Recently an individual contacted me regarding an answer I’d given to a question I’d been asked. As I began giving him my reply, he flew into a rage. This so surprised me, that I just stopped. It seemed it would be safer for me to post my response to him. The topic was political “Gridlock”…he saw gridlock as a good thing and I view it as a negative. This is my reply to him regarding the topic he asked me.
My previous points about gridlock were not meant to be scatter shot. I gave you several cogent reasons why the ideals of the constitution have suffered under Republican rule and why I can no longer support the Republican Party. With regard to a barrage of disconnected issues perhaps that is because there is so much to take issue with, one hardly knows where to start. The present administration and the former acquiescing congress had provided no oversight and would make Richard M. Nixon look like a saint. You are too naïve, or self absorbed, to realize this but there was a time when there where both conservative and progressive members in each party. Very few of either party or from the left or right would defend President Nixon from an obvious abrogation of the law. The only reason that the current state of lawlessness in the Bush administration has not been revealed is due to the cronyism within the Republican Party and the subsequent failing to provide oversight. The Bush administration has made the claim that no laws have been broken, and then refuses to allow white house officials to testify, can not produce emails that should have been secured, and in the curious case of Vice President Richard B. Cheney have made the outlandish claim that he is not member of the Executive Branch of government.
By the way, the fact that Dennis Prager champion’s’ conservative views may slightly bias his balanced reporting.
Why do conservatives always insist on using conservative pundits to explain the motives of progressive candidates? Is it in the interest of conservatives to present an honest dialogue, or are they trying to get a conservative candidate elected? Ever heard of a conflict of interest?
Let me get this straight your authoritian viewpoint on why calls for unity fail are because they are not honest and more to the point childish? A call for unity may be what this badly divided country needs. Perhaps those who would argue that this is mere fantasy are perfectly happy with the polarity so long as their party is in control. Under these conditions the Majority party can always push its Bills into laws as they can argue that the other side is so far out of touch that there can be no compromise.
So that what you believe we really have are two sides, and the one with the most votes wins, no compromise game set match!
If that was the case then why did we not decide to have a monarchy or rather an oligarchy since that is the equivalent when one party controls all three branches of government? If the minority party has no input even in the case a closely contested election then almost half the country’s wishes are subjugated to an slightly larger sized majority, hardly a mandate! Our founding fathers did not intend for a winner take all approach. Arguing that Obama’s call for unity is both dishonest and childish seems funny coming from a member of the current party in power. Maybe you are projecting what the Republican Party has done this past eight years. President George W. Bush exclaimed “I’m a Uniter not a divider”. He then proceeded to govern almost exclusively from the Right. Albeit with what conservatives will note the exception of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Medicare Part D prescription drug law (more on this later.) On almost every other major piece of legislation passed by Congress and subsequently signed into law all were designed with little compromise or consideration of the minority party. In many cases the Republican Party used coercion to get their own members to agree to a Bill even keeping the vote open into the early hours of the morning; long after the vote should have been over. Incidentally the changes to the NCLB and the sell out the pharmaceutical industry in the Medicare Part D laws were clearly a move to the right. Your libertarian leaning that no money should have been allocated for these programs betrays that reality that these bills were designed to benefit the supporters of the Right. These are not allegations these are facts.