That's a totally partisan reading of the situation. Do you remember that the speaker of the house, the person who controls which legislation even comes up for a vote, stated early on that the primary goal of the Republicans was seeing that Obama was going to be a one term president. Are you saying that he was lying, or did you just choose to ignore the point?

You can dress up what is happening all you want, but it's just crap. I spent years listening closely to those debates from the audience chamber and behind the scenes, though only in a state house, not in Congress. My mother first worked in the house, then served three terms, and I found it pretty interesting (and often kind of boring, even if you knew some of the crap that was behind the spoken words). What really happens is that statement by Boehner. At all levels, its about jockeying for position. There is always a way to spin your actions to appear noble and spin your opponents to appear evil. It doesn't really matter whether you are on the left or the right, neither side can escape that tar if applied with any skill. So, when you imply that all we have seen in the last four years was a noble minority fighting valiantly for intelligent legislation, that's just the spin, and it's a particularly egregious lie, at that.

In this case, it may well be that personality did win the election. Romney was nearly as stiff as Gore when it came to public speeches (and, like Gore, was not so stiff when he wasn't on the stump). That may well have made up for the weakness in the economy. However, it may also be the case that Romney was a cipher to pretty much everyone. The Economist, which is not particularly liberal, spoke out against his vague and anit-mathematical deficit reduction plans. The Republicans, as a group, were mostly anti-immigrant for the primary, with Romney tacking to the right of the group on that issue. Perhaps that's why he lost the Latino vote so heavily. The drumbeat of stupid statements about women made by leading Republicans during the race (the two senate candidates that got the most headlines were far from the only ones in this camp) alienated every woman I know, which might be why the party lost pretty handily with that group.

And when it comes to stupidity, it's hard to top the average Republican, considering the percentages of people who self-identify with that camp and who don't believe in evolution, moon landings, and other exotica. There's certainly plenty of stupidity to go around, but no single party has a lock on it, nor can you really blame the election on ignorance or greed, cause the elctorate isn't all that much different from what it was in 2000 and 2004 when W got elected. It's easy to say that the other side "just isn't paying attention", but you had best be careful, because it rather looks like you might be wrong.

As for the wars, you've mentioned them twice. I have no idea what you are getting at with either statement. What are you even refering to with the phrase "continuous appointments", and what are you referring to when you talk about "resulted in what we have today"? Do you mean that those actions have resulted in steady, though anemic, growth for a couple years when Europe is circling the drain while the BRIC are all sliding downwards? I guess you might argue that the attacks in Pakistan have had some positive effect, but I rather think we couldn't measure that even if they were.