The House of Representatives is the only part of the American government where the principle of one person, one vote obtains. But the Republicans have been running the House in a way that purposefully abuses this principle. They have found a way to shelter many of their members from taking positions that they know to be unpopular with voters. To counter… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (54)Page 1 of 1 pagesWhile I can think of a lot of congressional reforms I would like to see tis is a new one to add to my list.
However, I find it hard to believe this tactic is either new or unique to Republicans.
Barney’s comment:
“All we were asking for was a vote.” Well, wasn’t it the Democrats Kerry and Kennedy who led an ineffectual filbuster to prevent the Alito vote?
and…
“The result is votes held open for hours to allow for vote buying; huge bills, with nefarious special interest riders attached…”
This one has been on my list for decades. What was the pork total I heard recently? $271 billion or so?
What if we divide that among the 300 million population…Hmmm? Wouldn’t that go a long way in covering the $27,000 per capital debt we’ve rung up?
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 2, 2006 at 6:37 PM Sorry — I had the decimal point in the wrong place in my memory. It is only $271 billion.
The following is from the WSJ website.“Defenders of pork-barrel projects contend they are a trivial expense in a $2.6 trillion budget. Sadly, that’s true, but it speaks volumes about the culture of overspending in Washington that $27,100,000,000 is dismissed as a rounding error.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110007887
———————————& ————————
The article asked what it would take to change this, so… here’s my suggestion:Simply compute what part of the total budget the pork expense is and deduct the same “trivial” percentage from the annual salary of those voting for it.
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 2, 2006 at 6:52 PM Sorry — I had the decimal point in the wrong place in my memory. It is only $27.1 billion.
Proofreaders out there?
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 2, 2006 at 6:54 PM There’s no way $27.1B should ever have been considered trivial, even if the context is a $2.6T budget.
Dat’s a lotta gumballs, y’all.
While we’re at it, the $493.3B military budget just requested by the President is worthy of examination in this same light.
Culture of overspending?
Posted by Kuya on Feb 3, 2006 at 9:02 AM Dear Representative barney frank, and all other democrats who consider yourself rather liberal or progressives:
While I can agree with you on your complaints about republicans, lets consider a few things, ok lets just try this.
Representative barney frank what did you and any other progressives in the democratic party, basically a piece of the two party duopoly, do to open the the 2004 presidential debates. The presidential debates are a free time where candidates may show their beliefs to a large audience which they otherwise couldnt reach, free of cost. Yet you and the democrats worked with the republicans to keep Ralph Nader, Green Party candidate David Cobb, and the Libertarian party candidate out of the presidential election debates. Why? Hmmm, I wonder why the two party duopoly would do such a thing? Could it be that if David Cobb was allowed in the debates he would raise issues regarding enviromentalism and feminism which the two parties are not comfortable with? Or could it be that if the Libertarian party candidate was allowed he would discuss his beliefs on ending the racist wasteful drug war, which both parties in the duopoly have supported for years? Or is it because if Ralph Nader was allowed in the debate john kerry would be shown as at best a moderate liberal and no where near a progressive being stomped by Nader on nearly every issue as far as progressives go?
Or Representative barney frank what do you have to say about how your friends in the dnc kept Nader off of the ballot in many states by using republican law firms? you are speaking of democracy and your respect for democracy yet your party spends millions of dollars to keep third party candidates off the ballots.
(P.S: If you havent already got this all democrats and republicans, their parties and their names are NOT capitalized on purpose, while ALL THIRD PARTIES ARE CAPITALIZED)When will your party stop stifling democracy by spinning out retarded mantras, such as anybody buy bush, when you bring a pro war, against a living wage, against the equal rights amendment, and at times pro patriot act and others anti patriot act (john kerry) candidate. You expect us to eat your shit and just vote for any asshole you idiots bring up. And oh yeah when you retards in the democratic party run hillary clinton, certainly not a progressive, us true liberals will be voting Green, and hopefully be voting Nader if he is still capable to run.
to be continued..
www.votenader.org
www.gp.org
www.lp.org (while I disagree with much of the Libertarian Party’s platform they are our allies in fighting against the two party duopoly and moreover they do have some good ideas)
www.norml.org
www.ssdp.org
www.dpa.org
Posted by NaderRaider on Feb 4, 2006 at 5:41 AM Representative barney frank among other fake progressives who are registered democrats:
I wonder why you spend so much time writing, when you have an opportunity to write for a progressive magazine ‘In These Times’, about the woes of the republicans, we know these woes we are very used to them. (Oh and for all you idiots who want to call me a republican or a conservative and all that crap have fun being idiots I am a registered Green). Now back to the issue at hand what profits could you democrats have from crapping out the republicans? Well it could help you stir up progressives, who you ignore in your actions but try to acknowledge in your words, and thats what you fucking democrats do! You bitch about the republicans instead of addressing true issues that progressives care about.
you had a chance to write this article for a great progressive magazine and you chose to bitch rather than be proactive, below is a list of issues that Nader and the Greens both back full force but you democrats show virtually no attention to.
A. Demanding a living wage, that would be a $10 an hour wage which would truly show respect to the American worker
B. Universal Health Care- although this is the one issue I will give some democrats some credit on there have been times when the democrats held both houses in congress and did no headwork on this, or significant headwork
C. Equal Rights Amendment- While you did a great job on this in the 70s this has been largely ignored by democrats since that time, step up now!
D. Public Schools- While I am not even sure if the true progressives (Nader and the Greens) have gone this far yet, I would like to see a system which truly allows equal opportunity in education and bans the property tax system for paying for education which ultimately allows rich districts to have very good schools and poor districts to have very crappy schools, how about equalizing education or at least making an issue of it.
