Chris Matthews finally says what everyone else has been saying for a long time!
(http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/empty%20suit.jpg)
That's why we should have elected John McCain (well, just one reason...), if he just hadn't sold out so badly on Palin!
Would really like to see McCain run again with Joe Lieberman for VP. Or vice versa. These two guys know how to get stuff done and I think would get a move on. (Bust a move??)
Oh, well...we are just gonna be stuck with Tweedle-Dee or Tweedle-Dum (one on each side), no matter which way it goes now.
I think he is just waiting to see if he gets re-elected (if he even decides to run again...) and then let the tax cuts expire and see what happens. While part of the solution, it isn't enough. But then our elected officials have never done enough of the right thing for us to live up to our full potential - they just do enough, sometimes, to get them through the next election.
We shouldn't be where were are in a lot of areas, but we bring it on ourselves by keeping on electing the people we elect.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 21, 2011, 09:37:28 AM
Would really like to see McCain run again with Joe Lieberman for VP. Or vice versa. These two guys know how to get stuff done and I think would get a move on. (Bust a move??)
Wow, talk about the most uninspired running partners. Eeyore and a more grumpy Eeyore.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on November 21, 2011, 10:11:14 AM
Wow, talk about the most uninspired running partners. Eeyore and a more grumpy Eeyore.
Agreed. A completely ossified ticket.
Pretty much exactly what we need - kind of like Eisenhower in the '50s.
More particularly, a couple guys who know and can work with Congress to actually accomplish something.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 21, 2011, 10:40:34 AM
Pretty much exactly what we need - kind of like Eisenhower in the '50s.
More particularly, a couple guys who know and can work with Congress to actually accomplish something.
There's no working with Congress in its current composition. The two sides are too far apart.
Quote from: we vs us on November 21, 2011, 10:51:37 AM
There's no working with Congress in its current composition. The two sides are too far apart.
Kind of what Gerald Ford found when he became President, but managed well because he was an insider. Those two are also insiders and I think they would appeal to many in Congress who ARE more moderate/less extreme.
But I also recognize it won't ever happen, so am not holding my breath.
Our representative form of government is working exactly as it is intended. The biggest problem is that congress is supposed to represent their constituents and their requests, and they are. We the people have become extremely divided in what we believe is the right way to go. Therefore, our congress members reflect those divisions. The media age we live is almost a magnifier of those divisions. And while we disagree with what congress as a whole is doing, we like what our congressmen/women are doing, which is why you have little turnover.
Congress won't come to agreements without compromise. They won't compromise because they are scared they will lose their job... which leads us back to term limits, but Congress would have to pass a term limits law, which means they would be voting themselves out of a job.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on November 21, 2011, 11:43:07 AM
Our representative form of government is working exactly as it is intended. The biggest problem is that congress is supposed to represent their constituents and their requests, and they are. We the people have become extremely divided in what we believe is the right way to go. Therefore, our congress members reflect those divisions. The media age we live is almost a magnifier of those divisions. And while we disagree with what congress as a whole is doing, we like what our congressmen/women are doing, which is why you have little turnover.
Congress won't come to agreements without compromise. They won't compromise because they are scared they will lose their job... which leads us back to term limits, but Congress would have to pass a term limits law, which means they would be voting themselves out of a job.
You seriously believe that congress is representing its constituents? That's pretty naive. No disrespect intended.
Congress is representing its constituents who give to the campaign coffers. That's also known as lobbyists.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on November 21, 2011, 11:43:07 AM
Our representative form of government is working exactly as it is intended. The biggest problem is that congress is supposed to represent their constituents and their requests, and they are. We the people have become extremely divided in what we believe is the right way to go. Therefore, our congress members reflect those divisions. The media age we live is almost a magnifier of those divisions. And while we disagree with what congress as a whole is doing, we like what our congressmen/women are doing, which is why you have little turnover.
Congress won't come to agreements without compromise. They won't compromise because they are scared they will lose their job... which leads us back to term limits, but Congress would have to pass a term limits law, which means they would be voting themselves out of a job.
Even if the current guys get term-limited out, wouldn't our divided electorate just install some new partisan hacks to replace the old? Especially if the divide is about the electorate and not about our representatives?
But I agree with you up the term-limit point. We're in a nasty nasty place right now in our country, and I'm not altogether sure that we will solve this without more nastiness rather than less. In fact, I think I'm mostly convinced it will get worse before it gets better. Possibly much worse. I'm not hoping for it, but I don't see a way for our currently-increasing tensions to lessen easily.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on November 21, 2011, 11:43:07 AM
Our representative form of government is working exactly as it is intended. The biggest problem is that congress is supposed to represent their constituents and their requests, and they are. We the people have become extremely divided in what we believe is the right way to go. Therefore, our congress members reflect those divisions.
