Location: Western Hemisphere
Posted on: 15-11-12 13:15:18
Quote:
Originally posted by KumarM
Romney never mentioned George Bush (the son) nor invited him to speak in the GOP convention. Same for Sara Palin. Why? Romney knew well that the current economy was due to the failed policies of Bush. Ms. Palin? Let's leave her alone.
Well, Bill Clinton had a hand in causing the collapse of 2008/2009 due to his "everybody should own a home" policies. Lending policies were loosened to a disastrous levels during his terms. In any case, you are right. Romney should have had Dubya support him as Obama did with Bill Clinton. It would have been a good booster. But then, Dubya can't say 2 words without a script while Bill Clinton is a smooth talker and "more"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dimple2001
What would you achieve by having more than 2 parties? Look at India, it's in deep (whatever you may call it) because of this rotten system. The more choices people have the more confused they become. Good for elections, bad for governance.
I am strongly in favor of two parties only, whether in US or India. Doesn't matter how many parties you have, what matters at the end are the policies of the party in Power.
Takes two to tango!
IMO, Dubya caused more damage to the economy than Clinton. Iraq war also added to the financial woes. Little wonder Romney did not want Dubya at any place.
There needs to be more than two political parties at the national level so that people dont have the rock and the hard place situtation. There could be a potential loss of interest in the system resulting in reduction in voting if there are only two choices unless independents step up and win.
In India there are many parties at the regional level also. In Karnataka there are two new regional parties headed by leaders who are facing legal issues. In fact JD(S) is also regional as it does not have anything outside the state. So it becomes three regional aprties + national parties.
