I Like MY Incumbents

When you hear someone tell you to throw the bums out, ask which bums? I like my guys. They are competent, honest and doing a good job. We have Senators John Warner & George Allen and Congressman Tom Davis. Warner is not up for reelection in 2006. He won 82.58% of the vote last time. Only a caveman would vote against Allen or Davis.

We don't need a mayor where I live but our country supervisor Gerry Connolly is good. We just got a new governor (Tom Kaine), who seems okay. Former governor Mark Warner was popular. These guys are Democrats, BTW, so I am not being partisan.

So vote as you think best in November, but consider the person you have and the one you are likely to get. Promises are easy. Making things happen is harder. You might do better, but maybe not.

If somebody like Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman or John Conyers was my representative, maybe I would be unhappy too. But some of us have better. Choose carefully in November. It is like any relationship. The grass seems greener on the other side and the girls all look better at closing time, but acting on your impulses can give you a big headache when you sober up.

So don't tell me how you feel about incumbents. That is a meaningless idea. Tell me how you feel about YOUR incumbents.

Posted by Jack at April 1, 2006 7:47 PM
Comments
Comment #137358

I’m proud to have Barbara Boxer representing me in Congress. She’s been instrumental in shoring up our homeland security as well as getting our soldiers properly equipped and staving off GOP cuts to vital defense programs like the C-17.

This is funny, Jack. While I agree with you in principle, it’s obvious your only goal is to maintain the GOP-dominated status quo.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 1, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #137360

My goal is for people to vote for the person they think is best.

Being against incumbents is like being against the weather. You just have to be a little more specific.

If your Republican senator is not to your liking, vote against. The same goes for a Democrat. All incumbents have records. Make your decison based on that.

Posted by: Jack at April 1, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #137361

Jack

Right you are! When you vote a straight ticket, you’ve got to be careful you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

Up until a couple of years ago, Rep. Lane Evans (D) represented my district and I voted for him every election. Lane had his problems, but he never turned his back on the veterans. He fought for us all the way. And he is one of, if not the only, congressman who chose to opt out of the congressional retirement plan, choosing Social Security instead. Lane has decided not to seek re-election this year and he will be missed. Thanks to re-districting, compliments of the Republicans, we now have Rep. Ray LaHood (R). The book’s still out on him.

As for our Democratic senators, Dick Durbin you can throw out with the bath water, but Barack Obama shows some promise.

Posted by: slowthinker at April 1, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #137367

Jack its hard to argue with you, most people seem to like their own incumbents.Or at least don’t think they are the ones causing the problem. Of course that dont make it right or them right either.That being said we have a problem that will require a tremendous effort to correct. We have government bought and paid for. We the people really dont have much of a say. Perhaps a starting point would be to throw them all out and start over. Its a start and maybe just maybe we could get a crew in there that would pass legislation that would allow for public funding of elections.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 1, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #137369

BTW Jack, My senators are Reed and Ensign, Gibbons is my rep. I email to Gibbons on issues that I think are important. Judging from the way he votes, I dont think he listens to me. But I would sacrifice all 3 for three people chosen at random, just to show the others its time to listen to the people instead of the corporate and other special interest groups.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 1, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #137371

We need a congress that will repeal thousands of laws that are worthless, and that is just for starters. Why is it we always need new legislation? It is because lawyers are the ones who write all the garbage legislation. And, the legislation usually fixes something that did not need fixed and then follow-up legislation to fix what did not get fixed, only to find out that the problem in the first place was one they created. So get rid of millions of pages of legislation that is garbage. Then after all these years if and only if there is new legislation to be done, do it, providing it is just and honorable and legal legislation. The only way to get this project done is learn who is in and needs to stay, then proceed to give early retirement to the rest of them and replace them with honorable candidates who want to be public servants of the people.

Posted by: tomh at April 1, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #137377

yes boxer has done some things .i am no fan of her’s she was neck deep in the house bank (remember) scandals a newspaper article (the bee) in march 1 1992 quoted MS boxer as admitting ( she did not pay enough attention to her house bank account ) btw at a tune of 143 bad checks totaling $41,417 dollars over a three year period (btw that was 1990 money) must have sliped her mind. caca de vaca! also while running for senator in 1992 against my hero bruce herschensohn REP. while behind 4 points in the polls her camp played dirty filthy politics and came up with a last minute revelation that bruce had attended a strip bar i dont know if it was ever proven but the danage was done to the man and he lost by 4 points . hard to forget! also while bashing president bush over energy according a la times article at www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2bb3fa4860.htm MS boxer, while california was being killed by high energy prices and a bush energy critic she cashed in on (get this) stock for $50,000 from mr haliburtons stock! hmmm and other energy companys at a tune up to $355,000 read the blog. the la times who btw is pretty darn liberal! itself,( said the energy profiteering politican clamed friday that she had no idea she was getting rich from businesses she had been bashing as price gougers, explaning that a financial adviser handels her investments! heard that before! also she fell off the edge 25 years ago .can you think of anyone in the senate as partisan as her. c- 17 big deal, caca de vaca!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 1, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #137378

One has to wonder about Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi when she called the recent McKinney incident a mistake, an unfortunate lack of recognition of a member of Congress.

She asserts no carelessness on McKinney?? Only that the police officer unfortunately did not recognize her??

WOW!! My first thought was, what if someone had disguised themselves as a member of Congress only to gain entry by walking around the metal detectors and blowing up the room full of congressional members?

Would Pelosi still say it was unfortunate of the police officer? NO, she would lambaste Bush for not having a proper security force protecting our lawmakers.

Just goes to show how two-faced this Pelosi is.

I hope the media can stay on top of this story about Democrat McKinney and being above the law.