E. The Iraq War- not enough democrats stood up against this and many of you allowed it to happen moreover you allowed kerry to try to outgun bush in the 2004 election on the war
F. Workers- Why have so many democrats supported free trade agreements that hurt the American worker
G. The Drug War- why are we still spending billions of dollars to lock up drug users (www.norml.org)
H. The concentration of media
When will the democrats stand up and actually represent we the progressives, or will you ever. I urge all real progressives in the democratic party to look at the Green party and see the similarities between themselves and the Green party and to stop being whores for the corporate sponsored two party duopoly.
Posted by NaderRaider on Feb 4, 2006 at 5:56 AM NaderRaider what prompted you pop free from the comfortable pustule on the inside of Carl Rove’s anus?
I must chuckle, you really think using the ProLib’s beliefs, values and slogans will work again.
While I do support those issues, I know that you only support them as a way to divide the left and set us against each other as we try to prove ourselves worthy of your santification.
ProLibs can and will support those causes, but your leadership is not necessary, and your presense as a player won’t be acknowledged, because you are not part of the progressive, liberal movement, any more than Benedict Arnold was a part of the American Revolution
You are an ANARCHIST trying to stir up as much sh*t and trying to disguise it using your own special double-speak.
You and your ilk do NOT care about anything other than creating chaos that would make the misery Repugnicans inflict on us seem paltry.
Progressives, Liberals Etc. our weakness is we care, and we care passionately. In the past we were blinded by our fervor and belief in what was right would prevail. You and Nader cured us of that blindness.
You pick up our slogans and try to wave our banner in hopes of making us quickly forget what you and your ilk did to this nation and the ProLibs. To jump in so soon, speaks to a deceptive, cynical nature perfectly reflected in the face of your own personal savior - Ralph the “Nadir”.
Once you could count on ProLibs mistaking your insanity for passion, your words for truth. All it took was finding our outstretched hands being filled with tools and weapons for furthering the Repugnican cause to ensure we will never believe anything you say again.
Your man was a proxy for the Repugnicans who needed cover to steal the 2000 election. No rationalization, no statistical magic can eliminate the simple fact that if Nader had NOT run in 2000 Gore would have won.
Nader’s acceptance of money from Repugnicans who were giving him money in 2000 and 2004 and his transparent reason being such individuals actually supported his agenda was all that was needed to strip away the lies and deceptions disguising his cynical purposeless crusade.
Naderrader you and your man have absolutely NO RIGHT to call anyone hypocrite. You and your ilk have NO RIGHT to JUDGE ANYONE’S CREDENTIALS. I’ll turn Repug. before I’ll work with a Naderites. LOL
Nader may support valid issues, but Nader himself invalidated himself 100% when he allowed the Repugnicans to use him to defeat Gore
In away I think ProLibs felt a need to pay penance, and Kerry was that penance. The loss belief in self was so profound we didn’t trust ourselves to trust the real deal, Dean. a candidate who could have beaten Nader’s boss Bush.
To you ProLibs are the easiest target thanks to our desire to believe that in bad times the best in all of us comes out. This makes us your favorite target. We won’t make the same mistake again though.
The stark hypocrisy of your self-proclamations and self-proclaimed leader are too much for even the most forgiving Leftie to believe.
If you want to change something, change your diapers. Your former parents in the Progressive, liberal and Democratic and independents are not responsible for you in any way. We owe you absolutely nothing, not even a moment to read your screed. The only purpose of this reply is to take some pleasure in writing it. What you think as a Naderite means you are irrelevant to the ProLib agenda. Nader’s solutions are a toxin meant to cripple and kill us by convincing us the best past is destruction, because there is nothing worth saving. Such belief betrays our hope and beliefs in a better world, and the goodness of our fellow humans.
You’re calls are just another indication of the contempt you hold true PROLIB values.
Don’t you think it’s time you crawl back into the fat, repugnican anus of Carl Rove that gave you birth?
If you decide to do this, I’m sure you will get the ProLib support u seek.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Feb 5, 2006 at 6:35 AM awww Johnny i love your ignorance i love your toolism to the Democrats. If we stick to you and vote strictly for democrats we will hear about universal health care but never achieve it, we wont even hear about a living wage, an end to the racist war on drugs (you and your democrats wont touch that issue), actually supporting unions and making unions the strength of what they were in the 20s you wouldnt allow it!
I am sorry that I wont sell out to your lil moderate bullshit beliefs!
This is how you know the democrats are fake and screw us over despite how if they actually read the platform of the greens they would agree with it they merely say “Duh, you have no right to voice your own opinion you have to vote for the democrats because if you dont vote for us than you vote for the republicans(do you remember how the democrats got mad at bush for his your either with us or against us argument in the war on terror? well think about your argument to progressives in voting, you tell us if we dont sell out and vote democrats than were republicans..because i speak my voice (this is a DEMOCRACY YOU PIECE OF SHIT) i am a conservative huh well fuck you i will keep speaking my voice and you can keep selling out to the corporate powers(look up Citibank as far as the 2004 election goes..they gave over $150k to the democrats and over $300k to the republicans..so why do you accept this money b/c you dont care about shit you are a corporate whore and you are worth nothing to me) FUCK YOU DEMOCRATS YOUR PARTY WILL BURN SOON AND THE GREENS will take over the left and the LIBERTARIANS will take over the right!www.gp.org (Green Party)
www.lp.org (Libertarian Party)
Posted by NaderRaider on Feb 5, 2006 at 7:56 AM Oh P.S. why dont you pieces of shit read “UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED”
WHO WROTE THAT AGAIN???
Posted by NaderRaider on Feb 5, 2006 at 7:57 AM WHAT IF?...
WHAT IF greens/independents and progressive dems could stop hurling invectives at each other and unite around a common vision and even possibly around a common candidate who embodied those beliefs…
WHAT IF all the people who had a common vision of really making the world a better place, with a common ideal of justice and greater equality, standing together through the severe global crisis we all presently face, could be more concerned about the future our children, and our children’s children face then their own petty grievances…
WHAT IF all of the peace-loving, ecologically-minded, common workers and strugglers of ALL stripes could work together for the bigger picture…looking for common ground and ways to accentuate their common dreams instead of burning bridges, tearing each other down, and letting themselves be “divided and conquered” (heaping blame on each other while those who profit by such divisions keep on their destructive, war-mongering, poisonous, treacherous, hell-bent path)...
WHAT IF we actually could learn from our mistakes, and figure out how to move beyond them…and TRANSCEND them…
WHAT IF we really COULD find a better way…
I just can’t help but wonder…WHAT IF…?
And as that wise man, John Lennon, said…
“I know I’m not the only one”
and I DO hope that “someday you’ll join us’‘
...before it’s TOO late…for ALL of us…!!WHAT IF…
?!!
Posted by snopeace on Feb 5, 2006 at 9:34 AM TWIMC…
The Mohammed Cartoons raise many questions.
(I’m posting on this thread simply because the most recent relevant article, “Islam Needs Radicals” is too far back to be live.)
1. Just why are the Danes under attack?
2. Is it due to their seeking global empire?
3. Could it be their fascist attitude?
4. Are they, like the French, relegating young Muslims to joblessness and ghetto status?5.Is their arrogant refusal to punish these cartoonists and editors to placate the interior ministers of Muslim-majority countries.
What must they do?
Must we wait while the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, former Supreme Court of Canada justice Louise Arbour, seeks to provide a solution? Or… will God himself (herself?) deal a massive blow against the evil jesters with a tsunami or hurricane once more?
I have been critical that the Bush administration did not do a good enough job of rallying other nations in the fight against radical Muslims. With the attacks on Danish embassies and the threats of kidnappings against other European nations, they are doing it for us.(There must be a cartoon in this also.)
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 5, 2006 at 3:19 PM There are two things that all of us who are interested in good government should be promoting right now. Forget the rest. If we can’t get these two passed you may as well sit by and watch your country crumble.
*Term limits for congress.
*A no-exemption draft. Every able-bodied person’s name gets put in the pot.
Posted by mirmir on Feb 5, 2006 at 4:07 PM Hey I like the Greens
The Green party is NOT synonomous with Ralph Nader.
I has existed way before Nader co-opted the party in the United States, or should I say TRIED TO.
As I recall the Green Party made a successful effort to deny Ralph Nader’s attempt to BYPASS PARTY rules and be nominated by the convention.
As I recall “Nadir” didn’t think the Green Party’s nomination process was worth spending money on or fighting for. For the Green party, Ralph thought it was fine to disrespect their nascient party machinery, because hey it wasn’t like the thought the Green Party was going to win. He felt they should be greatful for his offer to take up their banner.
They were just the part of ProLibs that was duped the most. It’s unfortunate. They lost a lot of ground. They’ll be back though, and I hope they never fall for Nader again.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Feb 5, 2006 at 4:57 PM Hey, I like the Green Party, too.
Be careful, though, there are two parties that use use “Green” in their name. Here we should be talking about the Green Party US, not “The Greens.”
Didn’t Nader refuse to join the Green Party but thought it OK to run for president on their ticket?
I submitted my suggestions for change to the Green Party some time ago. Please go to this site if you’d like to read my proposals:
http://lists.gp-us.org/pipermail/iowa-work/2003-November/000505.html
Posted by mirmir on Feb 5, 2006 at 5:23 PM MirMir - You are right. Of course I am talking about the “established” Green party that pre-dated Nader.
The “Greens” were a Green Party faction, but they have been totally co-opted by nadirites, and now compete with the Green Party. It’s Nader’s revenge on the Green Party for their rejection of his offer to be their messiah
Often, people seeking an “environmental” party think of the Green Party. However when they seek out the information they get hits from the Green Party and the Greens.
They use the same strategy spyware, viruses and trojans use to infect your computer strangely enough. Often people get infections when they seek out honest anti-virus software, but when they look. The bogus programs get picked instead because they ahve similar sounding names, and make even better, stronger claims.
The goal is to co-opt a bit of the grassroots efforts people are making for the Green Party and re-direct it to their Naderite goals.
.
This struggle of course makes it harder for The Green Party to grow. Which is all the Nadirites want really. It’s a sort of revenge.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Feb 5, 2006 at 6:06 PM Who wants to rally behind someone who calls them “pieces of shit”? Are you really working for Nader, Naiderraider?
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 6, 2006 at 4:09 AM You know it makes me cringe when I hear either Democrats or Republicans talk about democracy when this country is basiclly a two party system. No third party candidate really stands a chance unless he or she is seriously bankrolled by some institution or person(s).
At this point I can no longer deal with the constant finger pointing and name calling. GROW UP! You’re not interested in the will of the people unless the people are willing to go along with your special interests.
I wish we had a parlimentary system in this country. At least then, the smaller parties could have some sort of voice.
You wanna know what would be even more fun? Let’s have “Question Time.” You know, like they have in the UK. Could you imagine Condi, Hillary or Bushie (Gosh those sound like bad Prep School names!), standing before parliment trying to explain domestic spying, or where vast sums of money have disappeared for the Iraqi reconstruction?
God, I’d pay my cable bill on a timely basis to watch that!
Posted by christo on Feb 6, 2006 at 3:26 PM Mirmir,
I would like a couple to add to your list:
*Term limits for congress. (Good! We can’t just vote them out — incumbancy rules!)
*A no-exemption draft. Every able-bodied person’s name gets put in the pot.
(OK, but we old guys want plenty of latrine breaks and, “Take ten, expect five, and get two — Take your Meds, if you got’em.”)PLUS…
*Congressional pay based on the median U.S. income. (Same for retirement — NO defined benefit plans, just 401(k) with no copay.)
* No person previously elected to congress may become a lobbyist. (Go look for a real job like everyone else must.)
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 6, 2006 at 4:02 PM CHRISTO
I agree a parliamentary system would be better….... albeit with a condition that to be represented requires a certain minimum % of the vote. In places where that wasn’t a condition, constant deadlock was the rule, and small extremist parties had all the power (Israel is a good example.)
The German model is best. A party must get at least 5% of the vote to get seats in Gov’t. In such a situation, the Greens were able to get seats.
THE OTHER PROBLEM - and no one seems to catch it is our FEDERALIST SYSTEM.
In the beginning it made sense. We had no mega-states like CA, TX, NY, IL, FL.
As time went on, this country has spawned several states that would rank in the top 10 of world nations in most measurements.
Yet these states, which are often the most progressive (except for TX) constantly have the wings clipped, and ideas disallowed by states like Montana, Wyoming, New Hampshire, North and South Dakota. States that don’t even have a million people (except NH) Wyoming and the Dakotas have people than San Francisco. Yet they count for 6 senators and 3 Reps at the federal level. San Francisco gets no Senators and only represented in the house.
In fact this imbalance is across the board. PROLIB power rests in the cities. Yet cities aren’t represented in the federal gov’t. directly, but through the state apportionment.
Rural, small town and miniscule populations that count for a tiny fraction of people benefit tremendously from this system.
If this could be changed, and make our federal representation reflect the actual population, then you’d see a dramatic change in our Gov’t. We’d become less conservative for sure, as cities currently without any voice in the Fed. Gov’t. would get what they deserved.
Honestly the idea that Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Montana and Alaska have so much power it almost makes the rest of the nation subject to their dictates.
If that sounds absurd. Think of Ted Stevens in the Senate from Alaska. Few things get done without his tacit approval.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Feb 6, 2006 at 4:58 PM MIRMIR: While I understand and respect your ideas. These feel-good, hit ‘em where it counts revenge type goals would only make all the problems worse.
............As we have seen in CA, term limits have resulted in a legislatures unable to do their job well. Being a representative is NOT an easy job. It takes experience. Yet for some reason people think it’s a learn as you go type thing. It is not. The reasons incumbants stay in power is because PEOPLE LIKE THEM. Also people only seem to dislike incumbants from OTHER PEOPLE’S districts. It’s never their incumbant that is the problem.
............As far as the Draft, in principal I agree, but not enthusiastically. The one good thing about this war is the people being sent to fight it are by and large Repugnican types who believe in war. Over 70% of them Voted for Bush. They believe in him. This is the first war where the “true-believers” in the President were also the ones sent to do the fighting. In a universal draft, we’d get Vietam all over again with the “true-believers” like Cheney finding ways to avoid fighting for what they believe.
.........As far as congressional pay, Do really think paying Congresspeople less money make them LESS likely to listen to and follow special interests? Do you really think payiing so little to a member of a national legislature for the largest economy in the world is a good idea? Why people feel legislatures should be so willing to work for so little and STILL CARE is beyond me. You get what you pay for. Texas is a great example. We have one of the most crooked, inane legislatures in the nation. It’s part-time, and the pay is less than $10000/yr. It rarely writes laws instead leaving them for lobbiests. The members are about as ignorant on legal issues as a person can get.
ON YOUR LAST POINT I AGREE 100% No former member of any Gov’t should be allowed to become a lobbyiest. I would extend that to anyone holding a high-level Gov’t. job or who worked for the military.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Feb 6, 2006 at 5:10 PM johnnyincentx…
I think you’ve gotten my post cofused with that of whattheheck, although I think WTH’s two additions have a lot of merit. He also seems to understand very well why I’m pushing the two items that I consider essential.
I don’t understand your comment “...feel good, hit ‘em where it counts, revenge type goals…” I’m aiming for good government, nothing more. There’s no “feel good” or “hit ‘em where it counts” or “revenge” about it.whattheheck…
I ought to have made it clear. I would want any draft to have age parameters. I’d think 18-35 would be OK although the upper limit is certainly debatable, say 18-30. When I say no-exemption I’m thinking about denying exemptions for those who attend college, who enroll in the Guard, who are married, who are members of Congress, etc. ( You bet I want to see members of Congress drafted along with everyone else). The age limit wouldn’t be discriminatory, in my mind. Every able bodied person within the specified age group would be subject to the draft.
Posted by mirmir on Feb 6, 2006 at 5:54 PM Mirmir: you’re right I got them confused.
Judging from the tone of your posts, I’d say that description doesn’t apply to you, but it does fit whattheheck. LOL
So why are you pushing them? To you it must seem obvious, but to me it isn’t.
This is what I’ve seen.
In reality term limits empower lobbiests.
Virtually NO new politician comes with experience working the machinery of Gov’t - just ideas. .
With term limits ONLY the lobbiests are “veterans” of the scene.
ONLY the lobbiests understand the arcana that makes government function.
As a result when you have term limits, lobbiests become all powerful.
For some reason people think being a politician is a cakewalk job full of golfing and dinners. It’s hard, complex work. Why would anyone think running institutions that would rank among the top 500 companies if measured by spending would be something simple is beyond me.
As far as the draft. I get it. What you want is an egalitarian system. Hey if that can be done great. However it would be the first time in this nation’s history that it happened. The odds are overwhelmingly against it when yo uconsider the people that would have to vote for it our legislatures would not.
Finally Incumbants are ONLY a PROBLEM for OTHER DISTRICTS.
People rarely object to their OWN long term representative.
Can you name more than a handful of instances where people rebelled against THEIR OWN representative for staying in Gov’t. too long.
Even many the “term limit” candidates that ran several years ago, have stayed beyond their limits. And you know what their constituants did? They elected them again and again and again. LOL
Posted by johnnyincentx on Feb 6, 2006 at 6:12 PM “People rarely object to their OWN long term representative.
Can you name more than a handful of instances where people rebelled against THEIR OWN representative for staying in Gov’t. too long.
Even many the “term limit” candidates that ran several years ago, have stayed beyond their limits. And you know what their constituants did? They elected them again and again and again. LOL”
Exactly. That IS the problem.
