Frankly, I don't expect any Republican who still thinks Obama's the problem and their leaders are doing nothing wrong to change their minds; striving to realize that expectation is how Obama wound up with "universal" healthcare that's WORSE than nothing. Thankfully, he seems to have realized that, too, but remains too willing to delegate important policy negotiations to people Congressional Republicans can dismiss, so that when the President finally steps in and applies the leverage of his office his adversaries have already committed to refusing any offer he makes.

If, by your use of "right" below, you mean "valid" rather than "meritorious" then, no; a valid argument is just that, irrespective of the rhetoric in which it's couched. It can be couched in rhetoric, but that's not inherently bad either if the underlying point it illustrates or emphasizes is valid. Rhetoric has its very legitimate place, particulary in politics. It's only a problem when allowed to SUBSTITUTE for a legitimate argument rather than simply conveying it. To take a self serving example, Obama and Biden have offered numerous concessions to Republican "negotiators", who've offered none. Saying they're obstinate is rhetoric to emphasize a valid argument amply proven by all the evidence; when Michael Medved says Obama is being intractable that's ONLY rhetoric, because the argument it serves is invalidated by the facts.

Republican negotiators on this issue can be divided into two camps:

1) Those who agree in principle with the Presidents offer of massive spending cuts in exchange for smaller but still substantial tax increases, but feel obligated to refuse in practice because their colleagues and/or constituents strongly object.

2) The colleagues forcing the first group to refuse all deals even though everyone informed on the issue knows and says it will bankrupt the government, make the dollar worthless, end Social Security, Medicare, school lunches and every other government program, and instantly make American businesses toxic to the rest of the world.

Lately, a third group, we'll call it "the McConnell Group" has emerged: Republicans who realize their colleagues and constituents refusal to make ANY concessions OR accept less than their full demands makes any "compromise" impossible by definition. They realize raising the debt ceiling will alienate their base, and forcing a federal default will alienate the whole public; re-election will be impossible either way. Therefore they wish to surrender Congress' Constitutional spending authority to the President so we simply extend the debt ceiling without spending cuts OR tax increases, the economy explodes anyway and they can say it's entirely Obamas fault. They're ashamed of the risks their partisan brinksmanship poses to the nation; they should be. Unfortunately they're only ashamed enough to shield themselves from justified blame, not end their threats to America.

The first and last positions are cowardly and the second is ignorant and/or foolish; those are, like the analyses of each perspective, irrefutable facts. That I've tried to state them convincingly makes them no less valid; I can't imagine anyone trying to make an UNCONVINCING argument for documented facts or the conclusions they draw from them (if you want an example of good arguments in desperate need of equally good rhetoric, review the campaigns of most Democratic Presidential nominees between Truman and Clinton). Their behavior is dishonorable, particularly given the magnitude of the crisis, and I would be dishonorable to say it was any less than that. If they dislike the accurate description of that behavior, they would do well to consider whether the description or the behavior is at fault. Faulting the commentary is like accusing the coroner of murder.