Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Danzig
it's generally the party not in power that starts talking about wanting to be bi-partisan. of course the majority party says 'sure, we'll try' and they do no more in that regard then their opposition did when they were the majority. in reality, otherwise there would be no reason to have a party 'in control', if you're the majority-of course you're going to have more things go your way when you're in control. and since one would have to assume the majority of voters wanted that party in power, then you'd have to think voters aren't necessarily striving for bi-partisanship either. they gave control to the dems for a reason i would think... supposedly our system is set up so that no one gets too powerful-and i think for the most part that is the case.
as for who hates who more, we could spend all day playing tit for tat on any issue regarding left vs right-it would all come out equal in the end. because, at the end of the day, these guys are pols first and last. lieberman and specter prove that point.
|
This is poor logic. People dont vote for the entire govt, just their own jurisdiction. The party in power is supposed to be representing the entire citizenship of the country and when bills are passed that dont have a single vote from the opposition party they most certainly are ignoring a large segment of that citizenship. Implying that people are "whining" when major and far reaching legislation is passed time and time again on strict party lines shows a distinct partisanship in itself. Knocking Bush or the GOP doesnt make what the Democrats are doing right or healthy for the country. Labeling the GOP obstructionists when they dont roll over is shows a certain amount of ignorance. The party in charge has the responsibility to reachout in a bipartisan manner, not the minority. Duh!