Do we want no checks and balances in 08' if a Democrat goes to the WH?

[madmunchie]

That has been my primary concern for our Government. If the Senate and House remain Democrat and the Executive Branch is Democrat - - - Where will the oversight be?

Now before I get flamed, think about it...doesn't absolute power corrupt?, absolutely?

[NMDemDist2]

1. of course not. remember in WWII Congress did excellent and intense

oversight on FDR

in fact, IIRC that's how Truman made his name....

[Zensea]

2. The judiciary

... so it's not absolute power on that count.

Plus, checks and balances was never about political parties originally, there were no political parties when they wrote the constitution.
It was about checks and balances between different branches of the government.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Here's my flame --

"If the Senate and House remain Democrat and the Executive Branch is Democrat..."

NO NO NO NO NO!

Using "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" -- as in "The Democrat Party" -- is a Republican rhetorical trick. Insist on the full adjective form -- Democratic!

It may seem like a petty and quibbling difference, but believe me, it does make a difference!

Thank you.

--p!

[William769]

7. Not to parse words or anything but

The Use of Democrat in that sentence is correct.

[Lefty-Taylor]

12. To parse words ... gently ... you have it wrong. Democrat in the context above is

grammatically incorrect. Here's a tip I use. Replace "Democrat" in the sentence in question with "America." You wouldn't say if "the Senate and House remain America." You need the adjective "American." So "Democatic" is correct. And those bastard neo-cons are using it wrong all the time -- on purpose.

Anyway, you may want to be careful about incorrectly correcting someone's correction of an incorrect sentence. (If you follow. Read carefully and you'll agree it makes sense.)

[William769]

14. Are you telling me this is correct?

Do we want no checks and balances in 08' if a Democratic goes to the WH?

That has been my primary concern for our Government. If the Senate and House remain Democratic and the Executive Branch is Democratic.

In the three instances it is used, I only see where one it could be changed.

[PermanentRevolution]

15. Not quite

The first instance should be "Do we want no checks and balances in 08' if a Democrat goes to the WH?"

The second instance is correct: "That has been my primary concern for our Government. If the Senate and House remain Democratic and the Executive Branch is Democratic."

In the first case, the term Democrat refers to a single individual, i.e. the newly-elected President. In the second case, it refers to the party in control, so it becomes "Democratic."

In short, one person is a Democrat. A whole party of them is a Democratic Party.

[William769]

16. Thank you.

Thats the point I was trying to convy. The original OP is correct.

[last1standing]

22. Thank you all. I enjoyed that little sub-thread.

:silly:

[SharonAnn]

17. Democrat is a noun. Democratic is an adjective.

[Lefty-Taylor]

32. My sentiments exactly. Democrat = noun. Democratic = adjective. Sigh.

[Igel]

20. Your key point is accurate.

That point is of course key.

Wait. That sounds bad.

"Key point" is ungrammatical for just about everybody, it seems. (Unless we recognize that English grammar allows compounds: Pipe wrench, socket wrench ... "Excuse me, but you handed me the wrong wrench. This wrench is pipe, not socket." Prescriptivists .... so 17th century.)

Nonetheless, your key point was on target. Many said that having the same party control both houses and the presidency was bad on principle; what they obviously meant was "having all three parties controlled by the opposing party was bad". It was a principle, and that principle was "partisanship".

[Trajan]

26. The whole "Democrat/Democratic" dustup ....

Is a crock ....

ONCE your done arguing about 'ic', we can get back to the issues .....

A PERFECT example of what a waste of breath these 'issues' generate ....

Call us when you are done ....

[Dogmudgeon]

28. It's not a crock

It's a bull's-eye target we can hang on the Republicans' asses.

The use of "Democrat" where "Democratic" should be used, is a juvenile rhetorical tactic. It's the kind of thing kids do, not grown adults engaged in statecraft. If we Democrats tried it -- calling Republicans "Publicans", for example -- we'd be quickly attacked for doing so.

The Republicans are going to try everything they can, including singing the playground "nyah-nyah" song. They're high on aggression and low on brains. And they don't stick to the issues. We can, and should, take advantage of every opportunity they give us to demonstrate how unfit they are to govern.

