If President Obama is re-elected and the House stays Republican...?

[kentuck]

Will anything change?

If the Tea Party remains in control of the Republican Party, can there be any compromise on anything?

I think we know the answer?

We need to focus on getting rid of these dangerous and misguided ideologues if we are to survive this terrible recession that they put us in. I would argue that this is even more important than electing a Democratic President. I know that is debatable with the Judiciary appointments, etc. But the House of Representatives is the voice of the people. The people must re-take control of our destinies.

We can campaign for Barack Obama but the real change that we need is in the House. Let us not overlook the rattlesnakes at our feet looking for the fire-breathing dragons. These people need to go. Their popularity is presently standing at about 12%. The Presidency is important but it should not be our only focus.

[Yupster]

1. Normally a president's second term

is less successfull than his first.

Bush had Iraq, Clinton had Monica, Reagan had Iran/Contra.

I think you get your main ideas done and then there's a stagnation and you also lose many of your key advisors as staying eight years in a cabinet job is awfully tough on people.

On edit, presidents also generally lose a lot of seats in their sixth year doesn't help either.

[WhiteTara]

2. No, so let's get out and work for our LOCAL critters

to make sure they get to Washington instead of the TBers

[Leopolds Ghost]

3. We'll get more of the same. The goal of a corporate state is to enforce continuity

And eliminate variability in the consumer marketplace, be it politics or what have you.

[Leopolds Ghost]

4. Of course, if Obama loses it'll get even worse

Then again, Mitt Romney (along with Gingrich) IS the architect of individual mandate health care, so...

much worse if Romney wins, because it'd vindicate fans of HCR and further divide and conquer.

[RickFromMN]

5. I can't imagine the Tea Party freshmen getting a second term...I really can't.

Even Wall Street doesn't want a government default. They don't want the world economy destroyed.

The Koch's may stand with their Tea Party prodigy out of loyalty...I don't know.
If they do, they are fools. Even the Koch's aren't immune should the world economy be destroyed.

[MH1]

6. True but don't lose sight of how much things WILL change - for the WORSE -

if Obama is not re-elected.

But you are right that we also need to evict the goons from the House. And preferably a few goons and DINOs from the Senate. (Although at this point, low priority to the DINOs, they aren't near as bad as the goons.)

[kentuck]

7. That is probably true but...

The President stands a better chance at re-election if we get more voters out in each Congressional district to vote out these unpopular Teabaggers, in my opinion. If we don't defeat this Republican Congress, the President will be hard-pressed to get anything accomplished. Very little will change from the present political reality. If we want to re-elect President Obama, get a new Congress. It is easier to get people to vote "against" these Republican radicals than to get them to vote "for" Barack Obama. Just something to think about...

[Owlet]

8. Things will get worse regardless

The whole global debt-based economic system is coming down around our ears.

One theory - and I'm being more drawn to it every day - is that the only time anything gets done in this country is when we have divided government: i.e. a Democrat as President and a Republican-controlled Congress. The thinking is that with divided government, and both sides being more or less balanced in the power equation, both have equal ownership of things that go right and things that go wrong, hence there is incentive to work together - compromise, if you will.

I know that this is the rankest heresy, and I am donning my flame-retardent gear even as I type.

[kentuck]

9. We have divided government right now...

I don't see a whole of anything being passed or fixed?

[Owlet]

10. Not really..

We have a divided Congress. I don't think it's the same thing. The House passes some POS. it's DOA in the Senate. The Senate can barely agree on the time of day, since it requires 60 votes on such a controversial topic. The President is virtually powerless in this instance. Accountability, ownership, stakeholding, call it what you will, is pretty much absent, so these folks spend their time fundraising and calling each other names. The Great American Experiment looks like it's fizzling out.

[kentuck]

11. Divided government would be defined as...

when one Party controls one or two branches of the government and the other Party controls the remainder. Really.

[Owlet]

12. I stand corrected

Really :)

" In the United States, divided government describes a situation in which one party controls the White House and another party controls one or both houses of the United States Congress. Divided government is suggested by some to be an undesirable product of the separation of powers in the United States' political system. Earlier in the 20th century, divided government was rare, but in the late 20th and early 21st centuries it has become increasingly common."

I guess my confusion arises out of a question as to who actually controls the U.S. Senate. The Democrats are in the majority, which lets Joe Biden preside over the place, and gives them the chairmanships of committees, but there doesn't seem to be any day-to-day control when it comes to passing legislation.

In any case, what we have currently is clearly the textbook example of divided government.

Maybe this is the only solution:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYHeZCEFwhI