<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Americans Love Partianship</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/2009/02/17/americans-love-partianship/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/2009/02/17/americans-love-partianship/</link>
	<description>Yet another political blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:51:44 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Lee</title>
		<link>http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/2009/02/17/americans-love-partianship/comment-page-1/#comment-803</link>
		<dc:creator>Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:10:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/?p=2575#comment-803</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;As Reuters points out, Congress always has low approval ratings; it&#039;s recent low was low by historical standards; it&#039;s current bump up is more a relative bump, not absolute.  If Democrats had started from a much larger starting point, then negotiated down to a level well above the current amt. -- with more spending and fewer tax cuts -- I think Democrats would be happier when the economic commentators they trusted said that the stimulus amount was large enough to do the job -- or at least not as bad as it could have been.  Independents probably would have had a mixed response, depending on the reasons they decided they were happy with Congress.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As Reuters points out, Congress always has low approval ratings; it&#8217;s recent low was low by historical standards; it&#8217;s current bump up is more a relative bump, not absolute.  If Democrats had started from a much larger starting point, then negotiated down to a level well above the current amt. &#8212; with more spending and fewer tax cuts &#8212; I think Democrats would be happier when the economic commentators they trusted said that the stimulus amount was large enough to do the job &#8212; or at least not as bad as it could have been.  Independents probably would have had a mixed response, depending on the reasons they decided they were happy with Congress.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian</title>
		<link>http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/2009/02/17/americans-love-partianship/comment-page-1/#comment-802</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:28:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/?p=2575#comment-802</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I think Americans love it that Congress DID something. It wasn&#039;t the partisanship that impressed Americans -- it was the bill itself. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Not that Americans were all that impressed. A 43% approval rating is nothing to brag about, uptick or no uptick. Let&#039;s see if it continues to climb.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The question is: If Democrats had insisted on pushing through a bigger bill -- and Republicans had responded with a filabuster in the Senate -- would Dems&#039; approval ratings be so high?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Americans love it that Congress DID something. It wasn&#8217;t the partisanship that impressed Americans &#8212; it was the bill itself. </p>
<p>Not that Americans were all that impressed. A 43% approval rating is nothing to brag about, uptick or no uptick. Let&#8217;s see if it continues to climb.</p>
<p>The question is: If Democrats had insisted on pushing through a bigger bill &#8212; and Republicans had responded with a filabuster in the Senate &#8212; would Dems&#8217; approval ratings be so high?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

