And the winner is...

ignorant wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Congress has consistently lower approval ratings than the last two presidents and for damn good reasons.

yeah, and now more than ever, lobbyists will count more than me and you... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html?hp ugh.. Sure we elect them.. but I'm only voting for those who disclose funding 100% from now on... This is getting silly.

Yep. They overturned campaign finance reform. We are due for even more of a pay for play government.

Yeah the Prez has veto power but as oldsaw noted it can be overriden by a Congressional vote. So he/she/it is back to being a figurehead and convenient target.

Bully pulpits are a good thing but it comes back to what Congress decides: if Congress doesn't like what's coming from the pulpit it don't get passed. So the sheeple voters jump up and down and scream at the Prez.

My proposal: establish term limits for Congress just like those on the President and abolish the practice of 'bobtailing'.

I agree with term limits for Congress, and also, states used to have the last say in laws brought forth by Congress, and that also needs to be re-established.

What we had as "campaign finance reform" was a complete joke. It was not reform. It was "hide the money from the peasants." Against the law to tell the voters how a representative voted within 60 days of an election. Sure, that's "reform." Until Hess' Law is passed, it will always be The People last.

And ignorant, HAHAHAHA, TOLD YOU. You were foolish to believe The O when he was wanting you to vote for him. Now it is YOUR fault we are so screwed. Next time, remember that you can always tell when a politician is lying. His lips are moving. The O is no smarter or dumber (depending on your viewpoint) than W. He is a much better public speaker. Public speaking does not imply intelligence. Otherwise Angelina Jolie would be the brightest woman in the world.

Now come on Doc, gloating just pits citizen against citizen – don’t play into the divide and conquer strategy that’s working so well for the government - remember the adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

Having said all of that…bhahahahahaha!!!

GET OUT OF MY HEAD JENSENMAN!

I really think the term "politician" is incorrect. I know a dozen paid politicians personally, two are in it to help ten are in it for personal gain/profit/status. The two that are in it to help love my "simplistic" "Representatives should be paid the median income of the state/district/city/hobble they are representing. Their health insurance and retirement come from Social Security and Medicare. They are limited to 8 years of service in one office. Spending caps on election bids. Last but not least, any and all monies from PACs, Lobbies and Corporations do not go to the actual candidate, but rather split between the candidate, his opponent and the body responsible for candidate oversite."

The "retirements" and the end of 2009 brought a theory to mind...

Knowing the economy was in shambles and whichever candidate got elected would get blamed for all sorts of stuff they had little control over and knowing changes could never happen fast enough to please the publc, neither party really wanted to win the election last year and tried their hardest to lose.

The Reps had pretty much conceded to Clinton early on and put up McCain as a plausible candidate but was unlikely to win. The Dems countered by putting up an inexperienced, but well spoken and decent looking black guy, hoping to send moderates over to hte Rep side. The Reps re-countered by adding an insane nut-job from Alaska as the VP, knowing it would send even more moderates back over to the Dems. The Dems had no counter to that and got stuck with the Presidency. To add insult to injury, not only did they win the Presidency, but gained a super-majority in the Senate. On the face, they jumped for joy. In the back rooms, they said, "oh E36 M3... now what are we going to do..."

Meanwhile, the Reps are sitting fat and happy: they can sit back and let the Dems get blamed for everything while rebuilding their support base.

So the Dems spend 2009 making a bunch of unrealistic proposals that they know will get blasted by the Reps, moderate Dems and never get passed... but basically just waiting for an opportunity to get out of this cursed Super-majority they have. The frist step was to get a few guys to retire, at least one in a state where they are likely to be replaced by a Rep. The unexpected coup was MA. The Reps weren't expecting that failure.

So in a year or so, we'll be back to the status quo: lots of bickering and posturing and nothing gets done.

