Why Congress has become so dysfunctional, discredited
“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”
— Mark Twain
Voters have rarely held Congress in high regard. In fact, over the 38 years in which Gallup has asked the question, only 34 percent of Americans typically say they approve of its performance. These days, however, public disgust has never been deeper. In its most recent poll, Gallup found that just 10 percent of Americans approve of how Congress is operating.
Personally, I don’t know what that 10 percent is thinking, because Congress is by any measure a broken institution. While never a paragon of efficiency, in recent years it has lost the ability to function at almost any level. It produces nothing, it solves nothing, it does nothing. It serves solely as a stage upon which political actors strut and prance.
The question of why has many answers, most of them traceable back to the very beginning, to the days in which the Founding Fathers were designing the structure of government that we still retain today.
Given their ties to Great Britain, it would have been natural for the founders to model the American system after the British parliamentary system they knew so well. They didn’t. Instead, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and their colleagues consciously rejected the parliamentary model, and they did so for very American reasons.
First, they had seen enough to recognize that a parliamentary system was a “winner-take-all” system. The party that controls the majority of votes in a parliamentary system also wins the right to name the prime minister, giving it control of both the legislative and executive branches. Our founders distrusted the untrammeled power that produced, so they built a system that conspired against it.
The founders also understood that under a parliamentary system, voters cast their ballots less for individual lawmakers than for the party they represent. Moreover, once in office, members of Parliament owe more loyalty to their party leaders and platform than to the folks back home who elected them. Those were all evils that Madison, Hamilton and others wanted to minimize, even if they could not avoid them altogether.
As a result, the American system of government diffused authority and undercut party loyalty. Individual politicians could be more independent, able to vote their own conscience and the interests of their own district. And with neither party able to dictate to the other, and with the legislative and executive branches acting as competitors, compromise across party lines would be required to get anything done.
For most of our history, that system functioned more than adequately. So what has changed?
I would argue that over the past two decades, our political parties have gravitated toward a mindset in which elections have been nationalized, party discipline takes precedence over personal conscience and compromise is considered losing. It is in essence a parliamentary mindset, which is precisely what the founding fathers had hoped to discourage. And when you take that parliamentary, winner-take-all mindset and graft it onto a political system designed specifically to frustrate that mindset, you get what we’ve got: No movement.
Put another way, if you take a system that is designed to run on compromise, and you deny it access to compromise, it cannot operate.
Historically speaking, the party most responsible for that transformation is the Republican Party, and the single individual most responsible is Newt Gingrich. That observation is not intended as criticism, because from their point of view it made perfect sense. By the early ’90s, they had served as the minority party for most of the preceding 60 years, and they had grown frustrated. They could and did compromise, thus allowing the system to function, but as they compromised they saw the arc of history bending against them. They saw compromise as a way to lose slowly, and they no longer wanted to play that way.
The result, however, is a system in which two things are true: 1) With no compromise, change can now occur only when one party holds absolute dominance and 2) The pursuit of absolute dominance is hopeless, particularly in a country as evenly divided as this one.
The result, sadly, is a system of governance rapidly losing credibility with its people.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
818 comments Add your comment
getalife
August 28th, 2012
5:35 pm
Both,
I just sip Crown on the rocks.
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
5:36 pm
“I’m just asking a yes or no question. If I missed that, which post was it.”
Why? If you had read my earlier post, you wouldn’t need to ask such a question. What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)? I guess some people here suppose they somehow have me cleverly pegged to the wall when in fact they are failing to reason correctly.
captguitarman
August 28th, 2012
5:39 pm
Excellent piece. Very thoughtful and very well-reasoned. Regardless of the history of how this all came about, which could be debated (but to what end, because we are where we are now, and it doesn’t matter how we got here). The other major reason you didn’t mention is the rampant careerism in Congress that causes so many votes being cast based on how they will impact one’s politcal career rather than what would be best for one’s constituents as a whole, or the nation.
The immediate future is a big concern, largely because what you said is on the button, elections have become national. The Internet, instant communication, transportation, and the 24/7 news cycle are having a definite negaive impact on that old saying, “All politics are local.” Not so much any more. And, as you noted, as a nation, we are evenly divided.
We could have a change in the presidency in November, but the Congress will only move a few feet one way or the other. Then what? More of the same? Will they act — figuratively speaking — only when the amateur astronomer discovers the big asteroid that is well on its way here? We will soon know.
An enormous test is coming after the election – Taxmageddon – plus all kinds of cuts that will hurt the military and tank the economy. The deal, struck last year to continue the budget, will end — and it was purposely filled with negative incentives and dire consequences, in order to ensure that action of some sort would have to be taken to stop it.
Think this Congress — Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, Ryan, et al. will act? Regardless of who wins the presidency, or how many seats are won or lost in Congress, do you think they will act? I personally wouldn’t bet my ranch on it after what we have been seeing. Will they wait until they can see that asteroid coming with the naked eye? I don’t know. This is a perfect opportunity for some hard medicine, which we really need, but it would be administered in a really bad and painful way along with with a recession redux. If Obama gets back in, the Dem/Libs will be desperate to act. Iff Romney comes in, the Pub/Cons may become very coy about signing up for hard medicine. Still and all, they might be tempted to let us take it since they will all be lame ducks when they decide, and as per usual, they can always blame the bad results on the other side.
