« Crist-Rubio amateur theater criticism | Main | GOP backing away from repeal of health care reform »

March 30, 2010

Comments

Doesn't your analysis assume that President Obama would insist on liberal positions--and veto bills that are not as liberal as he'd prefer--rather than compromise for the good of the country? That seems like a harsh indictment of President Obama. Shouldn't we give him the benefit of the doubt and allow for the possibility that he might put solving the country's problems above liberal ideology?

If one believes, as I do, that most of what Congress does is pernicious, then divided government is best because it results in the smallest possible amount of legislation.

A recent poll showed a Congressional disapproval rating of 72%, so it would seem that substantial majority of Americans agree with this view. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/campaign-blogs-roundup/89581-top-of-the-ballot-congressional-disapproval-now-at-late-1994-levels

" the silly claim that Obama would benefit politically from divided government"

"Clinton's move toward the center after 1994 may have helped increase his 1996 vote totals and approval ratings, but the long economic expansion that took place during his time in office was the driving force behind his political success. "

So it's "silly" to say Obama would benefit politically from divided government, but "Clinton's move toward the center after 1994 may have helped increase his 1996 vote totals and approval ratings"?

Rauch may overstate the benefits, but citing Clinton's case as a guide certainly doesn't make the entire argument silly.

The comments to this entry are closed.