A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

Back in 2006, Democrats were telling us that we ought to vote them into office because one-party rule was bad and we wanted to have divided government.

Nowadays, they are telling us that there is nothing wrong with one-party rule . . . so long as they are the party that is doing the ruling:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that he's looking forward to one party controlling all aspects of government, despite GOP charges that it would be a disastrous Nov. 4 outcome.

"Republicans had a chance to rule. They failed miserably. I think it's time to give the other party a chance," Dean said on MSNBC.

Of course, when Democrats had one-party rule from 1977-1981 and 1993-1995, the voters thought that Democrats made a hash of things and elected Republicans in droves, so one does not quite know what to make of Howard Dean's statement.

But isn't that always the case with Howard Dean?

And then there is this, which is really laughable:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says after the election she would like to see Congress back in session to pass a second stimulus package.

"Grow the economy, create good paying jobs, in the future in a way that is a green recovery, geared toward Main Street and is fiscally sound," said Pelosi.

And on concerns that Democrats might control both the White House and Congress she said the following:

"Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win, and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan," said Pelosi.

Hear that? We ought to vote for increased Democratic majorities in Congress so that Congress becomes "more bipartisan."

I would call that language "Orwellian" but Orwell would be appalled.