I guess that was why it was so important for the US that the new Iraqi government have Sunni and Kurdish representation even though the Sunnis make up only about 20% of the population and the Kurds about 15%. Leaving historical examples aside though when the Republicans controlled all three portions of elected government with sizable majorities would you have been fine then with that majority running roughshod over the minority party?
I think Deckard is a fair bit to the left of my views and probably Major's views to, nothing wrong with that. For the record I am not a Democrat either.
Lets not forget the SS retirement age was also set about a year or two before the average life expectancy.
I can't believe a guy as smart as Gibbs made a blunder of that magnitude. It's simply not something you say, even if you think it's true. Why give the RNC, their media, their talking heads, and all the rest ammunition? I haven't listened to Limbaugh recently, but I can imagine the talk now is about how the Democrats are running scared, as evidenced by the comment of Gibbs. That's an unfair comment and not true, in my opinion, but perception can be everything in politics. Gibbs helped give the perception that the Democrats believe they will lose in November. His words will be parsed with a microscope to attempt to find some "wiggle room" in his comment, and it will be said that he "was misunderstood," but the damage is done. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Pelosi and company didn't demand his head on a platter. If Gibbs keeps his job, it won't be because the Democratic Congress wants him there, not after this. That's a shame, because I like the guy and think he was doing a good job... until now.
Or it could be that Gibbs was using a bit of reverse psychology to get dems riled up about the mid terms. That’s the way I perceived it.
Several Dem strategists actually think this is a very smart and intentional move. The idea is that, right now, people are making protest votes. They aren't happy, so it's a "throw the bums out" mentality. The idea is to create consequences to the vote. People still really don't like the GOP. It's easy to just make a "I hate incumbents" vote. But if there's a more clear consequence - the GOP could gain control - it may make voters think twice and actually realize what happens if they vote that way. Whether that works or not, I have no idea - voter pyschology is an interesting thing. But that statement may very well have been an intended goal of the WH rather than a blunder. There's also evidence to that in what he said after: While Gibbs vowed a focus on the issues, he also made clear that much of the White House’s strategy for the fall involves trying to draw attention to GOP leaders and the specter of a Republican victory. “Do you want to put into the speakership of the house [Minority Leader John Boehner,] a guy who thinks that the financial calamity is tantamount to an ant? The guy who's the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, Joe Barton, started his congressional testimony of the CEO of BP by apologizing not to the people in the Gulf but to the CEO,” Gibbs said in comments that were also a signal of political resolve from a White House that has sometime been accused of paying too little attention to the political fortunes of Democrats in Congress. “Those are the types of things you'll hear a lot I think from both the president and from local candidates about what you'll get if the Republicans were to gain control.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39574.html
That's pretty darn Machiavellian, Major, if true. While I wholeheartedly support telling the public, again, why they voted in a Democratic Congress and President in the first place, and that the same failed Republican leadership is willing and eager to regain control, I don't support deliberately having Gibbs make comments like this on a Sunday political talk show. If it was deliberate, something I find hard to believe, it was far too cute a move, and a mistake. We don't need those kinds of mistakes.
I'm not sure - I understand that Pelosi and company are upset by it, but what is the real harm to saying it? Everyday Republicans are already as motivated as ever, so it doesn't affect them much. Big donors on both sides already know that the GOP could take the House, so it shouldn't affect them much. It seems like it could motivate Dems, but again, I'm not sure the psychology of voters. I'm just not sure what the harm is in this - everyone in politics already knew it anyway.
Well we are talking about the opposite the minority running rough shod over the majority. So you think it is great democracy when N. Dakota with 1/70 th of the population of California can block change? Wen 40 Senators can block 60 senators elected from more populous states? We are stuck with a serious structural deficit to our democracy that is aggravated by bs senate rules.
Thats a silly statement. Not that i'm a fan of Bush, but the democrats were just as opposing to everything he did as the republicans are opposed to all that Obama does. The medicare prescription benefit by Bush should have been cheered by democrats, though most conservatives hated it. You realize that most politicians don't believe in anything....besides themselves.
No, that's not accurate. Bush passed an unnecessary war, disastrous tax cuts, countless acts of damaging deregulation with very minimal Democratic opposition. Even on items they did oppose, they didn't break out the filibuster every other day to try and stop them. They let the majority rule. The Democrats also did not propose items, and then have Bush agree to them, and then the Democrats switched their support to opposition which the Republicans have done several times regarding Obama.
Its not my opinion but the other side will just as vehemently state: Obama passed unnecessary healthcare and other government programs, disastrous tax raises, countless acts of damaging companies with very little Republican opposition. Either side is a random mix of special interests and you believe they're looking out for you! They just are there for power.
It was the wrong healthcare bill, but a bill was needed. Barack Obama has not passed a disastrous tax raise yet(though I think that we are headed that way), and the only reason there hasn't been more Republican opposition is that the Democrats have had a super majority. I don't know if I've every seen a party so united in opposition.
The problem with this is that people hate incumbents as long as it's not the incumbent they're voting for. With all the screaming and shouting the GOP did, nothing drastically changed during the special elections. To me, this shows that despite how dissatisfied the people are of our government, the GOP aren't able separate themselves from it.
No they are not. The majority is still passing legislation. They have to negotiate with the minority though. ND alone can't which is why we have super majorities that can rule. 40 to 60 also represents a sizable chunk of people. And when the shoe was on the other foot what did you think of the rules then? Were you complaining about the BS Senate rules when the Democrats used them to stall Bush legislation and appointments? Would you have been Fine if Bush and the Republican majority just had their way and privatized SSI, made the tax cuts permanent and did a bunch of other things?
The problem with this is that people hate incumbents as long as it's not the incumbent they're voting for. With all the screaming and shouting the GOP did, nothing drastically changed during the special elections. To me, this shows that despite how dissatisfied the people are of our government, the GOP aren't able separate themselves from it. I'm seeing more and more conservatives saying they not associated with Republicans. The same goes for Democrats, but it's more of a problem for Conservatives, because Liberals have historically been more or less un-cohesive.
