"Will you complain about 'one party rule' if Dems win the WH and Congress in 08?"

[CTyankee]

That was the question posed to me by an independent as we discussed the Democrats chances for the White House in 2008. The guy wasn't being obnoxious, just a little "nudgy." I responded that Democrats are different from Republicans, especially today's Republicans, in that we tolerate ideas other than our own within the party and that tempers our party's ability to run things fairly.

We'll probably get this question thrown at us more often in the upcoming months leading up to the election. How would you respond?

[sweetheart]

1. Is there a non-corporate-war party?

There has been one party corporatism with 2 flavours for some time.

There is no opposition party except the blogosphere.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Exactly.

Let me know when there is another party that is actually in opposition to the washington consensus.

[Greyhound]

32. The few who do not tow the corporate line are all Democrats.

Go Dennis.:bounce:

[sweetheart]

37. Progressive picasso

with simple strokes and lines,
round nipples undone again in colour,
abstract and unelected forever,
modern.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

2. That's something I've pondered as the 08 elections draw closer. I'm willing to see one party rule

by Dems for at least a few years. However, that is not the ideal mix and hopefully we'll end up with one house to the R's and the other house and Presidency with the D's. That would be perfect. Especially with a very small R majority in said house. MKJ

[blm]

3. I will complain LOUDLY if a Coverup Democrat gets in the WH and proceeds to

coverup for BushInc by urging that we all move on for the 'good of the country' while they close the books on his crimes of office.

Again.

Just like Bill Clinton did for Bush1.

Which led this country right into a Bush2 presidency, 9-11, and Iraq war.

That worked out well for this country, didn't it?

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0511-29.htm

[Cooley Hurd]

4. As long as the party in power keeps the corruption out of the process...

...if not, then I'll have to consider a third party (but I sincerely doubt, after all the repug shennanigans of the past 6 years, the Dems could match such corruption, or even come close).

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. yeah, that is a tough record to try to match. except

In illinois, both sides are so good at corruption that when the Bears don't play, we watch the indictments and convictions sections of the newspaper. We call it the sports section of politics. Proves that if you really put your mind to something you will succeed. And both Dems and Goops here try very very hard to enrich themselves at the public trough.

[dogman]

5. We've had that in the past.

The Democrats did not pursue the unitary executive policy however. They are diverse enough that they debate among themselves. That is why the GOPers pushed the "Democrats do not have a plan" meme. They know that we do not march in lockstep and there is no one individual or group that dominate our Party.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

6. well, I STILL think that power can corrupt and having

a split in the houses keeps both sides honest, or at least more so.

Of course, it depends on the president and the caliber of his/her/its ethics and honesty. IF we have a democratic version of Bush, then absolutely not. If we have someone like Kerry, Gore, or RIchardson, then I think that some wonderful things could happen.

[CTyankee]

13. I would like to think that, but as long as we have a monolithic Republican

Party, our Dem Party will be the one that has different gradations on the liberal to conservative scale. The pubs have so skewed things to the far right that Dems are centrists now with a few outliers on each side. Thus, our party serves as the agent of balance, where before we had two parties, each with its own spectrum.

Just my bright idea for today.:think:

[papau]

7. Major changes are needed to reverse the major changes made under GOP one party rule

once those are accomplished, I rather like divided government.

But major changes - like the Bush rape of the country - need to be reversed - and for that we need 4 years of Dem one party rule - and even then it will be 30 years before we can trust the judges in our system again to be non-partisan - again.

[evilkumquat]

8. A Divided Congress with Democratic Control Would Be Optimal...

...unfortunately, with the nova-like evil that has been perpetrated in the past six years by the rubber stampers, it will take a unified Democratic government with full majority control to have enough power to overturn all the Republican excesses in a timely-enough manner.

It is like affirmative action: yes, on the surface, affirmative action absolutely IS a form of "reverse discrimination", but one has to suffer a bit of that in the short run in order to balance the playing field enough to make the job market open to all races as if there had never been discrimination. In theory, if affirmative action were dispensed with, the country could still make the progression to that even playing field, but it would take several generations to reach it.

So, full Democratic control of all branches of government (and by "Democratic" I mean, centrist or liberal) has to be the fastest way to get our civil liberties back where they belong.

Evil Kumquat

[blondeatlast]

10. How else will we keep DU a lively board? Of course I will.

In fact, I'm very much looking forward to it.

[fasttense]

11. The Democratic party did well during the Great Depression and

WWII. They seemed to have control of most of the government back then. Though they did make some huge blunders. But making huge mistakes was not a consistent policy built into the ideology as it seems to be with repukes.

[PATRICK]

12. The main task

of the nations under democratic one party rule is to foster diversity and depth of interests and opinions. Liberalization must mean the fertile ground for more parties. If they have to come as angry movements AGAINST some arrogant deficiency that would not be the best, to say the least, for our future in crisis. Democrats will be and do the best if they enable Greens and others to crawl out of the barriers of big money, incumbent tyranny and gerrymandered rules. The media too must be made fair and open and fertile ground, not the corporate/Democrat pissing contest of dumbed down propaganda it will become.

