That would seem to be the case, but practical considerations make it work better than we would think. On one level, there is quid pro quo to consider-- if you're willing to compromise on an issue, you may get the same consideration in turn later on. Also, bills can be discussed and modified before they're voted on, which allows some objections to be addressed and make it more palatable for both sides. Many bills introduced by one party will have 'riders' attached that benefit what the other party wants, which is one of the ways they compromise (although it is also used to kill some legislation, by making the new bill unattractive to the party that introduced it). And contrary to common belief, lobbyists spread their dollars to both parties pretty liberally, which can help push legislation through that might otherwise be held up.Originally Posted by 'Stealthy',index.php?page=Thread&postID=72000#post 72000
Democracy here works best when people take a practical approach to compromise and negotiation. It's not always pretty, but more effective than it would seem at first glance.
As for the question about coverage, yes, McCain got very little coverage compared to Clinton and Obama, but that is because he sewed up the nomination early on. Also, aside from the fact that Clinton and Obama still had to campaign against each other the novelty of a woman and a black candidate running (much less two in the same election year) also made for more news coverage. And they're both relatively new; McCain has made a few runs at the Presidency, so he is something of a known quantity. Now that the Democratic nominee is settled, we'll start to see more coverage that includes McCain, since the networks will be anxious to compare him with Obama and analyze them and the election.
Connect With Us