View Full Version : Is divided government more effective?

10-10-2006, 11:37 AM
Is divided government better? Joe Scarborough seems to think so. After reading the article you just may agree.
And We Thought Clinton Had No Self Control (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.scarborough.html)

10-10-2006, 12:05 PM
I have to agree with almost everything he says here. Spending would be no worse with the Communist Party itself in charge. At least when the Democrats get in we can lock down this useless government and gridlock is something I long for, look forward to. If we don't represent the moral authority in this country, then let's give it to the ones with no morals at all. Again, they can't do much worse and it won't disappoint or surprise Americans as much when it happens. In a note, Dennis Hastert should quit right now if he has any character left. I don't care if he didn't know details of the messages, he should have made it his business. He knew he was Gay, he knew he was at least attracted to young boys, he is a spineless and enabling breaucrat just like the 98 others who surround him.

Right now, there is no Republican or Democrat out there who represents what many of us believe so why worry about the coming elections and the outcome. Again, demogods fighting each other and locking it all down sounds pretty damn good right now.

I only wish we had had a better choice in 2004. Maybe the Dems will come up with some one with a spinal column this time.....

I'm....comfortably numb

10-10-2006, 06:11 PM
The legislative branch was intended to be divided not so much by political party but by constituency. The direct election of senators is maybe the worst constitutional amendment passed. It would be interesting to see how much different things would be if the legislative branch were set up the way the Founding Fathers intended.

10-10-2006, 06:19 PM
I agree.
As an outsider looking in on American politics, it seems to me that the GOPs say they are for small Govt / fiscal responsibility but all they do is expand Govt and spend lots of money.
I also think you are right that the Dems have no conviction at the moment and no real leader. If there had been a decent Dem candidate to challenge GW in 2004, I think he would have won.
I reluctantly also have to agree with eg8r when he says about Kerry, "is he the best they've got?"

I would vote for Jon Stewart because I think he has more sense than the lot of em put together. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif......and he's funny! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
If they didn't know about Foley it was because they didn't want to know. JMO

10-10-2006, 06:44 PM
The we against them,even at the cost of our countrie's welfare does not work. I think we should have a loyal opposition,not the present red state,blue state mentality that exists in this country. Scarborough's comments are amusing,but a house divided against itself cannot stand.

10-10-2006, 07:10 PM
It was changed because of corruption,and deadlocks in the state legislatures.

10-11-2006, 06:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> It was changed because of corruption,and deadlocks in the state legislatures. <hr /></blockquote>

And the Founding Fathers didn't know that would happen? So now you have Ted Stevens and Hillary Clinton. Which is worse? We probably don't know, but I think spending would be much lower if senators were accountable to the states and there would be less (not no) pork barrel stuff. You also wouldn't have campaign finance problems when a campaign consisted of going home and drinking with legislators. As high as the tab might be it is a lot lower than running a campaign with TV and radio statewide. When you have to pander to the masses you lose something. Direct elections should only be used for the house IMO.

Gayle in MD
10-11-2006, 06:39 AM
Good points, D., personally, I've only seen two heroic political figures in these last miserable six years, John Murtha, and Richard Clarke.

The day that I saw Richard Clarke, speak to the 9/11 Commission, apologize to the victims families, and take responsibility beyond his true fault, I will never forget. After hours and hours of listening to others use semantics, dodge answers, and fail to ask the questions that should have been asked, in order to save face, or protect their fellow cronies to avoid responsibility, I will never forget what it meant to those families, to atlast, hear an apology, accountability, and the whole unadulterated truth, spoken for the first time.

Then, there is John Murtha, who was the first, to stand alone, and tell us that we are not being told the truth, and to show heartfelt concern, for our troops, the severity of their plight, and the failure of our policy.

They are the kind of men we need. Not the pandering types. Not the rock stars, not the spoiled offspring of rich and famous, of the former politicos, who ride on the coat-tails of their ancestors wealth, capitalizing on the decades old surviving fraternities of the retired good old boy network of, not what you know, but who you know.

Is this a function of the poor taste of the American public, who worships wealth and fame, beyond integrity and pluck? Why are we such suckers for those with the most bucks in their pockets?

I still think that public financed campaigns are our only hope. And yes, I think divided government is less destructive, after what I've seen these last six years.

Gayle in Md....Dad used to say..."Never underestimate the poor taste of the American Public" As usual, he was right!

10-12-2006, 01:26 PM
Well, Mr Redux, let me give you a good ol CCB style welcome by saying sit down, shut up and you're an idiot. There now, feel more like home? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Good to see ya fatman. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif