QFT

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

1. Rebecca says:

   August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am

   The Republicans are going to pound this drum in the upcoming 37th District election — we see the News Journal has already picked up this talking point. TNJ has linked super-majority to the word tax in every article they have run about this race. That’s not a coincidence.

2. Delaware Republican says:

   August 6, 2009 at 8:19 am

   Sure, everyone is concerned as Dems have a terrible track record or growing government and raising taxes.

   The growth in government in the last 15-16 years is amazing. If Delaware had simply increased its budget by inflation and population growth there would be a surplus this year.

   Check out Singleton’s OP Ed, this state is a complete mess and dems will make it worse with a super majority.

   Mike Protack

3. Ombudsman RSmitty says:

   August 6, 2009 at 8:22 am

   I am concerned, but keep in mind that I also wasn’t thrilled when the Republicans temporarily had a simple majority of all levels of the Federal Government several years back. I don’t care what party it is, to have total control at all levels is dangerous in the aspect of becoming drunk with power and the potential of increased corruption that is hidden for years.

   I firmly believe, and for years have been consistent with this, that the majority party must still fight for what they want instilled upon those whom they serve. When you are talking about laws, regulations, cuts, taxes, etc., it shouldn’t be an easy road (unless it’s such an obvious slam dunk, of course, but that’s not mostly the case). Yes, the majority party gets the sway and they earned it, obviously, from the voters; however, to get to a point where you need no one, not even the voters say-so, that is what concerns me. I can’t tell you any time in history where a top-down (all levels) majority, even a simple-majority, didn’t become so drunk with their own unabated influence on their constituency, that they ended up turning things worse in the long run.

   To clarify, when I say “all-levels” or “top-down” majority, I mean that one party controls the executive and all of the legislative branches over a single term/session. So, yes, I am concerned. Look at the slippery-slope it threw the National GOP party on in the 2000’s and what the National Dem party dealt with late-70’s into the 80’s. It feels great (very much so) on election night, but as those terms move forward, that feeling slowly wanes, except to the power hungry.

4. Ombudsman RSmitty says:

   August 6, 2009 at 8:28 am

   I better clarify, since this was questioned of me elsewhere:
   If the voters elect in a super-majority, then so-be-it. It was the voters’ will. I don’t begrudge that one bit, because that is a democracy. It does not mean I like a super-majority from top-down, because I don’t and won’t ever, but I won’t try to deny its legitimacy (via opinion) if the voters choose it.

5. anon says:

   August 6, 2009 at 9:32 am

   No. The more Dems the merrier.

6. Perry says:

   August 6, 2009 at 10:05 am

   Smitty, I am with you on the supermajority point. Vigorous debate can help get the best legislation in place, or no legislation, whichever is better; a supermajority can ignore and/or shut off debate. We don’t need that.

   However, in the 37th race, I have real concern if Eric Bodenweiser becomes the GOP candidate, based on the fact that he is a promoter of the SCCOR, a fringe group being promoted by the Gaffney/Colley radio talk show hosts. I will admit to not knowing too much more about Bodenweiser, except that he has been a business man in the area, so I do need to shut my mouth until I learn more about him.

7. Ombudsman RSmitty says:

   August 6, 2009 at 10:40 am

   Perry…lol…I could have written your last paragraph! It’s like what I commented to Tim P at DP earlier this week in his “Trust Gap” post. It would take a lot of convincing for me to become comfortable.

8. anonone says:

   August 6, 2009 at 11:36 am

   No.

9. Brian Shields says:

   August 6, 2009 at 12:56 pm

   Not really. Because the GOP allowed that single vote anyway for all of the taxes this year, and then grandstanded that they were against them.

   It is not like they used that one vote as a tool to get what they want, so why bother?

10. Suzanne says:

    August 6, 2009 at 9:51 pm

    Worried? Not at all – I’d be delighted because I know there are quite a few Democrats in the House that would make sure that things won’t get out of hand.

11. anon says:

    August 8, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    And the Democratic choice is public defender Rob Robinson of Georgetown.