would you really want total Dem control of the gov't?

[fencesitter]

Like we've had with the repubs? The last time that happened (with Clinton's first two years?) I don't think it worked out too well. Personally, one party rule, no matter what party, is not necessarily a good thing.

[NNadir]

1. One party (Democratic) rule produced great things.

The Roosevelt adminstration was probably the best of the 20th century.

Without Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson would have gone down as a great President.

Do I want one party Democratic rule? You bet!

[SteppingRazor]

2. Given the current Republican Party, absolutely...

Before the 1980s rise of Reagan, and especially before the GOP Congressional takeover in 1994, the Republican Party stood for personal liberties, avoidance of foreign entanglements, fiscal responsibility, etc.

The Republican Party today stands for none of those things. It does not stand for conservative ideals, it does not stand for liberal ideals. It stands for greed, hypocrisy and the continuance of its own power. Nothing else.

If we had a Republican Party that was an honest broker, then maybe shared power would be a good idea. But as it stands, with one political party representing rational center-left politics and policy and the other representing reactionary swill, you bet I'm for one party being in control of everything.

[survivor999]

3. There are always two parties.

Even when one is officially in power. Because it fragments into fighting factions.

[formercia]

4. In a one-party system

the boys would have a field day.

[populistdriven]

5. Only if all 3 branches of gov't were progressive Democrats!!!!

O8)

[Nite Owl]

18. Exactly, it would depend on

just who the dems were. With people like Nelson, Lanrieau and Leiberman calling themselves dems it wouldn't be better.

[leftofthedial]

6. Yes.

as an intermediate step toward total socialist control of the government.

[MurryMom]

7. Dems in charge!

How could the Democrats do any worse than what the Rethugs have done to the Government for the past 6 years? Of course we should all favor having Democrats in charge of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. I say rub it in by adopting policies exactly the opposite of what the Rethugs did. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are already doing great jobs in leading the charge for change in the legislative branch.

[bullimiami]

8. the problem, unlike what the republicans would like you believe right now,

is not one party rule, or that the 2 party system is the genesis of checks and balances.

the problem is corrupt party rule and the refusal of the republicans in power to do their duty and exert their checks and balances on a power mad executive branch.

of course the republican meme is now that one party rule is the root of the problem, they are scared the democrats are going to have total control of the government for the foreseeable future and they want to tarnish the thought.

i would like to believe that given the same set of circumstances, the democrats would not have allowed a power mad president of their own party to run roughshod over the constitution and the people and they would have either reined him in or forced him out if he proved intransigent. i would like to believe that, as difficult as it would be, they would seek justice and enforce the laws of our country because the constitution and welfare of the country is higher than politics or persons.

[sandnsea]

9. 1932-1968

What a frickin' economic nightmare!!!

[xchrom]

10. why would i ever want people who hate government to run government?

[ktlyon]

51. I've been wondering that too.

unless they don't want government to work

[SharonAnn]

11. My preference is: Dem President, Dem House, GOP (barely) Senate

Maybe a 51-49 Senate.

The reason for this is that it's an environment that provides an opportunity for oversight and doesn't give one party complete control.

I don't think Democrats should have total, complete control either. No one party, religion, ideology, or viewpoint should have complete control. We have citizens of all types who need to be represented.

And let's face it, we're all humans and "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." We've just seen it with the GOP. I don't want that to happen to our beloved Democratic Party.

Oversight is needed in all human endeavors. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Opposition parties having a voice in decisions is a goos opportunity for bringing in the sunshine.

[Pyrzqxgl]

27. Thats a really dumb idea

there are enough right wing Democrats to provide any opposition to one party rule with out putting neo-fascist Republicans in charge of leadership in the Senate. What the hell was this victory we just won all about. Tell that to voters in Montana or Virginia.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. I would rather have a democratic congress that is willing to stand up to a democratic president

When the time comes. In the 1930's the Democrats controlled the Senate with 70+ seats but they still wouldn't allow FDR's court packing scheme. I would rather a congress performing oversight under the Democrats because they would be doing so for the good of the country rather than oversight being performed under the GOP which will be done entirely for political gain.

[David__77]

12. I want NO elected Republicans.

Why would I want elected fascists? If there are to be two parties, I would want one to the LEFT of the Democrats, and then I would be supporting it. Of course under current circumstances I want veto-proof margins not just for Democrats, but for progressive Democrats. This country needs a major, serious overhaul. Anyone who disagrees isn't serious about progressive change and lacks the fortitude for political struggle.

[PeaceProgProsp]

13. No. I'd like the Greens to have the House, and the Dems to have

the Senate and White House.

[sandyd921]

32. That's a two party system that I'd be

thrilled to have in this country! We would have a government that would finally get things done for the people.

[mtnsnake]

14. Hell yea. For that matter, I wish the entire country was Democratically controlled

In fact, in a perfect world there wouldn't be a single Republican living on my street or driving down my road. Shangrila would mean no Republicans on the planet! Then, instead of fighting with Republicans, we'd have to just fight amongst ourselves like we do here all the time. So, on second thought, maybe we should keep just a few Repugs around to keep us honest. ;)

[Hosnon]

15. One party rule not necessarily a good thing?

That's a no-brainer to me.

