Sunday, September 28, 2008

"The ShitHouse" - A fable for our time

I've made my decision for this presidential election. Amba at Ambivablog (a member in good standing of the Coalition of the Divided) arrived at the same destination but got there by another route. Reader and anonymous commenter FreedomFan dissents. He e-mailed me this fable, which we are sharing as a guest post:

The ShitHouse
There once was a country with only one restaurant that existed within it -- a chain restaurant that was called The ShitHouse. The ShitHouse restaurant had two kitchens it -- the kitchen on the left only served one item on the menu -- Donkey Shit, which was served on blue plates and blue table clothes. And the kitchen on the right served only one item -- Elephant Shit, and it was served on red plates and red table clothes. And the patrons ate all their meals at The ShitHouse -- breakfast, lunch and dinner. And so, after eating 3 meals a day at the ShitHouse, 365 days a year, for years and years -- the patrons got deeply immersed into arguing and discussing which SHIT tasted, smelled and felt better! Not only did the patrons keep eating it, they passionately defended which shit tasted better. "Damn, that's some good shit!!" "My shit tastes way better than your shit." "Those Donkey Shit Eaters don't know what good shit tastes like!" "Those Elephant Shit Munchers think their shit doesn't stink!", and on and on. The thing is -- the patrons had been eating shit for so long they had forgotten that there might be something better to eat -- like even just a hamburger, let alone a nice steak.

Of course, the ShitHouse advertised (as well as controlled most of the stories that appeared) on TV, radio and newspapers (which were owned by the ShitHouse) -- which kept the patrons coming in to eat and argue -- there was the 24 hour Elephant Shit News Network, and the Donkey Shit News Network, The Elephant Shit Tribune and the Donkey Shit Times, Radio stations WSHIT & KRAP and so on. The pundits (paid by the ShitHouse) had round table discussions about which shit was better, why it was better, and why the other shit was awful, etc. -- and the owners of the ShitHouse liked it that way too -- "keep shoving it in the patron’s faces and they’ll never know what they're missing!" they could be heard to say as they laughed with their powerful friends while stuffing huge sums of money in their pockets.

And the owners of The ShitHouse kept profiting from it and the patrons kept eating it year after year -- even though it kept getting more and more expensive for the patrons! The owners of the Shithouse didn't even care what kind of shit the patrons ate -- as long as they ate Donkey Shit and Elephant Shit!


Occasionally, a new guy came to town and tried to open a new restaurant -- a nice burger joint let’s say. But see -- the owners of the ShitHouse -- they also made the laws! So they passed laws that made it damn near impossible for the new guy to open up. And the TV, radio and newspapers never even mentioned this other guy -- not surprising since they were owned by the ShitHouse.


The patrons of the ShitHouse would often get pretty grumpy -- "times are tough, it's hard to make ends meet, etc." So, of course, they would quite often get around to complaining, The Donkey Shit Eaters could be heard complaining "If it wasn't for those Elephant Shit Munchers, I'd have more Donkey Shit to eat" and The Elephant Shit Munchers could be heard saying things like "those Donkey Shit Eaters want it so that I have to pay for my Elephant Shit and some of their Donkey shit too!" and so on...

And every two years, the patrons would go out to vote for what food they want served at The ShitHouse. The hard core Elephant Shit Munchers would wake up on voting day and say "Damn, I can't wait to get to the polls and vote for Elephant shit today" -- and then march right down to The ShitHouse for their 3 squares, and then on to the polls to cast their vote. The hardcore Donkey Shit Eaters would wake up and say "Damn, I can't wait to get to the polls and vote for Donkey shit today" -- and then march right down to The ShitHouse for their 3 squares, and then on to the polls to cast their vote. Some patrons couldn't quite decide -- after years of eating SHIT, they really wanted to eat something else, but on voting day they'd mull it over and say "Heck -- they only serve Donkey Shit and Elephant Shit at The ShitHouse anyway so I guess since I had Elephant Shit yesterday, I'll vote for Donkey Shit today." Other people would said "Well, I really don't like shit, but since that's all they serve, I'll vote for the lessor of two bad pieces of SHIT". Some people said they liked Divided Shit -- they feel that if the owners of the ShitHouse were somehow shuffled around so that you kept an even balance of the staff, that the restaurant might serve better shit -- or at least the shit won't taste any worse or cost anymore. -- And then the next day all the patrons lined up at the ShitHouse for their three square meals of shit.... and so it went, year after year...


The moral of the story??? If you don't like eating shit, don't vote for shit.


So this election, I'm gonna do what I've done since 1996 -- I'm NOT gonna eat at the ShitHouse. There's this little place hidden down the road called the Libertarian Cafe -- not too many people are familiar with it, they don't advertise on TV or the papers, but ... they do serve a damn good burger! They even have a web site ---
www.libertarianparty.org -- and the current owner is Bob Barr. If enough people join me, maybe eventually we can create something closer to Divided Food instead of Divided Shit. We really need a strong third party in this country -- one that offers something very different than what the Dems and Repubs offer, and then a fourth party....That would really be divided government -- 3 or 4 parties, with the Dems and Repubs combined accounting for no more than 50%. But we can't just sit and complain about the Dems or the Repubs -- we have to look in the mirror -- we put them there! We've pretty much had what DWSUWF calls divided government for many years and look where we are -- one simple example, the national debt has grown from roughly $1 trillion to nearly $10 trillion in less than 30 years -- that's about $31,600 per person or $125,000 for a family of four. Isn't enough enough??? Real change is voting non-Democratic and non-Republican. And real change doesn't start by waiting for the other guy, it starts with each and every person not rubber stamping the Dems and Repubs back in for more. - FreedomFan
Thanks FF for that tragic and touching morality tale. Apparently this view is pervasive among the libertarian inclined. Jesse Walker, Managing Editor at Reason, expressed a similar if less poetic assessment in his recent debate post "none of the above":
"You can divide last night's debate into two parts: the argument about the economy, and everything afterward. In the first section, my basic reaction was Both of these guys are full of shit."
As I have posted here before, I am sympathetic to libertarian objectives but frustrated with a political philosophy that embraces political impotence.

All this political discussion has made me hungry. I think I'll walk down to the ShitHouse and order up a double order of tonight's blue plate special - the Economic Rescue Plan Shit Sandwich [ShitHouse Menu PDF]

Divided and Balanced.™
Now
that is fair.


Friday, September 26, 2008

Live Blogging the Live Bloggers - McCain v. Obama - It is on.

Welcome to the latest in the continuing series of "Live Blogging the Live Bloggers" Debates! This edition the first on-again, off-again McCain Obama Presidential Debate. The debate is sponsored by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates and will be hosted by Jim Lehrer. I secretly hoped that this would be "off", as your faithful blogger is on a fishing holiday in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and just got off of a Lake Superior feeder stream with the first coho salmon I have ever caught in a freshwater stream. A 20" beauty that we'll be planking and eating during the debate, so this may be a little less "live" than previous efforts. I'll get caught up eventually.

