52% Say GOP Agenda In Congress Is Extreme

[Cactusboy]

Sunday, February 12, 2012

 

While positive ratings for Congress remain at an all-time low, more voters than ever see the Republican agenda in Congress as extreme.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 35% of Likely Voters say it would be more accurate to describe the agenda of Republicans in Congress as mainstream, while 52% feel extreme is a more accurate description. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

 

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2012/52_say_gop_agenda_in_congress_is_extreme

 

 

here is how it was worded

 

4* Would it be more accurate to describe the agenda of Republicans in Congress as mainstream or extreme?

[knapplc]

That poll had a +/- margin of error of 3%, meaning (I believe) that the question was statistically worthless, since one would expect a totally random response to garner 50% of the answers.

 

Isn't that correct?

[Cactusboy]

It doesn't say the results of what they think Dem agenda in Congress. I guess you have to have a subscription for that...? I'd think it'd be mentioned above if it was even close to 50%.

[knapplc]

The answer is, "The Dems have no agenda."

 

Isn't it? What the heck have they done the last several years?

[Cactusboy]

The answer is, "The Dems have no agenda."

 

Isn't it? What the heck have they done the last several years?

 

 

They actually have done a lot...but they've tried to do a lot more but the Pubs are nothing but obstructionists.

[Cactusboy]

Oh and Dems have an agenda. They want to end Bush tax cuts...do a Buffet rule...invest in infrastructure/more stimulus... off top of my head

[zoogs]

That poll had a +/- margin of error of 3%, meaning (I believe) that the question was statistically worthless, since one would expect a totally random response to garner 50% of the answers.

 

Isn't that correct?

 

Wait, why is this?

[knapplc]

Which part, zoogs?

 

Don't ask that question (whatever your question is) thinking that I have a good grasp of statistics. I don't. If I'm wrong in any part of that statement it will be terribly unshocking.

[Sub-Husker]

The answer is, "The Dems have no agenda."

 

Isn't it? What the heck have they done the last several years?

 

They have an agenda, it is often indistuishable from the agenda of the other party.

 

Oh and Dems have an agenda. They want to end Bush tax cuts...do a Buffet rule...invest in infrastructure/more stimulus... off top of my head

 

Which Democrats have that agenda?

 

And by "agenda" I mean more than lip service, but successful legislative action.

[Sub-Husker]

That poll had a +/- margin of error of 3%, meaning (I believe) that the question was statistically worthless, since one would expect a totally random response to garner 50% of the answers.

 

Isn't that correct?

 

The quest was not approval or disapproval of the Republican agenda, but was it too extreme.

[JJ Husker]

The answer is, "The Dems have no agenda."

 

Isn't it? What the heck have they done the last several years?

 

 

They actually have done a lot...but they've tried to do a lot more but the Pubs are nothing but obstructionists.

Oh and Dems have an agenda. They want to end Bush tax cuts...do a Buffet rule...invest in infrastructure/more stimulus... off top of my head

Why is it considered obstructionist just because the republicans and their constituents don't like or want any part of most of the dems plans?

I've never figured out this viewpoint of them just being obstructionist. Have you ever considered that maybe they think those dem plans would be bad for the country?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the pubs on every item (I don't) but, as per one of your examples; more stimulus spending. I think it is a quite logical and rational position to not want to spend money you don't have. Characterizing them as the party of "No" only ignores the deep philosophical differences between the parties. In my mind, if the other guys are proposing something you don't like, the correct action is to block it, stall it, defeat it. that's not obstructionist, it's called representing your constituents.

[knapplc]

 

 

Why is it considered obstructionist just because the republicans and their constituents don't like or want any part of most of the dems plans?

I've never figured out this viewpoint of them just being obstructionist. Have you ever considered that maybe they think those dem plans would be bad for the country?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the pubs on every item (I don't) but, as per one of your examples; more stimulus spending. I think it is a quite logical and rational position to not want to spend money you don't have. Characterizing them as the party of "No" only ignores the deep philosophical differences between the parties. In my mind, if the other guys are proposing something you don't like, the correct action is to block it, stall it, defeat it. that's not obstructionist, it's called representing your constituents.

 

 

The most glaring example of Republican obstructionism is their unprecedented number of filibusters against Obama's judicial appointees. Through the first two years of Obama's presidency he lagged far behind both Bush II and Clinton in appointments - not because he wasn't making any appointments, and not because there weren't any appointments to make, but because the Republican party simply blocked the appointments. At one point they had blocked nearly half, and I don't know where we sit today.

 

Obama is being painted by the Republicans as some radical president, but the reality is that his views are largely moderate, and even Reagan-esque. It's just that the GOP has skewed so crazily to the right, and the Tea Party has tipped it even farther, that anything left of their position seems, to them, radically liberal. So they block it. Over and over and over and over.

