If they nominate Huckabee or Romney forget it. They have to find someone new or anyone who will get away from the abortion issue. They run on that and it will be another loss. Sarah will support whoever they pick or this will be her last hurrah.
Dream GOP Candidate for Obama in 2012?
- Thread starter Bar Sinister
- Start date
If they nominate Huckabee or Romney forget it. They have to find someone new or anyone who will get away from the abortion issue. They run on that and it will be another loss. Sarah will support whoever they pick or this will be her last hurrah.
Democrats cannot get anything passed because Republicans have 41 votes in Senate and they block anything Democrats try to pass.
However, you can be sure that Democrats will remember, and when Senate goes into Republican hands (as will inevitably happen at some stage), Republicans won’t be able to get anything passed either.
American political system is broken, big time.
Any good legislator can get something passed thru opposition, that is why they have back room deals. They still have a majority for some things, maybe even the health bill after all they did have a couple of Independents and one Republican. Obama just has to compromise a little.
What was the Democratic strategy during eight years of Bush? It was to oppose everything Republicans proposed and then blame Republicans for not doing anything.
Now Republicans are adopting the same strategy. If next election Republicans win the senate, Democrats will return the favour.
For a party to get anything through the opposition there must be a will to compromise on both sides. These days there is no will to compromise, on either side. It probably will go on for a long time like this, before a solution is found for the impasse.
That's ridiculous - it's the same system that's been around for a long time.
You're just miffed because your idol isn't smart enough to know how to do deals effectively. Your extreme liberalism is showing...stamp your feet, cry that the world is unfair, and of course, that the sky is falling...all because your saviour doesn't have enough experience in actually getting things done (vs. just talking about them). All this whining about a "poisoned system" is sheer nonsense. You should find a more realistic way to express your frustration with the novice president, currently engaged in a very difficult on-the-job training program.
President Obama may be (slowly) coming to the realization that he has screwed up in a large way, but is he smart enough to recover from it? Time will tell. It will certainly require more than a few stirring speeches to get it done.
Sure the system has been around for a long time, but it has been abused only in recent years.
Filibuster used to be rarely used in the past. These days it is used for each and every bill, without exception. During Bush era, Democrats used filibuster routinely, now Republicans are doing the same.
There are things that are done traditionally, if one disregards tradition, the system breaks down.
Look at our system. Senate has fully as many powers and House does, yet senate chooses not to exercise the powers, because they are not elected. But suppose tomorrow they decided to exert those powers (reject the laws passed by the House, propose laws on its own, get into contentious fights with the House etc.), then what will happen? Canadian political system will have broken down.
Or consider the Notwithstanding Clause. It is generally accepted that it must be used sparingly; only in emergencies (federal government has never used it).
Now, suppose a PM with majority in the House decides to use it every time Courts rule against him. We will essentially have a dictatorship by the PM; the system will have broken down.
It is the same thing with the filibuster in the Senate. It was a tool to be used sparingly. In recent years, both Democrats and Republicans have been using it as a matter of routine. The system has broken down.
Interestingly, when Republicans were in control, they were thinking of getting rid of the filibuster. It wouldn’t surprise me if they do get rid of the filibuster the next time they control the Senate. And that may be a good thing.
I have a feeling that you wouldn't be complaining as much of a "system breakdown" if liberals were behind the reasons for it. In that scenario, it would simply be an effective utlization of the processes available, right?
I don't know what you mean by that. But in Canada, if a Liberal PM were to use Notwithstanding Clause to override a court decision, I would be vehemently opposed to it.
Any democracy, any system of government depends upon some traditions, not everything is written down in black and white (perhaps it should be). If somebody unilaterally disregards the traditions, that leads to the breakdown of the system.
Exactly right....But the extreme left leadership tried to ram through a bill where the government would control everything without realizing that the US is not Europe and the population is not yet ready for their Progressive agenda....probably never will be......hence that grass root movement called the tea party.
Here's what I said: "I have a feeling that you wouldn't be complaining as much of a "system breakdown" if liberals were behind the reasons for it. In that scenario, it would simply be an effective utlization of the processes available, right?"
I used the word "liberals" but should have said "Democrats" as your main point was that the U.S. political system is broken. However, my use of the word liberal could be applied to either side of the border. My point was simple: Your judgement of whether or not a system is broken is influenced and/or clouded by your extreme political leanings, thus removing any possibility of an objective assessement.
Tradition, that is a very British thing used many times in the House of Commons and something Canada also tries to follow. Filibuster is part of most political systems, and at times a very powerful tool. We may not like it when it is being used against something we think important, but it is what it is. A "Liberal" PM, even a President or Congress can go against Supreme Court decisions. In order to do that the law must be changed and even then that new law must be approved by the Supreme Court. To quote judge Dredd "The Law is the Law".
Dem Congressman Barney Frank is one of the lead members trying to change the fillibuster...and is also a hypocrite. During the Bush years Barney Frank to the lead opposition and tried to fillibuster Bush's judicial nominees and was called a hero around these parts for doing so.
Now he wants to change it. :roll:
"Democrats cannot get anything passed because Republicans have 41 votes in Senate and they block anything Democrats try to pass."
It would be well to remember that for over a year the Democrats had a filibuster-proof Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House.
It would be well to remember that for over a year the Democrats had a filibuster-proof Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House.
Another Obama appointment: Barney Frank was part of the Mortgage failure and now he trying to get us out of it. Obama put the Fox's back in the hen house so to speak.
Someday, someone will have to post a tutorial on how to quote and multi quote....maybe I will but not written by me:lol:
Actually, that's not a bad idea...I have a bit of trouble figuring out the multi-quote thing...
I did find a couple of instruction videos I will post them in a different thread.
I found a couple of very interesting shortcuts in them that I didn't know about....