Majority = Americans = They have spoken

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by MotorsportsAuthority aka Dragon

The next couple of years are going to suck.

As much as I hate the Democrats.....I think a good couple of years with a deadlocked legislature will do us some good. We just don't need 3000 new laws every year. It's out of control.

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by CO Hummer

I think a good couple of years with a deadlocked legislature will do us some good. We just don't need 3000 new laws every year. It's out of control.

Debate and deadlock doesn't worry me nearly as much as a single party control of capitol hill and the white house who criticize the judges for "legislating from the bench" just because they rule against the party line. I felt the same way when the dems had it locked up under Clinton. The purpose of the three branches of govt is to prevent rubber-stamping a single party's (or president's) policies.

Also, congrats to Pelosi as the first female Speaker of the House. I know most of you don't like democrats, but as the first woman in that position, she'll be under INTENSE scrutiny and pressure to be reasonable and bipartisan. If not, she could do a lot of damage to women's rights.
Another milestone in gender equality.

[DennisAJC]

Just watched Bush's speech.

Very encouraging. Humbled, good natured, acknowleges the voice of the people, but still stands firm on his principals. Very Presidential. Shows a more human side. He's no Reagan, but he looked good today.

I think this balance will show better progress. He's still Commander In Chief but with check points now to make sure his decisions are made in the best interest of the majority. Interesting what the next few months will show.

Rumsfeld was no surprise. Good riddence.

Is it just me or were some of the questions the reporters were throwing at him seemed a bit low class?

[NewHummerGuy]

I know to some this theory of mine will seem awfully dumb. But my idea is this:

If you are a Republican running for President then your running mate for VP must be Democrat. And of course vice versa.

To me this would alleviate a lot of animosity between the members of Senate, Congress, and America as a whole. Is there a written law where the President and VP must be from the same party?????

[DennisAJC]

Originally Posted by NewHummerGuy

I know to some this theory of mine will seem awfully dumb. But my idea is this:

If you are a Republican running for President then your running mate for VP must be Democrat. And of course vice versa.

To me this would alleviate a lot of animosity between the members of Senate, Congress, and America as a whole. Is there a written law where the President and VP must be from the same party?????

I fantasized about that too where the loser automatically becomes the VP.

But it would be more anti productive when your VP is always disagreeing and badmouthing you on every issue for the sake of representing his party. Wouldn't work.

[NewHummerGuy]

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

I fantasized about that too where the loser automatically becomes the VP.

But it would be more anti productive when your VP is always disagreeing and badmouthing you on every issue for the sake of representing his party. Wouldn't work.

You are probably right Dennis. But the only problem is that it doesnt work now either

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by NewHummerGuy

I know to some this theory of mine will seem awfully dumb. But my idea is this:

If you are a Republican running for President then your running mate for VP must be Democrat. And of course vice versa.

To me this would alleviate a lot of animosity between the members of Senate, Congress, and America as a whole. Is there a written law where the President and VP must be from the same party?????

Not a dumb theory at all. The executive branch was originally made up of the President (who won the most electoral votes) and the Vice-President (the first runner-up from another party). But the concept was abandoned in 1800 after an electoral tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/..._President.htm

[NewHummerGuy]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

Not a dumb theory at all. The executive branch was originally made up of the President (who won the most electoral votes) and the Vice-President (the first runner-up from another party). But the concept was abandoned in 1800 after an electoral tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/..._President.htm

HOLY EDUCATIONAL BATMAN .....Thats pretty neat. Never knew that lil tidbit.

Thanks for the history lesson

[BlueHUMMERH2]

Our founding fathers knew what they were doing. It's awesome to see how the voice of the people has now changed the entire political landscape. I hope these next few years bring fiscal responsibility, a clear, careful, and positive plan for Iraq, and a move back towards the center. Personally, I would like things to move a bit left (renewable fuels, education), but I think the center is more in the interest of the majority.

[westhillsat]

Originally Posted by NewHummerGuy

I know to some this theory of mine will seem awfully dumb. But my idea is this:

If you are a Republican running for President then your running mate for VP must be Democrat. And of course vice versa.

To me this would alleviate a lot of animosity between the members of Senate, Congress, and America as a whole. Is there a written law where the President and VP must be from the same party?????

They did that at the state level in Montana in our 2004 election, the Governor is a Democrat and his running mate the Lieutenant Governor is a Republican. The previous three Governors back to 1989 were Republican.

[SnakeH2]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

I know most of you don't like democrats, but as the first woman in that position, she'll be under INTENSE scrutiny and pressure to be reasonable and bipartisan. If not, she could do a lot of damage to women's rights.
Another milestone in gender equality.

How the hell could she damage women's rights?

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by SnakeH2

How the hell could she damage women's rights?

Sorry I wasn't clear.

The damage I'm thinking of is political. As the first female speaker, she is setting a precedent. If her term is marred by scandal, infighting, extreme partisanship or extremist policy, people may be less likely to vote for female politicians in the future. That would be a blow to female representation in government.

I didn't mean to imply that she would take away women's rights just by being in office.

[SnakeH2]

I figured you didn't. Just wanted to poke at ya a little.

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by SnakeH2

I figured you didn't. Just wanted to poke at ya a little.