If lobbyists are so great, why don’t we do away with Congress entirely? Let the lobbyists do it.
Have you been keeping up with the Jack Abramoff scandal? Do you understand what “earmark” means?
How much experience did our very first Congressmen have? Have you read accounts of Madison’s (first termer) record in Congress? How much experience (as president) do our presidents have? Don’t we put a man with no previous experience as president in office at least every eight years? Is it easier to be president than congressman?
Posted by mirmir on Feb 6, 2006 at 7:13 PM MirMir
Well as long as you see the fact that people never blame their own representative as part of the problem - cool! LOL
Well, as long as you are clear. LOL
I NEVER said or inferred lobbiests were great. I said term limits make them the only people around with detailed knowledge. Knowledge is power, especially with newbies who know very little in comparison.
Yes, I’ve kept up with JA. Was the insult intentional? Do you always assume someone who has a different opinion is ignorant and stupid? LOL
Our first congressmen were very experienced relative to the typical candidate today.
However their world was so different, that trying to draw an analogy from then to now is nonsensicle.
I mean should we look back at the constitution as it was written back then and declare our present amended constitution wrong?
That may have been their first time as legislatures in an OFFICIAL NATIONAL congress, but almost all of them had extensive, long-time experience in Gov’t. at various levels. They were NOT new to Gov’t.
Also they were the BEST educated men of the day, drawn from th elite.
To believe that they were just commoners with little or no experience is to believe myth and legend.
Hamilton and Jefferson had some of the best political minds the world has ever produced. Franklin is viewed as a genius of the times. Washington a gifted, trancendent leader. Go down the list of those who founded our nation, and the story is similar
Since there was NO prior legislature, there was no way for them to be incumbents.
HOWEVER, they WROTE the rules, they started out with a familarity that no member of a following congress could have
They have to be measured by a different rule, “relavant experience.” in order to even begin to compare those greats to our present politicians.
Measured that way THEY WERE THE MOST EXPERIENCED, AND HIGHEST QUALIFIED individuals to hold office that this nation could produce.
Today’s candidates rarely hold a candle to those men. who lived those times and gave birth to the concepts that created this nation.
Such intimacy in effect give them the “experience of a long time incumbant” without ever having served a year in a national legislature.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Feb 6, 2006 at 7:50 PM johnnyincentx…
Yes, to me anyone who can’t see the necessity for term limits is either uninformed or stupid.
Theoretically there is no reason why we can’t have people in today’s Congress equal in intelligence and experience to those men in the very first congress. There are many, many more people to choose from, many far better educated than the first congressmen. People who have the entire 200 years plus of experience with the Constitution and the functioning government to draw upon. The problem is that the general public is so ignorant they don’t make Congress attractive to gifted and honorable people nor do they often select them when they have a chance.
Posted by mirmir on Feb 6, 2006 at 8:26 PM Mirmir
Relative to the “WORLD they lived” I would disagree with your feeling there is no reason why we can’t have people in today’s congress equal to those in the first.
They created the government. That’s a huge advantage. They MADE the rules.
Exactly how are you defining “far better educated” anyway?
We have extremely few men who are as worldy as those guys were. Yes we have many talented, gifted people, but often they are specialists, good at their specialty.
The Forefathers were almost all generalists, and good at everything. Ben was a practicing scientist as well as a politician. All of them were business-men farmers, equivalent to running a multi-million $ corporation in today’s terms.
The worst types of analogies are absolute. Ones that assume everything is equal always. One has to be relative and take into account the circumstances and conditions.
I AGREE the public is not doing it’s part, What I’d like to know is how paying people less money, far less than they’d earn in the business world would help make congress an attractive duty and get honerable people to serve?
I know you didn’t suggest a cut in pay, however many people do. You say you understand those arguments better, so I thought I’d ask you?
Posted by johnnyincentx on Feb 6, 2006 at 9:22 PM About representatives. I tip-toed through a board I used to spend time on to get this address, and had to force myself to not start reading the posts on economics.
I think this guy has a great idea:
<u>Here is an excerpt</u>:
Our House of Representatives, however, is defined in the United States Constitution to be composed of Representatives elected in uniform districts of as few as thirty thousand people. The bond between the representative and the people gained by such close proximity is the means by which the common people are protected from the encroachments on freedom and liberty that have ever manifested themselves when adequate representation is absent. Smaller constituency sizes provide a proper mechanism for the two way flow of information necessary to protect the society from the aristocratic and autocratic encroachments of big government.
With communications, computers, and teleconferences, representatives can divide the monumental labor of researching and teaching/learning about issues amongst a large enough group to actually make many parties palatable and economically efficient and to deal with complex issues in all their complexity.
I don’t think it would answer everyone’s prayers, and I don’t think this is a pressing priority right now, but I think that it is an idea worthy of being kicked around the net for a while. Who knows what will catch on?
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 7, 2006 at 6:00 AM Point of information, WTH, there was no filibuster over Alito. 25 Democratic senators and all the Republican senators voted for cloture. Then Alito was voted in, so his wife will have to find something else to cry about. Perhaps she could be a comfort to Mrs. Lay.
Oh, the trials and tribulations.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 7, 2006 at 6:25 AM WileyWitch: I had the same question.
Exactly what did the Dems. gain by capitulating?
Was it an ass backwards attempt to preserve the right to fillabuster by NOT employing it? LOL
This generation of Dem leadership born in the days when Dems were in control needs to leave office FAST. They simply are not able to fight as underdogs/minorities. They use the tactics of a majority power long in power, and that don’t work when you’re in the Dem. position.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Feb 7, 2006 at 4:25 PM Johnnyincentx, I noticed Byrd voted for cloture and for Alito. Maybe he’s senile, but it makes me wonder if maybe Alito isn’t the demon he might appear to be.
The whole system is corrupt and I would like to see the campaigns go completely public and low budget. No spin doctors. No PR companies. No make-up artists. Questions. Lots and lots of serious questions.
