One-Party Rule in Washington
For moderate voters clinging to some faith in government, the question over the past two decades of mostly two-party rule was: Can't Washington do anything? Full Story »
Posted by Derek Hawkins
Tags
Editorial
Posted by:
Posted by Derek Hawkins - Jun 8, 2009 - 12:30 AM PDT
Reviewed by:
Derek Hawkins (review), Kaizar Campwala (review), Jack Dinkmeyer (review), Kenneth Sibbett (review)
Content Type:
Article
Edit Lock:
This story can be edited
Edited by:
Derek Hawkins - Jun 8, 2009 - 12:30 AM PDT
To:
Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.
Note:
Mr. Hiatt, You're the first. The first one to stump me completely, solidly, and I hope, not permanatantely. While every point you make has merit, I can argue everyone, all day with you. I hate to do this, but, hear's a cigar.
The man is right. You either make this work, or capitalism, as it is , is fool's gold. If a two-part system can not, and I stress can not, find a ... More »
He doesn't make a clear connection of how one-party rule engenders the legislative problems he's referring to, making this come off as a confused rant about bad policy in the U.S. Congress.
Fred seems a closet FOX “Fair & Balanced” disciple actually trying to be fair. Unfortunately, such a FOX balancing act isn’t possible, and we end up with an opinion piece with no opinion. He segues from a two-party government—whatever the Hell that meant—into questioning how shall we pay for universal health care (socialized medicine if you’re a neocon.) Then it’s a jump-cut to taxing resources as a conservation tool. Drop the facade, Fred, and cut to the chase: we ... More »
Decades of two party government? Where have you been, Fred? In the 80s, Reagan threw a party for the rich; in the 90s, neocons had their ... More »
Retrieving Comments
NT Rating
| My Rating
Ratings
Topics
(See these related stories.)
Links
Links
No links yet. Please review this story to add some!
