Sarah Palin: Completely bat****

[chequita guevara]

I'm just shocked at how her star has fallen. Her record when she was Governor of Alaska actually seemed to be a fairly bipartisan pol who fought power brokers in her own party. She got the VP nod, became a conservative darling and she went off the freaking deep end!

That's an extremely generous reading of her career. She was always off the deep end. She didn't fight power brokers in her own part so much as saw an opportunity to get them out of her way in order to take control. It was Machiavellian, not bipartisan. She was the Sith apprentice, then she became the master.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Plenty of Dems in Alaska spoke about how she worked with them across the aisle on projects. So that one won't stick.

[chequita guevara]

When you're talking about someone who could shoot you from a helicopter, probably not a good idea to bad talk her.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, that must be it

[chequita guevara]

In any event, icing your own leaders to take their place is hardly an example of bipartisanship. She may have reached across the aisle, but you haven't shown evidence of it.

Bipartisanship is BS anyway. The theoretical point have having more than one party is because you don't agree. If you want everyone to agree, why not just end the pretense of having multiple parties and have a single party state? (Which is not to admit to there being more than one major party in the U.S.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um... it's to actually get stuff done. Having more than one party means that the extremes of any single party can't run wild. One is a check on the other. Reaching across for agreement leads to compromise bills.

[chequita guevara]

That would be true of a single party as well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Having more than one party means that the extremes of any single party can't run wild.

Parties which get a certain level of power (like say, Executive and Legislative Branches) usually have the agenda dominated by their extremes

[DaShi]

Um... it's to actually get stuff done. Having more than one party means that the extremes of any single party can't run wild. One is a check on the other. Reaching across for agreement leads to compromise bills.

Yes, until the other party just balks at anything. This is why I've said the republicans are now a useless party. They don't even serve as a reasonable check. The Blue Dogs do a better job than republicans.

[rah]

The dems were given up for dead during the reagan years so don't count the repugs out totally yet. (yes, they have made things difficult on themselves) If the economy stays down long enough, the blaming everything on the repugs will be forgotten and it will switch to blaming the dems since they couldn't fix it even spending trillions of dollars. With only two parties, it can just swing back and forth. (another reason why only two parties suck)

[DaShi]

But now there is another option than the repugs.

[rah]

What, other democrats. That's silly.

[DaShi]

That's your opinion. It's possible that the Blue Dogs could form another party usurping the republicans former position. The republicans will be left as a minor third party of extreme Palinites while the Blue Dogs represent the new conservative party.

[rah]

Yes, my opinion. But it's been a long time since a major new political party has replaced one of the current ones. The rules make it quite difficult. I doubt they'll voluntarily give it up which is about what it would take. So I'll bet it doesn't happen here. You're just applying wishful thinking. Now if those blue dogs actually become republicans, then it could happen, but it will still be dems vs repugs.

Does anybody else here think the repugs will not exist in 10 years?

[DaShi]

How do you know if I am applying wishful thinking?

What rules make it difficult?