Fact filled article on why the current Congress is the worst ever.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
And to that point I agree, however I do think it important to understand the depths to which the country will sink when even more rampant partisanship paralyzes all aspects of the government. If there has been one thing I have been consistnet on is the revulsionI have for the devisiveness of both parties during this and the former administration terms. It is not a case of one party or the other being at fault as they both suck mightily.

It's more of a hope that a Democratic Congress would actually do its job and provide some oversight of the executive (at least as long as they don't control the executive too).

[Elok]

Oh, and thank you for bolding all those posts, Verto. Nothing like bold text to draw emphasis to the most important parts of a text--in this case, every part!

[Arrian]

I think it's pretty clear that having one party in control of both the executive and legislative branches is a bad thing. At the very least, the opposition needs to have one house of congress.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It's more of a hope that a Democratic Congress would actually do its job and provide some oversight of the executive (at least as long as they don't control the executive too).

I of course remember all too well the problems with Democratically controlled congresses and am not so optimistic to think them capable of "doing their job". Bring the government to a standstill perhaps with a Repug in the Oval office but little else. Perhaps this is enough but I still wish for better than that.

For all the problems of partisanship (and my complete disgust of the Clinton witch hunts) in the clintonian era at least some measure of compromise came out. A best case situation would have been a decent centrist democratic president (other than Kerry) and a repug congress. On this I agreed with Imran, I just couldn't hold my nose long enough to vote for Kerry hence my Libertarian vote in 2004.

[Arrian]

Dem Pres, split Senate, Rep house

-Arrian

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Arrian
I think it's pretty clear that having one party in control of both the executive and legislative branches is a bad thing.

Yeah. Kennedy. FDR.

Carter failed miserably, but for a different reason than what you're probably thinking about: The democratic Congress refused to co-operate with him, considering him to be too conservative Fortunately, all those crybabies got owned in 1980

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You'll get no agreement from me wrt Kennedy.

OTOH given those examples (of which i disagree with you on Kennedy) more recent ones spring to mind of:

LBJ, Carter..... Ouch.

edit - You Dan'sd me.

[RGBVideo]

Come to think of it, Clinton had exactly the same problem in 1993-1995. Invididual members of Congress like J.R. Kerrey went on an egotrip and wasted most of the time attacking the President's reform proposals. Healthcare reform by H.R. Clinton went nowhere, and budget proposals took ages of petty bickering to pass. Hardly a rubber stamp we're witnessing now.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You mean akin to the social security reform Bush tried to do.

[Dinner]

The article is nonpartisan. Some people see that their heros get torn up and they have a knee-jerk reaction claiming the article is partisan. Simply stating the facts is not partisan.

It's simply reality.

[Winston]

The article is nonpartisan.

You're kind of branding yourself a knee-jerk partisan hack when you keep making that claim, Oerdin.

[Dinner]

Cataloging events is historical accuracy not partisanship.

[Elok]

It was

After all, if a hairy-necked, raincoat-clad freak like Rep. Mark Foley

that first convinced me that I was dealing with a thoughtful, nuanced and nonpartisan take on the issue. Runners-up included

Watching Ted Stevens spend half a trillion dollars is like watching a junkie pull a belt around his biceps with his teeth.

and

generally turns the president of the United States into a kind of turbocharged Yoruba witch doctor, with nearly unlimited snatching powers.

I believe I read similar prose in The Economist just the other day.

[Dinner]

I'm not saying the guy didn't take peotic licence to keep the article interesting. I'm saying it is factually correct and is nonpartisan.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Elok