I think the default is at least that it is not necessarily a good thing and probably that it is necessarily a bad thing. In my opinion, one must prove that one party rule is not necessarily bad.

[JeffR]

16. If the Dem Congress exercised appropriate oversight on a Dem prez

Then why the hell not?

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. Prior to Charlie Rangel's comments, and now listening to his defenders...

I would have said yes.

Now, I'm not so sure. To say that I dislike the concept of arbitrarily punishing people "to get their attention" or "to raise consciousness" is a high order understatement.

If the government wants my kids to die for the country, they'd better have a better reason than "it'll assure that the public has some skin in the game".

[ima_sinnic]

34. still don't get it, do you? or are you just willfully obtuse?

your kids would have been drafted long ago, or would be imminently (unless you're part of the wealthy elite, that is), if it weren't for Rangel's bill, which btw was introduced in 2002 or 2003.

[slackmaster]

19. Not just no but HELL NO!

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Being a Democrat does not give a politician some kind of superhuman ability to resist temptation.

I would like to see a balance between Democrats, and a mix of moderate Republicans and third party people.

[Finder]

20. Agree totally. n/t

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

22. agree 100%

[AZBlue]

23. My thoughts exactly.

A one-party rule by any party is a very bad idea.

[Hosnon]

30. Thank you. Good to see a fellow voice of reason not clouded by partisan ideology. nt

[DemExpat]

38. My view as well!

:thumbsup:

I have learned how power corrupts and makes arrogant here in The Netherlands after strong years of Labor Party influence in government. It needed a rout to get things back into a healthier balance.


DemEx

[KSU Wildcat]

21. I like gridlock.

With gridlock not much gets done but what gets done is done with careful negotiations on both sides. It seems to work well because you do not get wild swings from one extreme to the other.

[KansDem]

24. What do the Repubs offer now? They have abdicated their traditional platform

They can no longer claim to be the Party of:
1) morality and religion
2) personal responsibility
3) fiscal stewardship
4) small government
5) strong defense
6) law and order

Democracy requires compromise, so what can the Republicans offer in the way of a compromise? Not a damn thing! All they can do now is screech and whine about all things Dem...

[Cosmocat]

26. RIGHT ...

These mutants offer NOTHING right now ... N O T H I N G ...

They had COMPLETE governmental control over the last two years, and what did they do ???

I also do not buy this "absolute power corrupts absolutely" meme, either ... That is just people taking a preemptive talking point ... Did the Ds get a little stale in power in congress for so long ... Yeah, but they did not even BEGIN to match the corruption of this crew ... Just as they have tore Carter down and pumped Reagan up, they have made the last democratic house out to be worse than it was ... The "banking scandal" was just blown out of proportion ... It was not acceptable, no doubt, but it was 1/100th of what this crew did with congress ...

Sorry, the only lesson we can take from the last 12 years is that republicans can't be trusted with power ... Just because THEY went power hungry insane does not mean that EVERYONE will go power hungry insane ...

I don't want a SINGLE republican candidate for president ... I sure as heck don't want Trent Lott to be Speaker of the House, and I don't want Mitch McConnell to be majority leader in the Senate ...

[qwlauren35]

25. Actually,

I'm starting to think a 4 party system would be a good thing. (Four STRONG parties.) I think it's time the Republicans split, and there was a Fundamentalist party, just as there is a rising Green party.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats seem to be able to manage the juggling act of their broad constituencies. Our views are becoming too diverse.

I can never be excited by a situation in which minority voices are silenced. That goes against every value I have.

[LWolf]

28. Not at all.

I'd like a balance of Greens, Independents, Socialists, Peace and Freedom'ers, Natural Law'yers, and other progressive party reps to fill Congress along with Democrats, leaving the Democratic Party the most conservative of the bunch. A balance among the bunch, with no clear majority, would be great.

It's fine by me if the Republican Party disbands in shame, and it's members become the fringe radicals.

[MODemocrat]

29. What's my other choice?

I would be heartsick to see some of the republicans of today be elected as president. They don't squat
about domestic issues; and very damned little about anything else. I'll gladly take the Democratic
party over any of them.

[displacedtexan]

31. To quote Al Gore...

"Uh... YEAH!"

[Clarkie1]

33. Only if Clark were President.

I'm only being partly facetious.

[rpannier]

35. I'm not sure a single anything is a good idea

I'm not sure I want this country to be lead by a single, or limited, group of people who share the same set of ideas, whether they are progressives, conservatives, socialists, neo-cons, whatever.

When people talk about how much better it would be if Washington only had progressives in the White House and Congress, I envision the scene from Blazing Saddles, "Howard Johnson is right, about Olson Johnson being right about Gabby Johnson..."

Single ideology is far more dangerous than single Party, because single ideology locks out competing theories and prevents true intellectual discourse from taking place. This, in my opinion leads to intellectual stagnation and you have political corruption.

Many people at DU will argue that conservatism is a bankrupt ideology. But, not everything that conservatives say or offer is of no value. Let's face it, there are some fairly conservative ideas presented here on DU over a variety of issues: gun ownership, death penalty, legalization of drugs, child rearing, etc.