This series began during the endless debates of the primary season and was motivated by the question I ask every time:
"There are plenty of bloggers covering the debate live tonight, but is anyone covering the live bloggers? DWSUWF rushes in where other, more sensible bloggers, fear to tread. "
We select a variety of bloggers from across the political spectrum, and live blog their live blog efforts. I don't know who we will include, but we will start with some bloggers we have used before, include Daily Kos, and Cynic's Party from the left, VodkaPundit or Ed Morrissey at HotAir, look to either David Weigel at Reason or the Atlantic's Megan McArdle for a libertarian point of view and 2008 Central, Ambivablog, or Donklephant as a centrist blog. As usual I will likely guess wrong about which blogs to monitor and will be scrambling for substitutes once things get started. Refresh your browsers for latest content once the debate is underway.

======

PREGAME

2008 Central.net:
"The format: two podiums. Sections of the debate will include introductory statements of two minutes, followed by five minutes of debate between the candidates. It’s a really nice format."

Reason - David Weigel: "The first important thing to remember about John McCain and Barack Obama is that tonight will be the first time either has debated a truly credible opponent from another party. Barack Obama won his 2004 Senate race by slapping around Alan Keyes, who insisted on answering every policy question by screaming "Jesus! Jesus!" into the microphone. McCain has only sweated in one election, the 1992 Senate race that followed the Keating Five scandal, and in the end he trounced Democrat Claire Sargent by 25 points."

Cynics' Party: "Well, it’s T minus 55 minutes and counting until the first Presidential debate commences, and the big news is that John McCain has in fact decided to show up."

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air
:"It’s going to be a busy evening for this blogger. In addition to live-blogging the first Presidential debate of the general election, I’ll make three radio appearances as well with good friends."

Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish:
"Obama has to look presidential and make no obvious mistakes. I think all he needs at this point is to pass the commander-in-chief threshhold. Like Reagan had to in 1980. And then if it breaks, it probably breaks big - big enough, one hopes, to overcome the race-based five point margin that will always have to be subtracted from his total."

DWSUWF - The fish is going on the grill. Planked on cherry wood.


======

I Thought This Debate Was About Security?

Meagan McCardle @ The Atlantic: "Sudden switch to the economy, not surprisingly. My first thought is that I don't understand why the moderator is letting McCain and Obama talk about their budget proposal as if there is a snowball's chance in hell that they will be enacting any of these plans. They won't. The current crisis has blown any chance of big spending plans or tax cuts. Even without the bailout package, America's tax revenues are going to look pretty anemic next year. As goes Wall Street, so go income taxes."
Greg @ Cynics Party: "Lehrer starts with question on the economy. Obama gets to start to explain where he stands on it. It’s a defining moment in our history: we could have a president we like! Oh, no wait, that’s not what he meant. He meant that the economy is f*cked and that McCain is a bad choice. I’m just paraphrasing here."
2008 Central: "Funny moment: Obama refers to McCain saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong, and Lehrer makes him say it directly to McCain, who jokes that he could hear Obama the first time. McCain’s response: “We have fundamental problems in the system.” It’s pretty ridiculous, given his comments about the fundamentals of the economy. He finishes with an ode to the American worker that Lenin could have written. Time spent talking on this: directly even. To the second."
Amba @ Ambivablog:"So far neither of them has said anything exceptional. We must take care of the homeowner, the little guy. America's a great country. We need more responsibility. "
Miss Laura @ Daily Kos: "Now McCain attempting to paint himself as a friend to American workers. Pfft. The entire night would not be time to debunk that ridiculous assertion. McCain returns to his "veto pen" schtick, though this time he doesn't attribute his pens to Reagan."
Weigel @ Reason Hit & Run: "Obama names the root of the crisis: "A verdict on eight years of economic policy." He's hitting a safe partisan note, counting on everyone to trust the guy with the (D) after his name to right the ship. McCain, because he's got the (R) after his name, praises the drama of both parties "coming together." "And yes, I went to Washington." But he's miffed that the House Republicans weren't being heard."

DWSUWF: You would not believe how good that salmon was.

======

Earmarks, Spending, Earmarks, Taxes, Earmarks

Meagan McCardle @ The Atlantic: "I cannot address all the patently untrue things that McCain and Obama are saying, but I must protest when Barack Obama claims that people are going bankrupt because of health expenses. There is no evidence to suggest that this is a widespread phenomenon. The Eliabeth Warren study purporting to show that amazing numbers of bankruptcies were caused by medical problems was, to put it politely, garbage; she broadened the definition of a "medical bankruptcy" far beyond that used by the bankrupts themselves, including things like gambling problems. The overwhelming causes of bankruptcy are divorce and job loss; even the medical bankruptcies are, the experts say, a problem of income loss rather than medical bills."
Greg @ Cynics Party: "Barry O has to defend himself on earmarks because McCain came right at him. Obama takes it to the bigger picture: McCain’s tax cuts for the rich. Does anyone care? Probably not. So far, this is really boring. If I wasn’t frantically typing, I would probably turn it off and cruise for some porn instead. Apparently, earmarks are absolutely the most horrific things to come from Washington. “It corrupts people,” he says, shocked. It’s kind of cute the way he’s obsessed with talking about the one thing he’s kind of good at."
2008 Central: "McCain wants spending under control. Talks about earmarking as a gateway drug. The joke about bear DNA doesn’t get any laugh. He holds up a pen to veto and says “this one is kinda old.” He’s making the old person jokes himself. Yeesh. McCain criticizes Obama for making earmarks. Obama agrees that earmarks are abused, and often by lobbyists. Obama says earmarks cost 18 billion, but McCain is proposing 300 billion dollars worth of tax cuts to the rich. Obama is working overload to relate to the common man."
Amba @ Ambivablog:"McCain says Obama suspended earmarks only after he was running for president. He didn't see the light McCain becomes animated saying his career has been devoted to fighting this. Obama: "Eliminating earmarks alone is not a recipe for how we're going to get the middle class back on track" -- "the people who are strugglin'."
Georgia10 @ Daily Kos: "We're about 18 minutes in, and testy McCain begins to peek out. Obama is being relatively aggressive (compared to previous performances) and doesn't let McCain run with false numbers ("I don't know where he gets those figures") McCain tries to defend his tax cuts by claiming that Ireland business pay less taxes. He calls out Obama on his definition of "rich." But Obama explains that if you make less than $250,000, your taxes won't be raised by a dime."
Bob Barr @ Reason: "[Response to McCain's "corruption" remarks.] Where is the DOJ? It is the one branch of government that has a legitimate purpose and a system and a way to protect the peoples' resources and rights. Typical Washington. He's saying that the best way to help that worker is to take that worker's money and create more regulation.He speaks out against $17 billion in earmarks, and then votes for a trillion-dollar buyout."
Justin Gardner @ Donklephant:"Obama is detailed. McCain is shaky. John will have to right his ship soon or risk losing this thing."

