FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
All eyes in political circles these days seem to be focused on the race between Barack Obama and John McCain, but the battle for the Senate could end up having as big an impact as the presidential race.
Democrats could win a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats in the Senate in November. If they do, it will be the first time that's happened since 1977. The so-called "Magic 60" would mean a fast track for the Democrats' agenda. They already enjoy a substantial majority in the House, and if the polls are accurate they stand to pick up more seats there as well come November.
Add to that the possibility that Barack Obama becomes the next president, and the stage is set for a Democratic deluge: Legislation, judicial appointments, you name it – will go through Congress like bacon through a goose.
The good news is the federal government might actually get something done. This would be in sharp contrast to the gridlock, finger-pointing and obstructionism that have paralyzed our government for years. The bad news is: what if they don't do the right things? Our Washington politicians have a long history of disappointing us, and as a result, a lot of people think gridlock is better than no gridlock.
However, the nation's problems have become so large and far-reaching that we may no longer be able to afford the luxury of a government that does nothing. If the Democrats hit the trifecta in November, I guess we'll all just have to pray that they don't make things worse than they already are.
Here’s my question to you: Which is better: gridlock or one party controlling Congress and the White House?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Dennis from Buffalo, New York writes:
We have had gridlock and an abuse of power for the last 8 years. I'm willing to try one-party rule for the next term to see if least something can get done. With so many pressing issues being dumped on whoever gets elected, the last thing they need is to have to deal with the idiots pulling a filibuster.
Amy from Jacksonville, Florida writes:
Gridlock, no doubt. When Republicans figure out that they can't just stomp their feet and throw a fit because they can't get their way, they can start actually negotiating and Congress can find a balance on all these issues. We are in trouble right now because the government became too one-sided.
Jesse from State College, Pennsylvania writes:
Thomas Jefferson once said, "To render us again one people acting as one nation should be the object of every man." Though he was also wary of a one-party control of government, it is important in these times that bills get passed to help the citizens of this country who are not being listened to. Gridlock by both parties in Washington is leaving the lower and middle classes behind.
Gridlock is better. At least with gridlock, the Congress can't damage the country any further with more laws paid for by the lobbies. Instead of passing more laws, how about if we try enforcing the laws already on the books for a change?
Mike from St. Petersburg Beach, Florida writes:
The problem isn't the system, it's the man. The founding fathers set it up this way in case a guy like Bush slithered his way into the White House.
Ondrya from California writes:
Dear Super Old Dude, Is this a trick question or what? Why would we want like one-party control and stuff? Something might get done for a change, and who wants that? Getting stuff to go through Congress like bacon through a goose...that's like so gross!