Having a variety of ideas, ranging from the left side (Bernie Sanders) to the right side (cornyn) of the political landscape is the best way to go. Locking out one half of the political spectrum is dangerous because it prevents intellectual growth (IMO). Intellectual growth happens when ideas are challenged furiously and defended with equal vigor.

The failure of the republikkans lay in the fact that they were not interested in serious discourse and dissent. They were so concerned with presenting a united front that real discussions about real issues was squelched. Sound bites replaced real thought. Name calling and insults replaced vibrant, healthy discussion.

When the gloomy spectre of failure was staring them in the face, they were unwilling and/or unable to honestly defend their positions. They lost in the arena of public opinion, not just because their policies were failing, but because they had not honestly attempted to defend their positions. When their world came tumbling down they couldn't defend themselves intelligently.

Single, or limited ideology, is far more dangerous than single party -- unless the two are 'one-in-the-same.'

[Hippo_Tron]

37. I want a Dem white house and a Dem congress with people like Russ Feingold...

In key congressional positions. Russ is the type of person who will stand up to the white house no matter what party is in power. We need statesmen running congress who will challenge the President for the good of the country, not Republican hacks who will challenge the President for political gain.

[LeftishBrit]

39. I am suspicious of too great a majority for one party

Even when it's a party that in principle I'd support. It gives too much potential unchecked power to the leadership, who may be good or bad. Both Thatcher and Blair had too much power due to their excessively large parliamentary majorities.

Francis Pym, one of our more moderate Tories in the 1980s, displeased Thatcher and lost his Cabinet job by remarking that "Landslides rarely produce good governments". He was right IMO; and the Blair disaster has proved it further.

I don't think that there'd be anything wrong with a Dem president and a Dem majority in both houses; but a Dem president and an OVERWHELMING Dem majority in one or both houses might be asking for trouble IMO, just based on our experience in the UK.

[many a good man]

40. Cycles: public interest - private interest

Democracies work best when they have periodic cycles.

That way needed reforms are made in one direction and when they start to go too far or start losing effectiveness the public shifts in the other direction. When the other direction goes too far they lose power and the cycle starts again.

The private interest phase of the cycle has gone far too long and we are suffering the consequences. The public interest must now take preference, especially in areas such as health care and public spending (versus defense spending).

The end of these cycles usually correspond with the party in power becoming overly corrupt. Corrupt people generally don't care about ideology or principle, they join with whichever party they will profit them the most.

[paulk]

41. for 2008 I could live with it, if only to correct what's gone on

under Republican single party rule.

But, in the long run, single party rule isn't a good thing. For a democracy to survive, both sides need to have a voice. What always seems to happen when only one side has a voice is that the extremists on that side gain control and extremism, right or left, is always a bad thing.

[MrCoffee]

42. not just yes but HELL YES

[hcil]

43. Actually

There are 56 political parties in the U.S.A according to http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm :patriot:

[demdiva]

44. I think it's not the same problem with the Democrats

Honestly, I feel like there are a lot of dems in the spot light (maybe too many ....which is why we always hear there's no dem "leader") and that would keep an all dem government from the ills that came to the republicans these last eight years.

I worry much more about the Democratic Party's ability to unite as a party wayyyy more then I'd ever worry about the dems also having the White House. When you don't have a rubber stamp Congress, then the separation of powers takes care of the abuse of power. Bush just managed to rope most of those in his party who disagreed with him with ALWAYS voting his way.

[Doctor_J]

45. TIme to get off the fence

I guess your screen name says it all, but it doesn't really go with the subject of this web site.

The problem over the last 6 years hasn't been one-party rule, it's been rule by evil, fascist criminals.

[chieftain]

46. Hell yes, I definitely want the Democrats to control Congress

and the Executive Branch and the sooner the better.

[nolies32fouettes]

47. yes. hands down they were better than repubs. Keep the lobbys out though

[musiclawyer]

48. Yes... unitl.....

we go to a parliamentary system , if ever, the grown ups have to be in charge of everything. This is because the Republicans will forever be the party of extremists, corporations, unfairness, and intolerance. They cannot be trusted with any power. Until such a time that other progressive, semi-progressive, and benign viewpoints have formal seats at the table, forcing robust, thorough and logical discussion of policy and options, Republicans are far too dangerous to be given any power. So for the rest of out lifetimes probably, we must work to make the Republicans a permanent minority and strive very hard at the same time to force Democrats not to be corrupted by power.

[sandyd921]

49. Sure, at least long enough to

undo all the damage done by Bushco, get us out of Iraq and mend our relations with the rest of the world, put in place policies that will help the working people of this country such as making it easier to start unions and single payer universal health care. And if the dire economic forecasts we've been hearing about come true in the next few years, I want Democrats in power to put in place another New Deal to pull us out of it.

[TankLV]

50. In a heartbeat - OF COURSE!

I would like to see NO traitorous repukes in ANY position of government - they have proven to be only LIARS and CRIMINALS.

[Vidar]

52. No, I'd rather share it with the Greens & Libertarians.