They BOTH suck
August 28th, 2012
5:39 pm
TC
It is simple. You do not practice what your preach in regards to term limits.
I have no problem with that. I’m sure you are a good dude, but on this issue your thoughts ring hallow.
You are talking a good game, but by your own admission not walking that great at the moment.
ld
August 28th, 2012
5:40 pm
The Tea Party movement is NOT a success story — it was inflitrated by the religious zealots and co-opted by the Republican Party — it is an abysmal failure.
The best chance top dump the extremists in both the Republican Party and the Democrat Party is to find a viable candidate for the Libertarian Party — one that demands individual liberty and equal right under law for all citizens, refuses permit religious dogma of any ilk into law, understands that the massive and ever-widening wealth gap is NOT in our nation’s economic best interest, understands that unless our economy is strong, our national security is not, understands that the appropriate role of the US Department of Defense is to defend our nation — NOT serve as the world’s policement and NOT to serve pork barrell politics to be used a slop trough for the campaign donors and/or war profitteers – and understands that there is a vast difference between, on the one hand, a compassionate nation lending a helping hand to those that cannot help themselves and, on the other hand, a gullible nation supporting the slothful and/or criminal.
When the Libertarian Party candidate makes it clear s/he will work for the security of this nation and the best interest of the vast majority of its citizens rather than just a few cliques, the Libertarian party will become the majority party. The extremist positions, actions and tactics of BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans during the last few decades have made that not only possible but likely.
getalife
August 28th, 2012
5:41 pm
If they abuse the term limit system, amend the system so they can’t run for other offices.
The idea is to serve and go back to your regular jobs.
Paul
August 28th, 2012
5:42 pm
Towncrier
” We identify four schools of thought with respect to the desirability of term limits and conclude that, because people start from different normative perspectives, findings about term-limit effects can be interpreted in very different ways.”
Then go back to your original point at 5:05
Jay: “None of them has experienced the magical powers attributed to term limits by many here.”
Towncrie: “Your first statement sounds factual but the second is kind of hyperbolic and disputable.”
and dispute it from the point that term limits have achieved the results many here state they would.
oldfart
August 28th, 2012
5:44 pm
@Fred – Dueling didn’t work out too well for Button Gwinnett either but those were definite term limits.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
August 28th, 2012
5:44 pm
I guess some people here suppose they somehow have me cleverly pegged to the wall when in fact they are failing to reason correctly.
It’s not that hard to figure out. Georgia is a red state and will continue to have conservative senators that won’t vary in ideology, You want the ability to vote for a steady stream of conservatives, all the while claiming to be for term limits.
The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers
August 28th, 2012
5:47 pm
I love the Beatles, especially “They say you want a revolution”…
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
5:48 pm
“It’s not that hard to figure out. Georgia is a red state and will continue to have conservative senators that won’t vary in ideology, You want the ability to vote for a steady stream of conservatives, all the while claiming to be for term limits.”
You are falsely ascribing motives to me I don’t have. And if you persist after I have told you so, it makes you a false witness. I was for term limits when I lived in Florida for a number of years. It is and has been a conservative position for decades and has been implemented in many states.
Brosephus™
August 28th, 2012
5:49 pm
I must say, I cannot understand why someone who has “purposefully voted against the incumbent” would be against legal term limits.
That’s because I understand that I’m more likely to change the status quo as opposed to expecting those who are drunk with power to kick themselves out of office. If there were enough who acted as I did as opposed to thinking as you, then we really wouldn’t be having this conversation, would we?
My statement was not intended as snark. I’m simply tired of people who talk a good game but disappear when it’s time for the rubber to hit the road. I’ve stated here on this blog numerous times that I grew disenchanted with the Democratic Party long ago. I’ve been looking for a reason to support the GOP. I will not, however, lower myself to support this current “conservative” ideology that runs the GOP. That has left me basically to choose the lesser of the two evils or get very creative with the “write in” slot on the ballot. Many times, I simply choose the write in.
They BOTH suck
August 28th, 2012
5:49 pm
“You want the ability to vote for a steady stream of conservatives, all the while claiming to be for term limits.”
BINGO
We have a winner………………
That is so easy to see, but he just isn’t able to admit the obvious on this issue.
Doggone/GA
August 28th, 2012
5:50 pm
“For those unfamiliar with the procedures, a senator can stop progress on any bill by speaking on and on and on on any topic they choose, unless 60 Senators vote to invoke cloture, there by ending the endless ramble”
Not any more, and it hasn’t been like that for a long time. Now all that’s needed is for a Senator to INDICATE he’s going to filibuster it. They don’t do the “Mr Smith goes to Washington” type filibuster in years.
And then there’s the anonymous “hold” on a bill. That’s all it takes to stop one. For one Senator to anonymously put a “hold” on a bill. And it’s dead in the water.
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
5:52 pm
“It is simple. You do not practice what your preach in regards to term limits.”
Don’t you mean rather that you are either simply failing to reason correctly or you are doggedly pursuing a false charge out of a less than admirable motivation?
“I have no problem with that. I’m sure you are a good dude, but on this issue your thoughts ring hallow.”
