have certainly not contained any sort of condemnation of them, nor any disparaging assessment of their electoral chances. Just a discussion of their strategy in the 112th Congress.

Again, where did I say that they were "the bad guys?" The closest you can come is when I called them "disproportionately the bad actors" in reference to legislative negotiations. However, this isn't a moral judgment. It means that they seemed less eager to seek a compromise.

In support of that notion, I mentioned that polling from previous debates, like the [link=http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/21/cnn-poll-in-debt-limit-debate-obama-has-the-public-on-his-side/]debt ceiling[/link] bears this out. Obama was rated as acting much more "responsibly" than was the GOP in trying to come to some sort of compromise.

As to the effect of this sort of thing, there are a number of possibilities. Republicans could be punished for obstructionism, they could be rewarded for standing on principle, or this whole issue could be ignored in favor of things like the state of the economy. I wouldn't know. But more importantly, I wasn't trying to discuss it. Consequently, I never uttered a word about it, and I don't really know why you seem to insist I did.

Certainly we can all agree to this. Especially seeing as how no one has ever said anything to the contrary, or even came close.