« How many licks does it take to get to the probable cause portion of the 4th Amendment? | Main | If I were the President »

May 07, 2006

One-party rule v. one-party rule

It's been interesting and informative to see how the minority Democrats have reacted to Republicans dominating all three branches of the federal government.

On the one hand I've heard and read from Democrats that it's dangerous to democracy for one party to have nearly unchecked power. Yet on the other hand the reaction to Republican dominance has been to try to elect nothing but Democrats. Which if it's successful would result in... one party having nearly unchecked power. N'est pas?

What's it gonna be? Is the solution to the mismanagement of Tweedle Dee to elect Tweedle Dum? Is that really what's in the best interests of the citizenry? Or is there a middle ground?

Here in Oregon an Independent gubernatorial candidate named Ben Westlund is trying for that middle ground. In an interesting newspaper write up about him I found some interesting policy positions of his which I'd not been aware of before. One of which goes to the point of this post.

I've heard from progressive Democrats how bad the so-called kicker law is here in Oregon. Yet we've had a string of Democrats inhabit the Governor's mansion and none of them has challenged the kicker law. Westlund is openly challenging it and yet because he's not a Democrat he gets short shrift from the very folks who most want the kicker law repealed.

It seems as if one-party rule trumps everything, even common sense.

Posted by Kevin at May 7, 2006 01:41 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.preemptivekarma.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1297