BERLIN Oct 10, 2005 — Conservative Angela Merkel struck a power-sharing deal Monday that will make her the first woman and politician from the ex-communist east to serve as Germany's chancellor, forging a coalition with ousted leader Gerhard Schroeder's party to reform the faltering economy.

The country's two biggest political forces were forced into talks on forming a joint government after a Sept. 18 election gave Merkel a victory but with a margin so slim Schroeder's party demanded equal treatment in a "grand coalition." To resolve the impasse, the Social Democrats gave up Germany's leadership, but the party secured the bulk of the ministries, including the prestigious Foreign Ministry.

"I feel good," she told reporters with a broad smile. "But I have a lot of work ahead of me."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1201271

These 2 groups signing with each other? Is this as weird as I think it is?

The irony is the amount of hatred that Shroeder spewed against American govt, and people during his last campaign about the electoral college. I think that they found it funny that our archaic system had failed us so badly.

And then he ended up in the same situation.

Also what is interesting is that Euros who considered Bush's 00 and 04 victories as first an aberration, and then next as a matter of a vast right wing fundie conspiracy even though in their national systems leaders rarely get even close to 40% of the vote, and even though our system is flawed, there is a much more direct election aspect to our leader than to theirs.

And in any case Bush won a greater percentage of the vote than did Clinton in either election.

And of course, he had the highest nominal votes ever.

But I have gotten away from the thread. As a rightist I am glad that Merckel won finally.

She's going to have to make some major compromises to make that agreement work-Schroeder gave in but he didn't give carte blanche...

They are calling her the "German Maggie Thatcher" (Yuck) because of her free-market views but I don't think she can go too far if she is in partnership with a socialist party. She may have her hands tied and be unable to do much which would be bad for Germany. I am usually not a fan of excessive neo-liberalism but Germany's economy needs a boot up the ass, and France's does too so perhaps Germany's economy improving will force the French to reform more. I am always glad to see the further demise of patriarchal society so well done Angie though you just barely won that position.

The irony is the amount of hatred that Shroeder spewed against American govt, and people during his last campaign about the electoral college. I think that they found it funny that our archaic system had failed us so badly.

And then he ended up in the same situation.
yes, the whole diference is that in he US, bush had a minimal win, and got everything, while in germany an allmost tie means that they both have to come to an agreement and do it together. thats a much fairer solution.

yes, the whole diference is that in he US, bush had a minimal win, and got everything, while in germany an allmost tie means that they both have to come to an agreement and do it together. thats a much fairer solution.

European democracy :nice:
American dictatorship :not: .......... :D

yes, the whole diference is that in he US, bush had a minimal win, and got everything, while in germany an allmost tie means that they both have to come to an agreement and do it together. thats a much fairer solution.

That's not the way it works in the US. Bush got the presidency through his election. That's the only branch of government he "gets". The judiciary and legislative branches are separate. The legislative is elected separately from the president, and the judiciary is appointed. In Bush's first term, he had to deal with a hostile presence in the Senate, since his party did not hold a majority.

I still thinnk the german process is fairer-there are more parties to choose from and Bush wouldn't have a shot because unlike Merkel he has no diplomatic skills-he's a spoiled autocrat...

I still thinnk the german process is fairer-there are more parties to choose from and Bush wouldn't have a shot because unlike Merkel he has no diplomatic skills-he's a spoiled autocrat...

Diluting the vote is something that third parties have always done here. It could be convincingly argued that Bill Clinton would never have been elected if it had not been for Ross Perot. That being said, you can't make the case that Bush wouldn't have been elected anyway.

Neither the Democrats or Republicans represent the majority of Americans. There are lots of fractures/fights inside those because there aren't enough parties to choose from and you're pretty much stuck with those two.

The moderate Republicans can't stand the far right Christian fundamentalists that Bush brought in with him. The leftists can't stand the moderate Democrats. But that's what you're stuck with and have no other choices. A third party has never lasted very long in the US.

She has an interesting CV. Her dad was a leftist Luthern Pastor who went to East Germany. She became a CD. Her own politics are not well known. She opposed Helmut Kohl within her own party. She is seen as a conservative but her views on specific issues are unknown.

I do like the idea of a woman as Chancellor, but I hope she is not a reactonary like Margaret Thatcher.

Diluting the vote is something that third parties have always done here. It could be convincingly argued that Bill Clinton would never have been elected if it had not been for Ross Perot. That being said, you can't make the case that Bush wouldn't have been elected anyway.

I agree Perot was instrumental and I'm not sure it wasn't even orchestrated-germans tend to be more accepting of people's flaws
than WASPs,this is more than diluting the vote-they have to form a coalition-which means whoever you sign with has an active role on the government...

That's not the way it works in the US. Bush got the presidency through his election. That's the only branch of government he "gets". The judiciary and legislative branches are separate. The legislative is elected separately from the president, and the judiciary is appointed. In Bush's first term, he had to deal with a hostile presence in the Senate, since his party did not hold a majority.I wasnt even talking about other bodies, since they are seperate as well in germany, ofcourse. and doenst your president assign the supreme court judges?
but thats btp, I ment , your election gives the full gouv., to the winner. in germany it only determins the seats in parlement, and it is an unwritten rule that the biggest gets to have the presidents post, and has first choice in nagoiations with other parties to try to form a gouv. that has a majority in parlement.

imagin last elections in the US would have ment that the democrats and the rep. had to form a joined gouv.....

Her first act should be a decree mandating that German women shave their legs and stinky pits twice a week.

Her first act should be a decree mandating that German women shave their legs and stinky pits twice a week.
Thats a myth. Most modern German women do shave.

Thats a myth. Most modern German women do shave.

Says you. I can personally vouch for the authenticity of that myth.

Says you. I can personally vouch for the authenticity of that myth.

what part of Germany did u visit :confused:

They do have a messier and more complicated form democracy there

what part of Germany did u visit :confused:

They do have a messier and more complicated form democracy there

All over but spent the majority of my summers in northern Germany, the industrial ugly part of Germany. It's been 10 years since I have been there, perhaps it's changed, but hairy chicks were one of things I did notice.

they do have hair, you know, women.

These 2 groups signing with each other? Is this as weird as I think it is?

no, it has already happened in the past, with, I understand, rather positive results .

no, it has already happened in the past, with, I understand, rather positive results .

I'm not sure it would ever work here.We have capable people able to hammer these things out but we never put them in charge.

You need smaller parties in the US for that to work, your system is too much geared around a two party system.

You need smaller parties in the US for that to work, your system is too much geared around a two party system.

There is alot of internal dissent in both parties they could fragment-it's a strained marriage of convenience that keeps the players interacting,it also cheapens the game...we get mealy mouthed pretty boys with no real coinvictions because everyone's afraid of strong opinions driving away voters...

America is getting short changed on democratic choice because of these two political prostitute parties.

Absolutely,there's a substantial group of politically aware people that refer to themselves as "Independents"-Bush made it primarily because people were afraid of the Democrats raising taxes.

You need smaller parties in the US for that to work, your system is too much geared around a two party system.

indeed.
Also, no need for a coalition for centrism by exclusion of the extremities, when there are no extremities...

The Democrats are center-right, pro-business/weak social justice party; they have a liberal face but their internal polices are very much of the right.
The Republicans call themselves traditional conservatives but behind the scenes they are controlled by all kinds of different and powerful groups.

I can see the bones of four if not five different parties there in place of two parties which stand for nothing, do not differ very much in core national policies and are complacent about support from their 50% or so of the electorate.