DWSUWF:
After dinner - enjoying a '96 Hafner Cabernet. Earmarks are legalized bribery. It has to stop. It is not about the percentage of the budget. It is all about corruption.

======

Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran - Oh My!

Meagan McCardle @ The Atlantic
: "Barack Obama just stated that meeting with crazy authoritarian leaders without preconditions "doesn't mean you invite them over for tea." Coffee, perhaps. An afternoon lemonade. But no tea for Ahmadinejad until he stops with the nuclear weapons nonsense!"
Greg @ Cynics Party: "McCain says that Obama helps terror by talking about withdrawal! Hooray! Now lets talk about Afghanistan. Even Jim Lehrer wants to punch these fuckers in the face. Yes, do something in Afghanistan Obama says. More troops, poppy trade, deal with safe havens in Pakistan. How will McCain argue with that? Why, he’s going to make Obama into a war hawk, of course! He’s reckless! Not like you, John McCain!"
2008 Central: "Obama gives his own McCain quotes, including greeted as liberators and history between Shia and Sunni, leading it into a question of judgment. McCain says Obama does not understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. McCain says Obama refuses to believe we are winning. He describes a strategy that sounds a whole lot like a tactic. It’s a strange distinction. McCain talks about Obama not funding the troops. Obama knocks it down quite easily, actually, saying that McCain and him both voted against bills for other reasons, and talks about at length about Afghanistan. McCain talks more about the surge and Petraeus, and says he knew the surge would succeed this much."
Amba @ Ambivablog:"McCain- The next president of the U.S. will not have to address the question of whether we should have gone into Iraq. He will have to address how we leave, when we leave, and what we leave behind. Obama said the surge would not work. Now he's conceded but still says he would oppose the surge if he had to decide that today! Obama didn't go to Iraq and never requested a meeting with Gen. Petraeus. Obama - But Biden did."
Trapper John @ Daily Kos: "BHO reminds America that McCain jokingly sung about bombing Iran. That's irresponsibility, my friends. JSMIII: Oooh, the Bomb Iran thing stung. McCain responds by talking about all the wars he supported. I'm feeling a POW coming on . . . . . . the ashes of their fathers and the temples of their gods. McCain's bloody love of "beautiful fatalism" is scarily evident."
Bob Barr @ Reason: "What commander on the ground ever doesn't want more troops? That's the point. They always want more troops, that's the nature of a commander. Both of these people are doing what Bush did, when it's not convenient to answer hard questions, they raise the flag of patriotism and say, "Oh, it's for the commanders on the ground." What goal is not being met by not having more troops on the ground in Afghanistan? If it has to do with shoring up Afghan troops, that's not the U.S.' responsibility."
Justin Gardner @ Donklephant:"But fair enough that McCain can claim more “I was there” experience. You’re right. But I think what we’re talking about now is present day judgement. And I simply think that Obama has a better gauge on the reality of today."

DWSUWF:
Net net. Obama was right and McCain was wrong in 2002 about occupying Iraq. McCain was right and Obama was wrong in 2006 about the surge. Looking back, it is a wash. Looking forward, Maliki has taken this issue out of the presidential election, as the elected government of Iraq has determined that we are mostly out of Iraq by 2011. There is no meaningful practical difference in what we will do in Iraq or Afganistan based on who is president in 2009. It is even possible, maybe probable, that McCain will be more effective in reducing our military posture in Iraq sooner. Moving to a single malt scotch - Laphroiag quarter cask.


======

Russkies

Meagan McCardle @ The Atlantic
: "Obama's position on Georgia is that . . . we should give them $1 billion to rebuild their economy. My position on global warming: a federal program to make sure everyone has an adequate supply of little umbrellas for their tropical drinks!"
Greg @ Cynics Party: "So, this thing is almost over right? Like 7 more minutes? Russia? Georgia? Let me explain what needs to happen with that situation: Ahmadinajad wants to wipe the state of Israel off the face of the earth."
2008 Central: "McCain tries to hammer home that Obama doesn’t understand foreign relations, saying Obama’s first statement only called for restraint on both sides. McCain says he looked into Putin’s eyes and saw KGB. Not sure about that one. Talks about concern over resurgence of the Russian Empire. Says that Russia is in violation of the cease fire agreement. Obama tries to give a better framing of his position on Georgia, but widely agrees with McCain."
Amba @ Ambivablog: "McCain - Obama first said "both sides ought to show restraint" -- "a little bit of naïveté there." It was about the pipeline from the Caspian. He lets it be known that he has spent a lot of time in Tbilisi and has been in Abkhazia. "Watch Ukraine. This has a lot to do with Ukraine, with the Crimea . . ."Obama mostly agrees, but says McCain has misrepresented his initial reaction."
Miss Laura @ Daily Kos: "McCain's pre-debate focus grouping must have said that the words "naivete" and "doesn't understand" work better than the old standby "inexperience." Anyone kept count? Shoot, he's accusing Obama of not understanding things that even Sarah Palin probably understands."
David Weigel @ Reason: "Both men are comically full of themselves. The McCain history of the world, as we know, is of him summoning the wisdom of the great men and spider-sensing his way out of problems. Obama remembers every personal insult: "I was called naive!" for wanting to meet with foreign no-goodniks... "The average South Korean is three inches taller than the average North Korean!" is one of the best things that's ever been said in a debate. Overall McCain sounds conversant and Obama sounds like an analyst. Exactly what you'd expect."
Justin Gardner @ Donklephant:"Will McCain mention Palin’s experience with Russia. :-)"

DWSUWF:
I dunno. Obama seems a bit defensive. Expectations make Obama the heavy favorite. Tie goes to McCain.
======

