Republican President with a Republican Congress and Senate...This would end all the division and in fighting..It would also make for a much better country
2007-03-01 11:12:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
5⤋
Maybe, I dont know. I would say you are right. As long as the Dem is not a typical Democrat leader. Not an Obama or a Hillary. We need someone else. Maybe a Dem President would not be a bad thing. But I have not seen a good candidate yet for them. The Reps are not doing much better. Right now, I am looking at Romney. Maybe Romney with a Rep Senate and a Dem House would be a perfect match. Romney is conservative in some areas and liberal in others, especially in economic areas, where the bills start in the House.
2007-03-01 19:58:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by Daniel 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, my ideal world would be a dem president and a dem congress, but the last time we had that was back in 1994 before the republicans took over congress. So...if I had to pick, I believe I would have to agree with you, a dem president and a repub congress.
As we have it now, a repub prez and a dem congress, is also good, because they have actually gotten meaningful legislation passed, i.e. unionizing, minimum wage, etc., unlike with the repub congress trying to drill in the ANWR or making gay marriage unconstitutional...
For whatever it's worth, it'll be interesting to see how things turn out in 2008!
2007-03-07 00:00:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by JoJo 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Another refreshingly intelligent question. I am a Republican, but I have to admit that the better balance is to have a Democratic Presisent and a Republican Congress. I'm not sure why this is, but (and I HATE to admit this) when Bill Clinton was president and Congress was just about split even, I brought home more each week on my paycheck. Seems that Clinton really DID care about the little guy. Since Bush has been in office (and I HATE to admit this,too), this has not been so. Of course, there is this Iraq conflict going on. Too bad Clinton can't be in office again. Or will she?
2007-03-01 20:13:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by 4everamusedw/humanity 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
We have a two party system. That is unlikely to change. We, as voters, have to choose the lesser of two evils. Clinton did a much better job a Pres. than George W. is doing, even with the Whitewater mess, and the Lewinsky thing. He had to deal with a Republican Congress. Libertarians are just fast right wing Republicans, so they do not count.
So, Dem with a Republican Congress.
2007-03-06 19:25:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You have seen for the past 2 terms of this administrations what a Republican leader can do on HIS OWN. Now let that be a lesson for us. And he had the almost full backing of the Republican party. "Strength in numbers". They were preserving their party.
We need attention given too the majority of the country and solve the health issues, employment, environment, drugs, abortion, of the working class. And that will come from the Democratic party.
The Republican party wants us to live under their laws. But they place the dues and membership requirements too high.
We can see every day how the world is changing.
If your going to base your vote on your party only, then you have an underlying and personal reason, rather than basing your vote on what he can and will do for the country as a whole.
We have a long way to go...Good Luck"!!!
2007-03-06 13:29:32
·
answer #6
·
answered by dVille 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would choose a republican President with a democratic congress and enough of a majority to get sixty votes in the Senate. I would rather see programs for Americans than my tax dollars being spent on this conflict in Iraq. The Dem's are less apt to go to war and are more concerned with the well being of America instead of the instant capability to support a full scale invasion. Republican Presidents actually spend more while in office, so it might as well be for the betterment of America instead of war.
2007-03-01 19:29:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Clinton did alright with the Republican congress, whereas Bush seems to just pout and demand that he gets his way, and Reagan spent us into debt so bad that there is the looming cloud of depression hovering over the future of the US. I'll say Dem president with Repub congress.
2007-03-01 19:13:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by I'll Take That One! 4
·
3⤊
1⤋
If a Dem president with a Repub congress can still invade a town in Texas and fire-bomb civilians using military hardware, then vise versa.
2007-03-01 19:15:46
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
It depends on the Democrat, I think. If the Democrat is one who is strong on defense, then absolutely. If not, then we need a Republican (only if they're strong on defense) in the White House, with a Democratic congress.
2007-03-01 19:23:48
·
answer #10
·
answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
A Dem president and Dem congress. The reps have proved that they are incompetent and corrupt.
2007-03-01 19:13:23
·
answer #11
·
answered by Al Dave Ismail 7
·
2⤊
2⤋