This makes me think you are not reasoning correctly.
“You are talking a good game, but by your own admission not walking that great at the moment.”
Good grief.
josef
August 28th, 2012
5:52 pm
PAUL
Yes, I know that’s what you meant by “incompatible,” i.e. Indian White. The reality was that by the time of Tecumseh, these two pre-Columbian civilizations had reached a level of amalgamation into a new civilization in which elements of the two merged with intermarriage not only a factor, but as the mainstream. We tend to view the Southeastern experience through the prism of the Northeastern and Western experience, from which it differed substantially. What we want to call White and Indian, in order to understand the outplay, would best be called Choctaw-United States, etc. The breaking of the treaties, etc. were not so much “white-Indian” but nation vs nation. The United States wanted the Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole nations out of the way. It was all part and parcel of the imperialist policies of the United States of America following the Louisiana Purchase and the rise of the doctrine of Manifest Destiny.
In the North, the westward movement did not encounter nations of equal (or higher) levels of education, economic development and political sophistication. What Tecumseh saw happening there was, indeed, the conflict of the race-based civilizations. There was little or no middle ground between them and they had little in common “on the ground.” In the Southeast, there was that huge middle ground population with a common culture and family ties across national lines. The Southeasterners, essentially, spoke the same language and the Indian nations felt, and probably with justification, that war just wasn’t in the picture, numbers alone making it impractical. Thus they opted for the legal. It may not have been the wisest, but it did give them maneuvring room.
godless heathen
August 28th, 2012
5:52 pm
We didn’t have spending problems until taxes go cut.
Liberal beliefs in a nutshell. Govt can never spend too much money, it can only have too little to spend.
kayaker 71
August 28th, 2012
5:54 pm
Congressional approval rating for the Democratic Congress in 2008….. 14%. And it looks as though Government Motors is suspending production of the Chevy Volt. Whoda’ thunk it!!
Brosephus™
August 28th, 2012
5:54 pm
To me, that’s like saying I own and operate a car that gets 40 miles to a gallon, but I am against any laws requiring a minimum amount of fuel efficiency.
Let’s just think of it as this: Brosephus believes that everyone has the freedom to be whomever or whatever they choose in the US, as long as it’s legal. Per your example, if you wanna get 8 miles to a gallon at $4 a gallon, then that’s your choice to go broke. Your misery won’t bother me at all because that’s the path you decided to take. I didn’t make you choose that route.
As to voting, I can’t understand why anybody with a brain would support either party as opposed to dealing with the individual candidate. It’s assinine, in my opinion, to support and vote for someone just because they have a (D) or (R) behind their name. Nowadays, you can substitute any politician of a party, and they could all give the same speech with the same talking points. They may as well be cyborgs or automatons.
Individuality is no longer expressed, urged, or rewarded in this country. It’s all us vs them whether it’s Black vs White, rich vs poor, Left vs Right, North vs South, or whatever division people want to create. I simply choose to side with the individual.
Soothsayer
August 28th, 2012
5:55 pm
“I’ve studied, admired and gotten to know a lot of leaders in my life. Across Florida, in Washington and around the country, I’ve watched the failure of those who favor extreme rhetoric over sensible compromise, and I’ve seen how those who never lose sight of solutions sow the greatest successes.
“As America prepares to pick our president for the next four years — and as Florida prepares once again to play a decisive role — I’m confident that President Barack Obama is the right leader for our state and the nation. I applaud and share his vision of a future built by a strong and confident middle class in an economy that gives us the opportunity to reap prosperity through hard work and personal responsibility. It is a vision of the future proven right by our history.
“We often remind ourselves to learn the lessons of the past, lest we risk repeating its mistakes. Yet nearly as often, our short-term memory fails us. Many have already forgotten how deep and daunting our shared crisis was in the winter of 2009, as President Obama was inaugurated. It was no ordinary challenge, and the president served as the nation’s calm through a historically turbulent storm.
“The president’s response was swift, smart and farsighted. He kept his compass pointed due north and relentlessly focused on saving jobs, creating more and helping the many who felt trapped beneath the house of cards that had collapsed upon them.
“He knew we had to get people back to work as quickly as possible — but he also knew that the value of a recovery lies in its durability. Short-term healing had to be paired with an economy that would stay healthy over the long run. And he knew that happens best by investing in the right places.
– Former Republican (now Democrat) and Former Governor of Florida, Charlie Crist
They BOTH suck
August 28th, 2012
5:55 pm
TC
Bill Oreilly just canceled you spot on his show. You know the spin stops there
You are spinning like a top.
You are for term limits, yet when asked why you do not impose them now, you became the king of semantics and frankly bs.
So you are not for them, except in a situation that will meet your narrative and ideology.
You can continue to discuss, but I am stepping out of this conversation that is going nowhere.
But do carry on, it is slightly amusing
markie mark
August 28th, 2012
5:57 pm
Historically speaking, the party most responsible for that transformation is the Republican Party, and the single individual most responsible is Newt Gingrich. That observation is not intended as criticism, because from their point of view it made perfect sense. By the early ’90s, they had served as the minority party for most of the preceding 60 years, and they had grown frustrated. They could and did compromise, thus allowing the system to function, but as they compromised they saw the arc of history bending against them. They saw compromise as a way to lose slowly, and they no longer wanted to play that way.