Concluding Thoughts

Andrew Sullivan @ The Atlantic: "A masterful performance tonight, I think. Obama's best ever debate performance. McCain was fine, but it's wrong for him to attack his opponent at the end. And then he gave a slightly rambling defense of his experience. I give Obama an A - and I give McCain a B."
KurtGodel @ Cynics Party: "It shouldn't have gone this many rounds. McCain should be on the canvas bleeding from his ears at this point."
2008 Central: "That ends the debate. I’m going to ponder grades, but Lehrer gets an easy A. Well done."
Amba @ Ambivablog: "Someone said "This race just got tougher to decide on." I agree. Obama gave a considerably stronger performance than I anticipated. He was forceful, confident, and knowledgeable. The difference is that his knowledge seems more thought-out and conceptual while McCain's is canny and experience-based. "
Kos @ Daily Kos: "The consensus seems clear: This was McCain's turf. He needed a solid victory, and he didn't get it. At best, it was a tie. And with the next debates focusing on economic issues, McCain will be in hostile territory."
VodkaPundit @ Pajamas Media: "Now that it’s almost over, may I at long last say … “oh, the humanity!” - OK, I’ll give you a real close now. Obama strikes me as a modern Chamberlain, praising his (oh-so-transient) “peace with honor.” McCain, however, comes across as “peace when we’re done kicking you ass and not one moment sooner.” And since this was ostensibly a foreign policy debate, I give the win to McCain. Oh, and one other thing — Obama is still talking as I write this. But he’s spending his last answer angling for the European vote, which does nothing but reinforce my point."
Gerry F @ Donklephant:"Obama, I thought, did well in the last 2/3 of the debate, but there were some moments where he was clearly frustrated that McCain had taken control of the debate and he could not wrestle it back. Even when he had good points, his presentation lacked the force of McCain. Even when McCain was lying/misleading, Obama was unable to or refused to call him out on it. For a junior senator, he did quite well, but McCain was the victor here."
Ed Morrissey @ Hot Air:"If Obama expected the old man to be too tired to debate properly, he is surely disappointed tonight. McCain kept Obama on defense all night long, made Obama lose his composure, and maintained his own in a very presidential performance. This one is a clear win for McCain."

DWSUWF:
I am going to sleep on it. And have another drink.

======

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.



Monday, September 22, 2008

Gone Fishin'

World Headquarters for the DWSUWF Blog has once again temporarily relocated to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan for a couple of weeks. We'll be closing the family camp on the lake and get in some end of season fishing. At some point, my brother and I will don fashionable orange vests and hats, walk around in the woods with a shotgun, and (based on past experience) not kill anything. He is voting for Obama and I am voting for McCain. I'm just wondering if this walking around in the woods with guns thing is really a good idea. Obama supporters are notoriously unstable emotionally.

The blog is not on hiatus, as my intention is to get a few posts out as the spirit moves me and the bass, bluegill, pike, and brookies permit. That would be "intention" as in "road to hell is paved with..." notwithstanding.

Publicly setting goals can be motivational, so...

A preview of coming attractions:
  • Last week I learned what the Obama campaign really means by "new politics" and as a result purchased a bookfor the flight. Just finishing it now and will be writing a review.
  • This Friday night is the first debate. Can't miss that. I'll be reprising the ever popular Live Blogging the Live Bloggers format for the debate. It'll be a challenge from our U.P. operation, but I've done it before, I can do it again.
  • In the interest of preparing this blog for the government mandated Fairness Doctrine that will almost certainly be imposed by the all powerful single party Obama led Democratic government, I am working on a Divided and Balanced™ post of the reasons to not vote for divided government. This post is taking longer and is harder than I thought.
  • Finally, the next Carnival of Divided Government will be the Septimus et Vîcênsimus (XXVII) - Special "Day of Mourning for the End of the Trout Season" Edition which will be somberly posted on or about the first day of October. Submit your blog article at carnival of divided government using our carnival submission form.
Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Carnival of Divided Government

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Carnival of Divided Government Sextus et Vîcênsimus (XXVI) - Special "Constitution Week" Edition

Welcome to the 25th edition of the Carnival of Divided Government- The special "Constitution Day Week" Edition. As explained in earlier editions, we have adopted Latin ordinal numeration to impart a patina of gravitas reflecting the historical importance of the series. In this, the Carnival of Divided Government Sextus et Vîcênsimus (XXVI), as in all of the CODGOV series, we select volunteers and draftees from the blogosphere and main stream media writing on the single topic of government divided between the major parties (leaving it to the reader to sort out volunteers from draftees). Consistent with this topic, the primary criteria for acceptance in the carnival is to explicitly use the words and/or concept of "divided government" in submitted posts. A criteria that, to our endless befuddlement, is ignored by many of the bloggers submitting posts, which sadly results in DWSUWF reluctantly ignoring their fine submissions.

Constitution Week!

Yesterday was Constitution Day and kicked off Constitution Week - a holiday created four years ago to mandate that schools receiving federal funds focus on teaching the Constitution. My home town paper laments that “Constitution Day has become a holiday-lite, a calendar marking that brings up nods of appreciation but little else.” Perhaps that makes USA Today a better newspaper to take note of the holiday with a brief 100 word story (I scored 80% on the linked quiz).

For five months in 1787, a constitutional convention convened in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of the Confederation. The articles were considered inadequate for the nascent federal government to deal with conflicts such as Shay’s Rebellion. Instead of revising the Articles, the delegates wrote an entirely new document. 221 years ago - on September 17, 1787 - 39 of the 55 delegates to the convention signed the Constitution of the United States.

It is the oldest and shortest Constitution of any major government in the world, and the first to be written by representatives of those who were to be governed. Before becoming the basis of our government, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Having fought to escape the shackles of a distant despotic monarchy, many were understandably leery of a replacing it with a less distant but strong federal government. The document was debated by citizens and leaders in the mass media of the day - newspapers and pamphlets.

James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”argued in Federalist #51 for the protections provided by the separation of power, checks and balances in the Constitution:

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Carnival

The debate on whether the Constitution adequately protects the governed from the government continues to this day. Widener University School of Law has organized an online debate on what the Constitution means to modern Americans. Richard Pildes, Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University School of Law contributes to the debate with this pessimistic analysis “Political parties tilt balance of power“:

“During periods of unified government, in which the same political party controls the House, Senate and the presidency, the president has the capacity to exercise wide-ranging powers without extensive oversight or checking and balancing from the other political institutions of government. The president’s power is thus not static or fixed. Yet neither the Constitution nor our thinking about the presidency has fully come to terms with this truth. Indeed, the Constitution did not contemplate a system of political parties at all. When the Constitution was designed, the existence of parties — factions, in James Madison’s terms — was a sign of a diseased political system. The Constitution was specifically designed to create a system that would transcend parties and minimize their role… the conventional stories we tell about our system of checks and balances, or separation of powers, are not all that realistic in practice. If we continue to believe in the benefits of checks and balances — and I do — we must accept that effective congressional oversight of the president is not likely when the House, Senate, and presidency are in the hands of the same party. We need to modify our institutional structures to find other ways of generating effective checks and balances. The most promising route would be to give the opposition party tools to oversee the president — perhaps the power to call hearings or subpoena witnesses or to audit the government. I do not expect these measures to be adopted. No legislative majority cedes power to the minority.”

It is hard to argue with that conclusion. But until such time that additional protections for the governed can be built into the Constitution, we the governed can address this Constitutional defect on our own - by never voting one party into control of the Presidency, Senate, and House or Representatives. By voting for divided government.

To that end, David Brooks, writing in the New York Times has advice for both campaigns, but particularly good advice for McCain in his Op-Ed column “Surprise Me Most“:

If I were McCain, I’d make the divided government argument explicit. The Republicans are intellectually unfit to govern right now, but balancing with Democrats, they might be able to do some good. I’d have McCain tell the country that he looks forward to working with Congressional Democrats, that he is confident they can achieve great things together.”

The Glittering Eye thinks this is good advice, as does Brad Delong. If the McCain campaign does not find David Brooks convincing, perhaps they will find another, more conservative pundit more compelling.

George Will
has similar advice for John McCain in a column first printed in the Allentown Morning Call and this morning in the Washington Post - "McCain's Closing Argument":
"McCain should, therefore, enunciate a closing argument for his candidacy that goes to fundamentals of governance, concerning which the vice presidency is usually peripheral. His argument should assert the virtues of something that voters, judging by their behavior over time, prefer -- divided government... Divided government compels compromises that curb each party's excesses, especially both parties' proclivities for excessive spending when unconstrained by an institution controlled by the other party. William Niskanen, chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, notes that in the last 50 years, ''government spending has increased an average of only 1.73 percent annually during periods of divided government. This number more than triples, to 5.26 percent, for periods of unified government.''
Michelle Malkin at HotAir considers Will's divided government argument risky, but agrees that it should be "one of the arrows in the quiver". Not surprisngly BarbinMD at Daily Kos scoffs:
"George Will thinks that John McCain's "closing argument" to elect him should be what a divided government would mean to the country. Seriously, that's the only selling point for McCain that Will could come up with. You can almost feel the enthusiasm."
Will's sentiment is echoed by Scribbler at Scrivener.com in "What is the real difference between Obama and McCain..."
"When each party has a share of power in the government each blocks the other's worst, most partisan spending -- and when actually trying to get serious things done, bipartisanship is forced as the only way to do it... Fiscal restraint, thy name is "divided government". If that's your issue, that's what to vote for."
Fiscal restraint is indeed my issue. Along with better governance, reinforcing the checks and balances in the constitution, oversight on the executive, fewer wars, more carefully considered legislation, and less corruption. And for all those issues, I am voting for divided government.

One Eyed Man at Beligerati arrives at an identical conclusion in "An article that I hated":
"The most important thing about a McCain presidency would be that he would be stymied at every turn by an almost certainly Democratic house and senate. Divided government governs best. He stands almost a zero chance of doing any of his expensive and misguided crap while he has to share power, and that is likely to keep his total expenditures lower than his ambitions. Obama would likely face a united Democratic government that would be free to make expensive and poor policy."
This all seems so obvious and beyond contradiction that I find it astonishing that this perspective is not accepted as conventional wisdom. The reality is that even among those who are sympathetic and understand the argument, it is a small minority that are willing to act on this knowledge with their vote. OTOH, with polarized, divided and balanced electorate - a small block voting in concert for divided government can determine the outcome.

Duncan Currie writing in The American analyzes what we might expect out of such a divided government led by a McCain administration in “2009: A White House Odyssey“:

“At the forum in Minneapolis, Senator Kyl observed that some of the biggest domestic reforms in recent decades have been produced by divided government. Prominent examples include the 1986 tax reform bill (passed by a Democratic House and signed by President Reagan) and the 1996 welfare reform bill (passed by a GOP Congress and signed by President Clinton). “It’s an interesting and somewhat paradoxical phenomenon,” Kyl said. With a President McCain and a Democratic Congress, “it might be possible to tackle a couple of big things.” As Kyl noted, McCain is “very unpredictable” and has repeatedly “worked on big things with Democrats.What “big things” might be feasible under a McCain administration? Two possibilities are immigration reform and a “cap-and-trade” system to regulate carbon emissions.”

Scritch at Scritch's Scribbling has issues. But is still voting for Divided Government, saying - "I'm voting for Palin/McWhatshisname...":
"I have serious issues with McCain, especially on the issue of free speech and Campaign Finance "Reform", He wasn't my first or even second choice in the primaries, but I can deal with him, whereas I can't deal with Mr. Obama. This is especially true since the chance of either house going R is somewhere less than zero. Given that I don't trust any of the players, I find divided government rather appealing for now."
Seth at the The Fat Triplets is also voting for divided government. He even wrote an email a confused (disingenuous?) pundit to let him know in "An Email I Sent to Andrew Sullivan":
"I am voting for McCain/Palin in November because the best result for this country will come from divided government. A McCain presidency IS MUCH MORE LIKELY to reach across the aisle than an Obama presidency where aisle-reaching is not required. What incentives will Obama have to govern in the center? (0, NULL, NADA, NYET). But McCain will HAVE to reach across the aisle to govern effectively."
We'll conclude with Donald Luskin writing an Op/Ed at the Wall Street Journal and cross posted on his own blog with the catchy title "Divided Government is best for the market."
"If the electorate were really smart, it would elect a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. Under that deal, stocks have averaged a 20.2% total return, and real GDP averaged 4%. That tells us that economic and stock market success isn't really about partisan politics at all. Sadly, nobody has a political incentive to conduct a study about that."
I am not so sure about this argument. In any case, given the turmoil this week, I don't think this was the best time to make it. The market is a discounting mechanism. It is always looking to the future (if it is not caught up in a greed bubble or a panic crash). I may have some additional research to contribute on this subject, but lets give this all a week or two to settle down.

Miscellany

Traditionally, we conclude this Carnival by including one "off-topic" submission, as a grudging acknowledgment and proxy for the many off-topic submissions received. Off-topic in this context meaning - no mentions of "divided government" or gridlock. For this edition, we selected Ron McKie presenting "God bless America" posted at Phuck Politics. Not our politics and not on topic. But I appreciate the sensibility and what the hell, he has an image of the constitution at the top of his blog. Sort of.

And with that we conclude this edition. Thanks for stopping by, and thanks for all of the submissions (on-topic or not). As noted in a previous carnival, we saw a big spike in Divided Government posts and articles two years with two months to go before the election. We are seeing the same now. In response we are increasing our CODGOV posting frequency between now and the election. I'll continue try to get one of these out every week to ten days or so. The next edition will be the Carnival of Divided Government Septimus et Vîcênsimus (XXVII) - Special "Day of Mourning for the End of the Trout Season" Edition which will be somberly posted from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan branch of the DWSUWF Worldwide Operations, on or about the first day of October. Submit your blog article at carnival of divided government using our carnival submission form.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

The Coalition of the Divided

UPDATED: 20-Sep-08
In my last post, I promised to initiate a "Coalition of the Divided Blogroll" in the sidebar:
"DWSUWF will link to any bloggers and pundits that declare for a Divided Government vote. Who is in this coalition, standing shoulder to shoulder in solidarity? Limited government advocates, Fiscal conservatives from both parties, Libertarians (big "L") who want their vote to count, libertarians (small "l") desiring a bigger political hammer, Disaffected Democrats and Hillary supporters who will support Democratic Senators and Representatives but voting for McCain, Independents leary of too much concentrated power in one party, and disingenuous Republicans paying lip service to divided government because it is politically convenient in 2008 (much like disingenuous Democrats did in 2006). All are welcome in The Coalition of the Divided."
Done deal. The blogroll is over there on the right ====>

In order to get this list of fine thinkers out into the feeds, I am also posting it here. This is a first cut, the charter members of the 2008 Coalition of the Divided, with membership open to anyone writing in a vaguely positive way on the subject of divided government since the 2006 midterms. I expect to be adding to the coalition on a daily basis between now and the election. Time and inclination permitting, I will also go back in time and rebuild the 2006 Coalition of the Divided blogroll. That will be particularly interesting because it will permit us to identify the backsliders and the disingenuous. Like this guy.

Interested? You too can join this glorious movement and march in solidarity with the many millions thousands hundreds tens of your brothers and sisters standing shoulder to shoulder in the Coalition of the Divided! Just write a post or linkable comment supporting Divided Government and let me know where to find it. I will link you, blogroll you, favorite you, digg you, paint your house and walk your dog.

Also, feel free to rip any of my graphics to promote the concept. Reason did! So did John Feheery! Join today!

The United Coalition of the Divided

411 Mania - Enrique New Editor - Tom Elia
8 Short Years - Chris J NY Daily News- Michael Goodwin
Ambivablog - Amba NYT - Bill Kristol
Ashbrook Center - Jule Ponzi OC Register - Alan Bock
Atlantic - Clive Crook OOOH, Nuance! - Madam AB
Atlantic - Ross Douthat Outside The Beltway - James Joyner
Augusta Free Press - Rick Gray Patri' Peregrinations - Patri F
BeliefNet - Crunchy Con PI - Dick Polman
Betsy's Page - Betsy Newmark Philosophy Talk - Ken Taylor
Bone In The Fan - Brad Poli Gazette - Michael Merritt
Bosque Boys - A Waco Farmer Positive Liberty - Jason Kuznicki
Bottom of the Ninth - Amber Positive Liberty - John Babka
Cantankerous Gentleman - Crank Power and Control - M. Simon
Capital Games - Pete Davis QandO - McQ
Castle Arrgghh! - John Race 4 2008 - Michael Stubel
Cato@Liberty - Brink Lindsay Ragged Thots - Robert George
Cato@Liberty - Stephen Slivinski Reason - Jacob Sollum
Charter of Dreams - Christopher Reason - Jonathon Rauch
Classically Liberal - CLS Reason - Matt Welch
Club For Growth - Andrew Roth Reason Hit & Run - David Weigel
Confluence - River Daughter Reason Hit & Run - Jacob Sollum
Coyote Mercury - James Brush Red Blue Christian - Allan Bevere
Crossed Pond - Rojas Red State Eclectic - Laura Ebke
Current Word - Jim Mathies RLC - PB Lumel
Cynical Nation - BNJ Right Thinking Left Coast - Hall
Daily Dish - Reader 1 Rossputin.com - Ross
Daily Dish - Bruce Bartlett Scrivener.Net - Scrivener
Daily Dish - Reader 2 Sun News - Denny Clements
Disloyal Oppostion - J.D. Tuccille Taxman Blog - Gordon Gekko
Divided We Stand - MW Time/CNN - Jeff Kogler
Donklephant - Alan Carl To The People - Cicero
Dyre Portents - Dyre42 ToddSeavey.com - Todd
Eunomia - Daniel Larison Townhall - William Wilson
Fat Triplets - Seth Trading Goddess - Muckdog
Feehery Theory - John Feehery Two Pennies - David Wright
Gay Species - Stephen Heersink Uncorrelated - Mick Stockinger
Hell's Handmaiden - The Maiden Volokh Conspiracy - Ilya Somin
Holy Coast - Rick Moore WaPo - George Will
Hot Air - Ed Morrissey WaPo- Robert Samuelson
Liberty Forged - Jesse Wa. Monthly - Bill Niskanen
Mike the Actuary - Mike Washington Times - Steve Chapman
Moderate Voice - Pete Abel Weblog - Thomas P Barnett
Muck & Mystery - Back 40 What Should Be - K Bliss
MVDG Gaszette - MVDG Whirled View - Pat Sharpe
My Thought World - Ted West WSJ - David Gaffen
National Journal - Jonathon Rauch WSJ - Donald Luskin

WSJ - John Fund

EDITORS NOTE: I have been missing in action for most of the last week because I have been having too much fun blogging over at Donklephant, antagonizing partisans and stirring up the Palintology debate. There I compiled elements of the 2008 divided government rationale into a cross-post with the same title as this post, but completely different content. Don't ask me why. It just turned out that way. Hoping to stimulate some debate, I got exactly what I asked for in the comments. Some pretty interesting stuff, and fodder for a future post. Stay tuned.

UPDATED: 20-September-2008
The recent George Will column amped up the Divided Gvoernment debate, and expanded the rolls of the C.O.D. An updated list was called for. If I missed anyone, leave a comment and I will add you in due course.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.


Monday, September 08, 2008

Carnival of Divided Government
Quînque et Vîcênsimus (XXV)
Special "Labor Day + 7" Edition

Welcome to the 25th edition of the Carnival of Divided Government- The special "Labor Day Plus One Week and Two Conventions " Edition. As explained in earlier editions, we have adopted Latin ordinal numeration to impart a patina of gravitas reflecting the historical importance of the series. In this, the Carnival of Divided Government Quînque et Vîcênsimus (XXV), as in all of the CODGOV series, we select volunteers and draftees from the blogosphere and main stream media writing on the single topic of government divided between the major parties (leaving it to the reader to sort out volunteers from draftees). Consistent with this topic, the primary criteria for acceptance in the carnival is to explicitly use the words and/or concept of "divided government" in submitted posts. A criteria that, to our endless befuddlement, is ignored by many of the bloggers submitting posts, which sadly results in DWSUWF reluctantly ignoring their fine submissions.

Special Labor Day Edition - but wait! We also have Conventions!

Last year I was also a week late for the Labor Day Edition, and posted instead the Special Procrastination Day Edition. Can't do that this year again as it would be derivative. So instead - the first ever Labor Day Plus Conventions edition! The two conventions are over, two candidates have accepted the nomination, two VP picks have been selected, and we have two months until we our next President will be selected. Time to get very explicit about exactly what our choice will be in November.

