The (G.O.P.) Party’s Over

[SecularMotion]

This column has argued for a while now that there is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy. At least a one-party autocracy can order things to get done.

A one-party democracy — that is, a two-party system where only one party is interested in governing and the other is in constant blocking mode, which has characterized America in recent years — is much worse. It can’t do anything big, hard or important.

We can survive a few years of such deadlock in Washington, but we sure can’t take another four or eight years without real decay setting in, and that explains what I’m rooting for in this fall’s elections: I hope Hillary Clinton wins all 50 states and the Democrats take the presidency, the House, the Senate and, effectively, the Supreme Court.

That is the best thing that could happen to America, at least for the next two years — that Donald Trump is not just defeated, but is crushed at the polls. That would have multiple advantages for our country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/opinion/the-gop-partys-over.html

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. Please make it so

But we have to keep the number of Republicans in the Senate below the number where they can keep throwing sand in the gears with their constant use of the Filibuster

[FSogol]

2. GOTV, DU.

[tblue37]

3. Notice that the ability of just ONE senator to put a hold on an

appointment enables any a***ole to block things. Some senator just used a hold to block Obama from appointing a black woman as the congressional librarian.

[dembotoz]

4. hard to take this seriously when the gop controls everything in my state

[longship]

5. Here!

[world wide wally]

6. But imagine it the other way around (Heaven forbid) and the GOP controls it all.

We'll be praying for gridlock!

[HenryWallace]

7. Please don't site Thomas Friedman!

"The next six months in Iraq—which will determine the prospects for democracy-building there—are the most important six months in U.S. foreign policy in a long, long time." (The New York Times, November 30, 2003)

"It might be over in a week, it might be over in a month, it might be over in six months." (NPR's Fresh Air, June 3, 2004)

"What we're gonna find out, Bob, in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war." (CBS's Face the Nation, September 3, 2004)

"Iraq will be won or lost in the next few months." (The New York Times, November 28, 2004)

"I think we're in a six-month window here." (NBC's Meet the Press, September 25, 2005)

"Maybe the cynical Europeans were right. Maybe this neighborhood is just beyond transformation. That will become clear in the next few months as we see just what kind of minority the Sunnis in Iraq intend to be." (The New York Times, September 28, 2005)

"I think the next six months really are going to determine whether this country is going to collapse into three parts or more or whether it's going to come together." (CBS's Face the Nation, December 18, 2005)

"We're at the beginning of I think the decisive I would say six months in Iraq." (PBS's Charlie Rose Show, December 20, 2005)

"The only thing I am certain of is that in the wake of this election, Iraq will be what Iraqis make of it—and the next six months will tell us a lot." (The New York Times, December 21, 2005)

"I think that we're going to know after six to nine months whether this project has any chance of succeeding." (Oprah Winfrey Show, January 23, 2006)

"I think we're in the end game there, in the next three to six months." (CBS, January 31, 2006)

"The next six to nine months are going to tell whether we can produce a decent outcome in Iraq." (NBC's Today, March 2, 2006)

"I think we're in the end game in the sense it's going to be decided in the next weeks or months whether there's an Iraq there worth investing in." (CNN, April 23, 2006)

"Well, I think that we're going to find out, Chris, in the next year to six months—probably sooner—whether a decent outcome is possible there." (MSNBC's Hardball, May 11, 2006)

[PatSeg]

9. Ah

We were on the same wavelength there. I think Friedman has some credibility issues.

[Salviati]

11. OTOH, now we can legitimately claim that even an idiot can see that Democrats are the only party....

... interested in running this country.

[aggiesal]

12. I think in the next 3 to 6 months ...

we will see where the Greedy-One-Percent (GOP) stands.

[PatSeg]

8. That's Thomas Friedman

Times certainly have changed. I remember when he was a cheerleader for George Bush's invasion of Iraq and dubbed himself a "Tony Blair Democrat".

Good editorial though.

[AllyCat]

10. I agree.

[FairWinds]

13. Friedman is what is known as a . .

Very Serious Person.

Much as we may Dis him, his word carries weight.

(clarification - I'm not a fan of any VSP that I can think of)

[raven mad]

14. Your mouth to the gods ears.

K&R, bookmarked. Thank you.