Jay, I cannot tell you how much I agree with you, and have said this for years…..but I also go further. When we stopped bending to the point of bending at all, the Dems never began bending. They ran roughshod over us for so many years, they almost went thru the divorce cycle. Disbelief, then anger, etc. I maintain that I watched the Republicans compromise their beliefs until they just wouldnt anymore. That why so many of us, even with all of his flaws, will always be grateful for Gingrich.
Paul
August 28th, 2012
5:58 pm
josef
Thank you so much for that. Given my growing-up times were in the northeast and southwest, I’ve a better understanding of how those views were shaped and of the great differences that existed in various parts of the continent.
getalife
August 28th, 2012
5:58 pm
I think if they can’t focus on the middle class and jobs, they got to go.
This focus ends the gop party.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
August 28th, 2012
5:59 pm
You are falsely ascribing motives to me I don’t have.
Oh, puh-leeze.
It has been illustrated several times that you already have the power to enforce term limits using your vote, but then you side-step saying that there are social issues that come into play and your priorities change.
Term limits only matter to you when it is someone else’s congress critter.
Paul
August 28th, 2012
5:59 pm
Soothsayer
Whew…. no wonder Republicans didn’t want anything to do with Crist. Same thing we saw with Huntsman.
Brosephus™
August 28th, 2012
6:02 pm
We didn’t have spending problems until taxes go cut.
Liberal beliefs in a nutshell. Govt can never spend too much money, it can only have too little to spend.
Wrong. How else would you explain the tripling of the national debt under Reagan?
As a similar question, can you name a single business/industry where one can purposefully cut their income on a continual basis while servicing an ever expanding customer base, add new products, and not go out of business?
Brosephus™
August 28th, 2012
6:03 pm
When we stopped bending to the point of bending at all, the Dems never began bending. They ran roughshod over us for so many years, they almost went thru the divorce cycle. Disbelief, then anger, etc. I maintain that I watched the Republicans compromise their beliefs until they just wouldnt anymore. That why so many of us, even with all of his flaws, will always be grateful for Gingrich.
Complete and undeniable bullspit!!!
Care to explain why even Democrats are engaging in supply-side economics?
getalife
August 28th, 2012
6:05 pm
Both parties voted for the housing bubble and the economy collapsed.
The gop decided to fight against our recovery for this election.
If you reward that party for this unAmerican and unpatriotic action, you are part of the problem.
pogo
August 28th, 2012
6:09 pm
It is now fun to watch the left try to capitalize every time a storm comes even near to New Orleans. I don’t know why they would do this since their most holy Bill Clinton held up levee improvement in that city when he was in office in the nineties. Besides, people that live in an area 20 feet below sea level should know that soon or later they are going to get flooded. The next time ( and there will be a next time) they get flooded don ‘t spend our hard earned money on a useless cause. The same goes for those that build on the Southeastern Coast, from LA to North Carolina.
And Jay, only time will tell if Obama is the “most popular”. Even if he wins there will 50 percent of this country that cannot stand him and whom don’t consider him their president. And the same goes for Romney. We are a divided nation and because of that, our days are numbered.
Obama is over
August 28th, 2012
6:09 pm
The root of the problem is the corrupt relationship between elected officials and lobbyists. In the private sector, when a talented CEO leaves a company, there is usually a noncompete clause in the severence package. Perhaps similar rules should be put in place for elected officals. A politician leaving office is prohibited from doing business with the governement for X number of years. This might make it more difficult to peddle influence on the Hill. I was an institutional municipal bond trader for many years. It was illegal for me to contribute to political campaigns to avoid the appearance of “pay to play.” It seems that elected officials should operate under the same rules.
josef
August 28th, 2012
6:09 pm
PAUL
Sorry to go off on the per-fesser thingie, but I maintain that fundamental to the inability of the rest of the empire in understanding the Southerner (as well as the Southerners own inability to understand themselves) is the excision of the Indian experience and what role the Indigenous played in the development of that recalcitrant lot who will march to the beat of a different drummer no matter what. We have beat the African-European theme as the source and begin all end all of our civilization without including that “neither” element and, again my own opinion, we completely miss that key to our commonality as a unique culture within Western civilization. Southerners are not European. They are not African. They are not Indigenous American. They are an amalgam of the three. Without looking at all three, the picture is incomplete.
Mama Says
August 28th, 2012
6:10 pm
Jay,
Yet another good reading mid line blog until of course the real reason for our ineffective congress came out.
Our congress is ineffective because both parties have become entrenched in their positions, not because they intellectually connot compromise but because their constituents will not allow it. Review your own blog. Republicans are very well liked here and it shows, the comments are not indicative of compromise, it’s a sparing ring ( and as the underdog I love it ).
I will throw these numbers out and you tell me if our congress isn’t working exactly like it was intended.
First we are fond of saying stuff like 15 % of the electorate came out. The means that 1.5 people out of registered voters turned out, and this would really be considered high.
Second. Of the 310 million people in this country in 2011 only 146.3 million were registered to vote. Now I know that kids can’t vote, plus you add the illegals who live here and thats another 15 million but generally speaking only 1/3 of our resident populace cares enough to even register to vote.
