Does our nation need a Democratic House or Senate for balance of power?

[kentuck]

Would our nation be in better hands if we had a balance of power within the branches of government? Do we really need a Congress that will rubberstamp everything from the executive branch, so long as it is their own Party? Is this something that voters will think about next election? Are most Repubs happy with the present power arrangement? Would they not feel better to have at least one branch of government to blame for everything that goes wrong? Wouldn't it be much easier for Bush if he could blame a Democratic Congress for the deficits and the poor economic numbers of the last three years? Do the Repubs really want to go thru 4 more years of Republican control with no one to blame but themselves if things go wrong, which they most certainly will? Is this something that the average Repub might think about?

[tedoll78]

1. This is a key argument to make in the Fall.

This could appeal heavily to swing voters and, actually, conservatives who are concerned about government spending. I'd like to see this kind of an argument made by our nominee.

[aquart]

2. Yes. They want total control.

That's what the redistricting has been about.

They don't care if people blame them. The people who will be blaming them don't count as they are not heads of major corporations. Also, they don't count because Republican software is counting their votes. Never forget that.

[kentuck]

3. How far can they go before they self-destruct ?

Can they make it 4 more years? I think most Repubs have that fear...they don't want to be in charge when everything collapses because of their incompetence and inability to govern. They are better at "anti-governing" and they know it.

[Nederland]

4. Yes

Personally, I've always been a big fan of divided government. I know I'll get flamed for saying it, but at times I think that the best combination is when the Democrats control the White House and the Republicans control Congress. That's the way it was for most of Clinton's term, and look at how well the country did during that period.

[kentuck]

5. I've thought the exact opposite.....

the best combination might be Democratic control of the House (because I simply cannot see the Repubs as the voice of the people) and the WH in the Repubs hands, if I had to choose.

[Hippo_Tron]

7. One option is to give the dems the white house and the house...

And give the GOP a narrow margin in the senate. Of course that would prove difficulty for appointing judicial nominees. Plus, the House isn't exactly the voice of the people it's the voice of the gerrymandered districts.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. Here's my thoughts on the subject...

I believe in a divided government but sometimes it can be seriously counterproductive. Lets look at the Clinton administration. Clinton had a dem congress for his first two years and couldn't get his healthcare plan passed with them. In 1994 the GOP takes over congress and elects Newt Gingrich speaker. Clinton becomes very popular and gets re-elected, the budget gets balanced, and the economy gets good. 1998 The dems come within six seats of winning the house back and the GOP launches a joke of an impeachment trial. Newt Gingrich resigns because nobody can stand him. At this time Clinton also proposes a great plan to fix social security which never gets passed. So I guess the answer is sometimes it's good to have a divided government and sometimes it's not. I don't believe that Clinton balanced the budget and I don't believe that Newt Gingrich balanced the budget. What I believe balanced the budget was Clinton and the GOP congress not agreeing on how to spend money thus money doesn't get spent. Had I my way I would've given the GOP control of congress from 1995-1999 then given Clinton back the dem congress for his last two years so that he could pass his social security legislation and hopefully some healthcare plan as well.

[adamrsilva]

8. If Bush wins, the Congress goes Democratic

in 2006. But it's Repub until then.