So, it's not a crock. Handled with a little skill and humor, it's an opportunity to make their disrespect work against them -- for once.

--p!

[Trajan]

31. You dont have enough targets ? ...

The GOP isnt fucking up ENOUGH of our world ? ...

They have destroyed our way of life, and you need to find petty semantical arguments to talk about for HOURS while those others things get swept under the carpet ? ...

This is a RED HERRING fallacy .... a meaningless battle while the REAL war goes unfought ...

Honestly .... ic ? ....

Why dont we get all hot and bothered when we call ourselves 'Dems' ? ...

WHERE is the righteous indignation for the 'ocratic' ? ....

This is a stupid verbal dispute, and it restricts the ability of well meaning people to argue the real issues ....

If you cant spank them publically with all they have already done .....

Why bother ? ....

Oh .. its a joke ..... I see .... winkwinknodnod ....

Its a stupid joke .....

[fuzzyball]

33. So, when Mr. Pigwidgeon, the DEMOCRATIC wins the White House

we will never use the word DEMOCRAT again!!!

[ray of light]

4. also, the fact that this is so corrupt is because they stole the media

they redistricted illegally, they didn't hold themselves to any ehtical standards, they set up the judiciary...


So it's not just who has the congress and the presidency...it's all of it together that made this regime so corrupt.

[pinto]

5. Checks and balances aren't necessarily a function of party affiliation.

They're about taking responsibility for the role each branch of the federal government plays in our constitutional dance. Though these guys thought otherwise, it remains the same. It's worked before and it will again.

[lapfog_1]

6. If we do not capture both the WhiteHouse and Congress,

it will be very hard to undo all of the evil that's been done in the last 6 years. Plus, the Democrats have never been very good at the whole "lockstep" mode of operation (or should that be "goose step"), so I think there would always be some checks and balances.

[Dhalgren]

8. The Democratic Party has a long history of maintaining the checks

and balances between the branches even with (and maybe especially with) Democratic Presidents. I'm not saying that the Dem congress has a perfect history in this regard, but it isn't something that needs to be worried about. Democrats aren't fascists (by and large), so it is a misplaced worry...

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. The Democratic party has plenty of checks and balances within the party.

I want the courts to look out for the constitution.

I want my government to look out for me. The wealthy and corporations have had enough people looking out for them for too long.

Checks and balances are good if you're interested in ongoing equity. I'm interested in affirmative action for citizens. I'm interested in justice.

[padia]

10. That is the argument I was seeing

that I am glad our talking heads dropped because if they were going to pursue different party in congress & WH it could be to easily used against us starting today. what we need is both executive & legislative branches to try to @ least center our country. the best way IMHO is to show we can move forward with integrity. If we want both WH & congress. & let us not forget some of the supreme court justices are getting up in age & that the next congress & WH will be choosing a few. Power can corrupt & does most commonly among those who dwell in their lower natures. That is why integrity, intellectual curiosity & moral clarity are important.

[GreenPartyVoter]

While it would be lovely for a Dem to do signing statements of all kinds, it's not the way

our country should be run

[bullimiami]

11. the republicans put party power and loyalty above the law and the

constitution.

they betrayed our country for the sake of power.

it has nothing to do with which party they belonged to or even if they were all the same party.
it was a case of good vs evil and they chose evil because the face of evil was their own.

its a totally false premise to believe that just because democrats could control the congress and the presidency that they would embrace corruption and lawlessness and refuse to do their sworn duties like this group has.

[Odin2005]

13. There is enough diversity in the party to prevent that, IMO.

[sandnsea]

18. And doesn't America always respond?

Eventually? I liked our country when Democrats had complete control, but I know this will be the argument in 2008. My answer is that we need good leaders who have truly heard from America and responded. We need a candidate who has a history of fighting for open government and accountability at every level.

[papau]

19. Currently the GOP's 5 for 5 control goes to 3 for 5 as we take house & Senate

If we get Presidency it only goes to 2 out of 5.

The Judges will be GOP biased for the next 20 years, if not more.