[carlfense]

 

 

Why is it considered obstructionist just because the republicans and their constituents don't like or want any part of most of the dems plans?

I've never figured out this viewpoint of them just being obstructionist. Have you ever considered that maybe they think those dem plans would be bad for the country?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the pubs on every item (I don't) but, as per one of your examples; more stimulus spending. I think it is a quite logical and rational position to not want to spend money you don't have. Characterizing them as the party of "No" only ignores the deep philosophical differences between the parties. In my mind, if the other guys are proposing something you don't like, the correct action is to block it, stall it, defeat it. that's not obstructionist, it's called representing your constituents.

 

 

The most glaring example of Republican obstructionism is their unprecedented number of filibusters against Obama's judicial appointees. Through the first two years of Obama's presidency he lagged far behind both Bush II and Clinton in appointments - not because he wasn't making any appointments, and not because there weren't any appointments to make, but because the Republican party simply blocked the appointments. At one point they had blocked nearly half, and I don't know where we sit today.

 

Obama is being painted by the Republicans as some radical president, but the reality is that his views are largely moderate, and even Reagan-esque. It's just that the GOP has skewed so crazily to the right, and the Tea Party has tipped it even farther, that anything left of their position seems, to them, radically liberal. So they block it. Over and over and over and over.

Hear, hear. +1

 

At least once a day I hear someone say that Obama is the most radically liberal president in history. I just shake my head. Ignorance and cognitive dissonance are powerful things.

[Cactusboy]

The answer is, "The Dems have no agenda."

 

Isn't it? What the heck have they done the last several years?

 

 

They actually have done a lot...but they've tried to do a lot more but the Pubs are nothing but obstructionists.

Oh and Dems have an agenda. They want to end Bush tax cuts...do a Buffet rule...invest in infrastructure/more stimulus... off top of my head

Why is it considered obstructionist just because the republicans and their constituents don't like or want any part of most of the dems plans?

I've never figured out this viewpoint of them just being obstructionist. Have you ever considered that maybe they think those dem plans would be bad for the country?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the pubs on every item (I don't) but, as per one of your examples; more stimulus spending. I think it is a quite logical and rational position to not want to spend money you don't have. Characterizing them as the party of "No" only ignores the deep philosophical differences between the parties. In my mind, if the other guys are proposing something you don't like, the correct action is to block it, stall it, defeat it. that's not obstructionist, it's called representing your constituents.

 

They do it on things that were/are pub ideas...but now since Obama wants it they are against it. There are more than 1-2 examples of this. and they hold up nominations in unreasonable ways big time too...just to spite.

 

Also...I guarantee you McCain or any Pub outside of Ron Paul would have done the stimulus Obama did...they can huff and puff all they want, but fact is they would have been responsible for a big depression had they not. Maybe not a second one though. The stimulus should have been bigger and even the White House new this, but they pushed for a smaller amount because they knew the larger amount wouldn't be approved by congress. AND like 400 billion of the stimulus was tax cuts. They did that so it'd be easier for pubs to vote for it.

[Cactusboy]

 

 

Why is it considered obstructionist just because the republicans and their constituents don't like or want any part of most of the dems plans?

I've never figured out this viewpoint of them just being obstructionist. Have you ever considered that maybe they think those dem plans would be bad for the country?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the pubs on every item (I don't) but, as per one of your examples; more stimulus spending. I think it is a quite logical and rational position to not want to spend money you don't have. Characterizing them as the party of "No" only ignores the deep philosophical differences between the parties. In my mind, if the other guys are proposing something you don't like, the correct action is to block it, stall it, defeat it. that's not obstructionist, it's called representing your constituents.

 

 

The most glaring example of Republican obstructionism is their unprecedented number of filibusters against Obama's judicial appointees. Through the first two years of Obama's presidency he lagged far behind both Bush II and Clinton in appointments - not because he wasn't making any appointments, and not because there weren't any appointments to make, but because the Republican party simply blocked the appointments. At one point they had blocked nearly half, and I don't know where we sit today.

 

Obama is being painted by the Republicans as some radical president, but the reality is that his views are largely moderate, and even Reagan-esque. It's just that the GOP has skewed so crazily to the right, and the Tea Party has tipped it even farther, that anything left of their position seems, to them, radically liberal. So they block it. Over and over and over and over.

 

Their stated top priority is to not let Obama win a second term. They are so full of themselves that they don't even see how selfish that is. They are a desperate party that knows they are losing their influence in the country and one day will be on the outside looking in. So they go even further right and cling on harder and harder. I see the only way they win again is after the economy is good again..they settle down a bit...and people forget how crazy they are and how bad things get as a result of them being in power.