Third. In 2008 about 63% of the electorate voted in the presidential race, that is 6 of 10 registered voters. Independent voters make up about 30% of the electorate. So if ALL independents voted 7 out of 10 voters would still be partisan voters.
All in all the congress reflects us, the people. We are divided so those most passionate are the majority of the voters. If I don’t like democrats then in order to get my vote you better not like democrats, at least that’s the message. Congress IS currently reflecting our will.
Government is not the problem per se. We the people are the problem.
Now Jay here is where I hit you and those of your ilk.
The press is making a killing being and promoting partisanship and every professional reporter and blogger out there doing it just completes the circle. Fox and MSNBC have the power to promote compromise but neither do. In effect we are all in high school watching the fight and we all are waiting for the next blow to be delivered. Problem is that there will be no principal coming in and breaking the fight up. We are on our on, fight to the death.
Congress, by the way its interesting how you left out Reid and his senate from your story, is working fine.
Predatory Lender
August 28th, 2012
6:10 pm
Our Congress and our citizens are polarized. Entitlement programs are killing our nation. Thank you
Something simple as term limits would be a good start, heading our nation back on the right path.
Ol' Timer
August 28th, 2012
6:11 pm
Trickle down hasn’t worked for thirty years, but it’s still the Republican Plan. Taxes, as a percentage of GDP are at a 60 year low and reducing taxes is still the strategy — and removing regulations so the Titans of Business, Industry and Finance can pillange our economy and environment by placing a stranglehold on the govenrment.
A quick look at the Republican Platform looks like a trip back to the GIlded Age.
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
6:13 pm
“Then go back to your original point at 5:05
Jay: “None of them has experienced the magical powers attributed to term limits by many here.”
Towncrier: “Your first statement sounds factual but the second is kind of hyperbolic and disputable.”
and dispute it from the point that term limits have achieved the results many here state they would.
That’s easy. Want me to conduct a search for legislative bills promising “magical” results? Or do you want me to show how the injection of such a value laden adjective reveals bias? But here is a document that claims that term limits have clearly had positive effects. I am sure, on the basis of the summary I posted earlier, that more can be found. I am not saying laws don’t need to be tweaked (but that is often the case).
As to the two studies Jay actually cites, the biggest finding seems to be that once people get into government, they don’t want to get out. I wonder why that is now the case when it wasn’t for George Washington? I would submit that says more about the corrupting or enticing nature of the benefits one gets while in office than anything else. If so, that perhaps can be addressed in law as well.
Paul
August 28th, 2012
6:13 pm
josef
“Sorry to go off on the per-fesser thingie,”
Never a need to apologize. I’l take new information and insights wherever I can get it, in whatever style it comes.
Paul
August 28th, 2012
6:15 pm
Towncrier
That really, really comes across as diversion.
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
6:16 pm
“As to voting, I can’t understand why anybody with a brain would support either party as opposed to dealing with the individual candidate. It’s assinine, in my opinion, to support and vote for someone just because they have a (D) or (R) behind their name. Nowadays, you can substitute any politician of a party, and they could all give the same speech with the same talking points. They may as well be cyborgs or automatons. ”
I agree totally. I would vote for Zell Miller any day. But, because I am a social conservative, I don’t have many Democratic options (at least at the national level). I don’t consider myself a Republican, as I have said many times. I am a conservative.
Mr_B
August 28th, 2012
6:17 pm
TC: you earlier ask for a liberal justification for opposition to codified term limits. I don’t believe anyone has yet posted a direct response, so I’ll give it a shot.
The liberal psychology is at its base optimistic. We believe that while people are often flawed, they can be generous and noble as well, if given an opportunity. Given that belief, we recognize that it is possible (if unlikely) that a person could theoretically be elected to an office and actually do the business of the people who elected him/ her. [ I know this is a stretch, but stay with me here.] In the unlikely event of such a person being elected, forced term limits would as limit the potential good that person could do for the voters. If on the other hand, said statesperson goes sour, the voters still retain the ability to limit the amount of evil that they can do, without giving up anything at all.
If you buy into the notion that all governance is evil, term limits make perfect sense. Liberals, as a rule, see government as a dull tool to be sharpened, not thrown away.
Soothsayer
August 28th, 2012
6:17 pm
Filled the car up today. Ain’t going nowhere unless absolutely necessary. I learned my lesson a year or so when that hurricane shut the refineries in Texas. Better safe than sorry!
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
6:17 pm
Oops…forgot the link:
http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/sgn0201TermLimits.pdf
TaxPayer
August 28th, 2012
6:18 pm
The RNC was actually able to get a picture of one lone black guy amongst hundreds of whites around him at their conference. I’m surprised they did that well. Then again, he could have been paid to sit there.
josef
August 28th, 2012
6:19 pm
Ol’Timer
“A quick look at the Republican Platform looks like a trip back to the GIlded Age”
Word!
PAUL
Well, I’m not a MAJOR historian…a major hysterian, no doubt!
Jay
August 28th, 2012
6:20 pm
Congress, by the way its interesting how you left out Reid and his senate from your story, is working fine.
