TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › An interesting interview...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

An interesting interview...

post #1 of 12
10/30/08 at 11:13am
Thread Starter 
This is from NPR's "Talk of the Nation." The subject is "divided rule," meaning the legislature and the White House under the control of different parties.

The Perverse Voter

The writer shows historical evidence that government makes the biggest mistakes when all three (House, Senate, White House) are under the control of one party, and makes the best progress when the power is divided. His thesis is that when one party is in power, it tends to govern from the center of that party, but when the power is split, it tends to govern from the center of the political spectrum, where most Americans opinion actually falls.
Reply
post #2 of 12
10/30/08 at 12:47pm
Bush had all 3 for the first 6 years of his term and the public got sick of that policy after a while. It looks like the Dems will have all 3 with this election, and the public will get sick of that after a while. But I really think that it's the fallout from the Bush administration that is swinging things the other way right now. The penduleum always swings back and forth.
Reply
post #3 of 12
10/30/08 at 1:04pm
Makes sense to me.

As bad as Bush and Congress have been, an Obama administration with a Democratically controlled House and Senate, led by the likes of fools like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Ried and Barney Frank- that's the stuff nightmares are made of. The federal government will be bigger than ever before.
Reply
post #4 of 12
10/30/08 at 1:14pm
And the military will be shrunk down to pea sized. No wonder all the muslim extremist groups are praying Obama wins.
Reply
post #5 of 12
10/30/08 at 3:39pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
Bush had all 3 for the first 6 years of his term and the public got sick of that policy after a while. It looks like the Dems will have all 3 with this election, and the public will get sick of that after a while. But I really think that it's the fallout from the Bush administration that is swinging things the other way right now. The penduleum always swings back and forth.
That's true, and some GOOD things have come out of 1-party rule, too. But usually it takes a return to 2-party rule to mitigate the worst of it all.

Our government is always healthiest when the party in power changes on a regular basis.
Reply
post #6 of 12
11/1/08 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Our government is always healthiest when the party in power changes on a regular basis.
There's been next to no discussion of the Congressional races in IMO, which I find a bit bluffing. It seems as if few people here are concerned that the anti-neocon backlash might cost some moderate and effective Republicans their seats, especially since many newly registered voters may be apt to vote straight tickets for simplicity's sake. The "demonizing" of Obama is probably exacerbating the contrariness many Bush administration opponents feel, and may ultimately prove to be very counter-productive for the GOP as a whole.
Reply
post #7 of 12
11/1/08 at 2:33pm
Thread Starter 
If people do what some are encouraging them to do, which is to vote a straight Democratic ticket, it could have sweeping effects if the vote is as large for Obama as some think it will be. It could change the make-up of state legislatures, school boards, etc., all of which have much more of an effect on our daily lives than who sits in the Oval Office.
Reply
post #8 of 12
11/2/08 at 10:44am
I think the "demonizing" by both sides is even.
Reply
post #9 of 12
11/3/08 at 9:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
And the military will be shrunk down to pea sized. No wonder all the muslim extremist groups are praying Obama wins.
Not sure where you're getting your information, but I just read a very interesting article dated July 1, 2008 titled Obama's Evolving Foreign Policy.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/dreyfuss

Two quotes from that article on Obama's ideas on the military.

Quote:
Even as he pledges to end the war in Iraq, Obama promises to increase Pentagon spending, boost the size of the Army and Marines, bolster the Special Forces, expand intelligence agencies and maintain the hundreds of US military bases that dot the globe. He supports a muscular multilateralism that includes NATO expansion, and according to the Times of London, his advisers are pushing him to ask Defense Secretary Robert Gates to stay on in an Obama administration. Though he is against the idea of the United States imposing democracy abroad, Obama does propose a sweeping nation-building and democracy-promotion program, including strengthening the controversial National Endowment for Democracy and constructing a civil-military apparatus that would deploy to rescue and rebuild failed and failing states in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
Quote:
In the Senate and in his presidential campaign, Obama has supported the addition of 65,000 troops to the Army and 27,000 to the Marines. He backed the latest round of NATO enlargement into Eastern Europe, and according to Denis McDonough, his top adviser on foreign policy, he supports granting Membership Action Plans for Ukraine and Georgia; the latter, especially, is considered deeply threatening by the Russian leadership and could undermine negotiations with a resurgent and increasingly self-confident Moscow on a number of critical issues, including Iran and nuclear disarmament. Obama is open to talks that would establish formal ties between NATO, Australia and New Zealand. His call for the expansion of the Special Forces would empower the most aggressively interventionist of the Pentagon's units, and he wants to spend more money on reserve units and the National Guard.
To keep this on topic, I don't know how I feel about one party having all the power. It didn't work very well with the Republicans. Maybe we need to see what the Democrats can do.
Reply
post #10 of 12
11/3/08 at 10:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
The "demonizing" of Obama is probably exacerbating the contrariness many Bush administration opponents feel, and may ultimately prove to be very counter-productive for the GOP as a whole.
As irritating as that mindless blather has been I think Bush's bungling is the primary reason for the sinking of the GOP.
Reply
post #11 of 12
11/3/08 at 11:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty8723 View Post
Not sure where you're getting your information, but I just read a very interesting article dated July 1, 2008 titled Obama's Evolving Foreign Policy.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/dreyfuss

Two quotes from that article on Obama's ideas on the military.





To keep this on topic, I don't know how I feel about one party having all the power. It didn't work very well with the Republicans. Maybe we need to see what the Democrats can do.
I got it, from right out of Obama's mouth. The man wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the head

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE

And just listen to the illustrious Fannie-Freddi Crook, Barney Franks, he just said last week, military is getting cut 25% with a Barack presidency.

THANKS Barney
Reply
post #12 of 12
11/3/08 at 11:38am
I would agree with the concept that splitting power keeps the country in the middle and is therefore preferable to giving EITHER party a ticket to run in the direction of their choice with no checks or balances, except that in recent years the partisan politicking has been more about blocking than it has been about getting anything done. It's like we're in the middle of the ocean and go a few feet in one direction just to turn back and do the same in a slightly different direction. We're going nowhere and it's costing a lot of effort to do it too.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › An interesting interview...