?

Log in

No account? Create an account
FF Sparks (Casual)

[Politics] Changing the Rules...

What bothered me most about this election was that we ended up a single party in control of all branches of the government; I don't want that with /any/ party, because our government is supposed to function on a system of checks and balances.

Many Bush supporters (and some Kerry voters) told me I was overreacting to the issue, because the Republicans could still be blocked by filibusters. Well, as we've seen, the Republicans are now trying to change the filibuster rules so that it only takes 51 votes (remember they have 55) rather than 60 to stop a filibuster. Because being 'obstructionist' is bad for the government... never mind that Republicans obstructed Democratic lawmakers in every way they could, in the past.

We've also seen the Republican party, a party who made laws on term limits and on position limits and other things and upheld itself as the champions of ethics when they weren't in such complete power... rushing to overturn their own rules now that they /do/ have power. It was laws pushed forward by Republicans in the name of 'restoring ethics to government' which would have kept Tom DeLay from returning as majority leader... and which they're now trying to overturn, with Tom DeLay thanking his supporters for 'standing up to the courts.'

We've seen the Republican party, who used to argue the federalist viewpoint -- that states should be able to make their own laws and decisions, rather than being forced to adhere to national mandates -- suddenly rushing completely the opposite direction, trying to make constitutional amendments and things to block states from making laws allowing gay marriage.

And yet the Republicans call the Democratic party hypocrites and wafflers, who change their stories as convenient? I think the Republican politicians who make those claims are using a different dictionary than I am...

Comments

It's called a political dictionary. Its pages are entirely blank, ready to be filled in (in 2B pencil, for easy erasure) at the user's convenience. Sucky, yes.

Btw, hi! ^_^ I ran across a comment you posted in rain_luong's journal, and thought 'I know that picture.'

If you're wondering, we used to play on CotA together. Adminned, near the end.

Unless I'm losing my mind, anyway. Wouldn't be the first time.
Nope, you got it right; I'm Singularity from CotA3, though I'm afraid I can't map your userpic to a specific one of my fellow former staffers so readily as you did. :)

In-Betweener's on LJ, too (and his LJ username is even more guessable than mine if you remember his player's nickname), as are a few others of the old CotA crew. Not in touch with most of 'em anymore.

The system is broken!

While I share your frustration with one party having power and working to change the rules to maintain that power, it hasn't been much better even with the "two party" system. Those two parties have worked together to exclude the input of minor parties. That has only increased the chances that we'd end up with one of those two powerful parties getting weak enough to change from a two-party system to a one-party system. We need reform... but I don't think it's going to come any time soon, unfortunately...