Define "checks and balances"

I need to get irate for a second. If I hear one more supposedly smart person use the term "checks and balances" in reference to the political parties, SOMEONE is going to get punched in the nose. (Figuratively speaking.)

To sum up, the "checks and balances" that are the basis of our governmental structure have NOTHING to do with political parties. Got that? NOTHING.

The parties are NOT meant to check and balance each other. Comprende?

Example: here's a gem today from Bill Kristol on the Washington post website, discussing the Specter defection:

[Obama will] be responsible for everything. GOP obstructionism will go away as an issue, and Democratic defections will become the constant worry and story line. This will make it easier for GOP candidates in 2010 to ask to be elected to help restore some checks and balance in Washington...

No wonder the guy got fired from the NY Times. If you willfully convolute our Constitutional government with party politics, you deserve to be hamstrung.

I feel like I'm talking to a 6 year old to say it, but do we all agree that the American system of "checks and balances" refers to the three branches of government - the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial - which each have powers that "balance" the others and keep them in "check"?

Jesus, people. Its like 5th grade civics. Pick up your kid's textbook.

Arlen Specter to caucus with Dems

I've been on a bit of a hiatus from Exurbs to jump into the creative writing pool and catch up on some movies I've been meaning to see for the last three years or so. (Anyone heard of this movie "Sicko"???)

However, the news of Arlen Specter jumping ship from the GOP demands commentary. The spin machines of the myriad interest groups are going at such full tilt, I think they could power the eastern seaboard for a week. To be sure, everyone has a take on it, many of them valid. Certainly Specter was facing an uphill primary challenge from Pat Toomey. It seemed unlikely Toomey could win in a Pennsylvania general election, but the first hurdle is the Republican voters of the primary election, and Toomey is a party-line conservative who would likely have sailed past Specter.

But to then say that Specter's decision to switch parties was entirely one of political expediency (as reliable blowhards Michael Steele and John Cornyn did) misses the point entirely. Salon's Alex Koppelman got it right. It is precisely because Specter followed principle on the stimulus package - voting for it because he felt it helped avoid utter economic disaster - that he is now so vulnerable against Toomey.

Michael Steele and the Republican party have made it very clear that they would like to exact retribution against Senators Specter, Collins, and Snowe for their cooperation with the Obama administration. Party hardliners will not allow any dissent in their ranks. Its becoming a disturbing pattern, with elected officials having to pay homage to right wing radio comedians rather than speak their minds.

The tent is indeed shrinking. I'm not convinced that Arlen Specter will be at all a complicit Democrat. He has shown his determination to do what he thinks is right, even in the face of extreme Party pressure. And I certainly disagree with many of his political values, and the need to win Specter's vote will continue to mean a watering down of the Obama administration's agenda items.

But if welcoming Arlen Specter into the Democratic party aids in the demise of a GOP that values Christian absolutism and torture, is anti-choice and homophobic, is dogmatically terrified of the "other", well then Welcome Aboard, Senator. Its good to have you.