I love the term "Republican parliamentary gimmickry". Jeez, where was Robert Kutter from the mid-1950's until 1994? I remember the House Republicans in the 1980's were lucky to do anything.

Finally, whose fault is it if the Democrats lose elections?

Considering that many lefties have at least a philosophical affection for the socialist experiments of the 20th Century, I don't think they really have a problem with one-party rule ... as long as it's THEIR party.

"[B]ecause democracy itself is rigged." By majority voting?

I think Democrats like Kutter have a problem with democracy, the democratic process and elected representative government. No wonder so many of them hated to see Saddam go. He kept things so tidy in Iraq. It's the european thing.

The notion that the Left wouldn't delight in, and completely justify, doing exactly what Kuttner claims of the Right is simply disingenuous.

"And the latest money-and-politics regime, nominally a reform, may give the right more of a financial advantage than ever.

Wow. You mean the right has somebody BIGGER than Soros backdoor bankrolling them?

This is text book modern liberalism: when out of power, blame the opposition, the system, the "stupid" voters -- ANYTHING but your own ideas and agenda.

I think I've told the joke here about the old Jew who delighted in reading the antisemitic press for descriptions about powerful Jews ruling the world. I get a similar thrill out of stories like this.

One of the other things that's driving Democrats wild is the low-key nature of today's Republican leaders. Back in their glory days, it was the Democrats who came across as restrained while the Republicans were the "angry party" -- or at least were successfully portrayed that way by Democrats and those in the media. That started changing with Reagan (who during the 1980 campaign was portrayed as a crazy Nixon who would Blow Up the World five minutes after entering office), and now, as much as the Democrats try to get the public to picture Bush as some wild-eyed cowboy lunatic, the image the public sees belies their ranting.

With Gingrich gone and Lott sidelined, you've got two other low-keyed pols -- Hastert and Frist -- in the top leadership roles, which further hurts the Democrats' case. So writers like Kuttner rant and scream about secret Republuican plans and endlessly cite Tom DeLay, hoping the No. 2 man will come back out into the public spotlight and give them some red meat counterattack quotes then can then use to demonize the entire party.

Some of the more conservative Republicans probably do want a more vocal leadership in D.C., espeically on their objections to Bush's immigration, Medicare and school reform policies. But the "compassionate conservative" style is giving both the Democrats and the press very little to grab onto, which results in screeds like Kuttner's and deranged ramblings like those of Dean and Clark in the primary election.

oj --

You highlighted the prolem with the thesis. Let me highlight a problem with the article itself: we are so far from operating under such a "domination" thesis that I wonder if we will ever get there without hordes of Dems committing suicide or forming guerrillas to kill Repulicans. The Supreme Court striking down iconic liberal legislation? I see more expansion than anything. The lower courts rubber stamping legislation? I see them writing laws most of the time. The Senate pushing forth every conservative wish? Ask Estrada, Brown...Or ask all the critics of the Adminstration's compromise, filibuster-proof bills. The House's make-up? I still see many more Dem gerimandered seats than Rep ones. If the liberals are so up in arms today they will be up and with arms (first time they will defend the 2nd Ammendment) soon.

We could do worse than a period of intramural bloodletting between Blue and Red.

The Democrats, like the Euro-elite they so clearly idolize, really don't trust democracy because they consider us peasants too stupid to vote the way we should--which is to say, the way they tell us to.

The left is merely nostalgic for statesmen in Congress like ah ..... Sam Rayburn

Growing up, my first political memories are of oldsters saying, "If (insert name here: Ike, Stevenson, Truman) is elected, we'll never have another election."

It isn't a Red/Blue thing.

Yup, not a damn bit of difference between the two parties... At their core, the differences between the red and the blue is enormous. The governing philosophies could not be more varied. The entire debate regarding court appointments is a clear eaxample of that difference since the blue agenda will not succeed without a very particular judicial outlook represented on the bench. Centralization versus a return to federalism and de-centralization along with a dismantling of the administrive apparatus is the longer term red agenda. The priorities of the two outlooks regarding the purpose of government are diametrically opposed to each other with only minor overlap.

Desrcibing the Republican agenda as autocratic is Orwellian coming from a left wing, statist Democrat like Kuttner.

"The Democrats, like the Euro-elite they so clearly idolize, really don't trust democracy because they consider us peasants too stupid to vote the way we should--which is to say, the way they tell us to"

What's amazing is the people who display this very attitude when it's their own pet policies the Noble People overwhelmingly reject.

But the Left loves pure democracy when it would put them in power-- witness their obsession with the popular vote total from the last presidential election.