From the diaries. mcjoan
In Tomorrow's column "One-Letter Politics", Paul Krugman argues that "this is a one-letter election. D or R, that's all that matters."
Krugman frames the column with questioning whether we can trust Lieberman when the stakes are this high, opening with his ludicrous statement in the Hartford Courant that he hadn't thought about whether "America would be better off with his party regaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives." After laying out the huge stakes of this election (which I'll highlight below the fold), Krugman concludes:
What about the Senate race in Connecticut... Is this a case where the man, not the party, is what matters? Only if you believe that Mr. Lieberman's promise not to switch parties is 100 percent credible.
Krugman gives two major reasons that party matters much more than the individual candidates--the GOP in basically monolithic; McCain may say some good things to get on to TV, but he, like nearly all the GOP nearly all the time, votes for torture or Bush's power grabs or whatever else.
if the Republicans retain control of Congress, even if it's by just one seat in each house, Mr. Bush will retain that free hand. If they lose control of either house, the G.O.P. juggernaut will come to a shuddering halt.
Krugman believes subpoena power is the most important issue in this election. We won't have enough power to override a veto, but they will be able to investigate.
Krugman doesn't mention it, but we all know that our government was meant to have checks and balances. The Constitution (or is that now as quaint as the Geneva convention) is very clear about this and Congress has a Constitutional duty to oversee the Executive Branch.
If [the Democrats] win they will gain the ability to carry out investigations, and the legal right to compel testimony. The current Congress has shown no inclination to investigate the Bush administration. Last year The Boston Globe offered an illuminating comparison: when Bill Clinton was president, the House took 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether Mr. Clinton had used the White House Christmas list to identify possible Democratic donors. But in 2004 and 2005, a House committee took only 12 hours of testimony on the abuses at Abu Ghraib.
If the Democrats take control, that will change -- and voters should think very hard about whether they want that change. Those who think it's a good idea to investigate, say, allegations of cronyism and corruption in Iraq contracting should be aware that any vote cast for a Republican makes Congressional investigations less likely.
One more thing--we all know that we underestimate the Republican Machine at our peril. Give some time and treasure to progressive candidates and key races. We've only got three more weeks!