Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

Democrats changing the Party, not the problem

by Jon Henke | October 29, 2008 at 12:37 PM
in

Howard Dean, 2008:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that he’s looking forward to one party controlling all aspects of government, despite GOP charges that it would be a disastrous Nov. 4 outcome.  “Republicans had a chance to rule. They failed miserably. I think it’s time to give the other party a chance,” Dean said on MSNBC.

Howard Dean, 2005:

We need more than one party in charge. And the vote on Tuesday is going to be critical to decide whether American democracy still allows those of us who didn't vote for the president to have any say in running the country whatsoever.
[...]
Someday, the Democrats will be back in charge again. Do we want a Democratic Party that's in charge of everything? Well, you know, I suppose it's my job to say yes. But the truth is, as an American, it's better when parties share power. It's better when even those people who didn't win the election have something to say.
[...]
[There] is a culture of corruption and abuse of power in Washington. This is what happens when one party is in charge of everything.

Change! 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Dean speaks truth accidently

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 13:21.

"[There] is a culture of corruption and abuse of power in Washington. This is what happens when one party is in charge of everything." - Howard Dean

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while! Of course, it was proven out on BOTH parties - both parties have members who succumb. It's a good reason for term limits. Sure, it might term limit out some good people, but it also helps weed out the stinkers.

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton

AMEN!

Submitted by Big Ben 4 liberty on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 14:16.

I loathe the notion of career politicians, even the Republican ones.

TERM LIMITS!

Submitted by webxl on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 01:47.

Fight the incumbents!

The overwhelming problem with term limits...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 07:58.

...is that it empowers the unelected bureaucrat. If you think the federal bureaucracy is all powerful now, just wait until they and they alone have the experience and knowledge needed to govern, while the elected Peoples' representatives are treated like inexperienced beginners, which, indeed, they would be.

Before we place limits on the Peoples' voice, we had best think about it long and hard.

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

so true

Submitted by jro on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 10:47.

I've seen this happen.  I was involved with state government in the nineties, and term limits were passed in the 92 election.  Guess what happened?

The most influential people in the building were the chiefs of staff.  After the limits kicked in and the career politicians were out the door, the new guys needed help.  So they hired all the former chiefs of staff since they knew their way around the place operationally.

Term limits don't yield better governing by our elected officials.  Electing better officials yields better governing.  Term limits simply push the problem around to areas that the electorate can no longer influence.

"Electing better officials

Submitted by webxl on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 13:29.

"Electing better officials yields better governing." Can you cite one example? Just one.

Career politicians game the system to make it harder for challengers. They rig it by doing everything in their power to increase their budgets, just like every other government bureaucrat. The bigger the budget, the bigger the campaign donations to get a piece of that budget. The bigger the campaign donations, the easier it is to stay in office and do nothing about real problems for the sake of the special interests (i.e. donations).

Power corrupts.... because there are incentives to be corrupt. There are no penalties to direct funds (and loopholes) towards special interests.

How do you suppose we solve that?

Here are two examples.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 13:32.

Guilliani and Bloomberg. NYC is a vastly more livable city than pre-Guilliani.

sure

Submitted by jro on Fri, 10/31/2008 - 00:38.

Take your pick on any leaders you feel are effective (I think Bloomberg is one), but that's not the point.  Term limits are no secret sauce.  I find them to be a placebo in addressing the issue you raise -- corruption.

In my experience, term limits have done nothing to affect corruption or influence peddling.  It's changed the names of the beneficiaries every few years, that's it.  As a simple example, take Cheney -- he implemented his own term limit when he said he was retiring after the vice presidency.  Think Halliburton hasn't had any influence while he's been in office?  Heck, it wouldn't be a stretch to make the argument that his interests weren't aligned with the voters during his time in office.

If you can cite an example where term limits solved the matter of power corruption long-term, I'll gladly support them.

as a liberal

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 15:59.

I am just as uncomfortable as you are with single party rule. That's a good thing, isn't it?

 

I'm just waiting for you guys to get your crap together, so that you can give me an honest choice again, instead of a screeching anti science, anti modernist, ROMANTIC movement. I detest romantics.