I disagree to a point Ian, I think the Dems were absolutely drooling at the thought they could pass a bunch of their agenda without resistance. And it was the perfect time to run someone like Obama because they could get anyone they wanted elected as long as he sounded good. The Dems were going to win last year no matter what, and having someone that could be controlled and rolled over is exactly what the Dems really in charge wanted.

Personally I think it's funny that W was probably the most liberal Republican ever, and they simply blasted him no matter what. His spending and the projects he supported were very Democrat like, and if it wasn't for Iraq, I think he would have been looked down upon by hardcore Rebubs. The fact that he spoke poorly is what I think most Dems hated about him. He didn't give off that Harvard attitude! He was the Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack.

What we have now if probably the most corrupt, power hungry govt. I've witnessed in my life. I think as history moves along, they'll make Nixon look like a choir boy. I'd like to have a panel that "follows the money" so to speak.

The real problem if we can avoid health care takeover and Cap and Trade is the damage already done to the US dollar. The worst of that I don't believe is hit yet, so inflation is coming.

Dr. Hess wrote: What we had as "campaign finance reform" was a complete joke...

The "funniest" part of the joke, along with term limits is: Guess who has to vote those in?

Yup, the same people is will negatively effect. Guess how likely that is?

It's kind of like going to a bunch of workers in an office and saying "OK, so the proposal is that you will make less money and can only work here for 4 years.... lets take a vote... who says yes?"

I say Random lottery for Senators and Representatives! Almost completely removes parties, and totally eliminates campaign money as well as term limit issues! It would be very difficult to do worse.

It would be very difficult to do worse.

That's the best statement so far!

IMHO I don't think that the founding fathers ever expected that "politician" would become a real job. They wanted to have people that truly cared for the country go to Washington and do their best for the country and then go back to their farm or business. Over time things change though and all we can do is hope for the best. Remember that the Rep. used to be the liberal party and the Dem's were the conservitives. (sorry about the spelling)

The only way that we will ever have a 3rd party is if the sheeple finally smarten up and stop voting for the big 2 and show them that they are sick of their E36 M3! That has to start at the local level.

People vote the most when it counts for the Pres. But, your local elections are far more important. The city council and such have a far larger impact on your life than congress and the Pres. ever have. Yet, less than 50% of regestered votes vote in local elections.

Pres. Regan talked about trickle down economics. But, the political system really works the other way. Start with the locals and work your way UP.

I will now get off of the soap box.

Come on. If Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al. had half the balls that Bush, Cheney and Tom Delay had, they would block Scott Brown from getting into office they way that Al Franken was blocked, then they would push the health care bill through by neutering the blue dog democrats with a Tom Delay style hammer and then just ignore the screams of the astroturfers. Joe Lieberman would not be a problem because not only would he no longer be in office but he would be having financial problems because nobody would hire him or help promote his book after he got booted in the last election thanks to a lack of campaign contributions and a media war against him.

Obama didn't realize that the war against him started before he even took office and never let up. He didn't bring a knife to a gunfight. He brought a knife to a nuclear war, and he didn't even bother to take it out. Now he is already a lame duck at the end of his first term, and all he can do is rant against the same banks that he bailed out earlier this year. The voters gave him a supermajority and he didn't know what to do with it. If Lyndon Johnson were still alive, he cold have told him.

Ya gotta admit that the Republicans know how to get down and dirty in the political arena where the Democrats are still afraid to even get dirty. John Kerry is still walking around with tracks down his back a decade later wondering exactly what kind of truck ran him over and why people are still pointing and laughing at him.

Snowdoggie wrote:

ignorant wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Congress has consistently lower approval ratings than the last two presidents and for damn good reasons.

yeah, and now more than ever, lobbyists will count more than me and you... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html?hp ugh.. Sure we elect them.. but I'm only voting for those who disclose funding 100% from now on... This is getting silly.

Yep. They overturned campaign finance reform. We are due for even more of a pay for play government.

