[redmenace]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100784_pf.html

Really though, I am not sure this will fair well in the long run.

[Nuclear1]

Well, ****.

Now we're right back to where we were before the elections: one party making all the legislation.  Instead now the party making the legislation is telling the other to **** off instead of simply shutting them down in the vote.

Yeah, leave it to Nancy Pelosi to promise genuine cooperation in Congress, and then pull this sort of ****.  I'll admit I agree with the Democrats on a lot of things, but never on their choices of leadership.  Pelosi's too damned dividing, and this strategy proves it.

Why couldn't have the Dems picked a more moderate figure to be the Speaker?

[Mr. Vega]

Wow. They're intending to actually do something?

[Ford Prefect]

If they pass the **** they say they're going to pass, I'll be happy.

[Col. Fishguts]

What ? They plan to do what they actually said before the election they would do ?!? The shock, the horror !!

[Nuclear1]

If they pass the **** they say they're going to pass, I'll be happy.

They won't be able to.  The first few bills they'll try to pass will be pure partisan bull****, which will then be vetoed by Bush, and then sent back to the Congress where the Democrats will need that 2/3 majority to override said veto. 

...oh wait, they don't have a 2/3 majority.  My bad.

You're such a genius, Nancy!

[Mr. Vega]

Yes, but then Bush will veto, the republicans will stop it in it's tracks, which means the dems can play a good blame game.

[Nuclear1]

True, but wasn't it their idea in the first place to shut the Republicans out?  Basically, all that would happen is say that Pelosi is not even fit to be Speaker, and show that the Democratic leadership is not willing to allow bipartisan cooperation in Congress.

The Republicans might get burnt in vetoing the legislation, but the Democrats should get it worse for doing de jure what the Republicans did de facto in the first six years of the administration.

Arrogant Democratic dumbasses.

[Mr. Vega]

At least they're honest about it.

[Nuclear1]

Well, honest or not, I've recently lost a whole lot of faith in the Democrats, but not gained any in the Republicans.  Both parties tend to be ****; the Republicans are overrun by the neoconservatives rather than the true conservatives that I identify with, and the Democrats are all ridden with revenge-driven, childlike leaders who would rather play "see how you like it" than do what the American people want them to:  fix this country.

[achtung]

I want to form a political party.

[Mr. Vega]

Amen.

[Starkweather]

I want to form a political party.

No need, join the Libertarian Party.

[Rictor]

If they had balls, the Democrats would vote down the next Iraq funding bill that Bush tried to pass. Instead they're going to twiddle their thumbs as Bush sends more troops in.

And all these "threats" to sideline the GOP will amount to nothing. Don't worry America, you vaunted bipartisanship is intact: everyone was for the war when the Republicans controlled Congress and somehow, despite all the election bull****, everyone is still for it now. See? One big happy family.

[brozozo]

I want to form a political party.

No need, join the Libertarian Party.

Personally, I'd like to join a political party thats capable of doing something.

[achtung]

I want to form a political party.

No need, join the Libertarian Party.

Personally, I'd like to join a political party thats capable of doing something.

Which will be my party.  Wanna join?

[Polpolion]

I didn't bother reading the article, because I already know that anything involving the U.S. goverment will end badly.

[Mefustae]

I didn't bother reading the article, because I already know that anything involving the U.S. goverment will end badly.

So simple, yet so true.

[IceFire]

I'd just like to maintain that I think two party systems are a very bad idea.  Although we don't have a completely multiparty system in Canada (its basically Liberals and Conservatives) the politics tend to keep things rolling with four major parties holding seats, and for the moment, making things interesting for the minority government.  But down south, with two parties, you seem to get stuck...both parties seem to be basically the same except for the legislation they want to introduce which is either hard one way or hard the other way and they seem to be very much intent with pissing the other off and not doing much else.

There is no majority/minority system down there. If we had an election like you did in 2000 and 2004...and actually we did last year...you'd have the Republicans in this theoretical parliamentary system tiptoeing around because they would need support from at least part of another party in order to put through any legislation.  Otherwise they would face non-confidence and the government would fall for re-election.

Just my view...I know parliamentary style isn't perfect either but I feel you get to wash the stale bread out of the government a bit more.

[Nuclear1]

I personally like the multiparty system, but it's become impossible in America given the way elections are set up.  Instead of this winner-takes-all system where one person gets voted in out of an entire district, leaving whatever minority, no matter how large, without representation, we need to have more like what parliamentary systems have. 

I disagree with just about every other aspect of parliamentary style though.  Just my opinion, but I personally think the US style is the best that it's gotten so far with dee-moe-krazy.