Trent Lott said today that Congress Has Always Acted in a Bipartisan Way.  Is this the truth?
821534
Most politicans vote party lines and very few have the nerve to vote whats right for their people who sent them to DC to represent them.\n\nI would like to look at Lotts voting record before I made my mind up.
5516
Absolutely NOT!!!  Your statement, 'Many parties tend to keep each other honest, and would represent all levels of society.' is a the most accurate assesment of what is TRUE DEMOCRACY!!!
839805
I have cable and I can see the government working daily on c-span and I know exactly what the difference is.\n\nJust look at how they vote on policy.\n\nWhen looking at Conservative Rep. and Conservative Dem. it is important to look at 2 things. \n\n1. When they run for office what they stand for\n2. How they vote PARTY LINE (Loyal to their party)\n\nWhen the Dem's won seats this time around they ran politicians claiming to be Conservative.  All of them were "religious" and even talked about religion, the bible, in their speeches.  \n\nHowever when you look how they "vote" it seems to me (from what I see on C-span) that they vote party line.  \n\nBoth Rep. and Dems are guilty of the 2 step.  The Republicans (of which I am one by the way) spent and spent and spent and were not conservative.  They were just more conservative than the democrats but that Rep. house and senate were not Reagan conservatives.  Even ultra conservative Rush Limbaugh commented on how the house and senate were not passing conservative agenda.\n\nSo it seems there are 2 things to watch for.  What they say and how they vote.\n\nI have no axe to grind here but I must say it appears that both Democrats and Republicans are "morphing" into each other.  Can you see it?  The Dem's had to move to the center and to the right to win the Republican house seats.  The Republicans did not run the house and senate as true conservatives.\n\nThe defination of Conservatism is:"\nConservatism is a political philosophy that necessitates a defense of established values or the status quo. [citation needed] The term derives from to conserve; from Latin conservāre, "to keep, guard, observe". While not in itself an ideology, it is a political philosophy that is determined almost entirely by its context. [citation needed] It is defined, in part, as an emphasis on tradition as a source of wisdom that goes beyond what can be demonstrated or even explicitly stated. [citation needed]\n\nSamuel Francis defined authentic conservatism as “the survival and enhancement of a particular people and its institutionalized cultural expressions.”[1] Roger Scruton calls it “maintenance of the social ecology” and “the politics of delay, the purpose of which is to maintain in being, for as long as possible, the life and health of a social organism.”[2]\n\nSo in closing this answer, to make it as simple as possible is "You have to take each politician alone and not as a group"  take Joe Lieberman for example.  He says he's a Democrat but he had to run as an Independent because he supported the war.\n\nSo he is a good example of the 2 things to look for.  What they say and how they vote.  In essence "saying someone is conservative" doesn't mean anything.  Better to look at how they vote.   ie: Their deeds show what they really are their words show what they want us to believe.
651904
no.  its a republic.  but it's not even a republic anymore, its an item up for bid to the highest bidder.\n\nwhen George Washinton stepped down from the podium, he warned against one thing.....and that was the creation of a two party system.  so what happen?  as soon as he stepped down, they created a two party system.  its my belief that if you care enough about something that your willing to represent it, then you set aside your differences and stay commited to the goal......a prosperous society with equality for all.
728866
Usually I would say that they pretty much do this on a daily basis, but then again, I should be one to talk since I do the same thing. I'm a Democrat and I've done more of my fair share of slander and rudeness, mainly out of retaliation against the Republicans. However, I think it tends to go both ways.
375086
I am a moderate conservative with leaning towards being more liberal for social programs who help children, the elderly, handicapped, etc etc. Fiscally, I lean more towards the conservative end. However, what I am seeing NOW in the United States is that both parties need to more clearly define their positions. I just want to have an honest, hardworking, moral, intelligent president and even more importantly a CONGRESS who will stand up and finally think about OUR people and what is best for the United States and not THEIR special interest groups instead.
928579
As it happens, the question you pose happens to be the case right now.  The Republicans currently control both of those Branches (some would argue that they control all three).  In the current case, it appears that a weak legislature of the same Party as the President tends to act as rubber stamp for the Executive.  In times past,  the Congress has taken its role in the scheme of "Checks and Balances" more seriously.  Part of the answer to this question depends on your view of the performance of the party in power. Personally, I don't think things are going particularly well - you may have another view.
860760
The President and the Congress will both have to make compromises which is what always happens when the two are of opposite parties. If Bush vetoes all of the bills, Congress will not push through any of the legislation he proposes. That is what always happens in this type of circumstance. .So no, you will not be "safe".
302199
It's really not.  Sure, the President seems to be much more engaged in the international side of things, but Congress has always had a much more domestic role.  Because Congress has the power to set policy within the country, the biggest way that the President can exercise his power is through diplomacy and the military.  It's merely a matter of perception.
872967
That's a cool picture, but I somehow doubt the Democrats will call Bush & Co. to account, since there's been so much rhetoric about working together. I only wish the Republicans in Congress had had the same attitude when Clinton was in office.
905476
Screwed?\n\nIn U.S. elections, you're almost always talking about very small margins (both in individual races and in the total make-up of the legislature).\n\nThere is an exact 50/50 split between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate.  The House remains split 56/44--only with Democrats taking the lead position.  It's not as if Democrats won election in historic levels.  The country is just readjusting back to center (and corporate globalist aspirations will also now shift back to center--President Bush himself has said that the time for partisanship is over) after a brief foray in MILD partisan government.\n\nDon't raise the red flag just yet.
797729
I am a liberal who usually votes Democrat.  Having said that, I must also say that you make some excellent points.  The main thing the Democrats and Republicans can do is to end the pervasive divisiveness in congress.  In fairness to the Democrats I will say that the majority in bioth house has completely shut out any ideas differing from their own.  The new congress must not make that mistake.\n\nSome of your points, while important to remember, are not quite realistic.  The Democrats may have a two vote lead in the Senate and a good lead in the House but the President is still George Bush, Republican.  The fair question is what will Democrats, Republicans and the Pressident do now.  If the President attemts to work with this congress there can be progress.  If he, and/or the minority continue tactics of divisiveness then there will be gridlock.\n\nYour last point still applies.  They were voted in and those that put up roadblocks may well be voted out.
312059
False- Only Congress can declare war, not the president, and Congress has not officially done so. So, we are not technically "at war," even though that is what most people (including the president) are calling it.
891975
Impeachment and conviction in the senate are a matter of actual criminal activity, and not just because someone has a difference of opinion in how things should have been handled.  Get a grip!\n\nSue
15172
I'm no constitutional expert, but technically you may be right.  In the political arena, it's a different matter.  I think that using the filibuster has been the only way the Democrats have had to achieve any kind of bipartisan process.  I realize the majority party rules, but the days of at least some give and take between the aisles are long gone.  I think the threat of filibuster has given the minority party more of a place at the table then they had.
441248
First of all the way to stop this is to take congress back from the republican/facist majority that is currently in control.  the only reason bush has been able to get away with the crap he has done recently is because the majority of congress is on his side.  The dangers of a one party majority in all three branches of government have become more and more obvious, there is no balance of power if all sides are bent on the same destructive course.  2006 is an election year, now is the time to fix the problems.
786072
Only extreme partisans completely support the agenda of one side or the other. The vast majority of the country are moderate. They may lean to one side or the other, but are still willing to cross lines in the name of good legislation.