This is not trying to bash but gather opinions. Please state your reason why you would or wouldn't support a fully Democrat government. A Dem as president, a Dem appointed majority in the Supreme Court and a Dem controlled Congress. Would you think they would need checks and balances, or do you think they would simply do a better job than any Republicans (please don't resort to insults, its just a question)
2006-11-09 09:53:33 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Thoughtful question. I am a Democrat, and I honestly would not want absolute power. Our government needs checks and balances, thats why it was written into the constitution. After 1994, with Clinton in office and a Republican majority in congress, a lot of things got accomplished. I think have a different party in congress than in the white house is a GOOD thing. Same reason I also think why Iraq is such a disaster now, because there was no oversight whatsoever.
2006-11-09 10:01:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Look, I'm a Dem and I've always lived with a divided government as long as I can remember. The exceptions were when Carter was President in the late 1970's (I was a little kid then) George W from 2000-2006 and the first two years of Clinton's term in the early 1990's.
I agree with you. I strongly believe in the idea of checks and balances. A President is forced to practice bi-partisanship. He has to reach out to the other party and compromise on his budget and legislative proposals.
Reagan lived with Tip O'Neil and the Dems. He did pretty good! So did Clinton for that matter. He was forced to get along with Newt Gingrich. Together, they kept the economy on track in the 90s.
Look what happens when you have one party controlling both the Presidency and Congress. Think of Jimmy Carter and George W. Need I say more?
This isn't a bad question! Very intelligent.
2006-11-09 18:03:45 · answer #2 · answered by Ed A 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As neither a Democrat nor a Republican I will give my two cents worth. The more diverse the better! Diversity is really a good thing and can strengthen things. When any one group has a majority it always makes the other group feel a bit uncomfortable. I believe checks and balances are necessary and have not been happening. However, wasn't there a Dem congress when Clinton took office and in 1994 it was voted out?????
2006-11-09 18:02:47 · answer #3 · answered by ThinkingMan2006 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I don't think any one party controlling everything is good for the country! I think Bush has proved that rather well as that is the way he has had it all of his presidency!!
But then, I don't want to see where everything is so muddled that nothing can get through, which had a great chance of happening if the Dems' also didn't control the senate as well! It will be hard for Bush to get any of his agenda passed, and that person he nominated for the UN Post is going to be gone! He'll never push him through!
The other thing I think Bush needs to understand is that he is not going to be able to count on votes from even the Republicans, especially if they know it will just be brought up again when the Dems take office! They aren't going to risk appointments for a lame duck president who is dead in the water!
2006-11-09 18:02:35 · answer #4 · answered by cantcu 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
After watching what a GOP controlled government has done the past several years, I don't ever want to see one party dominate like that again. I'm happy the dems won both the Senate and the House this year, but I would have been content if there had been a split. I just hope both parties can learn to put aside differences and do whats right for America.
Good question btw.
2006-11-09 18:05:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Whether you're Democrat or Republican, Democracy works best when balance is maintained between the Executive Office, Congress and the Judicial Branch. An all Democrat or all Republican government benefits no one, and historically has resulted in abuse of power.
2006-11-09 18:15:35 · answer #6 · answered by Hemingway 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Since I agree with the democrats stances on issues more then republicans, I wouldn't really mind. that is in theory. But I believe if any one party gets to much control, they deviate from their core values and start to abuse their power. I think republicans have done this for the last 6 years. For example government spending is out of control when the republican ideology is supposed to be for less spending.
So if the democrats really retain their integrity, I wouldn't mind, but I don't think they would. I would actually support more parties to create more diverse opinions and more checks.
2006-11-09 18:05:01 · answer #7 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Interesting. Like most Americans, I don't fully trust any politician of any political stripe (been burned too many times, so to speak), so I am most comfortable with gridlock, with neither party being in complete control.
That being said, I would be slightly more comfortable with Democrats in power than Republicans in power, simply because the extremists on the right side of the aisle scare me more than the extremists on the left side of the aisle. Every now and then, the moderates need to throw the extremists a bone to keep them in the party. When that happens with the Republicans in power, we get a amendment proposals forbidding homosexuals from marriage (thus denying homosexual couples the same secular benefits as heterosexual couples), flag-burning amendments (waste of time!), greater and greater restrictions on the right to choose, attacking Title IX, funding cuts to Title X, abstinence-only sex education, pushing for pharmacists "right" to refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions, undermining environmental protection laws, funnelling (sp?) more money into religious social charities, killing habeas corpus, disregarding the Geneva Convention, etc., etc.
2006-11-09 18:24:18 · answer #8 · answered by sparky52881 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
OK now we could get moving.With a fully Democratic Government. We wouldn't have to constantly keep fighting to save voting rights (Voting rights! I thought that was settled when I was a kid) or abortion rights, We could start doing some good new stuff like how about and increase in the minimum wage. How about some serious attention to alternative energy/global warming (it was 78 degrees here in Nebraska yesterday IN NOVEMBER IT SHOULD BE SNOWING ) A fix for social security not a gutting of it, too many people depend on it. Medicare too. plus some reform of our health care system (single payer too much to ask for?)
We would not have to be constantly fighting to keep church and state separate. We could repeal some/most of the offensive parts of the Patriot act. Instead of hassling Librarians we could let them do their jobs.
Oh we could do alot of things. Just relax and enjoy the ride.
We'd need to reinstate the estate tax. Just as a matter of basic fairness. We will tax people who don't need money. DEAD PEOPLE. You can't take it with you, you stingy greed heads!
2006-11-09 18:10:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think the balance is ultimately necessary. There are some Republicans that I've voted for myself and think have done really well. It's never a good idea in my opinion for one group to have total control -that's when power starts to be corrupted and people get manipulated. Dissenting opinions and arguments are necessary for change/progress.
2006-11-09 18:05:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