Comments on: The Myth of “One-Party Rule” http://themoderatevoice.com/24313/the-myth-of-one-party-rule/ An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right Mon, 28 May 2012 21:32:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Rich_Rubino http://themoderatevoice.com/24313/the-myth-of-one-party-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-204560 Rich_Rubino Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:46:56 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/john-mccain/24313/the-myth-of-one-party-rule/#comment-204560 Hi Micheal,This is an interesting article. You may want to take a look at this similar article I wrote on the subject. Also, I would love for you to join the web site. We have 167 members and I would love to add your voice. <a href="http://politicsdmz.ning.com/forum/topics/oneparty-rule-does-not-mean" rel="nofollow">http://politicsdmz.ning.com/forum/topics/onepar...</a> One-Party Rule Does Not Mean One-Party Unity Hi Micheal,This is an interesting article. You may want to take a look at this similar article I wrote on the subject. Also, I would love for you to join the web site. We have 167 members and I would love to add your voice. http://politicsdmz.ning.com/forum/topics/onepar… One-Party Rule Does Not Mean One-Party Unity

]]> By: superdestroyer http://themoderatevoice.com/24313/the-myth-of-one-party-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-163877 superdestroyer Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:43:39 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/john-mccain/24313/the-myth-of-one-party-rule/#comment-163877 Jspencer, <br><br>The Democrats knew which seats were vulnerable in 2008 and the Democrats also knew that only one Democratic seats would be in play in 2008 and the Republicans managed to nominate a nobody in LA to oppose Mary Landrieu. You may not know the specifics but would can quickly see the limits of change. There is little chance that the Democrats will lose even one seat they currently hold (barring a personal scandal ) but the Republicans will probably not hold on to to all of these seats. Thus for three elections in a row, the Democrats will not lose a seat but the Republicans will lose several. <br><br> Chuck Grassley of Iowa <br>Jim Bunning of Kentucky <br>David Vitter of Louisiana <br>Kit Bond of Missouri <br>Judd Gregg of New Hampshire <br>George Voinovich of Ohio <br>Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania Jspencer,

The Democrats knew which seats were vulnerable in 2008 and the Democrats also knew that only one Democratic seats would be in play in 2008 and the Republicans managed to nominate a nobody in LA to oppose Mary Landrieu. You may not know the specifics but would can quickly see the limits of change. There is little chance that the Democrats will lose even one seat they currently hold (barring a personal scandal ) but the Republicans will probably not hold on to to all of these seats. Thus for three elections in a row, the Democrats will not lose a seat but the Republicans will lose several.

Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Jim Bunning of Kentucky
David Vitter of Louisiana
Kit Bond of Missouri
Judd Gregg of New Hampshire
George Voinovich of Ohio
Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania

]]> By: JSpencer http://themoderatevoice.com/24313/the-myth-of-one-party-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-163859 JSpencer Thu, 13 Nov 2008 03:31:21 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/john-mccain/24313/the-myth-of-one-party-rule/#comment-163859 SD, I've watched the democrats and republicans pretty closely for 4 decades now, long enough to not be worried about the dems creating any "one party rule". If for any reason they actually get organized, motivated and disciplined enough to implement some of their plans then I will be pleasantly surprised. SD, I've watched the democrats and republicans pretty closely for 4 decades now, long enough to not be worried about the dems creating any “one party rule”. If for any reason they actually get organized, motivated and disciplined enough to implement some of their plans then I will be pleasantly surprised.

]]> By: superdestroyer http://themoderatevoice.com/24313/the-myth-of-one-party-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-163844 superdestroyer Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:33:29 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/john-mccain/24313/the-myth-of-one-party-rule/#comment-163844 Jspencer, <br><br>There were never 60 Republican Senators during the Bush Administration. Yet the Democrats should get to 60 in 2010. <br><br>Pelosi kept complete Democratic discipline during 2005-2006. Given the Democrats stronger preference for seniority, it should be easier for maintain discipline. Jspencer,

There were never 60 Republican Senators during the Bush Administration. Yet the Democrats should get to 60 in 2010.

Pelosi kept complete Democratic discipline during 2005-2006. Given the Democrats stronger preference for seniority, it should be easier for maintain discipline.

]]> By: JSpencer http://themoderatevoice.com/24313/the-myth-of-one-party-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-163840 JSpencer Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:14:57 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/john-mccain/24313/the-myth-of-one-party-rule/#comment-163840 Great post Michael. I think we've seen as much "one party rule" as we're going to in this part of the century, and that was under GWB and his rubber stamping congress. For all the ridiculous rhetoric the GOP enjoys leveling against democrats, they are in reality a more disparate bunch and less likely to work in the lockstep republicans have been prone to doing. Great post Michael. I think we've seen as much “one party rule” as we're going to in this part of the century, and that was under GWB and his rubber stamping congress. For all the ridiculous rhetoric the GOP enjoys leveling against democrats, they are in reality a more disparate bunch and less likely to work in the lockstep republicans have been prone to doing.

]]> By: Brian http://themoderatevoice.com/24313/the-myth-of-one-party-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-163832 Brian Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:51:50 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/john-mccain/24313/the-myth-of-one-party-rule/#comment-163832 That's why it wouldn't really have done the Dems a ton of good to get 60 seats in the Senate--many Senators won't follow the "party line" anyway.<br><br>I've always liked how the Democrats seem more open-minded than the Republicans. Allowing for multiple views and ideas and policies is good for the country (though I would like to see a little more uniformity, at least when it comes to big issues like healthcare). That's why it wouldn't really have done the Dems a ton of good to get 60 seats in the Senate–many Senators won't follow the “party line” anyway.

I've always liked how the Democrats seem more open-minded than the Republicans. Allowing for multiple views and ideas and policies is good for the country (though I would like to see a little more uniformity, at least when it comes to big issues like healthcare).

]]> By: superdestroyer http://themoderatevoice.com/24313/the-myth-of-one-party-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-163831 superdestroyer Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:36:13 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/john-mccain/24313/the-myth-of-one-party-rule/#comment-163831 I think you are confusing the media lack of interest with Democratic party diversity with the idea that the Democratic party tolerate diversity better than the Republican party. One of the reasons that the Replubicans have collapsed is that every Republican is forced to answer for the actions of any Repulbican. The media has tied New England Republicans with Republicans in Kansas wanting to teach evolution or Mark Foley. <br><br>Yet, Democrats are never linked to each other. No one asked Heath Schuler or Jim Webb why they are in the same party as the Democrats in Chicago who sue gun makers or ask Tester why he is in the same party as Detroit Democrats who support race based reparations. <br><br>As long as the Democratic Party is viewed as actually a set of diverse political parties who have little to do with each other, they can function as the one national party. However, as soon as the Republicans go away, there becomes no reason for blue dogs to suppport the CBC and vice versa. I think you are confusing the media lack of interest with Democratic party diversity with the idea that the Democratic party tolerate diversity better than the Republican party. One of the reasons that the Replubicans have collapsed is that every Republican is forced to answer for the actions of any Repulbican. The media has tied New England Republicans with Republicans in Kansas wanting to teach evolution or Mark Foley.

Yet, Democrats are never linked to each other. No one asked Heath Schuler or Jim Webb why they are in the same party as the Democrats in Chicago who sue gun makers or ask Tester why he is in the same party as Detroit Democrats who support race based reparations.

As long as the Democratic Party is viewed as actually a set of diverse political parties who have little to do with each other, they can function as the one national party. However, as soon as the Republicans go away, there becomes no reason for blue dogs to suppport the CBC and vice versa.

]]>