[Poll] Republican Rejectionism Is, Itself, Rejected

CStanley - ah ah ah ;) I can't go for that - let me put myself out there so you can then chime in? Naw...that's why I said I'm an ADR/mediation/ombuds type - we need to be hanging out there together - no unfair advantages or sense of getting picked on or being set up as a target.

Your final sentence is closer to what I'd think but I'm just still mulling over the whole opposition thing - it just isn't something I tend to believe in, trust or otherwise support - even as a general proposition - I'm just not adversarial that way - and I say that as someone whose been on moot court and mock trial teams.

I don't really want to commit to co-writing but I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about your view on it. I'll just say though that I don't really mean this in an absolute sense, that the minority shouldn't advocate for any positive policy direction or alternative, but what I mean is that they don't get much opportunity at all to enact any of that agenda while they're in the minority. I think it's a fallacy to say that the minority party should compromise more to get in the game in most cases, because they're seldom offered any substantial compromise and when those deals are made they end up more as bribes to get votes and the resulting policy is not what either side really wants and often is less effective instead of more.

If there were stronger brokers in the center, whose goal was to listen to both sides and figure out whether a third way or a hybrid plan was really possible which would strengthen rather than dilute the original purpose of the legislation, then bipartisanship would make sense. But we almost never see that happening.

Look at what the three moderate GOP senators did in the stimulus bill, for instance. They asked for a few token cuts (which, if the Dem idea of spending as stimulus is correct, means the effects will be less than they would have been) and they threw AMT in the mix (even though this has nothing to do with stimulus, but both parties were just as happy to get it off the back burner and out of the way.) Nothing positive really came of that (AMT would have been fixed later anyway.) So, I think it would have been better if they'd voted no and made a statement that the bill was entirely a Democratic party plan, for better or worse. They don't need to get bitter or whiny about it, just say that this approach is not what we believe in, and we'll stake our own political futures on it if we're wrong because we feel that strongly about it.

The GOP is in the minority, but they still represent a sizable portion of the voters in the country and they were sent there to represent the conservative viewpoint which is often in principled opposition to what the Democratic majority is going to try to accomplish. That's what I mean about being a strong minority party, and I think they have an obligation for this.

But when it comes time for the next election, they also will be far better off going in with a positive agenda and getting a mandate for a specific type of change rather than just arguing against the status quo. I guess I'd phrase it this way: I believe that a minority party should govern as an opposition party (even an obstructive one, if the majority party's legislative agenda is far removed from the principles of their own party) and campaign as a positive alternative.

Well - I actually disagree with your suggestion that 1) the minority party doesn't have much power and 2) their role is, therefore, to oppose the majority. I mean, I really do not agree with that. Both from experience and based on a lot of leadership training I've been through in a variety of settings. I'm also a big ADR and mediation person (former ombuds) so...I don't want to completely drag this thread around, and I think this is a great topic in and of itself re: what is the role of the minority party. I'd offer that if you'd like to do a "from the left from the right" or something joint post, I'd be happy to facilitate that and get a strong discussion going about what the role of a minority party is. Game? (it's ok if you're not - I will try to make time to write about it but if I have a goal to strive for, it's more likely I'll actually get to writing it!)

I also don't think that point was related to what I was saying about a strong minority party. My point there was that a minority party doesn't have much power, so their real role is to oppose the majority. Again, that's the way our system is designed- it's winner take all and it's adversarial, not parliamentary.

I think it should be both, but each situation should determine whether an elected official defers to the public or leads in a different direction. On matters that are highly technical, or those that require insider knowledge (like intel) that the voters aren't privy to, then the 'trust me' should kick in (and of course, that trust should later prove validated by the actual decisions that are made.) I want to elect representatives who will listen to me and the rest of his/her constituents, and then decide whether or not it's really in our best interest to vote the way we ask him/her to or to have the courage not to do so if his judgment guides in that direction. Communication about why those choices are made, of course, is essential.

