Why do you think Both parties Republican or Democrat refuse to give the opposing party any credit for a job well done?

Similar questions: parties Republican Democrat refuse give opposing party credit job.

1 I don't have an answer for that...I just can't wait until it is over with! Go Ralph Nader! .

I don't have an answer for that...I just can't wait until it is over with! Go Ralph Nader!

2 HA! LouLou, that's a loaded question! I'd have to say because their ideological philosophies are so different that it's been very rare when they've both reached a common ground.To give one example was the No Child Left Behind program.

When signed, Ted Kennedy gave GW many kudos for the bill. Rare indeed.

HA! LouLou, that's a loaded question! I'd have to say because their ideological philosophies are so different that it's been very rare when they've both reached a common ground.To give one example was the No Child Left Behind program.

When signed, Ted Kennedy gave GW many kudos for the bill. Rare indeed.

One problem liberals have had with Bush however is that he's moved the agenda too far to the right for our tastes and has on every single issue we can think of, gone in what we consider to be the "wrong" direction. But look at the two "Gods" of politics in the modern era...on the right Reagan is the standard bearer, on the left it's Bill Clinton. What you're likely to hear from the left is that Reagan destroyed America with trickle down economics.

What you're likely to hear from the right is that Clinton destroyed America with his lack of integrity. But most Democrats I've known agreed with and acknowledged and gave credit to some of Reagan's policies, and most Republicans I've known agreed with and acknowledged and gave credit to some of Clinton's policies. So, I think 2 things are a play here.

Not only is Bush just too far to the right on most issues for any Democrat to agree with him under almost any circumstance...which is not out of the admitted hatred they have for Bush but because of legitimate disagreement with his policies, he is also a very strong willed leader. He has been a my way or the highway President, he has basically divided us into Red and Blue and made sure that bi-partisan support for much of anything became a thing of the past. Because of this, he so often gets his way, and even if he can't get Congressional support, he does a lot of business by executive order, circumventing any real debate.

When EITHER side feels completely shut out of the process for nearly a decade, you can't expect they will be very willing to give the person they feel caused it, in their mind the "enemy" a pat on the back for ANYTHING. Second is that in the current media environment, only sensationalistic garbage sells. In an world where people want to know more about Britney shaving her head or Paris getting a new purse dog, you really need to be able to make the news sensationalistic, and you're not going to do that by reporting on a small issue with bipartisan support that easily sailed through Congress and was signed by the President.

But you are going to hear about it when the President won't accept any foreign surveilance bill that doesn't let the telecom companies off the hook for their illegal cooperation with his requests, because that fight has a million points to it and it's something people can take a strong opinion on and get upset about, therefore it's worth watching. But if you really want to look at examples of how real people in both parties ARE, and truthfully always have been, willing to give kudos to the other side, just look at the number of Democrats who support McCain and Republicans who support Obama (you could argue that Republicans also seem to support Clinton, but I would speculate that Republicans went on the record long ago as viscerally hating and the only reason she's getting Republican votes is that they'd rather run against her than Obama). Many Democrats proudly hail McCain's military service, and his reputation as a maverick, voting against party orthodoxy at a time when it was simply unacceptable to not be lock step with the Bush administration on EVERYTHING.

And many Republicans admire Obama for what they perceive as his integrity and honesty (though clearly not all agree, which illustrates my point that you aren't going to give credit if you don't think it's deserved). So, it boils down to 1) legitimate disagreements in whether or not credit is deserved, 2) media hyping of the disagreements and burying of the agreements and 3) extremism in leadership leading to a more divisive political environment.

I'm thinking that you get a different perspective when you talk to real people than you do in the media. The media wants to blow up the differences and leave the common ground untouched. As a liberal who is pretty far left, I've read books by other fairly far left liberals who have said that other than a few hot button issues, Democrats and Republicans aren't all that far apart on most things.

One problem liberals have had with Bush however is that he's moved the agenda too far to the right for our tastes and has on every single issue we can think of, gone in what we consider to be the "wrong" direction. But look at the two "Gods" of politics in the modern era...on the right Reagan is the standard bearer, on the left it's Bill Clinton. What you're likely to hear from the left is that Reagan destroyed America with trickle down economics.

What you're likely to hear from the right is that Clinton destroyed America with his lack of integrity. But most Democrats I've known agreed with and acknowledged and gave credit to some of Reagan's policies, and most Republicans I've known agreed with and acknowledged and gave credit to some of Clinton's policies. So, I think 2 things are a play here.

Not only is Bush just too far to the right on most issues for any Democrat to agree with him under almost any circumstance...which is not out of the admitted hatred they have for Bush but because of legitimate disagreement with his policies, he is also a very strong willed leader. He has been a my way or the highway President, he has basically divided us into Red and Blue and made sure that bi-partisan support for much of anything became a thing of the past. Because of this, he so often gets his way, and even if he can't get Congressional support, he does a lot of business by executive order, circumventing any real debate.

When EITHER side feels completely shut out of the process for nearly a decade, you can't expect they will be very willing to give the person they feel caused it, in their mind the "enemy" a pat on the back for ANYTHING. Second is that in the current media environment, only sensationalistic garbage sells. In an world where people want to know more about Britney shaving her head or Paris getting a new purse dog, you really need to be able to make the news sensationalistic, and you're not going to do that by reporting on a small issue with bipartisan support that easily sailed through Congress and was signed by the President.

But you are going to hear about it when the President won't accept any foreign surveilance bill that doesn't let the telecom companies off the hook for their illegal cooperation with his requests, because that fight has a million points to it and it's something people can take a strong opinion on and get upset about, therefore it's worth watching. But if you really want to look at examples of how real people in both parties ARE, and truthfully always have been, willing to give kudos to the other side, just look at the number of Democrats who support McCain and Republicans who support Obama (you could argue that Republicans also seem to support Clinton, but I would speculate that Republicans went on the record long ago as viscerally hating and the only reason she's getting Republican votes is that they'd rather run against her than Obama). Many Democrats proudly hail McCain's military service, and his reputation as a maverick, voting against party orthodoxy at a time when it was simply unacceptable to not be lock step with the Bush administration on EVERYTHING.

And many Republicans admire Obama for what they perceive as his integrity and honesty (though clearly not all agree, which illustrates my point that you aren't going to give credit if you don't think it's deserved). So, it boils down to 1) legitimate disagreements in whether or not credit is deserved, 2) media hyping of the disagreements and burying of the agreements and 3) extremism in leadership leading to a more divisive political environment.

4 Dale, you amaze me! Don't you sometimes get finger cramps from all that typing? LOL .

Dale, you amaze me! Don't you sometimes get finger cramps from all that typing? LOL.

Not really. I'd have responded sooner but my fingers were cramped up for some reason?

" "Give me back my party! Has the evangelical right highjacked the republican party? " "If you used to be a Democrat, what caused you to switch to the Republican party?

" "Republican or Democrat...?" "Should Ron Paul say "The PARTY is over" and run for Predident not as a Republican or Democrat but as an American?

Does the two party (Republican and Democrat) system work or is there just way too much power there for us Americans to.

Give me back my party! Has the evangelical right highjacked the republican party?

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.