I think so. We need Checks and Balances. I don't trust both parties.
2007-03-25 10:59:53 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You have what you call Republican whatever it's name is in the White House at the presence, that has completely dilapidated the Presidency, Put Rudy in there , he can move another mistress in the same apartment in the White House quarters along with his 3 time married wife next door. Try 70 year old has been McCain are whatever you have or going to have because right now you have nothing running for the Republican Party President. Who are you going to get to run, tell me I'd love to know.
2007-03-25 11:16:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The best combination is a Conservative President Democratic House and balanced Senate.
We have 2 of the 3 now all we need is a Conservative President.
Go big Red Go
2007-03-25 11:28:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Checks and balances is NOT what you are implying--two party governance. Checks and balances are between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government so one branch does not have too much power.
The current administration has been working on DESTROYING checks and balances as well as the Constitution.
It shouldn't be about PARTY; it should be about doing what's RIGHT for the people of this country.
2007-03-25 11:06:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Yes, technically Lincoln was a Republican, but by today's standards he'd be considered beyond liberal. Just because one republican does something good doesn't mean you can all take credit for it.
I don't like either parties anyway.
2007-03-25 11:16:29 · answer #4 · answered by Joe S 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends entirely who that republican is.
We have good bills that need to be passed, such as stem cell research, that can't get past Bush, but are supported by many republican candidates.
Given how partisan the republican party is of late, though, I'd feel more comfortable with a centrist democrat, of which a number have been coming to power in the western states. (See: Salazar, Ritter, etc) Salazar, for example, recently veto'd a pro-union bill with overwhelming democratic support.
2007-03-25 11:04:34 · answer #5 · answered by William S 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
not necessarily.
the republican party rubber stamp congress and the bush administration need to be answered for.
if the democratic congress can't make it happen, the american people will by never voting republican again.
republicans need to understand that just because they can tie up the congress that doesnt' mean that they will ever will be elected to office again.
republicans need to answer for their crimes and alocute why they have done what they have done before the american people - whether in congress under oath or not - before many will ever vote republican ever again.
2007-03-25 11:03:24 · answer #6 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. I think that we would be much better if we had reasonable members of congress and a president who were capable of working together to improve the well being of our country, to stop the occupation of Iraq, and to solve problems at home instead of the battle of failed ideas that now embroils us in Iraq.
2007-03-25 11:06:16 · answer #7 · answered by Sailinlove 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Here's a novel idea - why not cap political contributions and campaign spending at $10,000 and scrap the Electoral College? Then REAL Americans - independents - can become President.
Do the same at the next mid-terms, but cap political contributions and campaign spending at $5,000.
2007-03-25 11:14:03 · answer #8 · answered by lesroys 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Republican: Party of Lincoln.
2007-03-25 11:03:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well, we tried a Full Republican, you see where that got us, And now that they are out of power, see how they block everything that's brought up, so let try a demo congress and president...if we don't like it, we can change the congress in 2 years!!
2007-03-25 11:05:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