There's also a difference between House and Senate- the House members being our direct representatives who should advocate for narrower interests while the Senate should put aside parochial concerns when it's necessary to do so for the national interest.

I don't think there's anything patriarchial about it- unless you consider that I'm deferring to our Founding Fathers, because they deliberately designed the system as a bicameral Republic and not a direct democracy.

StockBoySF - I share this perspective of yours on Arnold and agree completely with you re: trusting him - and its THAT kind of trust that I feel Bush completely abused and misused that has led us to where we are now. He was given ENORMOUS trust after the 2000 elections because so many voters had not selected him but he really did not embrace, cherish or respect that.

Anyway - what do you think about the comment that Arnold is freer to be how he is because he knows he can't run for prez? Do you think that really is a factor - subliminally or otherwise?

Jim - your comment made me smile because you sound like me when I'm ranting in my kitchen - but never in my blog. ;) Well - almost never.

But I do have a serious question for the free market folks - sincerely: is there a CURRENT gov't and economy, analogous to the U.S., that operates successfully under a free market?

CStanley re: comment that starts "Well, on the image of saying no"

I have to think about and debate this point I think you're making. A strong minority. What does that really mean? I think this is actually very hard to devine and it goes back to what I've always seen as two different views of what we vote for when we vote - some people vote for people who will supplant their opinion and analysis for ours and that's okay because we trust them (that's why we vote for them). But then others vote for people because we trust them to understand what I want and need and they will put aside their opinion in favor of what I say my best interest is - not what THEY think is in my best interest.

And, of course, sometimes, we want the person we elect to do both - sometimes at the same time. With transparency and communication improvements, it's easier and easier for Jill the Voter to tell her legislators what she wants and how she wants it done - so the pushing my ideas aside for their own has more direct consequences (if done too many times, I just won't vote for them again) whereas in the past, with little direct communication, elected folks just could not risk that OR... it was okay because everyone accepted a patriarchal way of governing.

I think that is long over but, again, my observation - the GOP clings to this more than the Dems - that's how I feel - I know others may disagree or say the same as Dems (which is why I'm not a party person in the first place).

Anyway - sadly, in some ways, governing - like the liberal arts and social sciences in general - is not revered or treated with an eye toward the finesse and art it used to be. I think that's a huge loss and in part contributes to what we've got now.

Well for one how many jobs do you think one-time checks UP TO $500 (or whatever the amount) could support?
But the stimulus handouts now are going to be $14 a week, so how will that help? I don't see how you help your argument to say that the Bush tax rebates didn't work because they were too small, when this is the same scale but arguably even worse because it's spread out so that most people will hardly even feel an increase.

As for the rest of your comment, I also don't see how it's helpful to justify bad policy now based on the fact that the GOP previously implemented bad policy. Tit for tat has to stop if we're going to find a constructive way out of the mess. Keep in mind that I didn't support the TARP plan and I didn't think the GOP should have voted for it (I was rooting for the fiscal conservatives in the house who were standing their ground.) I also supported the Iraq War spending only reluctantly, because once the planning mistakes and the initial insufficient forces for occupation happened, I felt we had a moral obligation. Meanwhile, I don't think it's generally the role of the federal government to do a lot of the things you're complaining that it hasn't done or that Republicans oppose. Can you not see that we just think that having money go to Washington DC and then back to the people is a really lousy way to get things done in most cases? And if we believe that, then we're not going to suppport the policy just to prove to you that we 'care'.

Jill: "I'm kind of loving Arnold and Charlie Christ and the two senators from Maine - I think they've put their constituents first."

Yes, I do like Arnold and have supported him for teh last couple of years.... though there was a time I couldn't stand him and I know many Dems who still can't stand him.

