I had hoped that, despite the fact that I'm not a Democrat (not a Republican either) the Dems winning the house and Senate would have ended some of the bickering. Looks like this is not the case.
Partisan politics are tearing this country apart. We shouldn't elect people just because of certain issues. We should elect representatives that have serve our best interests (even if we don't quite agree with them.) Saying that, our representatives should do what is right by us, rather than what is popular with their "party."
2007-03-29 13:40:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by This Is Me Being Grumpy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
While Ronald Reagan was known as the "Great Communicator" among other affectionate nicknames, and captured the hearts of many in the opposition electorate, I can't remember a more polarizing political figure in my lifetime.
I agree that his background in film, TV, and radio gave him considerable polish. His presidency of the Screen Actors Guild union, experience as a Democrat before becoming a Republican, and trial by fire in California politics combined to broaden his appeal. A resume' like that does not come easy, and it equipped him with many tools we may never see the like of again. They don't make 'em like that any more, and his fatherly manner is missed by voters across the political spectrum, including myself.
In comparison, his successors GHW Bush (too aloof), B Clinton (too young), and GW Bush (too stubborn) could not capture America's hearts, and have fallen easy prey to the ploys of the opposition parties.
I agree that we could use another likable guy at the helm, but times have changed too much for another Gipper. There isn't the same massive government bureaucracy to shrink, no Berlin Wall to tear down, no Soviet juggernaut, and world trade is no longer a pipe dream, but a nightmare. Despite our being the best place to live, fewer abroad see us as a shining city on the hill.
I'm not sure our 40th president would be as proud of his legacy as those who miss him. I think he would have been saddened by our weakened federal response to hurricane Katrina, disappointed at the political walls to US influence being erected around the globe, shocked by the collapse and black marketeering of Soviet nuclear technology, and mystified by the economic polarization and exploitation of global commerce. His vision was mezmerizing, but it did not see far enough.
As far as congressional bickering goes, it will be a permanent fixture in our marriage to the two party system as long as there is no clear majority. These parties live to destroy each others' hard work, because the ideologies have been flung further apart since Reagan's day. The claim that "government is the problem" never settled any scores in Washington, and never will.
I miss the man too, but for different reasons. He was fun to watch. He simplified life as we knew it. When Daddy was home, we spent less time worrying about each other and more time thinking about ourselves. Now the distraction is over and the Potemkin Village is looking a little shabby around the edges.
I think its time to move forward to balance and compromise, not backward to confrontation. Everyone knew when we watched "Happy Days" that the 50s were over. The 80s are, too.
2007-03-29 22:40:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by James 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
The only real thing you need to do to get elected in this country is to tell folks what to fear and who is responsible. It is the old fear/hate cycle. Push the right buttons and everyone willing to be identified with you becomes a monster willing to push anyone else out. This is the catalyst which led to the more recent polarization in the United States. For six years I've been ridiculed, chided, spat at, openly hated, and called names like "Liberal" and "Democrat." I've been hunted and hounded by people who say, "If you'd just wake up, we could be healed as a nation." Reconciliation doesn't come pouring out of the point of a gun. Healing and forgiveness doesn't come from being threatened. Polarization?
I was born in this country. It is my home. I was given to believe that we had a democratic republic which defended free speech and freedom of the press. My parents taught me that Americans were like a family.... We might get pretty scrappy in our debates between one another... but to folks on the outside, we'd pull together and work as a unit.
We're now 400 billion dollars in debt for a pre-emptive war with a country who had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack. Between the no-bid contracts and torture camps around the world, we've sparked the largest recruitment campaign of terrorists against Americans than at any time in our history. CIA leaks, unauthorized wire taps, manipulation of the judicial system to further promote a political agenda, and... more than 3,000 lives of American service personnel lost to promote an agenda that the current administration has yet to clearly define. I'm told by my republican "friends" that we are polarized because I'm blind to the facts and too ignorant to call myself an American.
How do the Grateful dead words go? "Get to the point. You don't know how I feel. You don't know how I feel."
2007-03-30 00:05:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by Olde Spy 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Regan help to polarize the nation also.
He worked to break the unions and finish off money for college students.
Not to mention it was his administration that trained and supplied a group of Freedom Fighters in Afganistan to fight the Russians.
The same freedom fighters who, led by Ossam bin Laden, thanked us on 9-11-01.
We are polarized. We have an extremist president who only quotes the bible when it is convenient. And calls all who disagree with home unpatriotic.
So much for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and separation of church and state.
2007-03-29 23:49:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by mrw18661966 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
Oh yeah.
Remember, democracy (in any form, even a democratic republic like we have) only works as long as everyone is willing to abide by the decisions of the majority. We can barely do that, and it's getting worse daily. And we've had 230 years practice.
How can we expect to enforce this model of govt on anyone else, especially a country that is rife with sectarian hatred.
2007-03-29 20:42:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Americans need another Reagan to unite the bickering politicians and improve the American patriotic stand against international issues.
2007-03-29 20:35:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
we need someone who will stand up for the little guys while still respecting the big ones...Reagan really was great because we had a pressing national issue with the Soviets and he brought the country together on that...
2007-03-29 21:01:15
·
answer #7
·
answered by Justin B 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
We are in a fight of good vs. evil. Before, most people did not know what is going on, and it was roughly 51%-49% good, but evil still won out through stealing the elections. Now, because people are realizing things, it is 70%-30% on the side of good, and we are working on ridding ourselves of the evil in power.
Why would we need Reagan? He started this evil, but was small scale compared to the Bush Crime Family.
Listed to Air America Radio, www.airamericaradio.com, if you want to find out what is really going on. Not that Fox "News" garbage or drug addict Rush Limp-baugh.
2007-03-30 01:40:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by Alan S 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
As long as Dubya is President, don't expect the bickering to end, he is a far right demagogue with competence issues, something to prove and no capacity to prove it, and a staff of people I do not trust, who most definitely thrive on division in spite of Dubya's claim to be "A uniter not a divider". Uniter my foot!
2007-03-29 21:36:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by Jorge D 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
... without the debt surge brought on by his administration. we need someone that can unite on (or within) a budget.
in his administration the rich got richer and the poor got poorer and the middle class shrunk ... that we can do without as well.
otherwise, i miss the ol' gipper!
2007-03-29 20:41:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by ... 7
·
1⤊
0⤋