One party controlling Congress and the Presidency, and having nobody to answer to, or one party controlling Congress and the other controlling the Presidency and getting nothing done? I think the second would be better if our country could learn to work together for a change. Although I know Obama lacks experience and has a very slim chance of winning the Presidency because of that, I do admire his stance on ending partisanship. I wish whoever was elected would pledge to try to do the same. As frustrated as I was before January, I am just as frustrated now with the gridlock and lack of doing anything.
2007-03-13 05:10:38 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Gridlock is less damaging in the short term but nothing ever changes.. and therefor eventually a nation will deteriorate.... but yeah.. the partisan bickering has got to go.
2007-03-13 05:14:28 · answer #1 · answered by pip 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
There has always been gridlock in Washington. I do not believe in passing leglislation for legislation's sake. The merits of the bills that come before Congress should be weighed by our elected officials.
2007-03-13 12:21:56 · answer #2 · answered by hgherron2 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You can never impart bipartisan actions onto a centralized Federal Democracy. Only through increased states' sovereignty and decreased federal autonomy can bipartisanship be achieved. Also, de-centralizing the government out of Washington D.C. and into regional centers would go far in achieving the breakthrough we so desperately need.
2007-03-13 12:18:53 · answer #3 · answered by Jim from the Midwest 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are all liberals stupid like you. Hilary is trash with no stance as she flip flops and tries to make herself be this and that, and Obama won't say anything he stands for. Congress is now controlled by Dems right? Dems are the laziest people in this country and unless it's given to them on a silver platter, they don't do anything. They told you if they get in office, we would do that and this and so forth and yet as usual the do nothing. Liberals are bottom feeders of the lowest form that the world would be better off without.
2007-03-13 12:18:03 · answer #4 · answered by InTheWright 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Overall I think laws tend to be more harmful than beneficial, so I believe gridlock is good for the country.
2007-03-13 12:22:37 · answer #5 · answered by Vegan 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I prefer divided government. The government is by nature incompetent. Therefore the less the government can accomplish the better off the country is in the long run.
2007-03-13 12:13:35 · answer #6 · answered by JHE123 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I like the idea of unity '08. having a rep run with a dem- or another third party. I don't know if that will ever happen and I don't think we have a procedure for inter-party campaigns
2007-03-13 12:14:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I concur. We need to move to a direct democracy, whereby the people make the decisions. But with our country so divided over so many issues, it could get ugly. As if it already isn't.
2007-03-13 12:14:48 · answer #8 · answered by dopeadevil23 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Steve, you can't be so naive as to believe that partisanship would end with the election of a half-white candidate with a muslim name.
2007-03-13 12:20:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I think the worst would be taking God out... the commercial that "beeps" every time a speaker says "God" in a speech is only a preview...
2007-03-13 12:14:10 · answer #10 · answered by lily 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