But these Republican leaders (and Arnold said exactly that) ARE supporting their constituents. I wish Arnold could run again because I'd vote for him again.... I know he wants what is best for California and does not place the Republican Party line ahead of the well-being of the people in his state. I still don't agree with him much of the time, but he's more of an ideal politician for me than many others. I'm willing to vote for a politician who disagrees with me more than he agrees with me, if that politician is willing to meet people halfway most of the time. (I think Obama tried to do the same with the Republicans, and even Congress gave in to many of their demands... but the Republicans were not willing to give up absolutely anything- even though many of their constituents might want them to.) Arnold supports issues which are important to the health of California, including environmental health, which most Republicans think is for the lefties.... But it creates jobs and industry, and products we can even export in big quantities some day. Not only is green good for the environment, it's good for business.

CStanley: "Besides, I could just as easily turn the question around; if deficit spending and stimulus checks to individuals are the answer as we're now being told, then why didn't the high rate of spending and the Bush stimulus checks given out last year work? Obviously because the problems are too complex for boilerplate answers."

Well for one how many jobs do you think one-time checks UP TO $500 (or whatever the amount) could support? And not everyone even received a check.... As far as the deficit spending.... Bush has spent way more tearing down and rebuilding Iraq than the Republicans are willing to spend to rebuild our own country and keep Americans employed. Bush wanted $700 bn for the banks (just the banks). That passed with support from both parties. Yet when it comes to "Main Street", helping ALL Americans, not just fat cat bankers.... the Dems are asking for a little more than that ($787bn) and only three Republicans supported it. Funny how the Republicans can get behind a bill sponsored by one of their own- a bill to bailout people (and continue to give multi-million dollar bonuses) to those who actually never need to work again, with very little oversight... Yet the Republicans scream at helping children get health insurance, provisions which keep Americans in jobs, educate our workforce, support alternative fuel, etc.

CStanley, so if tax cuts are the solution, then what are we left with? A government with no revenue. Who will pay for roads, schools, social programs (including social security), etc? The next time you drive over a pothole (assuming you drive) remember that it is your tax dollars that go to repair it. If the Republicans had their way they would expect private enterprise to build roads, run schools, etc. We've seen what happens when private enterprise runs amok with little or no regulation and a drive for profits. I am of course referring to the no bid contracts in Iraq with little oversight and even smaller accomplishments, and what about the banks? They got what they wanted for with deregulation, but then overextended themselves in the pursuit of profits. And with the lax government regulation over the the past eight years over food and consumer products (especially on imported goods) we're seeing more and more cases of tainted food (including pet food), toys, etc.

If you want a toxic America where private enterprise runs the show for a quick buck with no consumer protections or regulations all I can say is good luck with that. Purely private enterprise does not work.

CS keeps referring to how those she disagrees with think that the government can "magically" help. No, they just do things that make sense as opposed to the magical beliefs of the Republicans which basically consist of the ability of tax cuts to cure all of our ills. Then Santa Claus will give all the good little soldiers all the equipment they need and the Tooth Fairy will bend the rules and leave them their salaries under their pillows. Hey, it's as realistic as the free market solving everything.

Well, on the image of 'saying no', I think that someone needs to intelligently articulate the point that this is what a strong minority party does. The way the rules work in our two party system, it's pretty much winner take all and the minority has very little opportunity to put forth a positive agenda. They can twiddle around the edges a bit, which is what the three Senators did, but actually that ends up making bills worse instead of better in most cases (usually you get a watered down version of something which either might or might not be good policy, and if you believed it was good policy then you're getting something less effective than it could have been or if you believe that the core idea of the policy was wrong then you certainly aren't going to believe that a slight adjustment is going to suddenly make it effective.)

When it gets closer to election time, then the minority party needs to present a more cogent alternative approach so that the public can decide if it prefers to put them back in charge, but during the sessions it's not at all wrong to dissent when there are real policy disagreements.

CStanley - responding to your comment that starts with "Jill - a majority did..."

Sorry - I am just getting back to this thread - it was at 6 comments for a while and then slipped off the charts.

