Okay, the Democratic Congress is making up for lost time investigating pretty much everything the Bush Administration has done in the last 6 years. Do you agree that it would be much more efficient, and less time wasted catching up, if the opposite party runs Congress from the beginning? Like if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, the Republicans should run Congress and vice versa?
I am just looking for your opinion, please no bashing of either side or the President. I think the same thing would be happening if the parties were reversed.
2007-03-24 03:22:09 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, I do agree with you. But not on the time wasted catching up. It's more like time wasted trying to make the other party look bad.
I also think that the best for the country is when the opposite party from the president has the majority in congress. A little bit of checks and balances that way.
2007-03-24 03:39:31 · answer #1 · answered by Tara 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In theory it's a good idea, because it's the only way to really ensure that our system of checks and balances works. However, to mandate this would also be to take away the rights of the people to choose their own elected officials. Congress is run by the majority party. If you say that the majority party MUST be opposite whatever party is running the Executive branch, you are telling the people they cannot choose their own representation in Congress.
2007-03-24 10:33:44 · answer #2 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, the Democrats are investigating everything for the sake of the investigation. It is like playing chess, the Democrats think they can stop the President from full filling his agenda buy keeping him in check with investigations. The only problem with the strategy is that the voters in this country are sick and tires of their Democrats and their stupid childish games.
2007-03-24 10:27:15 · answer #3 · answered by Delphi 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Disagree. The government should be at the will of the people and if the people elect the same party for all areas that is how it should be. An obligatory shift in power is wrong and takes away from our election process.
2007-03-24 10:28:45 · answer #4 · answered by JFra472449 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nothing would get accomplished either way. Politics in DC has become about revenge attack and counterattacks. We the people have lost because Washington policy makers are worse the vicious middle school girls.
2007-03-24 10:40:27 · answer #5 · answered by Mother 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it's practical. It takes away the basic right of the people to elect officials to represent them.
2007-03-24 10:27:23 · answer #6 · answered by Aimee B 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope. You'd have to rewrite the Constitution. There's been enough of that WITHOUT breaking out the pens.
2007-03-24 10:27:21 · answer #7 · answered by Michael E 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
nothing would ever get done at all, we need to elect more moderates and far less radicals
2007-03-24 10:27:44 · answer #8 · answered by jpknute1 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