And the Media will be GOP biased forever.

I do not think you need worry about checks and balances with the power the Dems have now or will have in the future.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

21. We had that with Clinton for 8 years

But he was able to get good things through Congress.

A good president can get good things done. So it's really a moot point.

[madmunchie]

35. He had a Republican Congress...

I'm saying if there is a Dem in the WH and Congress is still controlled by Dems..

[AZBlue]

23. I don't EVER want to see an America without checks & balances!

eom

[Zensea]

24. Several of these answers don't address the question and are rationalizations

Just saying there are plenty of checks and balances within the Democratic Party is not really an answer to the question and is actually a rationalization that avoids answering the question.
I find this kind of interesting that people essentially say "oh, it's ok because the Democratic Party has many checks and balances in it."
The question is not about checks and balances within a party, but about checks and balances between branches of the government.
There is no "check and balance" in the sense of the original question just because the Democratic Party has many checks and balances within it.
Republicans could make the same claim about their party having many different elements -- old school Goldwater Republicans, neo-con fascists, evangelical right wing Christians, pragmatic business types, etc.
Just because we are Democrats, doesn't magically give us justification in terms of checks and balances to control all three branches of government which is where the logic of saying that the checks and balances within the party are enough leads.
There is nothing inherent in any party that makes it always act for good.
The original question is about institutional checks and balances and is a valid question and concern.
Before someone flames me note that I posted above regarding why I do not see a problem with both the executive and legislative being of the same party since the judiciary can still provide a check.

I will add that, in my opinion, having any party in control of both the legislative and executive branch for too long can create problems.

[madmunchie]

37. Thank you for answering the real concern

Although, I can't see the Dems getting anywhere near as bad as the Pubs with the abuse of power and the the way that the Congress did no oversight on the Executive Branch for the last 6 years. I do see a "perception" of no "checks and balances" in the near future if the WH goes to the Dems in 08'.

I have always said a good defense is a better offense...or so it goes.

[madrchsod]

25. that is our job....the dems contolled the 60`

it didn`t stop us then and it will not stop us now.

[1932]

27. The variety of opinion within the left is enough for me.

Look at NAFTA, for example. The debate within the left on this issue provides all the debate I want to hear on this issue.

Keep the Republicans' extreme right ideas out of the mix and you'll still come out with a moderate outcome because of the variety of opinon within the left.

In fact, I can't think of an issue where the left half of the spectrum doesn't produce a wide enough spectrum so that moderation wouldn't prevail. Can you?

It's like Will Rogers said: "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

It's the Republican who march in lock step, not the Democrats. That's why absolute power corrupted them.

[unkachuck]

29. yes....

....if the Democratic president is progressive....but then again, we should have such a problem....if he/she were progressive, wouldn't you want to accomplish some much needed left-wing goals or would you want to spend your time playing 'civics class'?....

....the straightest path to progressive goals is with minimum opposition....why wouldn't you like that?....why is it when the pukes dominated and jammed-through legislation for 15 years, for corporations and their buddies, it was somehow acceptable, even noble?....

.....where is it written that we shall never have a turn at bat....that there shall never be progressive/left-wing legislation in this country because we must 'play-fair' while our corporate opposition is willing to screw their own grandmothers to get what they want?....

....if we ever get the opportunity, we should RUN with it....

[Generic Brad]

30. Of course we want checks and balances

We are Americans first, Democrats second.

[alfredo]

34. We are not authoritarian followers like the Republicans.

That's why the neo cons attached themselves to the Republican party.

Ever wonder why there never seems to be unity in our party? We do not bow before authority figures.

[madmunchie]

39. I tend to agree with you

[alfredo]

41. that's an odd thing for a Democrat to say.

;)

[iconoclastic cat]

36. At any time prior to the rule of Bushco, I would agree with you.

But we're not talking about some abstract point in history. We're now faced with preventing this kind of crap from ever happening again. This is a special case, and it requires a Dem takeover for the good of the republic.

[madmunchie]

38. For how long??? before abuses of power might start to occur?

[Zhade]

40. Excellent question.

NT!