No, Mama. It is not working fine. Most of your fellow Americans would disagree with you. It is not working at all.
Furthermore, I went out of my way to stress that while the change could be traced back to Newt — I wrote about his tendency toward a parliamentary mindset even back in the early ’90s — it was not intended as a criticism. He had no evil intent in that case and was merely responding to conditions as he saw them, with repercussions he could not have imagined.
getalife
August 28th, 2012
6:21 pm
The gop voted consistently against the middle class for decades.
If the gop attacked you or vote consistently against you, why in the world would you vote for them?
Are you brainwashed or just a self defeatist?
josef
August 28th, 2012
6:22 pm
TAXI
Just being EOI here, but did they ask the hijab wearers to move out of the shot? The Kenyan Muslim’s handlers did!
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
6:23 pm
“It has been illustrated several times that you already have the power to enforce term limits using your vote, but then you side-step saying that there are social issues that come into play and your priorities change.”
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
We’re done, Thug.
josef
August 28th, 2012
6:23 pm
BIG DADDY
Well, you know Newt is an great fan of the Hapsburg model!
The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers
August 28th, 2012
6:24 pm
TaxPayer
August 28th, 2012
6:18 pm
The RNC was actually able to get a picture of one lone black guy amongst hundreds of whites around him at their conference. I’m surprised they did that well. Then again, he could have been paid to sit there.
Allright! They caught the pickpocket. U really want to play the race card tool?
Brosephus™
August 28th, 2012
6:25 pm
But, because I am a social conservative, I don’t have many Democratic options (at least at the national level).
There’s a 3rd option at times, and there’s also the “write in” slot. I understand that you’re trying to stay true to your conservative beliefs, and I commend you for that.
In my opinion though, that’s something that would limit my freedom, and that’s why I choose not to even categorize myself as believing in any specific ideology. If I limit myself to voting based on ideological beliefs, then I may miss the opportunity to put someone in office that would be the best person to do the job. Voting for someone who believes as I do may make me feel good, but what if my beliefs are causing the problems and not providing the solutions? Do I continue to add to the problem or do I vote to alleviate the problems for everyone?
This is all my opinion though, and my mindset may not mirror many or even a few others anywhere.
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
6:25 pm
“TC: you earlier ask for a liberal justification for opposition to codified term limits. I don’t believe anyone has yet posted a direct response, so I’ll give it a shot.”
Thanks for your effort, MB. For the record, I think the 2 year term for Representatives is a bit crazy. Three or four would be better.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
August 28th, 2012
6:29 pm
We’re done, Thug.
Your concession is noted and appreciated.
saywhat?
August 28th, 2012
6:31 pm
too little time
August 28th, 2012
4:11 pm
Many voters are just simply completely disconnected from the entire election and governmental operation process.
Could be because 47% pay no federal income tax at all, and could care less how bloated and inefficient the government is? They’ll vote for the party that gives them to most welfare, regardless of what it does to our country.
__________________________________________________________
Somebody didn’t read this link that was provided earlier
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_hidden_brain/2010/12/smart_republicans_stupid_democrats.html
Paul
August 28th, 2012
6:31 pm
josef
“Well, you know Newt is an great fan of the Hapsburg model!”
From what I could tell, Newt was a fan of models, period. Didn’t matter if they were European or American or whatever. Or even if they were models. Newt was a fan.
Mama Says
August 28th, 2012
6:31 pm
No jay you went out of your way to point out that it’s the republicans fault. 200 years of congress and the grid lock and ineffectiveness congress comes down to republicans wanting power. That’s what you wrote. Yes you named Newt and put it in the context of his need to gain control. The obvious inference is control for the republicans. Meaning the republicans are responsible.
If you intended to be fair you could not have written this blog without mentioning that Reid has blocked every republican bill passed out of the house and you could not have written it without mentioning that the senate refuses to pass a real budget at all. Even a partisan one.
And when I say congress is working I mean it is reflecting the people who elect them.
They are the people’s representatives remember. They reflect what we think.
For example I doubt very seriously any democrat you vote for wishes to pass Ryan’s proposed budget. Therefore that politician will reflect your wishes.
It’s meant to be representative and it is currently doing just that
josef
August 28th, 2012
6:32 pm
Six year terms, no immediate reelection. If after a six year hiatus, the voters want you back…fine…
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
6:32 pm
“There’s a 3rd option at times, and there’s also the “write in” slot. I understand that you’re trying to stay true to your conservative beliefs, and I commend you for that. ”
THANK YOU FOR THAT, Brosephus. Man,
“This is all my opinion though, and my mindset may not mirror many or even a few others anywhere.”
It is a considered one and I respect you for it. To me, we as voters are almost always put in the position of choosing between the lesser of two evils. There are very few politicians I admire or would be willing to much defend. So one must always weigh the worth of candidates. Perhaps unlike many here (even other “conservatives”), I rank social moral issues as most important. And, if it is any consolation, I would not vote at all if I could not vote for someone who represented these values.
They BOTH suck
August 28th, 2012
6:33 pm
Kam
I’m for it, but I do not practice because of x,y & z but you bet your @ss I am really for it.
