[bold]In theory, there is nothing wrong with [one-party government]. In reality, how far has the balanced approach really gotten us? How many times has Obama tried to push "Compromise" and "Balance" only to have it ripped apart by Republicans? The Republicans in the House and Senate do not want compromise. They want their agenda and they rarely settle for anything less.[/bold]
I'm with Glenn Greenwald on President Obama's "compromises" -- that it was fake party shit, disguising that the Democrats weren't going to implement liberal policies despite the fact they have to have liberals to win elections. In other words, the Democrats had a supermajority of 60 in the Senate and a 3-to-2 majority of the House. Obama's pushes for compromises with the Republicans were a fraud.
The problem people have with one-party government isn't "in theory," it's in reality. But it's not necessarily speaking to the three levels of government nationally but locally (statewide and though state districts). It speaks to corruption. To having as much as access at a level where the voting electorate just keep rubber-stamping based on preferred team color. That's a problem not only in Michigan, which was won by the Rs in a Republican midterm wave (would the governorships be as majority Republican if they were all held coinciding in presidential election years?), but also in Texas.
The Democrats, and their compromise, have to do with the fact they also take campaign contributions from wealth and from corporations. That is why we don't have a public option, along with drugs re-importation, in the healthcare bill from 2010. And that is also why the president leading his party was perfectly willing to lose their House majority with the midterms of 2010.
[bold]So, yes, I want a government where the democrats have more of a say…[/bold]
They had their say especially going into 2009. They had more numbers in the Senate and House than the Republicans, at their high mark after 2004, under Republican president George W. Bush. They had, for example, 55 in the Republican Senate.
[bold]…, because the Republicans have shown time and time again to not care about working together and making sure everyone gets a fair say.[/bold]
The Republicans totally whore themselves for money for the purpose of attaining and retaining electoral power. (No argument from me.)
[bold]Because "more regularly" sounds so much better? [/bold]
No, because the northeast region of Republicans are not the same breed typically from the south or in regions like those repped by Iowa's Steve King.
[bold]In college, in the late sixties. Certainly different from being a Republican during the Reagan and Bush years.[/bold]
Hillary was a Barry Goldwater Republican. She was also on the board at Walmart. She's also been a corporatist well before Barack Obama.
[bold]Did you vote for Obama/Biden? Because Biden voted to go to war in Iraq.[/bold]
Yes. I also have David Plouffe's book on who the Obama campaign considered for the vice-presidential slot: Indiana's Evan Bayh and Virginia's Tim Kaine. Kaine would have been the cleanest selection. And it's offensive Bayh was even in the running given he is of the Joe Lieberman ilk. Kaine didn't get the slot because, with the war in Iraq still going, he didn't have foreign policy credentials that are Biden's.
[bold]Because that's not my job. If you want Warren in the White House, it's your place to provide solid reasons as to why she would be the best candidate....[/bold]
It would be my place to vote the nomination not to Hillary Clinton but to Elizabeth Warren. I don't think, in all seriousness, that Warren needs to be explained with "solid reasons." What I'm telling you is that I believe, when considering who I want representing the party for the presidency, Warren is better than Clinton.
[bold]Why constantly try and divide the party because of someone you clearly don't like?[/bold]
The individual representing at the top [italic]matters[/italic].