Better democracy equals less democracy???

You can go with this or you can go with that.

You know the liberals are in touch with reality when they realize they are losing and start proposing some insane ideas.  I don't like using superlatives and I don't like using derogatory comments instead of fact-based arguments, but this is really serious when you read it.  It would also be less worrisome if it were only one person.  But when two prominent figures make the same argument then it's already approaching meme status.

By the way, what happened to all the liberals who were steadfastly sure, George Bush was going to suspend the 2008 elections and impose martial law?  Are they standing behind this foolishness?

Democrat governor Bev Perdue of North Carolina:

“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. …You want people who don’t worry about the next election.”

According to the ABC report;

Her office suggested that the comments were some sort of hyperbolic joke, although she sounds serious on audio posted online.

Peter Orszag, former White House budget director for President Obama on needing less democracy;

I wish it were not necessary to devise processes to circumvent legislative gridlock, but polarization isn’t going away. John Adams may have been exaggerating when he pessimistically noted that democracies tend to commit suicide, yet, as we are seeing, certain aspects of representative government can end up posing serious problems. And so, we might be a healthier democracy if we were a slightly less democratic one.

Wow. That's just crazy talk.  The United States held elections during the Civil War, The Great Depression and two World Wars.  Now the only reason someone would want to suspend democracy is because they are losing.