I think the progressive democrats are alright, but—-as Major Major has said, they’re running so fast they don’t see that noone is behind them. We need a few more parties.
I’m totally rooting for Patrick Fitzgerald, btw. It’s time for some prosecution.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 7, 2006 at 7:48 PM Wileywitch:
I noticed that too.
However I can’t help but wonder if hoping Alito isn’t Scalito isn’t the same as hoping that Bush being a closet homosexual will make him push moderate, open, accepting social policies. So far it’s been the opposite. Like a typical closet case, he pushes policies of social oppression to ensure his supporters do NOT suspect his true nature. LOL
I DO HOPE you are right though. However the one opinion where Roberts sat in judgment on in the SC he signed without comment Scalia’s interpretation. YIKES
Personally I guess it’s a good thing. Women in this nation are the ones with the most to lose. Affirmative Action was a woman’s program, but our side never told them or sold it as that. WE let the other side sell it as a 100% employment program for ex-con black men without qualifications over white men with doctorates. LOL
Because we didn’t speak up and correct the lies, the lies have sunk their roots extremely deep, too deep to be uprooted other than by major upheaval.
Perhaps that is the reason the ProLibs didn’t fight. There is no point. All “moderating” influences they’ve had on the radical changes sought by the FRight wing have resulted in OUR side becoming complacent.
Hey why bother becoming active and involved in order to regain the Senate and House if we can stop the tidal wave of change with 44 senators and no control in the house?
In a way it’s a tried and true strategy. The most extreme example was the suspected Roosevelt Decision to let the Japs bomb Pearl Harbor in order to swing public opinion in favor of fighting with the UK to stop the Nazi horror. We may not be facing a miliary threat, but we are facing a social enemy just as dangerous in the FRight wing social agenda and the Neocons. ;)
Posted by johnnyincentx on Feb 7, 2006 at 8:31 PM I believe that what I said was that the progressives were running so far ahead of the pack that no one realized that no one was following them. That is to say, they lost touch with their base, which is the Democrats, who were fighting a protracted rearguard skirmish with the Republicans over the backlash vote: white, Southern male working-class voters. The Southern strategy is essential to the Republicans who understand that the social tide is shifting from Northern urban industrial regions to Southern suburban and rural, and traditionally non-unionized, agricultural regions, where much of the current industrial migration occurs (when it’s not migrating overseas). Progressive cutbacks in the production of petroleum will only serve to accelerate the migration and intensify the polarization.
Posted by Major Major on Feb 8, 2006 at 6:06 AM I can’t see the aristocracy ending abortion on demand. I could be wrong, but I think the administration is stringing the wing-nut peanut gallery along. I don’t know what I think of Affirmative Action. It seems like a sad compromise.
If Russia and China can’t put a cork in this government, what are we peasants going to do? Do what you can. Stay strong. If this administration doesn’t take the whole world with them, it will fall. We will pick up the pieces and move on.
If we nuke Iran…whoo…we think things are crazy now. Mercy.
I don’t think Bush is doing anything. I refer to the administration because I am convinced that the people in power are the neocons behind the scenes. They seem to be standing on shaky ground right now. Get the rope.
I’m not quite following what you’re saying in those last two paragraphs, johnny. Brain tired. Catch ya later.
Not to be pedanitc johhnny, but—-please—-the Japanese.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 8, 2006 at 6:14 AM I had no intention of making that whole paragraph bold. That’s obnoxious.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 8, 2006 at 6:16 AM Thanks for the correction, MM. Wish I had more time. I’ll get back to this later. Shifting demographics, political landscapes, and their relationship with petroleum and its cost is very interesting.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 8, 2006 at 6:21 AM Wiley:
OK
“hey why bother becoming active and involved” refers to the everyday ProLib, who feels safe and secure that Bush simply cannot succed because even controlling all branches of Gov’t. the Dems have been able to prevent the worst.
This small comfort is enough to prevent the mobilization and reaction necessary from ProLibs to force back the FRight wing religious reactionaries.
Perhaps the remaining Dem. leadership has realized their efforts to head off ultimate Repug. victory on the Supreme Court has acted like novacaine on their ProLib base. Their efforts to hold off the Repug victory in order to allow their side to mobilize has instead done the opposite.
This was the case before the attack on Pearl Harbor. US public opinion which was 100% opposed to entering WWII despite knowing full well how bad the nazis were. We felt that no matter how bad it might get, we were safe from the worst. So why make such a sacrifice?
Only when it was made starkly clear that YES they will be coming for the USA sooner or later, did American public opinion swing decisively in favor of entering WWII and fighting against the Nazis.
Thus Roosevelt did nothing when he was told about the Japanese plans for a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. If he prevented it, he would further encourage the US public’s belief it was safe from the dangers presented by WWII.
Only by allowing the attack could he rally the American people to join the fight against the Nazis.
This reasoning could explain the rationale for the ongoing and ever increasing capitulation of the last bastion of actual power the Dems. have in the Senate.
They could fight back but why? If they do, ProLibs will continue to feel safe enough that they will not mobilize and fight like they need to to prevent the Bush dream from becoming reality :)
To stop that nightmare from becoming real now requires total mobilization of the ProLibs. The only thing that can do that is something like losing the right to abortion or the abrogation of civil rights laws. People think that’s impossible, but it’s been close several times in the last few years, and yes you guessed it. What stopped those things from happening was the Dem. Senators. Maybe next time they won’t do anything.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Feb 8, 2006 at 6:44 AM Hey, johnny, there is fun to be had on the 9/11 thread.
I see the house of cards going down with overstretch alone. You run out of silver, you lose the war. You can only get so much blood out of a turnip, and these guys pay way to much for their shoddy equipment and private armies. They aren’t even smart shoppers.
