Getting back to politics one last time, founder and fellow RINO The Commissar is jumping ship from the Republican Party this fall. Read why here.
Although I'm a fair bit closer to the center than The Commissar, his thoughts echo mine to a large extent. Personally, I'm a big fan of divided government. The checks and balances work far better when no one party is in control of the legislative and executive branches, and legislation has to have broad bipartisan support to pass. Whenever one party controls both Houses of Congress for too long, it inevitably becomes corrupt, leading to the requirement for a housecleaning. If the executive branch is also controlled by the same party, this problem is magnified. It happened in 1994. Republicans today are every bit as corrupt, complacent, and out of control as the Democrats that they kicked out in 1994. It's their turn to suffer the same fate.
More like this
Here is yet another one. Utter misunderstanding of the Democratic Party in the comments is astounding, though!
What does the Democratic Party stand for at the moment?
Past time for this, I would say, Orac. But a welcome turn nonetheless.
It all makes me wonder whether we should rethink the whole system. I mean along the lines of that great contrarian "Rational Anarchist" character Prof. de la Paz from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. He posed (rather flippantly, though) that if you must have a two house legislature, why not make one whose only purpose is to repeal laws? For that matter, when it comes to splitting the ticket, maybe we should invert the parliamentary system and let the opposition party appoint the executive.
I'm not saying they're great ideas, but the past six years definitely do show the wisdom in ticket-splitting votes.
It is hilarious, in a sick way, to hear people talking about the 'successes' of the past six years.
It ought to be obvious: whereas I believe there are sincere Republicans out there who believe in such things as fiscal responsibility, separation of powers, the value of a two-party system, the Constituiton, the need for an educated electorate, the current leaders of the Republican party believe only in power for the sake of power; and they have very successfully played those good Republicans and the rest of the country for fools. If, in the face of such incompetence and cynicism, that party is able to remain in power by the usual manipulations of the voters, then surely democracy is dead in this country. I don't have a lot of faith in the current Democratic leadership either; but unless the voters show that at some point enough is enough, we are well and truly screwed. There isn't much time left to fix such things as Iraq, the deficits, energy, education. And unless those elected get around to actually addressing issues other than their own retention of power, it's over. And it's surely true that maintaining the current non-balance of power has and will lead nowhere but further down.
Looking over the comments from the redstate.com post, I have to wonder when cutting taxes became conflated with "fiscal responsibility." Everyone certainly appreciates a fatter paycheck, but current fiscal policy makes no sense. Being truly responsible means recognizing the need to *gasp* raise taxes if needed. Say what you will about "tax and spend" Democrats, at least that method makes sense.
These "cut taxes and spend anyway" Republicans are betraying a basic cornerstone of the modern GOP and morgating the future of our great-great-grandchildren.
**I'm not saying they're great ideas, but the past six years definitely do show the wisdom in ticket-splitting votes.**
Once upon a time, the Vice President of the US was whoever came in second in the election -- invariably someone from tha other party, rather than a same-party running mate. Perhaps there was some wisdom in this.
Dan -
Actually, it's an utterly cynical trick that comes from a combination of the US being able to print the world's reserve currency combined with limited term administrations (not that the latter is a bad idea).
Basically, it means that the current administration can run up huge bills which the next one has to pay - so if, for example, there is a Democratic president next, that president will be confronted with a huge financial crisis created by the previous one.
Carter was on the recieving end of the Nixon deficit-spend for vietnam - and was the last US president to actually adopt; Bush the elder was on the recieving end of the Regan deficit-spend (hence the new taxes), which is what got Clinton in. Yet it was the republicans under Clinton who were trying to pass Balanced Budget amendments, and shutting down the government. You don't hear them making the same arguments now.