THE CHOICE

This election choice is not really between Experience vs. Change, nor is it between Experience vs. Experience, nor is it between Change vs. Change. This election is not really even between McCain vs. Obama considered in a political vacuum. Since the Democrats will increase their majority in the House and Senate, this election is about choosing one of these two federal government configurations in 2009:
CHOICE A:

McCain/Palin (R) + Pelosi leading a 100 vote D majority in the House + Clinton/Reid leading a potential 60/40 filibuster proof D majority in the Senate.

Two Republican reformers with a reputation for bucking their own party and launching bi-partisan initiatives working with a Democratic Party holding the largest single party congressional majorities in modern history.

- or -

CHOICE B:

Obama/Biden (D) + Pelosi leading a 100 vote D majority in the House + Clinton/Reid leading a potential 60/40 filibuster proof D majority in the Senate.

A toe-the-party-line Democratic President and a consummate Washington insider working with a Democratic Party holding the largest single party congressional majorities in modern history.

Choose wisely.

My choice? On Nov 4, I will be voting for divided government. I will vote for Republican John McCain for President and for Democratic representative Nancy Pelosi in the House of Representatives (In California we do not have a Senate vote this year).

In this carnival we will be highlighting those who choose to vote for a divided government that reinforces the checks and balances in the Constitution and distributes power rather than a single party government that undermines the Constitution and concentrates power.

Over the next few days we will also be initiating a "Coalition of the Divided" Blogroll in the sidebar. DWSUWF will link to any bloggers and pundits that declare for a Divided Government vote. Who is in this coalition, standing shoulder to shoulder in solidarity? Limited government advocates, Fiscal conservatives from both parties, Libertarians (big "L") who want their vote to count, libertarians (small "l") desiring a bigger political hammer, Disaffected Democrats and Hillary supporters who will support Democratic Senators and Representatives but vote for McCain, Independents leary of concentrated power in one party, and Disingenuous Republicans paying lip service to divided government because it is politically convenient in 2008 (much like disingenuous Democrats did in 2006). All are welcome in The Coalition of the Divided.

Carnival

David Wright at Two Pennies distills the decision in "His wife ain't too shabby either...":
"I've got to vote for the Republican ticket no matter what, and it's a lot easier for me to do with Obama on the other side. More important than any one leader is maintaining divided government -- Congress is lost to the Dems so the White House has got to go to the Republicans, for the good of the country. If Congress was in the hands of the Republicans, I'd hold my nose and vote for Obama, despite my many reservations about the man."
We are as one David. Welcome to the coalition.

Riverdaughter at The Confluence speaks to disaffected Clinton supporters and reminds them that regardless of their vote for President - there are other elections to consider in "Rebuilding Years":
"That is why it is so important to make sure that Congress remains in the hands of Democrats. This year, we have the opportunity to increase our numbers in both the House and Senate. A number of these downticket Dems are true Democrats in the liberal and FDR style. For example, Linda Stender in NJ-07 is very much a progressive like Hillary Clinton: pro-choice, against the war, for rescinding the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Now is the time to work for these downticket Dems to guarantee that we have divided government in the wake of what will be almost certain defeat for Barack Obama."
I'm good with that. I will vote for my Democratic representative - Nancy Pelosi, and add the DCCC Banner to my recommended contributions for 2008. Right next to the McCain/Palin banner. I don't want the Democrats to get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, but have no problem with them increasing their majority to keep McCain's judicial picks in check.

George Will is less sanguine about Obama's prospects while editorializing in the Washington Post, but still thinks that with the right apporach this is "A race that McCain could win":
"McCain should make an asset of an inevitability by promising two presidential vetoes. The inevitability is enlarged Democratic congressional majorities in 2009. Americans suffer political astigmatism. They squint at Washington, seeing an incompetent cornucopia that is too big but that should expand to give them more blessings. Their voting behavior, however, generally conforms to their professed suspicion about unchecked power in Washington: In 31 election cycles since the restoration of normal politics after the Second World War, 19 produced divided government -- the executive and legislative branches not controlled by the same party. "
Before both conventions, Glenn Thrush's analysis at The Politico explored a similar theme in "7 Worrisome signs for Obama":
"7. Americans may want divided government. Some Democratic operatives think a possible landslide for their party in congressional races could backfire on Obama. “Fairly or not, folks think he’s pretty liberal and nobody wants a pair of Pelosi’s running things,” says a New York-based Democratic consultant. Adds Bob Kerrey: “The country's still pretty divided… people may want a divided government. They want change but I'm not sure that the Democratic agenda has the support of a majority of Americans.”
To Glenn's point, consider what Mike the Actuary thought while watching the Democratic convention. He notes that it was not politic for Chuck Schumer to rub our nose in the decision we are facing in his "second and third convention thoughts of the evening":
"So, the choreography of the abridgment of the roll call, ending with Hillary moving to nominate Obama by acclimation, was very nicely done. Sadly…why did they have to go and spoil the festivities with Chuck Schumer’s call for assistance in getting the Dems to 60 votes in the Senate? The threat of either party having too much power is what drives folks like me to vote in support of divided government. I think Obama’s interesting…but the thought of no one being able to act as a check on Congressional Dems is just as disturbing as the Bush/GOP virtual monopoly on federal power was."
Disturbing indeed. The only one way to avoid it in 2009, is do the right thing in November, 2008.

The Bridgetown Peddler fears "There is no there there..." as it relates to McCain's economic policies, but is drawn to divided government anyway.
"Seen this writeup of McCain's economic policies in the Financial Journal? What a sad, sad case McCain makes and in the end the only case left is that as a Republican it may be better to have a divided government since the Democrats will clearly be in control of both houses of congress for some time."
I'm sympathetic Mr. Peddler, but sometimes you just have to suck it up and vote for what the better of bad choices.

Ilya Somin of the Volokh Conspiracy a consistent advocate for divided government noodles on the impact of the VP picks in "The Biden Pick" and "Sarah Palin and Libertarianism":
"In fairness, even if Obama had picked a moderate, I would still put more faith in the power of divided government to stem the growth of the state than in the potential influence of a moderate veep. This year, the only hope for divided government is a victory by McCain, no matter how flawed he is in other respects. However, not all libertarians and pro-limited government conservatives are as committed to that view as I am."

"Ultimately, I think that the main libertarian argument for McCain-Palin is based on the general benefits of divided government rather than on the details of their records. To the extent that the latter count, Palin's virtues are counterbalanced by McCain's many flaws; after all, he's the one running for president. Still, Palin's presence on the ticket makes it marginally more appealing from a libertarian perspective."
IIlya, we are as one. It is easier for me to put faith in a government state that has been unequivocally documented to historically limit the growth of the state. Ilya has been a leading voice about the virtues of divided government, and has been so since before this blog even existed.

