English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

when they were the party that ruled untill the republican revolution of 94

2006-09-30 01:45:03 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

13 answers

Because as usual, they either have their facts mixed up or are twisting the facts to suit their cause.

What America is sick of is the TWO party system. We are now aware that the Democrats and Republicans do not care about voters, they do not represent the people who put them in office. Democratic and Republican representatives are forced by their parties who to think and how to vote. And as you know the parties care more about their special interest and corporate sponsors who donate to the national parties than they do the wishes of the voters.

Look at Joe Lieberman for an example of what happens when you don't say and do what the party tells you to. And it looks like he will win as an Independent; and the reason he will win is because he represents the will of his constituency.

If the Democrats win the House and/or Senate in November, it won't be because the voters agree with their policy, it will be a knee jerk reaction against the Republicans who are in office. And the reason for that is the voters are falling for the media induced anti-Bush spin.

2006-09-30 02:18:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

More Republican distortion. Since 1952, Republicans have held the executive office for 38 years, Democrats for only 20.

The Democrats did not "ruled untill the republican revolution of 94". There is never been a situation in modern times where both houses of Congress and the Presidency were held by the same party. There was always a need for bipartisanship and some consensus before the Republican revolution of 94. The parties balanced each other's excesss; with the result that moderation and good sense often prevailed.

2006-09-30 09:15:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

That's not exactly true. The Dems are fed up with the fact that the one party ruling is not them. If they were the one party ruling they would like it just fine. More political hooey that means nothing.

The Dems' definition of "America" in this case is the Dems, so the real statement would be that the Dems are fed up with 1 party rule because the Repubs are in. Some non-Dems might be fed up too, but in the context of what the Dems are saying, it is the Dems who are fed up. Everyone else can go chase themselves for all they care. AEN

2006-09-30 08:50:20 · answer #3 · answered by Kokopelli 7 · 1 0

I think repuglicans said the same thing in those years, I personally think it is a bad idea no matter who is in charge. This government is built on checks and balance and when you take that element away there is no compromise. The best legislation comes out of compromise and the worst comes out of one party rule. Remember welfare came out of democratic rule and while I support the concept of helping the less fortunate, I do not support welfare as it was written by the majority democrats. Compromise would have been a lot better and maybe there would have been a solution as opposed to a failed system. Welfare to work came out to the Clinton presidency and a repuglican congress and it took great strides in fixing this problem.

By the way thanks for the great question, not at all your usual tripe.

2006-09-30 09:10:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It's not true that America is fed up with the one party rule. The important principle of democracy is check and balance by peple based on multi-parties system. People chose the best party to rule at a time.

2006-09-30 08:52:34 · answer #5 · answered by pyj 4 · 0 0

Well, even Adams said that a single party in control of the house, senate, and presidency was a bad idea. Okay, lets look at the second part of that; the admitted abuses of the liberal approach could be contributed to the Democratic control of the house (thought I do think the senate changed hands a few times). I am also not sure of your data there. Either way, one part or the other controlling the whole show was not what the system was designed to accommodate.

2006-09-30 08:48:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Because when we ruled, things got accomplished. Instead of a 'do nothing' Congress, the surplus came back, the unemployment dropped 2%, etc. When progressives are in control, we compromise and work with the minority party, rather than control and attack it.

2006-09-30 09:15:49 · answer #7 · answered by Tofu Jesus 5 · 0 1

When the Democrats ruled for decades, they still whined and cryed because there were any Republicans in Congress at all.
They couldn't stand any competition. It turned them into crybaby sissies.

2006-09-30 09:17:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I curious, do you ever read the responses here?

Well, maybe they were fed up then so they voted in the republicans, you think, you don't, why am I not surprised.

2006-09-30 08:50:45 · answer #9 · answered by madjer21755 5 · 1 0

America has never been this unhappy with the party in power!

2006-09-30 08:49:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers