Where the hell has the Democratic Party been on the most basic issue of Republican madness?

[phantom power]

Where the hell has the Democratic Party been on the most basic issue of Republican madness?

Time and custom – and the limitations of the Constitution – have decreed that we only should have two political parties at a time in this country. Throughout history, the two major parties have come and gone with some regularity – Yo, Hugh L. White, represent! -- although usually not as quickly as the consistently vain attempts at launching a third-party have. The primary obligation of each of the two parties to their members is to win elections. The primary obligation of each of the two parties to the country is to govern it. Therefore, given all this, if one of the parties goes as thoroughly, deeply, banana-sandwich loony as the present Republican Party has, the other party has a definitive obligation to the Republic to beat the crazy out of it so the country can get moving again. This is a duty in which the Democratic Party has failed utterly.

Republican extremism should have been the most fundamental campaign issue for every Democratic candidate for every elected office since about 1991. Every silly thing said by Michele Bachmann, say, or Louie Gohmert should have been hung around the neck of Republican politicians until they choked themselves denying it. (I once spoke to a Democratic candidate who was running against Bachmann who said to me, "Well, I'm not going to call her crazy." She lost badly.) The mockery and ridicule should have been loud and relentless. It was the only way to break both the grip of the prion disease, and break through the solid bubble of disinformation, anti-facts, and utter bullshit that has sustained the Republican base over the past 25 years. Instead, and it's hard to fault them entirely for their sense of responsibility, the Democrats chose largely to ignore the dance of the madmen at center stage and fulfill some sense of obligation to the country. (In no way does this excuse the far too many Democrats who chose to join in the dance, however briefly. Hi, Joe Lieberman!) Now, as we saw on Thursday, it well may be too late. The national legislature has been broken by crazy people.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a38715/democratic-party-blame-crazy-republicans/

[uhnope]

1. The party is committed to the two-party system so in general they don't go there.

But I agree with the article that they should

[Fumesucker]

2. Reaching across the aisle to form a nice warm purple space

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/02/24/hillary-clintons-warm-purple-place

Feb. 24, 2015

Hillary Clinton says if she were to become president, she'd strive to fuse red and blue America into "a nice warm purple space where we're trying to solve problems."

[hifiguy]

11. Pass the barf bag.

[virgogal]

3. I am not well versed in the Consitution.

Where in it does it mention limitations on the amount of political parties?

Most "legalese" completely baffles me.

[jeff47]

13. It's just the result of the structure of the government, not a legal requirement.

Our system of government isn't built around coalitions of parties. There's too much "winner take all". So a politician gets more power and results by being within the closest-fitting major party than heading their own, non-major party.

There are transition periods where multiple parties have power - for example the rise of the Republican party and the death of the Whigs. But over time we will settle back to two major parties.

[virgogal]

16. Thank you.

[Wellstone ruled]

4. Heard the same statement from the Same DFLer

Candidate and when I reminded her of what she said,well that's not what we do,we are the Party of civil responses. Like you said,she lost her ass and the rest is History. What really peaed many of us was this same Candidate would not listen to the Union Rank and File members who lived in District 6. Patty Cake B.S..

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution.

They started to appear with the fight to ratify the constitution.

The Constitution never limited the number af parties.

Over time, US Law has enshrined the two party system.

[deathrind]

6. Good Article.

It would be nice if the dems finally did what the article says and start calling out the lunacy of the Republican Party.

Between Inhofe and his snowball to O'Donnell placing an add assuring people she was not a witch (she lost thank goodness) there is no shortage of republican craziness for the Dems to point out.

[Nay]

7. I've said from the beginning that the crazies should have been mocked and

berated at the first sign of the cray-cray. But NOOOOOOO, the Democrats acted like they were normal. And now the country thinks the Pubs are normal.

[world wide wally]

8. The Dems are a true anomaly.

They are loaded with ammunition, but almost never pull the trigger...and Republicans keep handing them more and more ammo.
I would like to see more fireworks personally

[yallerdawg]

9. The Constitution emphasizes majority rule.

Lots of "binary" examples of governance. Since we did not go with a 'parliamentarian' system, we drifted into a 2-party system.

I know I prefer 50 plus percent, which now is very hard to do in today's closely matched 2-party system.

Throw in a 3rd party, and we could have 30% 'majorities' determining our presidency? And that's 30% of voters, not 30% of the people.

We could be close to 15% of the people picking our president? That's scary! And not very democratic.

[hifiguy]

10. I have been wondering this for years.

Complicity in the scam suggests itself strongly as an explanation.

[0rganism]

12. excellent comment there on debating republicans

K. Signal Eingang · Packet Wrangler at The Tower of Baubles

I have said for some time, there are, at heart, only two debate strategies - two different ways of arguing with people. If you're trying to convince the person you're arguing with, it helps to stick to facts, find points of agreement and commonality, appeal to shared interests, and remain open to compromise - that's the first way. The Democrats, by and large, seem to always think that that's the game they're playing. And indeed, it's the one we'd all *rather* be playing, because that's how our government is *supposed* to work.

But when you're arguing with a crank - and cranks and charlatans are all that's left of the GOP right now - fuck all that good faith nonsense. Forget common ground, you're not going to find it (if you did, they'd move to a different ground just to spite you). Rather, you should be arguing for the benefit of the audience. Make entertainment out of your opponent's idiocy. Expose the insanity, and make sure it can't be ignored. Find the contradictions and hammer them home. Insult your opponent freely, if that's the sort of thing you're good at. The point isn't to convince them, the point is to make sure that anybody within earshot decides then and there that said crank is the last person on earth they'd ever want to be associated with.

The Dems need to get better at the second thing. We've got one or two good attack dogs out there, but the party itself tends to marginalize them, when they should be finding a use for them. For far too long the Democratic impulse has been to meet bullshit with compromise. No more. It's time to start ripping off masks.

[jeff47]

14. Gotta keep the powder dry.

We might need to use it someday! Honest!!

[fadedrose]

15. Not to worry -

Aerows mentions Marcia Blackburn for speaker. We must not disturb them while they blow up their party...