Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] Political power imbalance

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: DSanner106 AT aol.com
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] Political power imbalance
  • Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 14:21:51 EST

I agree in general with your assessment, the difference is that those
were powerful presidents trying to push through something his own
party disagreed with. The reason I don't fear Obama as some do is
I see him as a , pardon the expression, puppet. I think Pelosi is to
be his Cheney and with Harry Reid's assistance will run the show. Obama
has not even chaired major committees or done any of the leadership
activities
that show drive and initiative. I don't forsee a whole lot of action
originating
in the white house. Between Pelosi and Reid, they can push their
agenda through both houses and unless Barrack veto's it, they will get what
they want. California is an economic joke and Pelosi is firmly from the
school
that designed and built it. We are entirely relying on Barrack Obama to step
up and stand up to his own party when necessary, since the opposing party
may not even matter. NBC says there are 24 Republican senate seats in
"trouble" and the Dems only need 9 to have total control and be filibuster
proof.

Drew


In a message dated 11/4/2008 1:52:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
genegerue AT ruralize.com writes:

What worries me far more is one party having complete control of both
> branches of congress with a filibuster proof majority and the white
> house.

That is a legitimate and common concern. Many of us suffered through
the first six years of Bush rule and came out still alive at the end.
A filibuster-proof Senate majority is unlikely but here is something
pertinent that may comfort those of us concerned about the potential
imbalance of power:

. . . And history suggests that filibuster-proof majorities often work
better on paper than on Capitol Hill. Ask President Franklin
Roosevelt. He had an overwhelming majority in the Senate in the
mid-1930s, but couldn't pack the Supreme Court because of opposition
from Southerners in his own party. President John Kennedy had 65
Democrats in the Senate, but couldn't get his civil rights bill called
up for a vote.

"The numbers can be very beguiling," says Ross Baker, a professor of
political science at Rutgers University. But, he added, they often
don't prove to be quite as valuable as they appear.

**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot
5 Travel Deals!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212416248x1200771803/aol?redir=http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page