McGrath,

the dfference between the British "The Government" and the American "The Government" is not merely rhetorical. It arises because the executive branch and legislative branch of government are far more separate here. Here the party which controls the legislature does not appoint a "Prime Minister" to run the administration, so in most years we could not have for example a "Labour Government."   We are as likely to have a Republican Presidential administration and a Democratic Legislature; indeed it quite usual here for the legislature and the presidency to be in opposition, which cannot by definition happen in many parliamentary systems.

Every two years there are elections in which some congressional seats usually change hands, and the makeup of the legislature therefore changes at the start and in the middle of every presidential term. Therefore, Bush may start out with a Republican legislature, then have to deal with a Democratic legislature, then revert again (if he serves a second term). There are also, as in Britain, two houses of congress, one of which represents people directly (one congressperson for every so many citizens) and one of which represents the States (two Senators for each State). These also may be dominated by different parties. In this system, it would be very clumsy to refer to "the government" as a way to generalize about both the presidency and the congress. Throw the Supreme Court into the mix and things become even more confusing. If the President is a Democrat, the House is Republican, the Senate democratic, and the Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees, which is "the government" and which "the opposition?"

Because of this, we refer to the presidential administration as "the Administration" and to the two houses of congress as "Congress" or "The Hill," etc. We refer to the House of Representatives as "The House" (or sometimes wrongly as "congress") and the Senate as "The Senate." But we do not talk about "the Government" and "the opposition." If someone is in congress, he is in the government.

Right now, we have a very unusual circumstance, which looks superficially like a parliamentary system: the president and both houses of Congress are dominated by the same party. Thus Richard was left with the impression that we have a "ruling party" and a "loyal opposition." But this is a temporary circumstance and does not reflect the way our government usually works.

GUEST--your post of 12 Mar 04 - 11:20 AM was essentially correct (are you the same GUEST?) I would not be a Kerry supporter except that I feel we are in a national emergency. I am particularly concerned about the environment, which I think may be irreparably destroyed by four more years of Bush. So once he sewed up the nomination, I gave Kerry my support.

I think if a more progressive candidate splits the left-leaning vote and we get four more years of Bush it will be a disaster. Except for this, I'd say, "what the hell, four more years of Bush may energize the progressives," which is logic that usually doesn't work, but what the hell? This time I just think it's too dangerous to do that.

But as I said before, I respect the rights and the reasoning of people who question JK. That is, until they start making ridiculous and grandiose claims, and changing the terms of the debate in mid-discussion.