I hope that isn't true, for America's sake, I hope they actually are patriots, and I'm trying to understand why they act this way.
Why are they so divisive, why are they so misleading, why do they refuse to compromise?
In case you missed it, no Republicans in the house of Representatives voted for the economic recovery package. What's up with the herd of opposition?
If you are working on some legislation, you propose an idea or you advocate for some changes, and when those changes make it into the final bill you usually vote for it. The democrats took out a bunch of 'liberal' provisions and 'wasteful spending'. The Democrats compromised, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the public trusts the ideas of Democrats when it comes to the economy.
The republicans got a lot of what they wanted, much more than they ever gave the Democrats. But not a single house republican voted for the economic recovery bill. You'll see the republicans all over the media criticizing the bill, and offering no suggestions for improving it, except tax cuts or reducing the price tag (both of which would make the bill less effective).
Why?
I have a few ideas.
Maybe it's the permanent campaign mentality. Your team must win, and the other team must lose. Therefore the other team can absolutely never have a good idea, unless they agree with you of course. And when they agree with you, you get to say I told you so and call them weak.
Maybe it's their conservative market philosophy of self-interest spilling over into everyday life. The 'invisible hand' of the market, where if everyone follows their own rational self-interest, we magically end up with the best collective solution too. So they are all looking out for their own self interest first and foremost. Which I guess means winning elections, hoarding power, making lots of money, and get lots of campaign contributions and political favors.
Maybe redistricting and gerrymandering plays a role too. House members represent little pieces of a state, so they put the democrats on democratic pieces and the republicans on republican pieces. So the voters in their district largely prefer to keep the same party every year. Their seats are in safe Republican territory, they don't have to fear running against a Democrat (there usually is none, the incumbent is unopposed anyway) So the only thing they have to worry about is another Republican challenging them in the primary. And they only way that could happen is if the incumbent pisses of his donors, and they fund the opposition instead.
hmmm, following the logic in that last one, I guess it's about the money?
well none of those are patriotic reasons, but they seem the most logical to me. I mean, we've tried tax cuts for 8 years, did George "the king of tax cuts" Bush miss that one essential tax cut that will fix all our problems?
Maybe the Senate won't be so confrontational. They each represent an entire state, which is more politically diverse than a house district. and they also have more time between elections. Maybe they'll act more like statesmen, then their brothers in the House who look like prep school punks.
I doubt the Senate would filibuster, this is a popular bill, and they can't afford to slow it down. Especially after Obama has shown them so much compromise and respect (especially compared to the last 20 years).
Let them vote against it, and watch in horror when it passes and actually puts people back to work. Then all the campaign commercials in 2010 will ominously say "he voted against Obama's recovery package. Wrong on the economy, wrong for America"

Oh - I think a David Brooks type is just about as likely to become RNC chair as a Blue Dog is to become DNC chair! In all honesty, I think that it will be Michael Steele.
No, I just haven't posted it yet - I've had a busy night and haven't had a chance to overlook it. Don't worry. :)
:::link:::
Oh, and I can't find that post, your journal is a little busted, maybe because of the Youtube Video. How long ago should I look?
Both interesting articles. Hope they get a good RNC chair, cause it seems like Limbaugh is filling the vacuum right now, and he loves it :). I'll be interested in who they choose for chair, maybe someone more like David Brooks, than Sarah Palin. I'd really like to see a more cooperation on both sides. Maybe the media culture just makes it look like bickering. Sure you can have different philosophies, but lets be practical, and lets base our decisions on evidence, instead of dogma. You can find common ground to stand on.
Oops, not "that," although you should read it.
I meant THIS! :::link:::
Hey Dave -
I have a correlating post already written re: this topic and you can check it out later, but for now I'll leave you with this, since you mentioned Limbaugh -
:::link:::
I can sort of see where the House GOP is coming from. The Dems now control House, Senate, and the White House. The GOP needs to show that they wont simply be walked all over (even though Obama promised an end to partisanship and has shown himself to be a very pragmatic man). So, they jumped onto the first big media event legislation they could to show the world they are down but still united. Unfortunately, they happened to pick the stimulus package. If the economy was OK and Obama promised big gun law reform, fine GOP, do what you will as the bill has only marginal effects on the integrity of the country. But the stimulus package? That is something you don't pull this kind of shit on.
The GOP spokesman during the bill's debate, Jeff Flake, showed he did not have even a basic understanding of economics. For the GOP, the event was all about orthodoxy, and not practicality. That is the same shit that made them lose the House, lose the Senate, and now lose the White House. I am cautious of the majority and sympathetic to the minority, but the GOP gets zero respect for their performance on the floor.
PS. I know that graphic is a bit rude, but it's sooo geek, I thought it would work. Also I'm not questioning anyone's patriotism, I just think that the best-interests of political parties are often bad for the country. We need vigorous public debate of the facts, but without the party games. If anything I'm anti-party, or multi-party, I'm just registered as a Democrat so I can vote more :)
Obama has come at this crisis like a research project, and the proposal is diverse, specific, and transparent. We can measure the success of the various components as we go. That's why the opposition doesn't make much sense to me.