Should they just outright oppose everything Bush says or does, or should they try to work with him. By that, I don't mean give in to everything, but try to work out a comprise.
In other words, will they actually try to get some work done, or be a do-nothing congress?
2006-11-07 01:25:02 · 11 answers · asked by Mutt 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I should expand more. It is a 2-way street. Not only would the Congress need to compromise, but so would Bush.
2006-11-07 01:33:03 · update #1
We all know that will never happen, sadly, both parties forgot the term compromise and talking things out, they just like to complain whine and not figure a way to fix the issues, look at the campaign ads as proof to that....
2006-11-07 01:28:00 · answer #1 · answered by lost&confused 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I keep saying this...it used to be different. With many past presidents we had opposing parties controlling the Whitehouse and Congress. Things actually got done! The parties worked together. The 'with us or against us' mentality has split this country. I hope the leaders, whomever they may be, will do the right thing and come to some compromise.
Take Care.
2006-11-07 09:28:21 · answer #2 · answered by RJ 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In todays political arena, compromise is a concept that is no longer practiced. If one party compromises with the other party to get something done, it may reflect positively on the other party, and we couldn't have that. Each party is willing to do harm to America just in order to make the other party look bad. It seems to be "my way or the highway" instead of "let's work together for the common good". Our best chance of seeing something done, is for the President's party to have at least 60 Senate seats, and 260 House seats. This way, the other party can't stop any legislation. If a party can't do something good with all the cards in their favor, at the next election, we kick them out and give the other party a shot at it. Then they would actually try to do something good for America, just to keep their party in power. We almost had it this last election, but there needed to be a few more seats in the Republican camp for it to really work. As it was, we saw more squabbling and filibustering and threats instead of actual benefits.
2006-11-07 09:42:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The do-nothing congress was the last one - controlled by Republicans in both houses.
Work out a compromise? That's funny - as if Bush would compromise on anything. Have you read about his signing statements - whereby he ignores any bills passed by congress?
2006-11-07 09:31:25 · answer #4 · answered by Dastardly 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Democrats have tried to block everything this President has tried to do since 2003. Why would they change. The President opened the door on Social Security reform, instead of creating several plans that could be debated they shut that door. They succeeded in convincing several Republicans that they would loose their seats, if they were to engage in the debate.
Although Pelosci says it is not in her agenda, I believe the Democrats will work on only one thing. They will work on impeaching the President. Congressman Conyers has been pushing since his re-election and me party members want retribution for the impeachment of President Clinton.
Who knows, maybe the Republicans will use the phillabuster as a weapon of gridlock as the Democrats have successfully for the last 3 years.
2006-11-07 09:41:07 · answer #5 · answered by zax_fl 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They have to work with him. You cant just oppose anything he says or wants to do.
They are a do nothing Congress now. Yes Bush! Thank you Bush! Wonderful Idea Bush!
2006-11-07 09:27:35 · answer #6 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
They should oppose everything Mr. Bush does because it is clear he does not work with them. I just hope we can survive the days we have left with that nut acting as president. Go Dems! This country needs a change in a BIG way.
2006-11-07 09:47:35 · answer #7 · answered by Cin O 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They _should_ get to work with the rest of the legislative and executive branch and actually do something productive.
Not likely. Congress doesn't have much of a history of doing anything productive.
2006-11-07 09:29:23 · answer #8 · answered by credo quia est absurdum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is going to be a castrated lame duck which is only a second best choice to sending him back to fry ants and beetles with a magnifying glass in Crawford, right away.
2006-11-07 10:15:12 · answer #9 · answered by iknowtruthismine 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There have been occasions when republicans were more in the congress with a Democrate as President. So, why only make all this sound?
VR
2006-11-07 09:29:43 · answer #10 · answered by sarayu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