checks and balances
Brendan Deiz
I find this more scary than funny. And maybe it would have been more appropriate closer to the election, but it's still something we need to be aware and need to work to change in 2006.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Nov 22, '04
Any comments on the parallel to checks and balances in Oregon politics? I mean with a Demo majority in Oregon House/Senate and Governor's office along with most state/county/city offices, I understand your discomfort.
9:53 a.m.
Nov 22, '04
Too much Lars, Steve?
Dems don't hold the Oregon House.
I'd guess they also don't hold anywhere near most county/city offices in the state although I haven't counted that one up.
Anyway, checks and balances are about the different branches of government keeping one another in line, not about party affiliation.
10:44 a.m.
Nov 22, '04
I think we're all going to get a lesson in checks and balances in a relatively short time... we might also get an education on advise and consent, and Senate rules, and filibusters and...
... well, needless to say, I'm sure we'll hear more from our friends from the GOPer echo chamber, reciting the party line.
Nov 22, '04
Doretta
Honestly, I am trying to have a discussion related to the issues. Believe it or not, not everyone that disagrees with you is a mind control experiment of Lars loosed to fill the world with dis-information. Heck, I don't even like Kevin Mannix.
I only ask you tolerate others' opinions. I think regardless of party affiliation there is enough incompetence at all levels that we are probably all right if we are critical of government.
Thank you.
1:31 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
Regardless of the tone of the jibing, Doretta's correct about whose hands the Oregon Legislature has been in recently. Just going back two elections, it has been a Republican House and Senate, except for the tie in the Senate as of '02. This'll be the first time for a while that even one branch of the Leg. is of the same party as the governor.
Many posts on this board, and comments on forums like Town Hall, have wanted to, in support of Republicanism, lay blame at the feet of "state government" as if it were 100% liberal. And it's an easy mistake to make, if you live in the Metro area, as Portland, Multnomah County, and Metro regional government are all predominantly liberal.
But it's an important fact to know to gain a proper perspective on this subject, and therefore, missing it gets your statement refuted.
Enough about that - what I want to know is, how the Oregon Supremes shake out. I barely even know more than two of them, maybe. Is Grattan Kerans still on that bench?
2:15 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
Steve,
I'm very tolerant of other people's opinions. It's other people's misinformation that gets it from me. You can't have a useful discussion based on "facts" that aren't true. Repeating misinformation over and over again until everyone believes it has been a very effective right wing tactic. I ran out of tolerance for that a long time ago.
Sure, everyone makes a mistake now and then. So when you make a mistake or two or three what do you do? Apologize for misstating? No, you accuse the person who points out the error of intolerance. That is also a tactic favored by Lars, O'Reilly, Rush etc. You don't want to get lumped with them, don't follow their lead.
2:39 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
As for Checks and Balances, the news media play a huge role - when they choose to and when their sponsors will allow. It'll be interesting to see how, as the blogosphere seems to be growing exponentially, how we (the collective we - reds and blues alike) will be able to affect change - marching on Washington from the comfort of our homes. Look at the Walden story... BlueBloggers put the squeeze on Walden's folks and finally got an answer that nobody would have gotten otherwise.
Bush may be in his last term, but most of Red America's representation is not. They still have voters to answer to in '06 and '08.
When you think about it - the whole Lewinsky thing started from an article on Drudge. Had the internet not existed, the Lewinsky scandal, impeachment, etc. etc. etc., never woulda happened. Each of us has the potential to be the the Woodward and Bernstein of this electronic age.
So when it comes to Checks and Balances you really have to look outside of the three branches of government and see what else is out there to act as the conscience of our elected officials. That's where we come in. If they won't balance themselves and mainstream media picks and chooses its battles based on ratings and sponsorship, somebody has to do it and it may as well be us.
Nov 22, '04
cc writes: When you think about it - the whole Lewinsky thing started from an article on Drudge. Had the internet not existed, the Lewinsky scandal, impeachment, etc. etc. etc., never woulda happened. Each of us has the potential to be the the Woodward and Bernstein of this electronic age.
Cc, why do you think that? Just because something started on an Internet site does not mean the conventional media wouldn't have eventually covered the story.
3:11 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
Newsweek killed it, then Drudge picked it up. I suppose I can't say that it definitely wouldn't have happened as I'm no psychic, but the internet obviously had an impact. I don't think that's really refutable. The whole point being that the internet and its users (that's us) can impact what happens in our local and natonal governments much more easily than we could 20 years ago. The speed at which we can transfer and obtain information and the capacity we have to build larger, louder coalitions for this issue or that is unbelievable and a resource that's only begun to be tapped.
Nov 22, '04
Granted I did mis-speak on the composition of the State House. I guess since the original cartoon was lampooning the effect of a one party lock on things, I thought it only fair to point out that granting that much power to either party usually ends up in abuse of the people being represented.
As far as local government, I can only speak to what I have seen in Portland/Multnomah/METRO which are for sure solidly Democrats. None of these groups are what I would call very well run. Yes, probably the same thing would happen if all Republicans ran things.
I am only asking for a government with limited powers (checks) that respects the wishes of their employers (those who voted them in.)
See - I made it all the way through without any ad hominem asides.
Nov 23, '04
cc: I don't think newsweek killed it -- they were waiting for additional confirmation and Drudge went w/o the confirmation. At leas that's what I remember.
regardless, I really think this is a tempest in a teapot. the rule we are all talking about was just adopted 10 years ago as a Republican effort to show themselves better than the Democrats. now that they have removed it, they show themselves to be no better (and no worse) than the Democratic majority they replaced.
(Yes, I know the Dems have such a rule now also, but let's see if it remains when a local procecutor decides to indict a Dem leader.)
Nov 23, '04
sorry! that last post was intended to be in the walden discussion.
Nov 25, '04
question:
There are three cams that are supposed to keep each other in checks and balance.
Could someone see a fourth one out there?
What ultimately keeps those three bodies in check?
I have done some reading, and I think the framers were looking at the general populace as that fourth check.
Comments?
JJ
Nov 28, '04
JJ, I think there is a division w/in the framers on that point. Some, most famously Jefferson, saw the populace (and revolution) as the ultimate check.
Others, such as Hamilton and Washington, were quite suspicious of the general populace and their ability for self government. Beyond expressing their opinions via the ballot box every election, the general populace is supposed to leave governing to the governors.
But I do think it is reasonable to see elections as a "check", but not in the classic "checks and balances" framework, that is, you want to make decision A, I can check you with action B.