My DD214

Veterans should be a thing of the past.

Common ground?

Since the Democrats took control of Congress, all I hear is about “finding common ground” and “working together”. All of a sudden the kids on the playground want to play nice because they are outnumbered. The problem is the Democrats will fall for it and give in to the Republicans and concede in order to look like they are being productive. The President can and will veto bills in order to propagate the Republican agenda. He already has threatened to veto several bills if passed through both houses, such as federal funding for stemcell research. Now the Democrats are threatening to use their power to stop funding for the troop increase. Both sides have ways to check each other and in the end there is no balance. They talk common ground but they are diametrically opposed sides who fight with the fury of a sibling rivalry. I believe most “regular folk” in this country are moderate and fall on both sides depending on the subject. A lot of people usually only care about one big subject, especially if it effects them directly. Americans don’t care about HIV/AIDS in Africa, because it is in Africa! Someone in Iowa might not have a big opinion on immigration.
While Americans are generally moderate, they are constantly being pushed one way or the other by people such as Rush Limbaugh. You can get another view by listening to Air America and Al Frankin. Rush was interviewed on NPR

One of his quotes “I always say my real purpose is to attract the largest audience I can, and hold it for as long as I can, so I can charge confiscatory advertising rates,” the talk show host says.

Americans who listen to this guy and Sean Hannity are fired up by their extreme rhetoric and end up using “liberal” in a derogatory way. Yet these same people say they fight for “liberty” and reference our gun toting, slave owning, wealthy founding fathers who created the most successful “liberal” society and country ever!

In 2008 I wonder if we will see a woman president with a black vice president or will the bipartisanship and common ground disappear from the political rhetoric in order to drive their constituents to the polls?

25 January, 2007 11:07 PM - Posted by | Just a thought..


  1. The issues with Congressional power struggles and the relationship between the legislative and executive branch is so complex, yet usually unchanging and as a result, as you noted, little gets done. As a side not, i think the Democrats won’t cave that much…try to stand their ground so to speak…and as a result little will down regarding significant legistalion over the next two years. I think one of the major issues with the system is a lack of congressional term limits. I don’t think our founding fathers envisioned professional politicians in their day. After all, there was no Presidential term limit until 1952 after Roosevelt was elected to his 12th term. Having politicians in office for decades adds to continuous power struggling and perpetually builds animosity, and instead of focusing on the issues affecting constituents they worry about their image and they tackle the big issues, knowing that nothing will get done but hoping to appear tough. If they were only there for two terms (or maybe three in the House) I think they would fight much much harder on real issues, trying to get something significant done in the short time they had. But then again, maybe not.

    Comment by Coop | 27 January, 2007 11:46 PM | Reply

  2. Term limits are a good idea but a change needs to come to the total years of the terms. The Senate currently has 6 year terms and the House 2 year terms. I don’t mind the Senate having 6 year terms, because that allows them more time to legislate in between campaigns, but the house needs to be bumped up to 4 year terms. The House of Rep. members are constantly campaigning for the next go round instead of working to pass bills. Not all of them are in this predicament because some of them are so solid that they know that they will not be defeated every 2 years. Dale Kildee is a Representitive for Michigan’s 5th district which is where I grew up. He has been in the House of Rep. for thirty some odd years and has a 99 percent voting record, he missed one vote in his career, and that is because he has never campaigned, he just knows he will be voted back. That is not the case for every Rep. What do you think?

    Comment by Curt | 28 January, 2007 12:33 PM | Reply

  3. I distinctly remember the Dem’s saying they can fix the whole Iraq thing, and not one of them–or as a whole, perhaps–has said specifically what they would do. I remember the Dems bashed bush a few years ago because the generals were telling him to send in more troops but Bush said no; now it’s the exact opposite.

    The goal of the Dems and Repubs are to fight each other. That’s the way it has always been and will always be. That’s politics.

    Face it: we are a country being run into the ground by money hungry pigs.

    Comment by Jason | 28 January, 2007 2:56 PM | Reply

  4. Great point! If they agreed on anything, then they would not have a reason to have a different party! They needs to be opposing forces in order to keep agendas in check. Imagine if there were only Republicans in charge? We would all be praying every morning and the only TV channel we could watch would be PBS. If the Democrats were totally in charge, we might have a Department of PETA, Department of Green Peace and all be vegitarians! We need people who think differently to solve different problems, but the fact is, we find ourselves in the middle of a playground fight where the Repub’s and the Dem’s won’t share the swingset!

    Comment by Curt | 28 January, 2007 7:40 PM | Reply

  5. I don’t think I would want to be anywhere near that swing-set….

    I wonder what the public thought back in the Roman Empire. Did they see it coming? The Romans tried to conquer the mid-east and it cost them their entire empire; they squabbled about in politics increasingly more, and it led to a falling out; they spread their military about and couldn’t defend themselves; they let their economy fall because of heavily relying on foreign goods and not producing much themselves….

    Of course they didn’t have the TV and internet back then, so perhaps they didn’t know when the empire fell until much later…

    Comment by Jason | 28 January, 2007 8:46 PM | Reply

  6. Regarding Term Limits and Limits on Years:

    I agree completely with you Curt…Reps are constantly campaigning, trying to fundraise, and too focused on that reelection to be effective. Having 4 year terms, maybe no more than 2 (3 at the most) would help to alleviate the good old boy network (a little) and allow the Reps the time in between the campaigns to focus on issues.

    Comment by Coop | 29 January, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: