Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231
Disagree. Go back to the article. And to predicate a point on a Supreme Court nominee is doesn't make much sense because legislative agenda vs supreme court, completely different ballgame in DC politics.
And you rather have blind unity regardless of best interest of constituents and/or best interest of country? I much rather have people in congress who think for themselves and not embrace lobby groups who set agenda. Blind unity is not only a problem in Congress, but a large portion of the country.
Give me John Warner, Arlen Specter, Collins in Maine, Rand Paul, who challenge group thought charade. Someone who enjoys obstruction, enjoys the presence day pettiness of partisan culture. Its simply ridiculous.
|
I wasn't really praising the Democrats for their blind unity, just saying that through it, they were able to get things done, when they were in the majority. Of course I disagree with most if not all their policies, but they could in fact make the government function, with the help of very few Republicans.
The Republican congress cannot really do that even on their agenda items, the one exception being the tax cut. Yes I prefer that the members of the party vote for their constituents, and that is why I said earlier that the Republicans have the broader baseline support, because you can have debate and dissent and not be forced to toe the party line, so locally you can be a more inclusive group. But they can't govern. Partly because the democrats stay united, but mostly because within their caucas they can't come to a rational point that everyone can work with. If the Republicans could put forward an immigration bill that would pass and was sane, democrats, at least some would jump on to make it bipartisan, but when the liberal, moderate, conservative republicans can't craft a bill, why would democrats even worry about breaking with party?