I actually agree more or less with what you've written here - not 100% but in principle. I actually think that there are many more murky areas in between these positions re: how and why people support who and what they support when it comes to Parties with a capital P.

But it really is important to me to stress - here in Ohio, anywhere from 20-35% of the voters are literally Independents - that's one of the reasons it's a swing state. But also because the remainder - those who do ID with a party - are almost evenly divided and so they are the hard core of the hard core: to be ID'd with a party in Ohio, you have to vote in a primary - and you pull a partisan ballot and that determines your party ID. People do cross over but in general that's how it is here.

And it's why I reject the formal party structures - they are really oldest of the old boy and I do mean boy. Esp. in my NE Ohio county that includes Cleveland - huge corruption problems in the Dem party.

Anyway - my view is that there is more and more dispersion in terms of how people come to choose who they support and why - I think that's great and I also think blogs actually have something to do with it - expression in general.

However, this means that we too - as a country with a democratically elected gov't - are changing in ways that a static thing like a constitution doesn't always accommodate or address - leaving a big sprawling populace unsure of what to do - and I think if there's one thing a large proportion of American really detest, it's uncertainty.

Anyway - this is a situation where I would say that image IS important lol - after all that time dissing image being everything int he other thread! But the image of the GOP saying no for the sake of saying no - not good - and they need to change it. I just find that every time I've heard them explain it, it sounds partisan - and that's not good either.

I'm kind of loving Arnold and Charlie Christ and the two senators from Maine - I think they've put their constituents first. But obviously, I guess, Sanford and Jindal and Palin don't. So they're disagreeing within the party - I'm disagreeing from outside the party.

Sounds once again like politics. :)

I love how the left is clinging to poll results while the Stock market crashes. What is more important, people feeling good because they are going to be getting free money from the government or the private sector that is sending a clear message that they do not plan on investing in the near future.

What progressives need to ask themselves is why would anyone in the private sector want to spend a dime on investment or expansion. they are facing a government that will passing down thousands of new employment, environmental, energy, and reporting regulations in the next couple of months. Also, no one is the private sector knows if the government will be stepping in to bailout a competitor in the next couple of years

The private sector faces a huge amount of uncertaining and the Obama Administration is doing its best to increase the level of uncertainity.

CStanley: "So, if the GOP believes that the actions being put forth are going to be bad for the country, then it's a no-brainer that they should oppose those policies both on principle and out of political self interest."

That's true, but the GOP also needs to come up with some good alternative ideas that they can get included..... "Tax cuts" is not the solution.

Actually there's a school of thought among some economists that tax cuts are the ultimate stimulus because they best fit the model of acting quickly enough to stop the downward spiral. Where I'd agree with you that many in the GOP are using this as a kneejerk ideology is in not necessarily considering which type of tax cuts to advocate, or failing to consider why the stimulus checks last year didn't work, or in refusing to consider relief as part of the process (I believe most would have agreed to a combination of tax cuts and relief if that had been put on the table.)

The Republicans ARE obstructing the Democratic economic plans out of partisanship. One great example is that the Republican governors were told that if they DID support the Obama plan then they would not receive any money for reelection from the Republican Party. I also seem to recall reading the same about members of Congress..... If the Republicans could stand dissent or agreement with the Democratic plan then they would not be partisan.

I hate to break it to you, Stockboy, but there's no Santa Claus. This is simply the way party politics works- I never said that there isn't any politics involved here, I just rejected the claim that this has been hyperpartisan or motivated strictly by the desire to get reelected. Look at it this way- when the party leadership enforces discipline like that, it's because there's a risk that the stance that's being taken by the party will actually be UNPOPULAR. Otherwise, all of the members would already be falling in line. So the fact that they're taking a stance that might temporarily be out of sync with their constituency means that pressure needs to be applied in order to keep them voting according to the core philosophy of the party. Now, sometimes that pressure is put on them to vote in ways that are not in accordance with the guiding principles, and that would be hyperpartisan because it would clearly be only to advance a political goal for the party and score against the other side.

