No lie, I had to read this article three times before I could believe what Conor Clark from The Atlantic was suggesting.  

But it’s also the case that, in recent history, the argument against one-party rule fails when measured against most basic economic indicators.

  
I would have an easier time believing that Bill Clinton could control his libido at a Playboy mansion party, than this socialist baloney from The Atlantic.

More from Clark;

McCain and Palin are setting the standard here: they want to suggest there is a tight link between the health of the country and the division of the government. So it’s worth pointing out that, to the extent their claim is measurable, the data seem to indicate the exact opposite of what the Republicans want voters to believe.

Mr. Clark must have spent the 1980′s and mid-1990′s in a coma, because the two most recent economic booms occurred during divided government. Of course, most of the credit belongs to Reagan (80′s) and Gingrich (90′s), but who is looking to assign credit?

Not surprisingly, in his manifesto supporting single party rule, Mr. Clark failed to mention the disasterous Carter administration.  Carter and the Democratic Congress left America with high double digit interest rates, sluggish growth, a fuel shortage and high inflation.

But, the most ridiculous argument made in Mr. Clark’s article was this;

the most widely admired governments in the long sweep of American history—like Lincoln, Washington and FDR—were united under a single party. On the other side of the docket, divided government has frequently pitted a president of one party against a Congress of another to disastrous effect—à la Nixon, or the Clinton impeachment.

I could not believe Mr. Clark made that statement!  Was he actually comparing Watergate to the Clinton impeachment?  Certainly most Americans believe Congress went a little overboard in their reaction to President Clinton lying about which end of the cigar he smoked, but how about the budget surplus, welfare reform and tech boom, all of which occurred during those years of divided government and the blue dress?

Clinton aside, the most idiotic example Mr. Clark used to defend and promote the benefits of single party rule, was the reference to President Lincoln.  It is true, Lincoln’s party controlled the White House and Congress, BUT HALF THE COUNTRY SEPARATED BECAUSE THEY WERE OPPOSED TO HIS DOMESTIC AGENDA!  Lincoln was obviously correct to push through anti-slavery legislation, but to reference his time in office as united, single party rule is not only misleading, but deaf, dumb and stupid. 

I will avoid detailing the reasons why the majority of new democracies in the last 35 years adopted a form of American representative democracy (divided government), instead of parliamentary democracy.  Instead, I will agree with Mr. Clark’s statement that that citizens will retain some protections in single party government, through the Bill of Rights.  Of course, Mr. Clark purposely failed to highlight that the Bill of Rights will not protect Americans from the Fairness Doctrine, redistribution of wealth, double digit unemployment, socialized health care, human rights commissions, ACORN, $200 barrel oil prices, illegal fundraising and voter fraud. 

The reason why the United States is the most powerful, wealthy, innovative, and compassionate society in the history of civilization, is because we decided correctly to entrench shared administrative and legislative power in our representative democracy.  We are at our best when our power is shared between more than one party.  Arguing in favor of one-party rule lead by Obama, Pelosi and Reid is nothing more than another example of the socialist ideology we face in this election.           

The media will continue to mock the Republican candidates as they warn of the impending socialist power-grab, but to the detriment of American voters, it may not be until after the election that they realize the threat was legitimate.   

(Happy B-day DF)