I thought this was an interesting view on politics

In reply to aircooled:

Although many of us know the Senate has a 59/41 split in the Democrats’ favor, it’s not specified in the article which supports my thesis…the media has a strong tendency to identify political affiliation in R/N & D/P cases and omit it in R/P & D/N cases.

So, the article says “the Senate is bad” because the split is 59/41…if it were 41/59 we’d be hearing that “the Republican Senate is bad”

To some modest extent, I commend the factions on the left for recognizing that we have a huge problem but ultimately it reads like somebody trying to plea bargain after the DA had amassed wildly incriminating evidence against them…um, a little late for that.

Dr. Hess wrote: because he is a socialist who uses the Constitution as toilet paper

My personal issue is with statements like this, which are no better than so many of the left-wing ranters who argued the same about GW Bush in the years after 9/11. This is where you come across as some whining, right-wing hick, when you are obviously not, regardless of where you were born. It just sounds ignorant.

While the idea of voting out all of the current incumbents has some merit, it is debatable how much good it would do... I'm not sure the intended result would occur... but on the other hand, the entertainment potential is high.

aircooled wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: ...The systematic bias favoring the left started long before the graph was presented…in fact, it’s present just ten words into the article...

The interview is on MSNBC (extreme left) of a Democratic Senator Evan Bayh (left) about how dysfunctional the Senate is (majority left) and how he says the American people need to vote out the incumbents (which are mostly Democratic at this point). So a left leaning organization is biasing its reporting by reporting that people should vote out the left? It seems like a pretty good example of non-biased (or maybe counter balanced) reporting to me.

Perhaps it is a more correct reading to presume MSNBC viewers are VERY aware of Bayh's party affiliation? But, RxReven does make a valid observation about prevailing tactics on political reporting.

Oh, I fixed your original entry.

Step back...

Read the thread again...

Realize that what is happening in congress is merely a reflection on what is happening in our country right now(and this message board as an extension of that)....

If this kinda bullE36 M3 bickering were to happen at the company I worked for... Most everyone would be sacked and those who provide only accusations and not solutions would be doubly sacked.

Quit whining, the lot of you, and get to damn work. There is money to be made and some E36 M3 to fix.

ignorant wrote: Step back... Read the thread again... Realize that what is happening in congress is merely a reflection on what is happening in our country right now(and this message board as an extension of that).... If this kinda bullE36 M3 bickering were to happen at the company I worked for... Most everyone would be sacked and those who provide only accusations and not solutions would be doubly sacked. Quit whining, the lot of you, and get to damn work. There is money to be made and some E36 M3 to fix.

I've been having similar thoughts myself. Back when Bush was in office, the left was all, "Congress is too partisan! Bush sucks! Waaah!" Now that Obama is in office, the right is all, "Congress is too partisan! Obama sucks! Waaah!"

The hypocrisy that neither side seems to realize is that griping about the other side is EXACTLY the thing that is keeping Congress from getting anything done. Stop griping, all of you, and work on fixing things already. If you're not willing to do that, you are no better than Congress, and thus part of the problem.

iceracer wrote: i have been thinking along this line and some one wrote a similar letter to the editor in my local paper. "Eliminate all political partys. Have every politician run on their merits, not obligation to a political party. and remind them who they work for."

Unfortunately, that will never work. Eliminate the parties and those who agree with each other on most issues will still form affiliations, unofficial groups, or whatever you want to call them in order to transform individual political clout into something much larger. The political party is a necessary and inevitable construct.

JeffHarbert wrote:

ignorant wrote: Step back... Read the thread again... Realize that what is happening in congress is merely a reflection on what is happening in our country right now(and this message board as an extension of that).... If this kinda bullE36 M3 bickering were to happen at the company I worked for... Most everyone would be sacked and those who provide only accusations and not solutions would be doubly sacked. Quit whining, the lot of you, and get to damn work. There is money to be made and some E36 M3 to fix.