My point about putting aside illusions is that it's really useless to argue about whether or not these guys are guided by their conscience or by their political self interest. As a voter, you choose a party if you agree with it's platform (for the most part, at least) and then you continue supporting them if they act according to it.

The Republicans do not want to take care of their constituents if it means the Dems will look good. An example of this the four Republican governors who do not want to take the hundreds of millions of dollars in unemployment benefits in the stimulus package intended for part-time workers. That is because it would mean after the federal aid was no longer available these states would need to raise taxes to continue the benefits (there is a provision in the stimulus package that requires states pass laws to give part-time workers unemployment benefits).

Yeah, and if this thing blows up and there's a big increase in unemployment because small businesses can't afford the increased tax burden that's coming down the pike, then those same governors are going to look pretty good. Again, it's about the timing- you guys are hyperventilating (or is it salivating, I'm not sure?) over your view of the polling that shows that the GOP is taking an unpopular stance right now. Well, a lot can change between now and 2010, and certainly between now and 2012.

While I don't like the federal government interfering with what I think are states' rights... including the granting of unemployment benefits, I do think that these are extraordinary times and sometimes we just have to hold our nose and swallow the medicine. There's a lot of distasteful stuff that the US must do if it wants to survive (and help its citizens survive) this recession which might turn into a depression..... Instead the Republicans are singing the same old happy tune that they did during the Iraq War... that things can continue as is without any call for sacrifice from the American people.

You're contradicting yourself. It's the GOP that now is saying that we're better off swallowing some medicine now instead of pretending that the federal govt can magically cure what ails us.

The Republican Party is living in an alternative universe if they can't be put into action for solutions by either war, recession or even the threat of depression. If they can't see the threat that faces this country they should all be kicked out of office for not taking care of their people and for all intents and purposes chanting, "Tax cuts! Tax cuts! Tax cuts!" \

That's nothing but a rant and at first I wasn't even going to respond, but I do want to point out that you're using the same rhetoric that everyone here decried during the Bush years- that no one who dissents could possibly be doing so out of principle.

The Republican Party failed with the war in Iraq and the Republican Party is failing the country during this recession / depression. Those who still support the Republicans are mostly those who believe that tax cuts will work.

If that's the case, then why did the deficit balloon under Bush's tax cuts and why are we in the mess we are currently in?

Because 'tax cuts' isn't a cure all, obviously. But that doesn't mean that higher taxes are the answer- for instance, we could try cutting the corporate tax rate but also cutting out all of the loopholes. When you cut the rates, a lot of that tax sheltering goes away anyway because people naturally want to protect their earnings if the rates are confiscatory but aren't going to jump through hoops to shelter it if the rates are reasonable. That would also go a long way toward keeping us competitive and keeping jobs on our shores. That's just one example of a smarter tax cut mentality.

Besides, I could just as easily turn the question around; if deficit spending and stimulus checks to individuals are the answer as we're now being told, then why didn't the high rate of spending and the Bush stimulus checks given out last year work? Obviously because the problems are too complex for boilerplate answers.

The thing about spending as stimulus now that makes no sense is that we're already so overleveraged; you can't borrow against future growth when you've already tapped that well dry.

What goes around, comes around, in terms of conservative being 'out of step.' You guys are talking snapshot polls taken during a time of extraordinary stress in the country, when people are more willing to give big government a chance. Rest assured, there will be some problems as that government action starts to kick in and the people will again see the wisdom of limiting their power and reach.

Jill- a majority did support the bill by the end of the (quick) process, but there was a lot of fearmongering and obfuscation about what was actually in the bill, so I don't think that proves anything. It also passed on the basis of Obama's popularity, not on an intellectual support of what the bill contains. I'd argue that it was Obama who made a political, partisan calculation there (though he did it in a very cool manner) because the bill itself didn't represent what he originally said he felt was necessary (he initially talked about a much smaller, relief based package similar to what Blue Dog Minnick proposed as an alternative.) I think we'd have seen a much different bill (and one which really might have been bipartisan- or, perhaps would have legitimately proven hyperpartisanship on the part of the GOP if they'd opposed it) if the Blue Dogs had been permitted to take part in the process instead of giving free rein to Pelosi.