Here's a list that tracks industry contributions to election campaigns going back to 2000:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=A&cycle=2010

A quick obserrvation: the biggest Capitol-whiners who are beatchin' about the SCOTUS ruling have the same party affiliation as those who received the vast majority of contributions over the last ten years.

Snowdoggie wrote: Ya gotta admit that the DEMOCRATS know how to get down and dirty in the political arena where the REPUBLICANS are still afraid to even get dirty. DAN QUAYLE is still walking around with tracks down his back a decade later wondering exactly what kind of truck ran him over and why people are still pointing and laughing at him.

Works both ways. Dems are FAR from being clean players. They've been playin dirty ball as long as anyone else.

Dr. Hess wrote: Public speaking does not imply intelligence. Otherwise Angelina Jolie would be the brightest woman in the world.

Wait, she speaks?

Well, I guess one thing that really annoys me is how GW spent money like it was going out of style and the Reps said nothing... BO spends money and it's the end of the world.

That was my biggest complaint about the wars in Iraq and Afganistan... I would have a lot more respect for GW and Congress had they simply said, "we're going to war. It's going to suck. It's going to be expensive. We're going to have to raise taxes to pay for it." Would I have liked it? Hell no. But that would have been an arguement I could have accepted. Instead, we will end up paying a lot more these wars. I can accept the mistakes in going to war in the first place. E36 M3 happens. Nobody's perfect. There comes a point where you simply have to put your trust in your elected officials and live with the consequences. However, the financial part was more defined and could have been controlled.

The American public whines constantly how they want this and that but are never willing to pay for anything. They cry, "cut taxes! cut taxes" but heaven forbid money gets cut from their favorite program. So we end up with the bloated budget we have now. It's easy to sit at a desk and say we should cut this and cut that, but it's not so easy when you have to look the congressman who sponsored that program in the face and tell him that some of his constituents will be out of a job... "oh... and by they way, I can count on your vote for the next bill, right?" Hmm...

Regardless of how much we or anyone bitches about things, as a whole Americans are basically fat, dumb and happy. There simply are not enough people out there willing to put themselves out in order to make real changes happen. Real change requires sacrifice. Possibly more. Ask yourself - are things bad enough that you are willing to die to change them? If the answer is "yes!" and enough people can agree, then you have yourself a revolution. Until then, we are all just a bunch of blow-hards.

Bobzilla wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: Ya gotta admit that the DEMOCRATS know how to get down and dirty in the political arena where the REPUBLICANS are still afraid to even get dirty. DAN QUAYLE is still walking around with tracks down his back a decade later wondering exactly what kind of truck ran him over and why people are still pointing and laughing at him.

Works both ways. Dems are FAR from being clean players. They've been playin dirty ball as long as anyone else.

Thus my reference to Lyndon Johnson who was the king of all the dirty dealers in the legislature. I'm just saying that Obama might be able to beat the Clinton Machine, but when it comes to getting down and dirty with the big boys, he is amateur.

During the election most McCain supporters went out of their way to point out that Obama had very few years in the Senate and had even less experience drafting bills and getting them out of committee and through the process. They were right. Is it any wonder he can't get anything from Congress now?

oldsaw wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote:

ignorant wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Congress has consistently lower approval ratings than the last two presidents and for damn good reasons.

yeah, and now more than ever, lobbyists will count more than me and you... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html?hp ugh.. Sure we elect them.. but I'm only voting for those who disclose funding 100% from now on... This is getting silly.

Yep. They overturned campaign finance reform. We are due for even more of a pay for play government.

Here's a list that tracks industry contributions to election campaigns going back to 2000: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=A&cycle=2010 A quick obserrvation: the biggest Capitol-whiners who are beatchin' about the SCOTUS ruling have the same party affiliation as those who received the vast majority of contributions over the last ten years.