There are a lot of things that the vast majority of us support (a campaign finance reform amendment, to pick one example), but that will never get passed out of Congress because of the lobbying. People hate Congress because they
don't represent their interests. Congresspeople get re-elected because our choices are almost always limited to dumb and dumber. Since least dumb, who has already been in Congress a decade, can bring home some pork, he won't get kicked out barring serious malfeasance that goes beyond what's normal even for our present corrupt Congress or one of those freak upsets. It's not like the other guy is going to be any different. They're all supported by big bucks from mostly the same people. If you don't play ball, you don't get enough campaign cash and you don't get elected, so few even try.
The electorate isn't a whole lot more divided than we've usually been throughout our history. Those differences are being magnified by the media for ratings and the culture warriors for votes. Not that the people influenced by the culture war argument ever get more than a bone. Why would they? If you eliminate the problem, you can't use it in future elections to draw out votes. Those with the giant megaphones are blaring our differences in our ears 24/7 while doing their best to ignore that which most of us agree on. If they didn't, they would have all had their asses kicked to the curb 20 years ago or more. As long as we're distracted by the flamebait issue of the day, politics will not change.
Quote from: nathanm on November 21, 2011, 08:05:03 PM
They're all supported by big bucks from mostly the same people. If you don't play ball, you don't get enough campaign cash and you don't get elected, so few even try.
Campaign finance reform IF done for real would be a big help.
The electorate believes the ads financed by that big money - classic case is Inhofe. Over $6 million spent in his last campaign. Against about $2.5 million. And even after all these years of his lies, distortions, and dirty tricks, he still gets 60% of the vote. You can see the problem here - the people voting for him either believe in his corrupt way of doing things or they believe his lies. 'Cause that's all he's got to offer...
Quote from: Hoss on November 21, 2011, 01:10:07 PM
You seriously believe that congress is representing its constituents? That's pretty naive. No disrespect intended.
Congress is representing its constituents who give to the campaign coffers. That's also known as lobbyists.
No disrespect received. Do I think congress fully represents the constituents? No, I didn't do a very good job of describing what I meant. Congress does a very good job at telling their constituents what they want to hear. They know which "hotbed" topics their constituents care about and do their best to keep status quo on those. And no disrespect to the Christian nation, but most of them are moral issues ("sanctity of marriage, abortion, etc)... and the other issue that is sure to get someone in a rile is gun control. As long as they hear what they want to hear on those issues, they will over look most everything else, you know, the important stuff. Tom, Dick and Maryann American don't really understand everything. They believe that if the person has the same outlook on the moral and gun issues, that there is a 50/50 chance they will agree with everything else, and they are okay with that. It is like dating, if the person is very pleasing to the eye, you will over look other things. Ultimately, your congressmember works for the person(s) with the biggest impact to their campaign.
Quote from: nathanm on November 21, 2011, 08:05:03 PM
The electorate isn't a whole lot more divided than we've usually been throughout our history. Those differences are being magnified by the media for ratings and the culture warriors for votes. Not that the people influenced by the culture war argument ever get more than a bone. Why would they? If you eliminate the problem, you can't use it in future elections to draw out votes. Those with the giant megaphones are blaring our differences in our ears 24/7 while doing their best to ignore that which most of us agree on. If they didn't, they would have all had their asses kicked to the curb 20 years ago or more. As long as we're distracted by the flamebait issue of the day, politics will not change.
You did a better job of conveying what I meant. I fully believe the media is the biggest hinderance to a beneficial political environment.
Quote from: nathanm on November 21, 2011, 08:05:03 PM
There are a lot of things that the vast majority of us support (a campaign finance reform amendment, to pick one example), but that will never get passed out of Congress because of the lobbying. People hate Congress because they don't represent their interests. Congresspeople get re-elected because our choices are almost always limited to dumb and dumber. Since least dumb, who has already been in Congress a decade, can bring home some pork, he won't get kicked out barring serious malfeasance that goes beyond what's normal even for our present corrupt Congress or one of those freak upsets. It's not like the other guy is going to be any different. They're all supported by big bucks from mostly the same people. If you don't play ball, you don't get enough campaign cash and you don't get elected, so few even try.