Now - about the obstructing out of partisanship: you have phrased this in such a way to reflect just how partisan the actions of the Republicans actually are: they don't think the plans will help specifically and primarily BECAUSE of the tenets of their politics and political party - cut taxes, gov't is only for defense, free markets and so on. So, I would argue that, by definition, their actions are partisan.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but can you see how I see it?

Oh, I know that's how you see it- but you've actually phrased it in a way that hopefully will allow me to illustrate how I see it the opposite way.

Some people believe in certain principles and then act according to those principles. The party is (supposedly- this certainly isn't always the case) organized in accordance with those principles. Therefore, voters who believe in those principles will support members of that party.

Other people just identify with a party for various reasons (usually cultural ones, or perhaps they sort of believe in the principles but don't really follow closely or understand the issues.) These folks just have a knee jerk, partisan impulse to support the party first, and whatever policy that's espoused by that party at the moment is what they support.

I realize that so many of the GOP have acted in a manner discordant with conservative principles in recent times, and many voters continued to support them. THAT"S where partisanship comes into play. These elected officials didn't chose the harder path that their 'convictions' should have taken them on, to be fiscally responsible, but kept spending irresponsibly while keeping taxes low. They also never distinguished between one type of tax cut and another, or what economic environment should induce tax cuts and which environments should not. Or which corporate tax policies really favor growth for SMALL businesses instead of allowing mego corp CEOs to profit excessively. Or whether mergers and acquisitions needed to be managed and overseen to prevent the current "too big to fail" companies and the obscene CEO compensation (much of which, I believe, would have been prevented if companies were smaller because it's the assets under management which makes the compensation rise to stratospheric levels.)

But I'm getting off on tangents- the main idea, obviously, is that the party should NOT be supported when it's not acting according to principle (doing so would be partisanship, or supporting your team no matter what.) But when it acts according to the principles that it is organized around (assuming those principles make some sense, because I don't think we should be so rigidly ideological that we don't evaluate whether changing conditions dictate changes in even the basic philosophy.)

Do you see what I mean about interpreting the same ideas in the opposite way from how you interpret them, Jill? Hyperpartisanship, IMO, is a 'my party right or wrong' mentality', or a desire to keep score about which party is scoring over the other. It has nothing to do with ideas- when one acts according to ideas and principles, then one can't possibly be hyperpartisan because doing so with integrity would mean that you refuse to support or carry water for your party when they've abandoned the principles.

Elrod - I would agree with that - I'd also add that it's not even that they're out of touch necessarily with the rest of the country, but rather, the portion that is still "conservative Republican ideologically" has grown smaller - no longer a majority of any kind and not persuasive or attractive enough in its ideas to gather more supporters - which is why I think the entire Michael Steele - Bobby Jindal - Sarah Palin approach to image is everything is going to fail miserably. For sure, conservative Reps. can remain where they are and just become a minority party and something else may grow out of that, break off or something - maybe as has happened in church organizations? But the image is everything approach has aged just as Agassi has. While they both did well in their time, that is in fact in the past. It just doesn't work anymore.

I think the problem here is that conservative Republicans are ideologically out of step with the rest of the country. That wasn't always the case, but it is now. I suppose it will take some time for the Republican Party to come to grips with that and start opening up its tent to non-conservatives again.

Thanks for commenting on CStanley's comment - no surprise, I agree with what you wrote.

CStanley, thanks for commenting. I'd like to challenge you on this though - you wrote:

"If Republicans really believed that the Democratic economic plans were going to help the country but obstructed them out of partisanship, that would be terrible. But I see no evidence that this is the case, and not a single conservative voter I know believes that either. I do hope that I'm proven wrong, but I can't possibly imagine how the actions being taken will help overall (though isolated parts of them are important.)"

