- Joined
- May 3, 2005
- Messages
- 15,423
- Reaction score
- 619
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Back before the last election cycle, and even before, the Dems were complaining about the Republicans controlling both houses of congress and the executive, saying how one-party government was bad and that they should be elected into control of one of them so as to have good government.
And example for Senator Reid
Senator Reid: The danger in a one-party system is that there's no ability to have an alternative message. When we had a Senate that was "controlled" by the Republicans but had a Democratic President, we were still a force. But once you have all three bodies under one-party control, you no longer have the ability to communicate with the American people. It makes it very difficult to communicate with the American people. That's the position we now find ourselves in. One-party government is bad for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which is there's no new ideas. It's either George Bush's way or the highway. If people don't agree with him, they'll lose their chairmanships, their subcommittee chairmanships and other goodies that the President can control.
Senator Harry Reid BuzzFlash Interview
Or as liberal columist Paul Craig Roberts stated the case
"
The Democrats, of course, have done nothing to protect us from Bush’s illegal war or from his assaults on the Constitution and civil liberty. Democrats have been intimidated by the threat of being politically placed in the "against us" camp, and Democrats are as much in the pockets of AIPAC, the oil industry, and the military-industrial complex as Republicans.
Nevertheless, one-party rule magnifies error by marginalizing dissent and debate. The Republican Congress acquiesces to the Republican executive in order to maintain a common front that the opposition cannot penetrate. Detrimental policies and laws harmful to liberty are passed for the sake of party power, not because they are good for Americans or true to the Constitution.
The Democrats don’t deserve to be in office any more than do the Republicans, but by putting Democrats in office, voters can strengthen Americans’ ability to dissent from Bush’s police state measures and Bush’s commitment to interminable wars in the Middle East. One-party rule suppresses dissent within the government and, thus, makes dissent all the more difficult outside government.
Freedom and democracy in America are already impaired by a heavily concentrated media ownership that no longer serves the public interest.
A one-party government combined with a corporate-controlled press is no recipe for maintaining freedom and democracy in America."
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/061004_november.htm
So if the polls appear to be giving both houses of congress to the Dems will Reid support the Republican candidate so the we don't have one party rule which he says is so bad that the Republicans should have been denied it? Will Roberts endorse Republican Senators if the Dems appear to be taking the HoReps and the WH?
Or was it all propaganda?
And example for Senator Reid
Senator Reid: The danger in a one-party system is that there's no ability to have an alternative message. When we had a Senate that was "controlled" by the Republicans but had a Democratic President, we were still a force. But once you have all three bodies under one-party control, you no longer have the ability to communicate with the American people. It makes it very difficult to communicate with the American people. That's the position we now find ourselves in. One-party government is bad for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which is there's no new ideas. It's either George Bush's way or the highway. If people don't agree with him, they'll lose their chairmanships, their subcommittee chairmanships and other goodies that the President can control.
Senator Harry Reid BuzzFlash Interview
Or as liberal columist Paul Craig Roberts stated the case
"
The Democrats, of course, have done nothing to protect us from Bush’s illegal war or from his assaults on the Constitution and civil liberty. Democrats have been intimidated by the threat of being politically placed in the "against us" camp, and Democrats are as much in the pockets of AIPAC, the oil industry, and the military-industrial complex as Republicans.
Nevertheless, one-party rule magnifies error by marginalizing dissent and debate. The Republican Congress acquiesces to the Republican executive in order to maintain a common front that the opposition cannot penetrate. Detrimental policies and laws harmful to liberty are passed for the sake of party power, not because they are good for Americans or true to the Constitution.
The Democrats don’t deserve to be in office any more than do the Republicans, but by putting Democrats in office, voters can strengthen Americans’ ability to dissent from Bush’s police state measures and Bush’s commitment to interminable wars in the Middle East. One-party rule suppresses dissent within the government and, thus, makes dissent all the more difficult outside government.
Freedom and democracy in America are already impaired by a heavily concentrated media ownership that no longer serves the public interest.
A one-party government combined with a corporate-controlled press is no recipe for maintaining freedom and democracy in America."
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/061004_november.htm
So if the polls appear to be giving both houses of congress to the Dems will Reid support the Republican candidate so the we don't have one party rule which he says is so bad that the Republicans should have been denied it? Will Roberts endorse Republican Senators if the Dems appear to be taking the HoReps and the WH?
Or was it all propaganda?