Re: So question...
 

Yeah, it was me. No worries!

This is actually a new poll, the results of which were posted today.
http://news.harrisinteractive.com/pr...&Category=1777

I believe you're thinking of a poll from September:
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot....ew-jersey.html

Re: So question...
 

Hey, there's an "M" in there someplace so good enough for me... :)

TML, looking at the more recent polling, it has the same problem as the one from September. According to that poll 16% of liberals think he's a Muslim, 15% think he's a socialist, and 12% think he wants a terrorist attack to excuse him talking over the country. Oh, and yes, 8% of liberals this Obama is the Anti-Christ. Those are all significant percentages that I think are WELL overblown. This poll is an excuse to write a controversial book.

I wonder if the poll asked if he was an alien, and what those percentages were...

The current poll is just as laughable as the September poll.

I'd love to see the same methodology applied to GWB. How many liberals thought he was a fascist? Retarded? A monkey?

EDIT: I should repeat that I do see how the Republicans were not helpful in creating an atmosphere for compromise, but I also repeat that there was never room for compromise to begin with. It was a partisan game from start to finish. Right now both of these parties are on different planets, ideologically.

Re: So question...
 

This post is completly out of boredom.

So the fact that they chose not to ignore their opposition, and tried to reach out to them makes them less bipartisan? I don't get the logic behing that point. If they weren't trying to be bipartisan, they could have just passed a bill that they believe in with no compromise.

They were invited to help mold the bill on a public forum, and they could have used that time to make legitamate criticizms of the bill.. which they did, but they spent more time trying to kill the bill then trying to help mold it. And, much like this point, they wasted too much time and energy trying to oppose how the bill was written, instead of opposing actual content in the bill.

I really don't think that can be blamed on the democrats..

That's because the republicans are united in their exteme right-wingness. The Democratic party now has conservitives, centrists, and people on the left. Which is a big reason they built the majority to begin with. I'm waiting for an article to come out asking why the house democrats voted against it. I'm sure the reasons will range from the bill being too weak, and not including the public option at least.. all the way to democrats who are more sold on the conservative ideology.

I'm pretty sure there wasn't "bipartisan" opposition to the bill for the same reasons.

And as for the last point.. introducing unreasonable tax cuts, not putting it up for debate, and not even pretending to be interested in what the opposition has to say about it... then putting it up for vote instantly with the same "tactic" the dems used for healthcare... and saying 'if you don't vote for this you're for raising taxes, and we're going to pass it if you vote for it or not'... worked fine for getting votes.

I wouldn't personally call it bipartisan though.

But then again.. it got the votes.

So like I said earlier.. it's a matter of perception.