I believe you - I believe that you really can't imagine how the actions being taken will help overall. But...the fact is that more than half the electorate believed and believes that the actions being taken WILL help overall. And the other fact is - none of us ACTUALLY know. :)

Now - about the obstructing out of partisanship: you have phrased this in such a way to reflect just how partisan the actions of the Republicans actually are: they don't think the plans will help specifically and primarily BECAUSE of the tenets of their politics and political party - cut taxes, gov't is only for defense, free markets and so on. So, I would argue that, by definition, their actions are partisan.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but can you see how I see it?

CStanley: "So, if the GOP believes that the actions being put forth are going to be bad for the country, then it's a no-brainer that they should oppose those policies both on principle and out of political self interest."

That's true, but the GOP also needs to come up with some good alternative ideas that they can get included..... "Tax cuts" is not the solution.

"If Republicans really believed that the Democratic economic plans were going to help the country but obstructed them out of partisanship, that would be terrible."

The Republicans ARE obstructing the Democratic economic plans out of partisanship. One great example is that the Republican governors were told that if they DID support the Obama plan then they would not receive any money for reelection from the Republican Party. I also seem to recall reading the same about members of Congress..... If the Republicans could stand dissent or agreement with the Democratic plan then they would not be partisan.

The Republicans, by not offering any new ideas and telling their members not to support the plan are hoping the Democrats will fail.... that is the only way they can gain seats in 2010....

The Republicans do not want to take care of their constituents if it means the Dems will look good. An example of this the four Republican governors who do not want to take the hundreds of millions of dollars in unemployment benefits in the stimulus package intended for part-time workers. That is because it would mean after the federal aid was no longer available these states would need to raise taxes to continue the benefits (there is a provision in the stimulus package that requires states pass laws to give part-time workers unemployment benefits).

While I don't like the federal government interfering with what I think are states' rights... including the granting of unemployment benefits, I do think that these are extraordinary times and sometimes we just have to hold our nose and swallow the medicine. There's a lot of distasteful stuff that the US must do if it wants to survive (and help its citizens survive) this recession which might turn into a depression..... Instead the Republicans are singing the same old happy tune that they did during the Iraq War... that things can continue as is without any call for sacrifice from the American people.

The Republican Party is living in an alternative universe if they can't be put into action for solutions by either war, recession or even the threat of depression. If they can't see the threat that faces this country they should all be kicked out of office for not taking care of their people and for all intents and purposes chanting, "Tax cuts! Tax cuts! Tax cuts!" \

The Republican Party failed with the war in Iraq and the Republican Party is failing the country during this recession / depression. Those who still support the Republicans are mostly those who believe that tax cuts will work.

If that's the case, then why did the deficit balloon under Bush's tax cuts and why are we in the mess we are currently in?

It certainly shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that when there are serious problems, people would by and large like to believe that our government should act to remedy the problems. A minority of voters usually are very skeptical of whether or not government action can really fix the problems or if its likely to make things worse, but the majority tends to want 'government that works for us' and they seem to believe beyond all evidence that this is a possibility in a situation that was largely caused by the government in the first place.

It's completely unimportant whether or not the polls now show that people want action, or that a majority feels that the GOP is obstructing. The time when the polls will begin to matter is after we start to see what the results of the Democratic party chosen actions are. So, if the GOP believes that the actions being put forth are going to be bad for the country, then it's a no-brainer that they should oppose those policies both on principle and out of political self interest.

If Republicans really believed that the Democratic economic plans were going to help the country but obstructed them out of partisanship, that would be terrible. But I see no evidence that this is the case, and not a single conservative voter I know believes that either. I do hope that I'm proven wrong, but I can't possibly imagine how the actions being taken will help overall (though isolated parts of them are important.)