That’s a lot of cliches, I know, but doesn’t that sound par for the course? They just don’t get it. The comic book, mad-cap villians are, by their very nature, unsustainable. Nothing will ever change that. Sooner or later, they’ll quit, get locked up, kill themselves, die of natural causes, or be killed.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 8, 2006 at 9:14 AM So you’re saying that Roosevelt provoked the Japanese to attack the Americans at Pearl Harbor (which he did by cutting off their access to oil in Southeast Asia) in order to swing American opinion to support the war in Europe, just as Bush provoked Al Queda to attack the Pentagon and World Trade Center (“carpet of gold or carpet of bombs”) in order to swing American opinion to support the war in Iraq. In order to mitigate the approaching impact of peak oil, or, in any case, to forestall its occurrence through military and political destabilization throughout the Middle East?
Posted by Major Major on Feb 8, 2006 at 7:00 PM A lot of people woudn’t touch that post with a ten foot pole, Major Major. I would say that Bush stood on his mark and took his ques and responded with the speech that was written for him, and only knew what little the perpetrators of the 9/11 conspiracy would tell him.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 8, 2006 at 8:33 PM Major Major:
NO I AM NOT SAYING THAT - However you are trying very hard to restate what I DID say or infer. LOL
I implied that Roosevelt had “prior knowledge” perhaps only a day, but probably had prior knowledge to expect “some sort of “surprise” attack.
Knowing that does NOT mean he knew the extent of the attack, or what the Japanese were capable of doing.
I bet anything that Roosevelt underestimated what they’d do, and he was surprised by what they were able to do.
That would easily explain why he didn’t do more to limit the incredible damage that occurred, by dispersing some of the ships, or limiting the casualties. The Japanese were able to because almost all the ships were conveniently located in a small location with one escape route. They also came at us with firepower the USA NEVER imagined it had until then.
It was NOT so nefarious as it seemed.
The USA was NOT prepared for war in any sense. The US public was outright opposed to making preparations too. Until Pearl Harbor Roosevelt’s hands were kind of tied.
Another factor also was important. IF the USA did know, it knew because we had broken the Japanese secret codes. To prepare in any way would tip off the Japanese that their security was compromised.
Still I’m sure if Roosevelt had known exactly what they were capable of doing, he’d have limited the damage to just enough to convince the Japanese they succeeded. What happened was far more than necessary to do that.
PROVOKE - I didn’t say or infer that. Having prior knowledge does not equal or imply there was any effort on Roosevelt’s part to make the Japanese attack.
Why Japan attacked is explained EASILY enough without reaching for “conpiratorial” type situations.
Just because ROOSEVELT MAY HAVE KNOWN does NOT mean he knew EVERYTHING or a lot, or any real details. I doubt if he did, that he would have allowed such a setback.
I am saying he had prior knowledge to expect some sort of Attack.
American Intelligence is NEVER perfect. To speak in absolute terms is to set out to make mistakes. Considering how faulty our present intelligence is with all our advanced technology, I’m surprised they were able to known that little.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Feb 8, 2006 at 9:31 PM Major Major: In regards to Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor and how it relates to Bush and 9/11, I don’t see any corrolation.
The success of the 9/11 attacks were a result of extreme hubris on the parts of many, particularly Bush, but not only him.
He disregarded intelligence that strongly indicated there might be an attack, but it wasn’t irrefutable.
The world is quite capable of creating and sustaining people with ideas that ARE NOT tied in any way to things going on here, and are NOT planned or dictated by our Gov’t.
In a way the whole idea that the USA is behind every conspiracy is another form of hubris. To actually be that, the USA would be omnipotent in all ways that count.
If it were so powerful, it would have little need for disguise or subterfuge.
Bush did use 9/11 to further his domestic social agenda and squeltch domestic opposition to ANYTHING he did domestically. He used the response to 9/11 as a diversion to hide behind while he has radically re-worked the expectations and abilities of the Federal Gov’t, and has been able to balloon the deficits with little opposition because NO ONE especially Repugs wanting to cause distractions to our Imperious leader while he faught the war against terrorism to protect us all. (yeah uh huh)
Pretty underhanded behavior for a person that says he’s a born-again, compassionate convervative out to make everyone’s life better.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Feb 8, 2006 at 9:40 PM Goodness gracious. I haven’t seen so many capitalized letters since tina1 last graced us with her dubious presence.
You clearly implied that the Roosevelt administration had advance knowledge of an impending attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. I merely took the extra step and assumed that his administration passively provoked the Japanese to attack. It’s a reasonable assumption, given the long history of American provocation and retaliation in its continental march from New England to the West Coast, and beyond. Remember the Alamo? Or the Maine? Or the Tonkin Gulf? Or April Glaspie’s diplomatic absence of opinion with respect to Hussein’s incursion into Kuwait? Whether it’s a “conspiracy” or simply sound foreign policy is beside the point. Our leaders will take whatever steps they think necessary to achieve their objectives.
Posted by Major Major on Feb 8, 2006 at 10:44 PM Major Major
You need to start reading more carefully. MY FIRST mention of Roosevelt was prefaced with “SUSPECTED.”
From then on I saw no need to constantly insert this, and spoke from the point of view that it was true.
Your “inferring” various meaing from what I wrote, does NOT mean nor is it proof that I actually “implied” what you “inferred. LOL
You have the right to interpret what I write in any way you see fit, but I am the ultimate authority when it comes to interpretation.
In civilized discourse it’s proper and expected that a person does NOT lie unless there is a motivation.To assume otherwise is to pathologically suspicious - paranoid to put it simply.
I am not responsible for your assumptions. I am only responsible for what I said and implied. YOU make this clear when YOU say you decided to take the “extra step and assume.” From that point on, you were responsible for any theorizing based on your faulty assumptions as to what I meant.