Got it
Logical Dude
August 28th, 2012
6:33 pm
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Delegate-deal-snuffs-Texas-rebellion-3819210.php
” Romney supporters and GOP leaders agreed to back down from a proposed rule change that effectively would have allowed presidential nominees to choose which delegates represent them at national conventions.”
Now, why would you even want this rule in the first place?
Anyone who calls themselves “Republicans”, please look at this as a danger sign of Mitt and team to grab power wherever they can, no matter who gets run over by being in the way.
At least they backed down from the rule, but even submitting this rule shows a real lack of vision of the reality of what PEOPLE want in their candidates. Of course, if you want to handpick and reward people for paying you money, then I can see how this rule may have gotten started.
I’d rather have qualified folks, though, and not just rich. (yes yes, I might be reading a different cause than what is there. . . but if you can think of some other cause, let me know – Republicans who pushed the rule aren’t answering questions about it)
kayaker 71
August 28th, 2012
6:34 pm
And now we can await a split screen on TV when Christie is speaking at the convention tonight. One half will show a determined conservative trying to make several points and the other side will depict a city struggling with a natural disaster, streets underwater, those poor unfortunates who elected to live in a city where much of it is below sea level and is prone to flooding and hurricanes. Commentators will prosthelytize on how familiar this whole scene is to “those who care” and, as Bryan Williams has stated, ” a hurricane which hangs over the convention in Tampa putting a spectre on the proceedings which is anyone’s guess”. Then, another split screen with Bozo on one side, stating how “his administration” is answering the call. On the other side of the split screen will no doubt be some revelers at the convention unwinding at some strip bar. Liberals are so predictable.
josef
August 28th, 2012
6:35 pm
PAUL
Newt’s a fan of Newt!
Logical Dude
August 28th, 2012
6:36 pm
I said “Now, why would you even want this rule in the first place?”
Oh wait.. . RON PAUL.
Republicans must be scared of him.
getalife
August 28th, 2012
6:37 pm
kay,
cnn is not covering the circus.
F. Sinkwich
August 28th, 2012
6:38 pm
One way the federal legislative process could be greatly improved is to take a page from the states — limit the sessions to, say, 40 days per year, maximum.
The longer these doofusses are in session, the fewer freedoms we have.
There are idiots among us who measure the success of congress by the amount of legislation passed. Its success should be measured by the number of BS laws and regulations repealed, and how few freedom-killing laws it passes.
Mr_B
August 28th, 2012
6:38 pm
Not nearly so predictable as kayaker….
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
6:38 pm
“I’m for it, but I do not practice because of x,y & z but you bet your @ss I am really for it.”
Hey, Einstein:
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
What don’t you get about having to sometimes choose between two principles or desires (like I want to send my child to Harvard and I don’t want to go into debt)?
Please write on the following on the black board 100 times:
I must learn to think.
getalife
August 28th, 2012
6:40 pm
I don’t think we should deregulate the banks again.
DawgDad
August 28th, 2012
6:40 pm
So utterly pathetically predictable. Leap without any causal attribution to blame the Republicans.
Who says Congress isn’t functional? Blocking further leftist legislation is a primary concern and very, very necessary function at the moment.
Our country is riding the ideological fence teetering between progressive socialism and preserving some shred of America as a land of opportunity for anyone who does not want to be beholden or subjugated to Government and who is otherwise not out to raid the Treasury. There are Republicans on the wrong side of this fence, too. It’s a serious battle with serious consequences.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
August 28th, 2012
6:41 pm
Melt-down.
Mama Says
August 28th, 2012
6:41 pm
Logical Dude,
It’s all about Ron Paul.
But it is no different than democrats and republicans historic domination of debate formats and participants. Neither party wants to give up control and that is what it boils down to.
Control is power in either party
JamVet
August 28th, 2012
6:42 pm
Congressional approval rating for the Democratic Congress in 2008….. 14%
True, and for our mathematically challenged neocons out there, the Cons in that Congress had an approval rating that brought that overall rating DOWN.
Just caught part of the Republican Polka Convention in Tampa on CSPAN and it looks like a Lawrence Welk look alike contest.
But I did see something truly amazing!
They panned the crowd and I saw a black guy!!!!!!
It reminded me of that sperm scene in that Woody Allen movie…
Martin the Calvinist
August 28th, 2012
6:43 pm
I think Jay didn’t point out, may not have been in that particular poll but each Congressman has high ranks within his district. Historically speaking. I figured Jay would blame Republicans. Hey Jay, not all Republicans liked the “republican model” for healthcare reform. Just in case you didn’t know….
Logical Dude, I think you are spot on about them being scared of Ron Paul.
getalife, I can’t wait to see the other circus aka the Democratic convention in North Carolina…..
JamVet
August 28th, 2012
6:44 pm
71, Christie cannot fit in a split screen! (The man has his own measurable gravitational field.)
They BOTH suck
August 28th, 2012
6:45 pm
TC
Quit your damn crying.
Again, you are for it as long as you are able to meet your ideology in doing so.
Nothing wrong with that, but your statement about being for it rings hallow.
I have no problem with you saying social issues trumps all for you, but that sort of gets in the way of practicing what you preach.
Again, do carry on with your blather
Maybe you can re-post that last one with a few more of those paragraphs.