I've been having similar thoughts myself. Back when Bush was in office, the left was all, "Congress is too partisan! Bush sucks! Waaah!" Now that Obama is in office, the right is all, "Congress is too partisan! Obama sucks! Waaah!" The hypocrisy that neither side seems to realize is that griping about the other side is EXACTLY the thing that is keeping Congress from getting anything done. Stop griping, all of you, and work on fixing things already. If you're not willing to do that, you are no better than Congress, and thus part of the problem.

Yeah.. I've been thinking along those lines lately.. I've been doing a hell of a lot of growing up fast and it seems like everyone else is regressing.

The two best arguments are. "Bush did it and you said it was OK then... " and.. "He's doing to much." Really? That's politics?

btw.. I still think bush was an idiot, did he ruin everything himself.. No. He wasn't smart enough, but that was his problem(also a benefit). He didn't care what people said and just did it anyways. The latest guy wants to be everyones friend and therefore dosen't get anything done..

Will wrote: ...Eliminate the parties and those who agree with each other on most issues will still form affiliations, unofficial groups....

A prime example of this is if you have ever watched Survivor (and other reality vote out shows I am sure). Silly reality show yes, but also a pretty good psychological experiment. A group of people who know almost nothing about each other but it doesn't take them long at all to create groups in order to create voting blocks. The real interesting psychological aspect is which ones group up.

poopshovel wrote:

Start assigning Congressmen by random selection

I had to read that 3 times before I realized the second word wasn't "assassinating."

That'd work too.

Dr. Hess:

Hear Hear!

Poopshovel (and oddly enough, the initially misunderstood SVreX):

Hear Hear!

Then it bring up the point everyone has forgotten to mention. This is supposed to be a government BY the people. Any of the three of you go run for office. Get the stupid career politicians out, incumbent, democrat, republican alike. Someone asked me in downtown Greenville to sign a petition to allow Ralph Nader on the ballot in the 2008 election. I don't like anything Ralph Nader at all. I signed it without thinking twice. My wife did too, and she's in the same boat. More actual people with completely polar opposite views that are out in the open is what we need.

My problem with Bush is the same as my problem with Obama is that they are both statists, both like government controlled - cradle to grave - type living, just left/right of one another. Now, if you want to be a statist, fine, but say so. Say you're a socialist, say you're for government control of your library books. A little honesty would fix all of this. If people didn't run under parties, and people voted for who they wanted rather than trying to vote for the lesser of two evils, we might have a chance.

Until then, we shall continue down this road, with special interest groups, the smallest whiniest most annoying people in the country calling all of the shots.

Awesome.

I especially like the comments on the total disregard (and in most cases, complete non understanding) of the constitution by Obama (a proclaimed constitutional scholar) Bush, most of the senate and most of congress. This is getting pretty silly. If you are going to want to change it, tell the people what you want to change and why and let them speak. Don't do it behind closed doors. We run this country, not them. Time for them to step out of the way.

Anyway... back to your comments.

I found this interesting, and on the topic of original post: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125391