No surprise there. The best lobbyists hand out money to both parties. As for my party affiliation, I have been registered as both a Democrat, a Republican and an Independent at different times. Most of the Republican Judges here in Dallas were Democrats years ago when the Democrats were more in favor here. They change their affiliations every time the polls change. Texas Governer Rick Perry used to be a Democrat before he was a Republican. So was Ronald Reagan. What's the difference?

Snowdoggie didn't write: Ya gotta admit that the DEMOCRATS know how to get down and dirty in the political arena where the REPUBLICANS are still afraid to even get dirty. DAN QUAYLE is still walking around with tracks down his back a decade later wondering exactly what kind of truck ran him over and why people are still pointing and laughing at him.

Republicans used to make fun of Dan Quayle. His own wife used to make fun of him. He's almost as bad as Joe Biden.

Snowdoggie wrote: During the election most McCain supporters went out of their way to point out that Obama had very few years in the Senate and had even less experience drafting bills and getting them out of committee and through the process. They were right. Is it any wonder he can't get anything from Congress now?

I don't disagree with you there and I had similar concerns before the election. I liked McCain. I think he would have been a good President. I'll admit that I tend to vote the Dem party line, but for 2008 it would have been tough... Hence my comment about Palin. What the hell was the point of her? To get the religious conservative vote? Why? It's not like they were going to vote for BO under any circumstances. All it did was push many fence-stradling moderates away from McCain. My vote wasn't for BO as much as it was to keep Palin as far from the White House as possible. That woman effin' scares me. And the more I read and hear her speak, the more she scares me.

That was the point of my previous post; by putting Palin in as VP, the Reps basically gave the White House to BO, and possibly even the Senate.

Ian F wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: During the election most McCain supporters went out of their way to point out that Obama had very few years in the Senate and had even less experience drafting bills and getting them out of committee and through the process. They were right. Is it any wonder he can't get anything from Congress now?

I don't disagree with you there and I had similar concerns before the election. I liked McCain. I think he would have been a good President. I'll admit that I tend to vote the Dem party line, but for 2008 it would have been tough... Hence my comment about Palin. What the hell was the point of her? To get the religious conservative vote? Why? It's not like they were going to vote for BO under any circumstances. All it did was push many fence-stradling moderates away from McCain. My vote wasn't for BO as much as it was to keep Palin as far from the White House as possible. That woman effin' scares me. And the more I read and hear her speak, the more she scares me. That was the point of my previous post; by putting Palin in as VP, the Reps basically gave the White House to BO, and possibly even the Senate.

Palin was there so you could vote for a woman. She would have never been chosen if Hilary would have won the democratic primary.

I suppose... I guess I don't really think of that anymore... Hell... many would argue that BO is more of a woman than Hillary... Still... if they wanted a woman, couldn't find anyone better? Even Rice would have been a better choice...

Snowdoggie wrote: Come on. If Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al. had half the balls that Bush, Cheney and Tom Delay had, they would block Scott Brown from getting into office they way that Al Franken was blocked,

Uhhh, Franken won in a protracted recount of a squeaker. Seating someone while the votes are being recounted is flaky.

Brown won 52-47. Pretty convincing win.

^ I would have voted for Condy...... I like her personally.

Ian, the media did a super hatchet job on Palin. I am uncertain as to the real SP. I am certain that what was given to us by the media is not it. Just like I knew (as iggy was clueless) that what was promoted as the real BHO by that same media was total BS. So, instead of me saying "Ooooh, is Ian scarrred of the wittle beauty queen?" which I'm tempted to do but won't with extreme restraint, I'll say that I am undecided on SP. It is my opinion, however, that she was placed on the ticket to try to make it not a total landslide for the D's. Remember that even McCain's own party don't like him. He was picked solely to lose, just like they did during Uncle Bill's re-election. Then McCain (and his people) even started sabotaging SP.

Yeah, and Frankin won on what? The 20th recount, with the other guy winning the first 19? Is that how it works? You just keep recounting the votes until the D wins? Not in Brown's case.