The fact that your “assumption and extra steps” do not match up with what I really implied does not mean you are right and I am lying. And that’s what it would have to mean to take your view seriously LOL
Now if you want to insist you know better about what I meant than I did, hey have fun, but you will still be wrong. LOL
Such abstract self-referential, self-justifying reasoning and the debate of it in which nothing can be proved or disproved is pointless really. To speak of it as if it can be proved by a “convincing circumstantial argument” is absurd. :)
But have fun. I’m not going to comment further on what I wrote or inferred. Though I will get a chuckle or two more depending on how much further you take it.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Feb 8, 2006 at 11:04 PM I wasn’t implying that you were implying that I was implying that you were implying anything more than what you actually wrote. In fact, I agree with your general thesis that the Democrats are preferable to the Republicans, but only because our bipolar political structure allows for nothing else. I suppose if I were an affluent member of the middle or upper classes, or a Southern white male member of the working class, I would feel otherwise.
I merely stated my opinion which, based on the predatory history of the US, I regard as reasonable or, as you said, circumstantial. The FRight wing is not restricted to right side of the political spectrum. Our politicians have been terrifying us since the first religious dissidents arrived on our colonial shores to confront their indigenous competitors.
How’s the weather out there in central Texas?
Posted by Major Major on Feb 9, 2006 at 12:07 AM Major Major
Yeah your right, our system seems to dictate a bipolar party set up in government.
Honestly the only real reason why we have a 2-party system is shockingly simple.
Voting rules in the house and I think the Senate require the attainment of a majority for a bill to pass, the speaker to be elected Etc.
This requirement is mirrored in the states, and throughout our system.
Acquiring majority totals is laborious. The only effective way to ensure this is possible regularly is to have two parties.
For a multi-party system to come about, the requirements for obtaining a majority of votes to pass bills, elect house officers, confirm appointments would have to be changed to requiring only a “plurality.”
Under our present system, a third party possessing a rough share of seats and offices under our present system would cause Gov’t. to come to a screeching halt. almost all the time, because the vote would constantly be divided roughly 3 ways making a majority impossible.
IF the requirement for passage and electing or approving appointments were reduced to only requiring a plurality, ProLibs and the FRight wing would no longer feel compelled to join with their present partners to rule.
They and the Repugs and Dems. each probably account for ROUGHLY 15-35% of voters in this country.
This wouldn’t result in bills being passed by small amounts like 15% or 25%, because Dems and the ProLibs and the Repugs and the FRight wingers would still maintain many elements of their present relationship.
More likely we’d see bills passing by say 40 votes instead of the present requirement of 51.
For those might not be sure what a plurality is, a “plurality of the vote” means getting the largest share or biggest % of the vote - this does NOT mean a majority - UNLESS there are just 2 parties.
Strangely winning the presidential election only requires a plurality. Hmmmm
I doubt if our founding fathers wanted or envisioned a 2-party political system. It’s not enshrined anywhere.
Ironically, it’s an outgrowth of various efforts to ensure the rights of the minority.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Feb 9, 2006 at 1:54 AM Johnny—-word to the wise—-all caps is screaming, and lol’s throughout a post appear maniacal. It undermines your message.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 9, 2006 at 5:22 AM WILEY - you’re right.
I better figure out how to use those stupid html tags to bold or italisize, i’m usually really good at this stuff, but there is something I’m not getting about this website’s use of them. Then again I haven’t really tried to hard. LOL
Posted by johnnyincentx on Feb 9, 2006 at 5:38 AM </b> bold
</i> italics
<i><b> bold and italics
<u></u> underline
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 9, 2006 at 6:14 AM that didn’t work
<b> and then the <>with /b inside it
<i> and then the <> with /i inside it
<i><b> and then the <><> with the inside most first—-/b and then the outermost /i
why the underline worked? dunno
and <blockquote> and then <>with /blockquote inside it
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 9, 2006 at 6:18 AM PROOF THE RUSSIANS ARE OUR FRIENDS :) courtesy of Pravda
A funny joke about Bush
A man enters a bar and orders a drink. The bar has a robot bartender. The robot serves him a perfectly prepared cocktail, and then asks him, “What’s your IQ?” The man replies “150” and the robot proceeds to make conversation about global warming factors, quantum physics and spirituality, biomimicry, environmental interconnectedness, string theory, nano-technology, and sexual proclivities.
The customer is very impressed and thinks, “This is really cool.” He decides to test the robot. He walks out of the bar, turns around, and comes back in for another drink. Again, the robot serves him the perfectly prepared drink and asks him, “What’s your IQ?” The man responds, “about a 100.” Immediately the robot starts talking, but this time, about football, NASCAR, baseball, cars, beer, guns, and breasts.
Really impressed, the man leaves the bar and decides to give the robot one more test. He heads out and returns, the robot serves him and asks, “What’s your IQ?” The man replies, “Er, 50, I think.”
And the robot says… real slowly… “So…............ ya ... gonna ... vote . for . Bush .. again???”
Tired of trying to get “news” from our media, the unnofficial propaganda arm for the Bush regime, try going here for proof our once enemy is now our friend. ;-)
http://english.pravda.ru/
Posted by johnnyincentx on Feb 11, 2006 at 5:43 PM i just think barney frank is firmly stuck in a false paradigm if he thinks america was ever in afghanistan or iraq to create democracy. unless he feels that democracy and murder for the profit of the state terrorist power-elite now are inextricable. still can he really believe that armed occupation creates freedom? then he must be feeble-minded. it is sad that this is what in these times propagates.
america abandons whomever cannot be extorted or murdered for profit. and the democrats have implicitly condoned murder and extortion rape and plunder.doug shaeffer
Posted by dougshaeffer on Feb 14, 2006 at 8:59 PM i wonder when barney frank will come forth as the opportunist he’s been all along. first he was one of kevin white’s bag men…then an anti-contra aid guy, then a dukakis guy, then a clintonista. in between he makes roll-call votes with a strong pro-israel posture.
barney, get a life.
Posted by jeffmc on Feb 21, 2006 at 6:52 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Rep. Barney Frank
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