Larry Elder said: Bayh's goodbye: Here's the real reason -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: February 18, 2010 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., "shocked" President Barack Obama and his party by announcing his plan to retire from the Senate. Appearing on CBS' "The Early Show," Bayh explained: Washington suffers from acute partisanship. Washington doesn't work. It is broken. How noble – a principled position against "divisiveness." Let us honor a good man standing tall against the lack of "bipartisanship." Pass the barf bag. When has Washington, D.C., not been "divisive" under a president pushing unpopular ideas – whether the war in Iraq, the Senate "amnesty" bill, partial privatization of Social Security or Bill Clinton's attempt to allow gays to serve openly in the military? Could it be that the "fed-up" senator feared losing re-election? Don't ask. CBS didn't. The possibility that Bayh faced a tough re-election wasn't even hinted at. But imagine Bayh, who explored a 2008 presidential bid, running for re-election while justifying to skeptical Hoosiers his votes for "stimulus," TARP, the auto bailouts and Obamacare. Is there such a thing as an ethical member of Congress? Find out in Sen. Tom Coburn's "Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders into Insiders" Here's the big underreported story. In a hypothetical race against undeclared candidate Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. – according to a recent Rasmussen poll of likely voters – Bayh was down 3 points. Against another possible opponent, former House Republican John Hostettler, he was only ahead by 3 points. Welcome to the new normal. No Democrat or squishy Republican is safe. By a 2-1 margin, more people call themselves politically conservative than liberal. Self-identified "independents," who outnumber both the Dems and the Republicans, have turned against Obama with a vengeance. This center-right country now realizes it elected a left-winger for president. And voters don't like what they see or what he's doing. Even Bayh, perhaps inadvertently, let on that he believes the "stimulus" failed to stimulate. "If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business," he said, "that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months." Politicians face voters upset with spending, borrowing and an ever-increasing federal government. The Constitution's framers wanted "gridlock," with laws deliberated at length before vote and implementation. Government was never designed for "change" or to "solve problems" – if this means bigger government. Our government was designed to be limited. Democrat Martha Coakley, just two months before the Massachusetts special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, was ahead by 20 points. She lost. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is in deep trouble in Nevada. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., is retiring, as is Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I. In California, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer leads her possible Republican opponent by only 4 or 5 points. In New York, former Sen. Hillary Clinton's Democratic replacement faces stiff opposition. Obama's Illinois seat is up for grabs. Florida's Republican governor/Senate candidate, Charlie Crist, who hugged Obama and supported the bailouts and the "stimulus," is down in the polls against a more conservative Republican. Even Sen. John McCain, 2008's GOP presidential candidate, faces vigorous opposition in his primary against a self-described "consistent" conservative. In Bayh's case, how embarrassing would it be to outspend your opponent ... and lose? Makes it tough for donors to kick in for a presidential run. Why take the chance? If he bows out now, with the traditional media helpfully painting him as a lock for re-election, Bayh can go around the country unshackled. He can make news on his terms – staying visible without having to show up somewhere, vote and create a record that requires defending. To keep up his profile and broaden his base, he could shoot for a gig on Fox. Fox News chief Roger Ailes has probably already sat him down for schnapps. If Obama's popularity continues to erode, Bayh won't be quite as tethered to him. If he stays in the Senate and votes with Obama – as he has so far – how can he criticize? He becomes "part of the problem." If he votes against Obama, he invites the wrath of his party's liberal base (a redundancy). Retired, he can criticize and distance himself from unpopular policies. For now, things look grim. Despite some positive signs, most people feel the economy remains in the tank. Home foreclosures figure to rise, with commercial real estate not far behind. Soon the Bush tax cuts expire, resulting in tax hikes during a weak economy. The spending and borrowing will eventually spark high inflation. The debt and deficit get bigger. If Obama loses in 2012, Bayh becomes better-positioned for a presidential bid. He can say, "I would have done this or that differently." So he pulled the rip cord. Got out on top. He can cool his heels, make some jack and get set for the 2016 campaign – tanned, rested and ready. Better to bow out like Rocky Marciano than Muhammad Ali.

But would the Democratic party (Republican?) party put up the money to get Bayh elected after he effectively called them idiots and they they all should be voted out of office?

The original article seems to indicate he is shooting himself in the foot politically, unless he is planning some sort of independent run (still need money though).

2016 is a long way off. Bayh comes from a family of politicians. He knows how to play the game. I agree that what he says sounds good, but in my book, actions speak louder than words. As he is a politician, it's easy to tell when he's lying: His lips are moving. The O says a lot of good things too. Then he does the opposite.

Looking at losing in '10, Bayh bails. You know what happens to all the political "donations" that a candidate accumulates in their campaign "war chest" over the years they are in office when they quit? They get to keep it.