Coyote Mercury Posts

Not being a member of any political party, I’ve often argued that divided government is the sanest option available when picking the bums who will one day deserve to be thrown out.

Divided government by its very nature acts as an extra check in the checks-and-balances system, and in these hyper-partisan times, it seems to be the most effective. It forces consensus government from the middle. It forces compromise and policies that have a greater chance of working while having the added benefit of really torquing off a lot of powerful people.

When we have divided government, the two parties are forced to the center of the spectrum where most of America actually lives. The result is that country comes before party (though you’d want hip-hop for a really krunk party) and it becomes harder to legislate without taking into account the majority of Americans rather that the “majority of the majority” which by my calculations has equaled the will of DeLay.

For the past few years, Congressional Republicans in their avaricious pursuit of checks have failed to put a check on the Republican executive, but this unhealthy situation can be changed. By voting for Democrats we can reinstall the check that may bring a degree of balance. This will not move the country into the realm of left-wing extremisim, but move it back towards the center away from the right-wing extremism we’ve been enjoying these last few years.

There’s a great article advocating for divided government (h/t to Crooks and Liars) by the chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute. He argues in favor of voting for Democrats this time around. I couldn’t agree more.

Update: I just found a whole blog dedicated to divided government: Divided We Stand, United We Fall, which just goes to show that there really is a blog for every purpose under heaven…

I haven’t gotten much political mail this year, which is a shame, but surprisingly, the bulk of what I have gotten has been from Republican Lt. Governor David Dewhurst. Furthermore, every campaign and get-out-the-vote call left on my machine has been from the Dewhurst campaign.

Most of the fliers are nice, glossy, full-color brochures explaining all of the things Dewhurst will do to help and protect Texas’ children (I wonder if I’m being microtargeted since I’m a teacher or is everyone getting this stuff?) I’ve always thought Dewhurst was one of the few state-level Texas Republicans who really does want to do right by Texas kids, and if I thought Chris Bell would win the governor’s race or the Democrats would get some kind of power in this state, I would consider voting for him.

Unfortunately, he lacks backbone. The Lietenant Governor in Texas, as president of the senate, has the potential to be the most powerful person in the state and yet Dewhurst has balked at exercising this power. If the welfare of kids is truly at the top of his agenda, why hasn’t he used his position to push it through instead of rolling over for Perry and Craddick?

Still, getting all this mail all of a sudden is odd considering that Dewhurst seems to be a shoe-in for reelection and his opponent has very little name recognition. But, could what she lacks in name recognition be off-set by her hispanic name: Mary Luisa Alvarado?

Vince at Capitol Annex theorizes:

Yes, Dewhurst is afraid of something that a lot of political insiders and consultants talk about, but only behind closed doors: that Hispanic surnamed candidates are attractive to Hispanic voters.

Perhaps there’s something to this, but I wonder if it might be something else. I haven’t seen any polls for the Lt. Governor’s race (are there any?) but I can’t help but wonder if the anti-Perry vote (somewhere in the mid-60s) could also be trickling down to affect the Lt. Governor’s race where there are only three candidates instead of five. Could the anti-Perry vote, which despite being massive is so splintered it will keep him in office, actually be moving against Dewhurst?