Comments on: A Demopublican Ticket

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:44:25 +0000

This is how FDR operated, and it served him and us very well.

Say what? Who were the contrarians in the FDR administration? The man tried to stack the Supreme Court so that he could have his expansive executive authority validated- so it hardly seems that he was willing to entertain opposing viewpoints.

By: kritter

kritter — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:31:35 +0000

I agree with Bob. You might have one surrepticiously obstructing the other, with a gain of net zero for the country. But, having said that, I see no reason why the cabinet should consist of the winning party’s well-connected, or why the president shouldn’t have advisors that represent all points of view. This is how FDR operated, and it served him and us very well.

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:35:21 +0000

It won’t happen and really it shouldn’t. There is a reason that we don’t have the VP from the other party. Jefferson made a terrible VP for Adams, constant bickering and he refused to help Adams when ever he could.

It just didn’t work and there is no need to go back. I would rather have more parties than having a shared Presidency.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:31:19 +0000

Same here with regard to household chores, I suppose!

By: Michael van der Galien

Michael van der Galien — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:29:42 +0000

But in our system, the only way to do what you believe is best for the country is to fight for it- we don’t have proportional representation, so it really doesn’t work any other way.
You’re just a spoiler who refuses to play the “what if” game so popular among little children (and 23 year old students bored to death by studying literature for 8 hours a day).

And yes, for some reason I post more and comment more when I’m supposed to study a lot. I think it’s because I’m often bored after 45 minutes or so.

OK, having complained I now hve to go. One hour reading, then sleeping.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:26:04 +0000

But in our system, the only way to do what you believe is best for the country is to fight for it- we don’t have proportional representation, so it really doesn’t work any other way.

By: Michael van der Galien

Michael van der Galien — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:22:25 +0000

Obviously that’s the same in the netherlands. yet we have learned how to compromise.

See it?

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:21:17 +0000

But it’s not selfish to try to prevent an agenda that you strongly disagree with, Michael- that’s the point. The two men (or any others who are from opposing parties) simply have different ideas of what is ‘for the good of the country’.

By: Michael van der Galien

Michael van der Galien — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:15:25 +0000

Christine, sure. But we’re not talking about, in this situation, what selfish egotistical people would do, we’re talking about what they would ideally do (for the good of the country, etc.).

In other words, I completely ignore human nature, in order to show how it could be if humans were less… fallible.

And yes, you could – then – very well call this exercise useless or irrelevant, but I had fun thinking about it at least. Didn’t you?

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:12:00 +0000

Sorry, that of course should have been "no authority except for his role in the Senate."