EDITORIAL: What if Democrats win it all?

The Washington Times ^ | 10/31/2008 | Washington Times Staff

[DoughtyOne]

If Barack Obama is elected into office as the 44th president of the United States on Nov. 4 and voters, in tandem, give the Democrats 60 seats in the Senate and give them a solid majority in the House. What happens after Inauguration Day?

Single-party rule is inherently totalitarian whether the people consent to it or not. In most cases, one-party states rise out of authoritarian regimes, including former monarchies, or socialist revolutions. There are currently seven - China, Cuba, Eritrea, Laos, Vietnam, Syria, Korea. The United States would become the eighth.

Single-party rule is something to fear in and of itself - particularly from a spending standpoint, regardless of which party has absolute power. From 2003 to 2005, George W. Bush and the Republican Congress created the largest expansion of Medicare in history the prescription-drug bill and started two wars. They also succeeded in creating the largest tax cut in history.

Please read more at one of the two following links, the first a print version and the second an HTML page with other data on it.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/31/what-if-democrats-win-it-all/print/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/31/what-if-democrats-win-it-all/

[rwfromkansas]

The Washington Times would be a dream paper to work for, but the salary would not be enough to live on in the DC area, not even close.

They are impressive that even in an editorial, they can take both sides.

After the past couple years, I have begun to agree that one-party rule is bad on either side because you ram your agenda through at first, which is nice for you. But, you lose your way over time. You become corrupt.

We could have done a lot more over the few years we held power than we did, but instead we squandered it and eventually even lose sight of what the GOP stands for.

I don’t blame Bush. I like the man. Part of it was his problem, but Congress bares most of the blame since there are so many there responsible for sending things to him.

[DoughtyOne]

I’m going to add to that Impy. Please don’t think I’m upset with your or trying to pick on you. I just want to touch on a dynamic that I think you are a good example of. And I think it is important to take note of.

I think a lot of people have the same thought when it comes to those nations, that a dictatorship rules the day, without something like a functioning House or Senate.

In truth they all have something similar, and they are functioning. It’s just that they rubber stamp the top guy’s wishes.

If our people mis-characterize those governments like you have it makes it easier for them to think we could never slip into a dictatorship or strong man rule.

In truth, we could just as easily do it with the wrong one party rule. And it appears we may be in danger of installing that very type of situation here.

No, those nations are not as unlike our own as we would like to think. Tweak a little here, tuck a little there, bend a rule or two, tadah! Tin pot dictatorship at your service.

[DoughtyOne]

I’m not that far off from your views. I do think one party rule can be healthy if people practice self-discipline. That being said, our leaders haven’t shown any proclivity for that have they. I’m not convinced you’re right, but there is certainly recent evidence to back up your position.

Take a look at 219 and 222 to see what you think.

[rwfromkansas]

If done with restraint, one-party rule could be a great chance to accomplish wonderful things. But, that is hard to do needless to say.

[3AngelaD]

They are already brainwashed.

[bill1952]

LOL, you’re in my ping que.

Cheer up. It has to be a very long list... ;^)

Is the Alamo for rent? - Before it is returned to Mexico, I mean?