I had my political maturity develop in the 90's under Clinton and the great election in 1994 when Gingrich took over Congress and had a 54 seat swing, giving control of the House to Newt. To be honest, I liked the Contract with America and thought it was a great idea to nationalize local elections and provide a platform that a person was voting for regardless of the local nuances of the election. Brilliant in my opinion. And what were we told – that Americans like balance and checks against an overarching executive branch.
So where do we stand today? Well there is a potential for one party dominance that scares the crap out of me. Reuters by way of Yahoo News is reporting that:
Due largely to the unpopularity of President George W. Bush and the worst U.S. economic crisis since The Great Depression, Democrats may expand their control of the Senate and House of Representatives to the highest levels in decades. They even have a shot at a Senate majority big enough to prevent Republicans from blocking legislation with procedural hurdles.
So the democrats have a chance of getting a filibuster proof majority. Anyone have a problem with this? Basically whatever Obama (if he wins) gets and/or Pelosi or Reid (if they get this majority) wants, gets signed by a (gasp!) President Obama. This does not bode well for this country. But not to be outdone, Howard Dean, talking to Roll Call stated ""Republicans had a chance to rule. They failed miserably. I think it's time to give the other party a chance," in an article entitled "Dean: One-Party Rule Would Rule". I have a basic problem with Dean considering a party "rules". That is a term that is reserved for some sovereign entity and isn't it interesting that he (a noted leftie and a Democrat candidate for president) considers government (by the will of the people) as ruling. One more over he sees how great it would be to have no checks on the democrats. Scary stuff but revealing.
So Keith Olbermann noted back in 2006 was on one of his crazy rants about Bush (you know Keith – Mr Fair and Balanced) made a case during the 2006 election as to why it was important to check Bush's power (by electing democrats). He writes on the MSNBC web site (again in 2006):
"Those vaunted Founding Fathers of ours have been so quoted up, that they appear as marble statues: like the chiseled guards of China, or the faces on Mount Rushmore. But in fact they were practical people and the thing they obviously feared most was a government of men and not laws.
They provided the checks and balances for a reason.
No one man could run the government the way he saw fit -- unless he, at the least, took into consideration what those he governed saw.
A House of Representatives would be the people's eyes.
A Senate would be the corrective force on that House.
An executive would do the work, and hold the Constitution to his chest like his child.
A Supreme Court would oversee it all.
Checks and balances." (Keith Olbermann - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15595139/)
So I am waiting for Keith to write another rant about how we need to ensure a potential President Obama is balanced. But I guess just like "diversity" balance is a term that is used only when someone is not getting what they want. Democratic rule does not need any balance right Keith?
OS
No comments:
Post a Comment