Do you vote for a negotiating style, bipartisanship, and compromise or a set of policy goals?

I can't feed my kids bipartisanship, or glory in the wonders of compromise when my health insurance is still too expensive, or bask in the glow of an even handed negotiating style when Wall Street hits me with their next bubble bursting, bail out demands, and equally brazen calls for austerity so they don't have to be taxed while every possible tax dollar of ours is being funneled into their pockets.

There are many things that I disagree with the GOP about and tactics I don't like, but their single-minded drive to enact a handful of goals into law and doing whatever it takes and taking whatever political fallout that follows is not one of them--that's what people elect politicians to do.

When I vote for someone, I expect them to go all out kick ass, take names, piss people off, and do whatever they can within the law to accomplish what they said when they were campaigning.

My guess is a lot of people here are even further out than my--they would like their pols to cross any lines necessary to get the right things (not just ANYTHING) done.

Do you agree?

"There are many things that I disagree with the GOP about and tactics I don't like, but their single-minded drive to enact a handful of goals into law and doing whatever it takes and taking whatever political fallout that follows is not one of them--that's what people elect politicians to do."

No it isn't. It's what people who have contempt for democracy and reason want their politicians to do, ignore the other half or whatever of the population and what it thinks, needs, and wants and be the elected king in their corner for 4 years. Sorry, but before recent times, people wanted their politicians to behave rationally and in the interest of the country, regardless of outcomes or party.

The only sides are reason and what is good for the country and its future, and insanity usually following some sort of ideological stance which damages our country's future.

You don't embark on insanity simply to counter other insanity. Governing is serious-minded business for serious-minded people. The problem with our country is that we elect people with silly minds whose only concern is getting the job, with little regard for doing the job, and that includes being flexible and responsive, and representing those who didn't vote for you as well as those that did. I vote to counter this trend accordingly when the opportunity presents itself.

If people voted for the more serious mind, the more rational choice, we would have very few Republicans and DINOs at the national level because a serious-minded rational person understands that what we call liberal ideas are the only sane way to make policy forward.

you don't have a democracy.

and the interest of the country IS the outcome people are interested in. One party just defines the country far more narrowly and isn't honest about it in public.

Your definition is what has screwed us for the last 20-30 years: when Republicans win, they govern like people voted for their ideas even if they neglected to articulate all of those ideas in the campaign. When DLC Democrats win, they play this game of representing both sides, so we end up with half or more republican policies no matter who we vote for.

That sounds like a rigged game.

Secondly, representative democracy has always been and will always be (if you are doing it right) about compromise. It is about representing not only those who voted for you but also those who did not. If you want direct access, you run for office, otherwise, you don't want to be screwed just because your guy/girl didn't win, which is what we have now, and DU should remember 8 years of Bush and say "I don't want that", but they often betray that which is insane. You don't counter the insanity of the other "side" by introducing your own version more acclimated to your own taste, but by reintroducing sanity and reason to government by voting for people who exhibit it.

I didn't vote for Obama because I thought he was liberal. The thing I wanted was to return to fact and reason based governance free of the ideological bullshit and insanity of the 8 years prior regardless of outcomes. The road to now is paved with ideology trumping reason. I shouldn't have to worry that a Republican represents my district over a Democrat, but I do when he/she is in that office not because he/she is the more sane and reasonable of the choices, but because he/she claims fealty to an ideology, and by corollary, only the ideologues who voted for them.

By voting for the most reasoned and sane person, you maximize the chance that your representation will be fair and in the interest of the country. The past 20-30 years have occurred because people have been voting illogically, against their own interest and for the interest of ideology, not because of Republicans or DLC or DINOs or whatever other thing you may name. Government is supposed to function reasonably well regardless of who holds the office, and the only time it hasn't is when ideology has trumped reason. You want to restore sanity and fairness to the game, you vote for the sane and reasoned one. Always.