I will let your dance instructor know that your two step needs work, however it is improving
marko
August 28th, 2012
6:46 pm
I love mark twain quotes. I’m reminded of a story he told about a friend that had become seriously depressed and blown his brains out with a gun. Fortunately his friend survived. He went on to serve two terms in congress, and eventually became a useful citizen.
moonbat betty
August 28th, 2012
6:47 pm
Dang, getalife.
Better be on higher ground tonight.
They BOTH suck
August 28th, 2012
6:48 pm
JamVet
Lawrence Welk……….
hahahahaha
Were there bubbles flying around?
That Black Guy
August 28th, 2012
6:49 pm
TaxPayer
August 28th, 2012
6:18 pm
The RNC was actually able to get a picture of one lone black guy amongst hundreds of whites
____________________________________________________________
Are you saying that these speakers aren’t Black?
Tim Scott
Mia Love (Mormon too)
Arthur Davis
Condoleezza Rice
Why does race matter so much to you?
If there were 10,000 Blacks there would you dislike republicans any less?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
August 28th, 2012
6:49 pm
“I would rather be beaten and be a man than to be elected and be a little puppy dog.”
Davy Crockett
Common Freaking Sense isn't very Common
August 28th, 2012
6:49 pm
josef
who did YOU vote for in the 1860 presidential election
getalife
August 28th, 2012
6:53 pm
dawg,
wall street and the military industrial complex already raided the Treasury for trillions
Why do you give them a free pass if you actually believe that brainwashed drivel you wrote?
F. Sinkwich
August 28th, 2012
6:53 pm
“Who says Congress isn’t functional? Blocking further leftist legislation is a primary concern and very, very necessary function at the moment.”
So true, Dawg. The Tea Party congress elected in 2010 have done their best to save this country; patriots all. They make me proud.
Chardannay
August 28th, 2012
6:53 pm
Probably the most effective cure for Congressional dysfunction is term limits. It would prevent do-nothing buffoons like Saxby Chambliss and Charles Rangel from becoming entrenched and just taking up space.
Two terms and your out, then you can move on to the really big $ as a lobbyist.
bman
August 28th, 2012
6:54 pm
$4/gal
It matters …
getalife
August 28th, 2012
6:54 pm
moonbat,
Hunkered down like a Georgia Bulldog.
They BOTH suck
August 28th, 2012
6:56 pm
gatalife
What are they saying for your area?
getalife
August 28th, 2012
6:57 pm
christie is the fat man at the circus.
martian,
I can’t watch the gop circus because it is the same as your primary.
Nothing but clowns trying to get attention.
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
6:58 pm
“I have no problem with you saying social issues trumps all for you…”
All of your posts, notwithstanding.
“…but that sort of gets in the way of practicing what you preach.”
Oh…you mean like wanting to send my daughter to Harvard but not wanting to incur debt and deciding not to send her there? Okay…new question: What part of “trumps all” don’t you understand?
They BOTH suck
August 28th, 2012
6:58 pm
getalife
I watch very little, if any of either of them.
josef
August 28th, 2012
6:58 pm
FORMAL BLACK GUY
They’re not really Black…and neither or you…don’t you know that!
COMMON SENSE
I wrote in Eugenia Yates Levy Phillips…
The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers
August 28th, 2012
6:58 pm
getalife
August 28th, 2012
6:37 pm
kay,
cnn is not covering the circus.
Nope, they’re waiting for the circle jerk, the dem convention!
getalife
August 28th, 2012
6:59 pm
Both,
Rain, wind and floods.
Power will probably go out but we are ready.
Common Freaking Sense isn't very Common
August 28th, 2012
6:59 pm
Another take could be to decentralize gov’t and force the Senators and Congressmen to live among the people they represent.
One week a month in DC is enough to hold meetings etc.
Use the internet for video conferencing.
Share staff in DC to cut down on the million dollar office staff budget.
Oh yeah. no riders on important jobs legislation. The silliness needs to stop.
JamVet
August 28th, 2012
6:59 pm
Governor Christie’s favorite mode of transportation?
A crane…
Brosephus™
August 28th, 2012
7:00 pm
Towncrier
You have to consider, I grew up in the very state where George Wallace won his last term as Governor aided by the vote of the Black community.
If that doesn’t prove that voters have the power to determine things without any extra legislation, I don’t think there’s any other election that would prove as such.
bman
August 28th, 2012
7:00 pm
CNN is not covering the GOP convention? Oh, I don’t believe that
josef
August 28th, 2012
7:00 pm
BOTH
“I watch very little, if any of either of them.”
Ditto.
They BOTH suck
August 28th, 2012
7:03 pm
“What part of “trumps all” don’t you understand?”
What part of if it “trumps all” then your “I am for term limits” rings hallow to say the least do you not understand?
You want your cake and to be able to eat it to.
You are not alone. I’m sure there are many liberals in blue states would say the same thing. They want terms limits but social issues “trumps all”. And those words would also ring hallow in regards to term limits.
getalife
August 28th, 2012
7:03 pm
I watched Senator Obama speak at the convention and thought he could deliver a speech.
Of course, I thought he was a rookie and voted for Hillary for experience and the karma of having the Clintons back in the White House.