The seeds of destruction of the Democratic party in turn will lie in treating power in the usual way. Opening themselves to just competition and a fair playing field in contradiction to the practice of power
traditionally will be perhaps the greatest service to party, nation and humanity they could accomplish. On a different tack, not purging the government of the deadly poisons placed by the GOP and corporate control, will create only a illusion of change over an untreated cancer victim.

So the insufficiency must be inevitable for all humans and institutions. The normal path of ease in NOT enabling better democracy so that rivals will be excluded and in letting the biggest threats to actual democracy remain unpunished or in place will be a doomed normality in ALL senses. Vigorous pursuit of reform and vigorous letting go of political supremacy, counter to the experience of 10,000 years are REQUIRED now as a minimal chance of merely preserving anything that has survived thus far.

This goes beyond the schoolyard argument in the mind of the bitter questioner. The childish sneer of cynicism from the people who betrayed faith itself. As usual there is a real question, but insofar as the debate is not the differing opinions of public servants, but poisoned by lies of the crooked, it will not help the democrats envision the history steamrolling upon them.

[welshTerrier2]

14. we need reforms to safeguard checks and balances

one party rule is fine as long as the rights of the minority are protected and an appropriate system of checks and balances is in place. neither of those things happened under one-party republican rule ... that does not justify having the Democrats "return the favor" ...

the best watchdog we have when one party controls the WH and the Congress is the minority party ... but the minority party currently is NOT empowered with the tools it needs to do the job ... as a result, abuse of power with no oversight could easily result just as it did under the republicans ...

two reforms could go a long way to improving this situation:
1. allow the minority to call their own hearings to discuss alternatives to the majority view and
2. give the minority party sub-poena power.

these reforms would have made the Dems far more effective over the past few years. without them, our hands were tied and bush was able to do anything he wanted to do ... regardless of party, that is never a good thing for the country ... without adequate oversight, we will always be a greater risk ...

[woodsprite]

15. If they became arrogant and like the repubs, yes I would complain,

but I'd be really afraid of letting the repubs having control also. Soooo, how do you fix that - a parliment style Congress?

I agree, for the most part Dems are more fair across the board and open to other viewpoints whereas for the most part the repubs in Congress are only for the rich and what will benefit them personally. I say 'most part' because we all know there are exceptions to both.

[Apollo11]

16. Congress Dems are a coalition of caucuses

It's not like the progressive caucus will have a majority in both Houses of Congress, as much as I would love for that to happen!

Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore! :)

In Gore We Trust
www.algore.com
www.algore.org
www.draftgore.com - Sign the petition!
www.draftgore2008.org
www.patriotsforgore.com

[Doctor_J]

17. The GOP will still have the judiciary and the media,

so there is no chance of "one party rule" by Dems for the next 20 years or so at least. Straw man.

[sharp_stick]

18. No and for just one simple reason

I'd love to watch the pukes squirm and whine. I really don't like the idea of one party rule I do love to watch them bitch and moan, it's great theatre.

[zbdent]

19. we might, but who would hear it

in the deluge of the corporate media having screaming Republicans talking about how they have no voice when it comes to airing their concerns about single-party rule ...

A typo I just corrected made me wonder ... is it not a coincidence that "media" and "mafia" are so similarly typed? (Well, if "Osama" and "Obama" are "easily accomplished typographical errors" ...)

[seabeyond]

20. it will depend if the democrats abuse their power, break the law

are corrupt and irresponsible. the american people are the ones that voted for the one party rule. that is not what i was bitchin about until the one party rule did everything under the sun that was wrong and corrupt, a lie and dishonest.

[Efilroft Sul]

21. I would complain if the Democrats don't serve the interests of the people.

How do I define that? The Democrats must:

• Act as public servants. That means they represent We the People, not the corporations. When you forget you're a public servant, you become arrogant and corrupted.
• Restore our stolen civil liberties.
• Rehabilitate our Republic's reputation and global standing.
• Develop an Apollo-like program for petroleum-free energy independence.

If a Democratic Congress and White House drift from these four points, then, hell yeah, I'm going to complain. We should all expect better from our leaders.

[Zorra]

23. No. In times of emergency, it is usually necessary to have

a consistent legislative consensus to quell crises. And right now we have a national emergency on our hands, an emergency of proportions not seen since the Great Depression.

Republicans have, in almost every aspect of life and government in the US, left an enormous mess in the wake of their irresponsible, corrupt, and highly destructive tenure in office. This mess is going to take a collection of dedicated, honest, talented, and intelligent individuals a very, very long time to clean up. And this collection of individuals will necessarily be from the Democratic Party in large majority, or this group will not be able to save our democracy.

Republicans, because of the aforementioned virtues and qualifications necessary, and because they are (undeniably) solely and directly responsible for the dire straits that our country is in at this time, pretty much have to be excluded from the process of repairing the nation. They would, at the behest of the corporations that support and control them, deliberately hinder any effective efforts by responsible, honest individuals to do what is necessary to end our national state of crisis.

