With the likelyhood that Democrats will retain the majority in congress are we better of with a Republican President? With the exception of the current situation, the country has run fairly well with the power split up (ex. Reagan and a Dem Congress and Clinton with a Republican Congress). Thoughts?
2007-12-21 05:31:56 · 12 answers · asked by crzsrfr 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Any time the government becomes gridlocked across party lines and can't interfere with the economy or our personal lives, the whole country is a lot better off!
2007-12-21 05:40:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
As long as one branch remains to balance the power it's fine. The problem with 6 of the last 7 years is that one party had all 3 branches. Well the Republicans will have the Judicial Branch for several years now... so vote as many Democrats into Congress and the Presidency as you want :)
2007-12-21 13:46:28 · answer #2 · answered by pip 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Does a bear sh!t in the woods?
We need a system that allows something for everyone. Any time you have a one-party state, you're close to dictatorship.
That said, I'd prefer a Dem. POTUS and a Dem. Congress. Yes, I know we now have a Dem. Congress. The trouble with the current U.S. situation is that we still haven't got a Congress that will stand up to BushCo. The Dems currently in there need to stop appeasing BushCo and kick its @ss.
2007-12-21 13:47:25 · answer #3 · answered by catrionn 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You liked it a lot when the republicans controlled the white house and congress, huh? If the republicans had shared power maybe it would happen, but guess what, democrats ain't going to let it happen. You think Pelosi and Reid are a problem? Wait for the next batch of real democrats.
2007-12-21 13:41:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Bush and his party are the most incompetent and corrupt administration in the history of the republic.
Four more years of a Republican President will lead us down the same road as the Soviet Union, bogged down in an unwinnable war while living on Chinese credit.
Perhaps you see bankruptcy as a noble end for the United States.
I do not.
2007-12-21 13:41:25 · answer #5 · answered by Citizen1984 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A balance of power is essential between the branches of government. It is too bad that over the last several years that balance has erroded. To have a balance it is not necessary for one party to dominate one branch and the other party the other but each has a specific role as stated in the Constitution and they need to stick with their roles and not try to usurp the role of the other.
2007-12-21 14:04:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps. I know that during the Clinton administration, the republican congress made it possible to block most of Clinton's damaging initiatives and as a result, it was like having no president at all. And the country flourished. Pretty cool, huh?
2007-12-21 13:37:57 · answer #7 · answered by The emperor has no clothes 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
QUESTION: Is a balance of power desirable between Congress and the President?
ANSWER: Not as far as President Bush is concerned it's not.
2007-12-21 13:42:50 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Maybe if we had that back in 2001 we would have gotten an honest investigation into 911! Instead of the whitewash of the 911 commission report!
2007-12-21 13:41:47 · answer #9 · answered by Jeff S 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There is already a balance of power no matter which party controls which branch. No one of the three branches is more powerful than the other regardless of party.
2007-12-21 13:44:17 · answer #10 · answered by mbush40 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