John Babka at Positive Liberty lays out the libertarian case in "Why I don't want united government" and "The Gridlock Strategy":
"Until Obama flip-flopped on the FISA vote, and it became apparent the Democrats didn’t understand the need to stop their silly oil drilling ban, I liked Obama better than McCain. Now I don’t like either of the leading candidates, and I think the results will be more bad than good whichever one of them wins. I am very opposed to the Bush foreign policy, and I think McCain will continue that. I also hate McCain’s positions on carbon taxes and political speech. He’ll have aid and comfort from the Democrats on these positions. But McCain will, overall, accomplish far less than Obama will. And it’s that bi-partisan (or uni-party) accomplishment that I’m really concerned about. I don’t want both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. to come together to, “get things done.” When they get thing done, it costs us money, time, and hassle. It restricts our choices. It takes away our rights and liberties. Gridlock is good"

"Jack Welch, former CEO of GE (who thinks Clinton was a good President), appeared on CNBC’s Kudlow & Co. last night and he too made a case against “united government.” He said the worst alternative was for Obama to be able to indulge his bad tax-plan, central planning, and pro-union excesses because he’d have the willing aid and comfort of Pelosi and Reid. Someone needs to put on the brakes. Pelosi and Reid? Hey, two years ago I had high hopes they’d stand up to Bush too. But now? Well, let’s just say giving them the controls doesn’t excite me much. (If I had my druthers, my split would be a Republican Congress and Democrat President, and in 2004, we had the option, but not now)."
John, we are as one.

Jim Mathies' Current Word is that the divided government case is made more palatable when the ticket includes "Palin":
"Ultimately, I think that the main libertarian argument for McCain-Palin is based on the general benefits of divided government rather than on the details of their records. To the extent that the latter count, Palin’s virtues are counterbalanced by McCain’s many flaws; after all, he’s the one running for president. Still, Palin’s presence on the ticket makes it marginally more appealing from a libertarian perspective."
It is important to note that "marginally more appealing" is as good as it gets for libertarians.

Donald Luskin blogging at the The Conspiracy to Keep you Poor and Stupid takes Alan Blinder's NYT Op-Ed to task for sloppy statistics and a fallacious conclusion in "So much for this Liberal Chestnut":
"...And if we look at it terms of government control -- that is, party control of both the presidency and both houses of congress -- then the Democrats do worse than the Republicans (2.0% versus 2.1%). But wait! Divided government, when no party controls both the presidency and the congress, does even better: 2.3%!"
H/T to Christopher at The Charter of Dreams.

Back40 at Muck & Mystery is back in the Carnival with some thought about politics and the madness of crowds in "Love Sick":
"Timothy looks in that mirror and only sees conservatives, but at this time, in this country, I see Obamaniacs. In my view it's largely the usual contest between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. The rhetoric panders in various directions, but it is obviously just rhetoric. My preference is for divided government to impede them all, so my first hope is that Obama loses and his party holds congress."
I have employed the Tweedldee Tweedledum comparison myself, and arrived at a similar conclusion. Welcome to the Coalition of the Divided.

Pete Davis at Capital Gains and Games is thinking about the choice both now and 2010 in his post "A maverick vs. an outsider":
"President McCain would have to work with a Democratic Congress, which would curtail many of his proposals, but President Obama could easily overstep, as President Clinton did, and find that the people may restore divided government after two years as occurred in the 1994 election."
One way to know a meme is gaining traction, is when an oppostion that would prefer to ignore it begins to attack it. A case in point is Coonsey's World interesting advice for Obama in "Divided Government - Choice of Many":
"Polls are now showing that the Democratic Party will retain power over the House and Senate in November. Some are even saying that the Democrats will have the largest majority since 1937 (George Will on This Week 9/7/08). For this reason alone, some voters will vote for Senator John McCain as President – just to keep a divided government. It is for this reason that perhaps Senator Barack Obama should consider running, in part, against the Democrats. Yes, I said against the Democrats."
As can be seen in the cross post at Daily Kos, this is a bit more "change" than the Kos kids will be able to handle.

We'll conclude with an interesting observation by Evan Newmark in the Wall Street Jounal. Staking out a contrarian view, he predicts a year end upside surprise in the stock market and speculates about what the catalyst might be in "A bull in the Chrstmas Stocking":
"The current Wall Street consensus is that Barack Obama will win. And that once elected, “liberal” Obama will make way for “moderate” Obama, whose economic policies won’t be all that different from those of Bill Clinton. Investors seem resigned to this scenario. In fact, some, like Warren Buffett and George Soros, are actively pushing for it. But a McCain victory isn’t such a stretch. More progress in Iraq. The deathbed economy showing a pulse. The Republicans pounding away at concerns among heartland Democrats that Obama is a bit too young and a bit too progressive. Voila, McCain could be in the White House. Pundits will tell you the stock market does better under Democratic administrations. But who is kidding who? Wall Street wants free-trade and the Bush tax cuts. And it prefers a divided government. The Democrats will control Congress. The moment McCain is declared the winner is the moment a huge relief rally begins."
Interesting. DWSUWF noted the Wall Street preference for divided government two years ago as we approached the Democratic Party victory in 2006. Grist for a future post.

Miscellany

Traditionally, we conclude this Carnival by including one "off-topic" submission, as a grudging acknowledgment and proxy for the many off-topic submissions received. Off-topic in this context meaning - no mentions of "divided government" or gridlock. For this edition, we selected Humorist, Haikuist and Hillaryist Madeleine Begun Kane. who's work we have featured before. For this edition Madeleine offered "Sarah Who???" posted at Mad Kane's Political Madness. In addition, I have decided to take one of her prior efforts that we published before, specifically her genius "Hillary Clinton Derangement Syndrome" (Haiku), and make a few minor changes to her work.
Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome

Smearing Sarah,

Ignoring Barack’s foibles.

Must stop laughing.

And with that we conclude this edition. Thanks for stopping by, and thanks for all of the submissions (on-topic or not). The blogosphere has been laboring mightily to produce lots of divided government posts lately. Two years ago, with two months to go, we saw a big spike in Divided Government posts and articles before the election and the same thing is happening now. In response we will increase our CODGOV posting frequency between now and the election. I'll try to get one of these out every week to ten days. The next edition will be the Carnival of Divided Government Sextus et Vîcênsimus (XXVI) - Special "Constitution " Day Edition which will be ratified on or about the 17th of September, a mere nine days from now. Submit your blog article at carnival of divided government using our carnival submission form.

Carnivalingus

Some recent carnivals and compilations of note:
UPDATED: 9/11/08
Fixed typos, added links.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.