Plainly speaking, republicans have, like they always do when they get power, left our country in deep shit, and left it up to Democrats to figure out how to clean up the mess.

And Democrats will eventually clean up the mess, as long as republicans are not there to get in the way.

[LiberalFighter]

24. Is he really an Independent or does he just play one?

How many Democrats has he voted for in his life and how many Republicans has he voted for in his life?

Did he vote for Lieberman? Did he vote for the current Governor of Connecticut?

Which Democrats has he voted for in recent elections?

[CTyankee]

26. Actually, he's from Baltimore.

He was on an art tour I took in Italy recently and we were discussing how the 06 campaign won back the House and Senate for the Dems. I did a little victory dance in the Campo in Siena! I didn't know him that well. He didn't strike me as a Republican, tho, and I've known plenty who say their Independent but are really Republicans.

We were just have a pleasant caffe with some gelato and I was raving about the election and how we were going to win the White House in 08. Actually, I thought it was a good question and he certainly didn't ask in a nasty way. He was a prosecutor, so I thought he was being Devil's advocate (my son is a prosecutor but a big liberal and he asks questions like that!).

[DuaneBidoux]

25. I won't complain but will be less likely to vote straight ticket without question.

[Milo_Bloom]

27. Complain?? No... but...

In all honesty, I like a split in government. I think checks and balances work really well.

To me, the "ideal" situation is a slight GOP majority in congress

Solid Dem majority in the senate

Democratic White House

I think it is of upmost importance for other points of view to be heard and to matter in the process... however, I don't want the GOP anywhere near the choice of judges, which is why I want a Dem Senate and White House, but I think some GOP officials have some valid concerns and ideas that need to be heard and debated, without giving them the rights to legislate or control morality though law or the courts.

[Ignacio Upton]

28. I won't

Because then we will have a working majority, and we can finally pass universal healthcare (well, hopefully...since the last time we tried it, it failed even with control of everything.)

[JeffR]

29. The problem is "one party misrule", not "one party rule"

eom

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. My answer to an independent would be; certainly not at first

The old argument goes that every once in a while you have to throw the rascals out to keep them from putting down too deep a root structure, but that wouldn't even be an issue for awhile. And unlike Republicans, Democrats are less inclined to march in lockstep, so I would expect some healthy debate within our Party to ensure that policies get looked at fully and not just rubber stamped.

If the Democrats became corrupt probably my first line of attack would be primary challanges. I back strong independent voices who keep the interests of the public in mind, first and foremost.

[Greyhound]

31. Like others, I would say that we have plenty of republicans in our party

both in and out of office. We are not a united front on any issue. OTOH, if we ever did get together, we would accomplish far more than they did during our tenure.

[AtomicKitten]

33. Will Dems complain?

Goldilocks wants some porridge. Here is daddy bear's porridge. It is too hot for Goldilocks.

This is mummy bear's porridge. It is too cold for Goldilocks.

Goldilocks likes baby bear's porridge. And she eats it all up.



Goldilocks looks for a chair. This is daddy bear's chair. It is too hard for Goldilocks.

Here is mummy bear's chair. It is too soft for Goldilocks.

Here is baby bear's chair. "I like this chair," says Goldilocks. Goldilocks sits down. Look. She has broken the chair.



"I want to sleep," says Goldilocks. "I can go up here."

Daddy bear's bed is too hard. Mummy bear's bed is too soft for Goldilocks.

Here is baby bear's bed. "I like this bed," says Goldilocks

[AX10]

34. Democrats are not one united party as the GOP is.

As we can see, the Democrats had commanding majorites during the 103rd congress (1993-1995) and still they managed along with most of the GOP to derail most of Clinton's policies.
Once the Democrats get majorities such as 300 House seats and 65+ Senate seats, then there could be a problem, but infighting may stop those problems from ever occuring, because that is the nature of the Democratic Party.

[MrSlayer]

35. If they abuse their power the way these fucks have, yes.

I'll hold anyone accountable for being a fuckhead whether Democrat or Republic.

[LoZoccolo]

36. "No." n/t

[LeftishBrit]

38. I wouldn't regard that as one-party rule

I do worry if one party's control of the government is so overwhelming that there is no real opposition, and the party leaders become 'elected dictators'. That happened here in the UK during part of Thatcher's 'reign', and during Blair's first two terms. It gave Maggie and Tony entirely too much power, especially as they were both very much to the right of their respective parties, and used their power to drag their parties to the right.

In an American context, this would mean having a president and a HUGE majority of Congress (e.g. over two-thirds of both houses) belonging to one party - not just a majority of Congress. I don't even know if that ever happens.

[Cosmocat]

39. I have NEVER complained about "single party rule" ...

That isn't the issue ...

The issue is that the current republican party, which happened to have "single party rule" was corrupted in congress by a bunch of deranged psychopaths, and the presidency was in the hands of a dolt who was managed by a bunch of derganged psychopaths ...

IF there reasonable republicans who had the spine to do their jobs without bending over the the will of the collective, I would have no problem with the republican party ...