Wizbang

I often see conservative blogs picking out quotes from DU to prove all of us who are on the left are a bunch of nuts. I see the same thing on conservative blogs, but I usually don't say anything because you can't judge and entire spectrum of people by a few nutty commenters. But, I was put onto Wizbang today by esoterically about a thread of discussion I found quite funny. Not only because the thread was just absurd, but because it shows the lack of knowledge people have about current and historical events.

The post states:

I can't think of anything more damaging to a political system than to be utterly dominated by one side.

Now you might think this is coming from a Democrat... but it is coming from a Republican talking about Massachusetts. Apparently, the only time domination by one party is bad, is when it is dominated by Democrats. There is no complaint about the federal government being dominated by the Republican party...

But Mass has a Republican governor. How do you explain this?

For some reason, they keep electing Republican governors, but the legislature is literally overwhelmingly Democratic, as is most of the state judiciary. I think it's partly because even Massholes know what a horror show it would be if the Democrats completely controlled the state, and partly because the Democratic candidates they've tossed up have been a pathetic collection of hacks, losers, and greedy swine.

Oh, I see... The Dems are a bunch of hacks and swine. Well, Massachusetts has some of the lowest poverty, best educational rates, some of best health care and fittest citizens in the country. So, if swine does this in the state legislature, then any pig that runs for office has my vote. Babe the pig for president in '08!

But then the commenters start to weigh in.

So let me get this straight, if a state like MA is dominated by democrats that is a problem to go wringing your hands over, but states like GA that are now dominated by republicans is just fine and there is no reason to be alarmed over one party rule. - Rick

Response:

Rick, Georgia was a Democtrat one-party state for 130 years, and it's only lately that has changed. If it becomes one-party Republican now (as I believe is going to be the case), it's mostly because (1) the Democrats down here have been ineffectual losers, and (2) the Republicans have not. As a result, Georgia voters have thrown the Democrats out. - McGhee

First, a little history lesson. In the south, the Democrats where Republicans and Republicans were Democrats until about 40 years ago (or even less in some situations... you know what I am talking about Zell). After the civil war, the Republicans were the ones who fought for civil rights for African-Americans and a stronger federal government. It was the Democrats who fought for segregation and states rights. The reason the Democrats dominated the south for so long was because they literally killed the Republicans (black and white). So, ideologically, Georgia has not changed. It has just changed party titles. It has always been dominated by conservatives.

But then, things just get wacky:

Liberals will get in a tither about nothing in the US and let Saddam and others kill off people without a second thought. CNN proved this by not reporting atrocities in Iraq because they did not want to upset the dictator, but they will risk asking our President the most retarded questions over and over and over again.

Jeff Ganon was breath of fresh air. It should trouble the media that it took a freak to bring some fresh air into the White House News Room. Trolls really get upset by freaks, especially when they are conservative in nature rather than a flaming Liberal Queen....like Helen Thomas, a freak and a troll. - Charles

Do I have to dig up the picture of Rummy meeting with Saddam?... or the fact that it was GW Sr. who enticed the Shites to reble and then gave Saddam the go ahead to use gun ships to slaughter them?... or that it was William Casey that told Saddam that the U.S. had "no stance" on Iraq setteling border disputes with Kuwait?...

Another:

He [Ted Kennedy] could always buy a few boats and start prohibition up again, and give part of the profits to the poor. Maybe passengers would survive a rum-running trip with him as long as he sticks to the boat when crossing water. - bullwinkle

Umm... I really am speechless...

But finally there was a brief respite for some saner minds to speak:

"I can't think of anything more damaging to a political system than to be utterly dominated by one side,.."

I can think of something worse. A system where two parties fight so much over details that neither party can make any real change occur. When elections are won by a 1% majority, then half the population is virtually always disappointed. The two party system has completely polarized the population, and have changed the rules to make it impossible for an independent candidate to win.

We need to step back and take a fresh look at our political system. I don't think we really have a system OF, BY, and FOR the people personally. Is a political system with representatives really OF or BY the people? Giving your vote to a representative is just inviting corruption in my opinion.

We have mass communications now and don't need representatives. Lets do away with reps and lobbyist representing big business interests. The big corporations care more about their financial bottom line than common people. If we just did that we would be much closer to a democracy FOR the people. - Ray Arrowood

This country needs a lot of help... Does nyone think before they speak anymore?