The electorate isn't a whole lot more divided than we've usually been throughout our history. Those differences are being magnified by the media for ratings and the culture warriors for votes. Not that the people influenced by the culture war argument ever get more than a bone. Why would they? If you eliminate the problem, you can't use it in future elections to draw out votes. Those with the giant megaphones are blaring our differences in our ears 24/7 while doing their best to ignore that which most of us agree on. If they didn't, they would have all had their asses kicked to the curb 20 years ago or more. As long as we're distracted by the flamebait issue of the day, politics will not change.
That's a really good catch: they are focusing on our differences rather than where we hold similar views. Without a doubt the internet and multiple talk networks on radio and TV have made politics a whole lot more accessible 24/7 whereas 40 years ago it was the evening news and the local newspapers.
Tomorrow, President Obama is expected to pardon the White House turkey.
(http://www.wdkx.com/testimages/White%20House%20Turkey%20Gets%20A%20Pardon.jpg)
Rumor has it that Austin Nichols Distilling, makers of Wild Turkey Bourbon, have agreed to hire the bird as a spokesperson.
If true, critics can no longer complain that President Obama's policies do not create jobs.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 22, 2011, 01:28:15 PM
Tomorrow, President Obama is expected to pardon the White House turkey.
(http://www.wdkx.com/testimages/White%20House%20Turkey%20Gets%20A%20Pardon.jpg)
Rumor has it that Austin Nichols Distilling, makers of Wild Turkey Bourbon, have agreed to hire the bird as a spokesperson.
If true, critics can no longer complain that President Obama's policies do not create jobs.
Yum! Wild Turkey!!
Quote from: Conan71 on November 22, 2011, 12:59:11 PM
That's a really good catch: they are focusing on our differences rather than where we hold similar views. Without a doubt the internet and multiple talk networks on radio and TV have made politics a whole lot more accessible 24/7 whereas 40 years ago it was the evening news and the local newspapers.
You very rarely ever hear a candidate saying the following, "John and I agree on just about everything, I think the people in this area will have a good representation regardless of who they elect". Tey hire people to look for quotes that can be taken greatly out of context and skew it to make the other person look like they want to takeurguns/takeurjobs/takeurdollars/welcomeouralieninvaders. Even though these guys agree on ever other issue. I look at Inhoffs campaign (I think) and how the pulled old 80's photographs of Rice. I remember the 80's a little bit and no one looked very proper at that point... unless you were already in politics.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on November 23, 2011, 09:09:28 AM
You very rarely ever hear a candidate saying the following, "John and I agree on just about everything, I think the people in this area will have a good representation regardless of who they elect". Tey hire people to look for quotes that can be taken greatly out of context and skew it to make the other person look like they want to takeurguns/takeurjobs/takeurdollars/welcomeouralieninvaders. Even though these guys agree on ever other issue. I look at Inhoffs campaign (I think) and how the pulled old 80's photographs of Rice. I remember the 80's a little bit and no one looked very proper at that point... unless you were already in politics.
There're a lot of reasons for this, IMO, but much of it has to do with product differentiation. There's no compelling reason to buy the same brand of toilet paper over and over and over again if there's no difference between brands. Why re-elect Obama if his competitor supports the same thing? Or rather, why elect a challenger over an incumbent if there's no measurable difference?
Quote from: JCnOwasso on November 23, 2011, 09:09:28 AM
You very rarely ever hear a candidate saying the following, "John and I agree on just about everything, I think the people in this area will have a good representation regardless of who they elect".
The problem isn't that we don't hear
candidates say that. The problem is that we don't hear people who are already in office saying that. Incumbents can get away with that sort of thing, being incumbents. They can say "Candidate X's hissy fit makes little sense. We agree on this, that, and the other very important things. We merely disagree about foo. I have x years experience in this job and I have done y and z to support my constituents." and still get re-elected.
They don't have to be fire-breathing assholes, but they are. I would be too, if that's what the conventional wisdom said I had to do to get the cushy job.
Challengers probably should be fire-breathers. We need that energy to keep from ossifying. However, once elected, our representatives need to get it through their thick skulls that they represent all of their constituents, not just those they are most closely in agreement with. If you feel like your task is to radically reshape society, you're probably doing it wrong. As much as I'd like my "side" to be able to dictate to everyone (not really, the Democrats are waaay too far into Wall Street's pocket for my taste), our system of government was designed to run on consensus.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 22, 2011, 01:28:15 PM
Tomorrow, President Obama is expected to pardon the White House turkey.
I would submit that the ones doing the pardoning ARE the White House Turkeys.