Bikerdad
Aug 1 2007, 04:59 PM
If we are to believe many pundits and politicos, incessant partisan warfare is one of the problems that bedevils Washington. Generally, one can tell where the pundit or politico falls on the Republicrat divide simply by looking at who they blame for the partisanship. Democrats and their allies on the Left blame Bush as a "divider", Republicans cast Democrats as "obstructionists" or victims of "Bush Derangement Syndrome."
Is there some objective measure of partisanship? Perhaps.
110th Congress - House of Representatives Voting With Party110th Congress - Senate Voting With PartyQuestions for Debate:
1} Based on the information in the tables, which party more partisan?2} What accounts for the disparity between the Senate and the House?3} How would you define "bipartisanship"?4} Do you think partisanship is a good thing, a bad thing, or "just a thing"?5} Do you think there's anything hinky about the Washington Post ranking Norwood up there with Pelosi?
TruthMarch
Aug 1 2007, 05:55 PM
The two party system is a wonderful tool created by the US Planners, and they really do deserve an ovation for their cunning. Overall, America only has one political ambition and that ambition is shared by both parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. Big business and money is the ambition, and furthering it is the goal of both parties, regardless of which party has the President in the Oval Office. One needs to see that clearly before anything else can be considered. American policy is run for Business' best interests, and it's awful naive to think 'If the Democrats are in power they're going to run America into the ground' (2007-like Bush and the Repubs are currently doing;1964-68 like Johnson and the Democrats were then doing). Think logically. If Microsoft gets a new Big Boss, is he/she going to try change the fortunes of Microsoft for the worse? Of course not. The overall plan i.e. progress is impartial to politics or political parties. Which is why the idea of partisanship is moot. Here's what the clever US Planners have created: political gridlock. And it works great for them. The two party system ensures the status quo of the Planners and it makes Americans think they have a choice. Not so much anymore since the Democrats moved away from their 'end Iraq now' lies, pre-election lies' that is. Look at the 2004 election. Blogs for Bush. Blogs for Kerry. Bush side saying Kerry flip-flops as if Bush never has before himself. And many people really believed it! I truly doubt a severely totalitarian system could ever pull off such a feat. Their 'victims' clearly know who's bad and what's up with everything. But in the NAmerican system, most people still believe the people they vote for represent them, the voters. That's a cruel misunderstanding for 98% of the country as we all know, or should know. The 2 party system is a creation of very clever and truly intelligent Planners and they play it perfectly. " Think about it for a second. Much of America was making fun of Kerry for his Vietnam service and medals....while Bush skipped the draft and skipped his cushy stateside command to help some guy run for Congress. Imagine that. A one-eyed purple 20 foot giant chained up in the front yard actually convinced people passing by that the Asian down the block is suspicioously weird! Amazing and my hat is off to the US Planners.
turnea
Aug 1 2007, 06:02 PM
I was doing a little research into the subject a while back...
QUOTE
One explanation for all this is that politicians are acting against the will of their compromise-loving constituents. Another is that Republicans and Democrats are simply being good representatives. We think the evidence supports the second interpretation.
The Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) surveyed more than 24,000 Americans who voted in 2006. The Internet-based survey compiled by researchers at 30 universities produced a sample that almost perfectly matched the national House election results: 54 percent of the respondents reported voting for a Democrat, while 46 percent said they voted for a Republican. The demographic characteristics of the voters surveyed also closely matched those in the 2006 national exit poll. If anything, the CCES respondents claimed they were more "independent" than those in the exit poll[...]When we combined voters' answers to the 14 issue questions to form a liberal-conservative scale (answers were divided into five equivalent categories based on overall liberalism vs. conservatism), 86 percent of Democratic voters were on the liberal side of the scale while 80 percent of Republican voters were on the conservative side. Only 10 percent of all voters were in the center. The visual representation of the nation's voters isn't a nicely shaped bell, with most voters in the moderate middle. It's a sharp V.
The evidence from this survey isn't surprising; nor are the findings new. For the past three decades, the major parties and the electorate have grown more divided -- in what they think, where they live and how they vote. It may be comforting to believe our problems could be solved if only those vile politicians in Washington would learn to get along. The source of the country's division, however, is nestled much closer to home.
The Myth of the MiddleCooperative Congressional Election Study (PDF)