So now the call is for a "split" government?

[question everything]

At least, this is what George Will suggested during the free for all discussion on ABC "This Week."

History have shown, he said, that we operate the best when different parties control the White House and Congress. And since the Democrats control Congress and will continue to do so, we need to have McCain in the White House...

Nice try, George.

[FrenchieCat]

1. America wants an agenda passed that benefits them, not grid lock......

[jwirr]

2. Another name for that is a do nothing government like we have had

the last two years.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. History:

Franklin Roosevelt had Democratic majorities in both houses for his entire term of office. Abraham Lincoln had Republican majorities in both houses for his entire term of office. Theodore Roosevelt had Republican majorities in both houses for his entire term of office. Is George Will seriously trying to argue that Ronald Reagan was a more successful president with a more successful administration than either of the Roosevelts, or Lincoln? Or that Eisenhower was, or Nixon? Or even that Bill Clinton was? Because history is not on his side when he makes these arguments.

[question everything]

8. I think that they are grasping at straws

I would like to think that most of them are ashamed to run on the strenght of the winks of Palin and McCain himself admits that he does not know much about economy, so this is their last attempt to get the independent (and some sane Republicans) voters.

[calmblueocean]

9. Amen. We are at a crisis when action is needed, not filibustering.

The last thing we need right now is to be facing foreign and domestic catastrophe, unable to make the strides we need because of partisan politics in Congress. Obama is going to need a government that works with him, not against him.

[anonymous171]

4. Yeah, but that was before Bush and Cheney expanded Executive power

[Vinca]

5. With the 60 votes in the Senate needed, it's split right now.

Not working out so well, is it?

[Waiting For Everyman]

6. History has shown it's best when Repubs are nowhere.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. What history? When?

The past 2 years under Bush when he and the GOP obstructed and/or vetoed nearly everything positive or helpful the Democrats proposed? The 6 years under Clinton when he had to pretend to support and/or compromise on a lot of the Republican's "regressive" anti-New Deal agenda? What good came out of either "split government" time periods?

If I'm right and the American people want things to actually GET DONE in Washington then IMHO this argument should be resoundingly defeated in November. If most Americans support what the Democrats are proposing (which it looks like they are) then it makes no sense to put McCain, who will almost certainly kill or veto nearly everything a solidly Democratic Congress might send him, in the White House. Likewise, Obama wouldn't be able to enact most (all?) of his proposed agenda if the GOP controls one or both branches of Congress (which isn't going to happen at the moment anyway) so then what would be the point of putting him into the WH?

My hypothesis is that the public wants (needs) action on a lot of things and will want Congress and the WH to actually DO something over the next 4-8 years and, as such, cannot allow a state of gridlock to continue. I don't believe most people honestly believe that whoever is elected can do anything substantive (which is what is needed at this point) without having sufficient Congressional support to get anything substantive accomplished.

The only people who MIGHT buy into this "argument" are people who actually WANT a state of "gridlock" to continue or who are actually stupid enough to believe that McCain/Palin will actually work with a Democratic Congress to get anything positive accomplished. Not.going.to.happen.

My prediction is that Obama will win in November and will have a Democratic majority in Congress (hopefully just enough to put down any threatened filibusters because you know the GOP will keep right on attempting to obstruct our agenda and then blame us for it so that they can win back power and go right on obstructing like they did with Clinton). Once in power, they all need to focus like a laser beam on getting things accomplished and passed that, unfortunately, died or got vetoed in the previous Congress and more or less ignore the Republicans unless they want to genuinely play a constructive role in cleaning up the mess they left behind.

[msallied]

10. I want a viable and present opposition, most definitely.

But the Republicans need to get their message straight and purge the jesus freaks that have taken their party prisoner. They will get another turn at bat soon enough. This stuff is cyclical. The Dems will run things for about eight years and then the people will grow tired of us and roll in the other guys.

[anonymous171]

11. It's not just the evangelicals.

The real problem with the GOP is the neoconservatives and their extremely dangerous foreign policy ideas. The GOP needs to do the right thing for America and jettison those ideologues out onto the street before they cause anymore damage.

[msallied]

12. I agree completely.

I think the neo-cons are so intertwined with the evangelicals though, because I think one of the issues at the heart of the neocon movement is Zionism as well as the belief that it is their holy duty to spread Democracy. I think Bush himself was once quoted saying that. It's just a very scary thing they've got going there.

[anonymous171]

13. Yep.

The GOP is a good reminder of why Militarist and Moralist ideologies should never, ever be combined.