Posted by: Everett Hatton at April 1, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #137380

No matter what you say I think Duke Cunningham was a good Congressman. The only difference was that the Duke was more honest in his corruption than the others. I mean… how can you respect such a complicated swindler like DeLay?

Posted by: Aldous at April 1, 2006 11:30 PM
Comment #137388

Bill Frist and Lamar Alexander are my state’s senators and Marsha Blackburn is my representative. I like both Frist and Alexander, however I am much more a fan of Frist. I am very much in line with Frist and Blackburn’s views. Unfortunately, Frist put a term limit on himself and will not be running again in the next Senate race in TN. He is a potential presidential candidate for 2008 so I will cross my fingers for him to win that.

I must respond to a post by j2t2. Your complaining about a current government being installed that is bought and paid for and then you want a new government that will pass legislation to allow for public funding of elections. That is a contradiction to what you were just complaining about! Elections should not be won based on funding. They should be won by voter turnout for a particular candidate. I would prefer a federally funded and limited election that requires candidates to follow specific rules and guidelines on campaigning. Candidates would have to appear in a specific number of debates and make appearances throughout the country describing what their campaign platform stands for. No more “smoke and mirrors” such as basing your entire campaign on hating your opponent or attempting to dig up evidence (whether it’s true or not) on something that occurred 20 years ago.

Put up or shut up! Describe how your going to solve the specific problems that are on the table and then a voter can make an educated decision on which approach they agree with most. If you want to affect the lobbying laws as they exist today then you have two courses of action you can take, 1)vote on a candidate who has this topic as a platform item they intend to take action on and 2)stop doing business with or providing funding to the corporations or special interest groups that are trying to sway politicians.

Some people complain so much about not having a say in what goes on with our government. I would like for those folks to visit some of the other largely populated countries around the globe and tell me whether they think the citizens in those countries have more say in the way their government operates. Maybe visit China, Russia, Indonesia, or India and tell me that the individual citizens have a direct say in what their government does.

I’ll be waiting for the feedback once they’ve returned.

CFT

Posted by: CFT at April 2, 2006 1:09 AM
Comment #137389
Jack wrote: When you hear someone tell you to throw the bums out, ask which bums? I like my guys. They are competent, honest and doing a good job. We have Senators John Warner & George Allen and Congressman Tom Davis.

Really? That proves how so very low the bar is set, and how doomed we (voters) are if we keep re-electing the same corrupt, greedy, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians that keep stickin’ to the American voters.

______ Pork and Waste by Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) ________
[] According to the IG report, NTIS has lost $5 million over the past five years selling documents and is now trying to branch out into functions already performed by the private sector. The agency has asked Congress for a $2 million appropriation to cover its losses. Congress, to its credit, seems unlikely to open the coffers for this bailout.
However, it is not apparent whether Congress will follow DOCs suggestion to close NTIS. Although the Library of Congress or Government Printing Office could probably do the work more efficiently, there are some members who still think that NTIS is necessary. Notable among them is Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), whose district is home to NTIS.
______ more pork and waste by Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) ________
[] $7,000,000 added by the House for an environmental study at the soon-to-be closed Lorton Correctional Complex in Virginia, which is the federal government’s facility for D.C. inmates. The jail is in or adjacent to the districts of House D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Jim Moran (D-Va.), House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Frank Wolf (R-Va.) and House Government Reform D.C. Subcommittee Chairman Tom Davis (R-Va.), all of whom pushed for the project.
[] According to Warren Suss, a federal telecom analyst, the memorandum “has Tom Davis’ fingerprints all over it.” A Government Reform Committee spokesman said Davis wasn’t involved with writing the document. Many companies that bid on the TCE contract protested the Treasury decision to award AT&T because they were not told about the memorandum, which could have altered the content of their bids. These protests were sustained by the GAO.

______ Senator John Warner (R-Va.) __________________________

[] John Warner Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
[] John Warner Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995)
[] John Warner Voted NO on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
[] John Warner Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
[] John Warner Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
[] John Warner Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997) (How about NONE??? John Warner is one of many in government that have forced states to accommodate illegal aliens, and provide them with education, welfare, Medicaid, healthcare, etc. Thanks a lot John Warner).
[] John Warner Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction BELOW tax cuts. (Apr 2000) (tax cuts for the rich that is???)
John Warner said: Currently, I am focused on national defense, the economy, healthcare, and homeland security issues, (among may others) that are of utmost importance to Virginia and the nation. (Really? Then why vote NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism???)
[] John Warner Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)
[] John Warner Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998) (at minimum wage? or nore imported slave labor?)
[] John Warner Voted YES on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999) (Really? Look at what has happened since then?)

________ Senator George Allen (R-Va.) ______________________
[] George Allen Voted NO on banning “soft money” contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
[] George Allen Voted NO on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
[] George Allen Voted NO on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
[] George Allen Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
[] George Allen Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
[] George Allen Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
[] George Allen supports allowing churches to provide welfare services. (Sep 2000) (bad idea)
[] It’s interesting how this sleazy money trail of former Republican mega-lobbyist, Jack Abramoff - he of the Indian gambling scandal, the Tom DeLay scandal, the bank fraud scandal, and much much more — touches so many prominent Virginia Republicans. For instance, wouldn’t you just know that Virginia’s own junior Senator, good ol’ “Cowboy George” Allen, would be caught holding out his hand to the man whom Tom DeLay (also indicted) once called one of his “closest and dearest friends?”
[] Senator George Allen (R-VA), often mentioned for the Republican Presidential nomination, loaned $470,000 to a Union President with whom he was having an affair. Reports indicate that Senator Allen forgave the loan recently, while toying with the idea of running for Governor of his home state. The same Union has recently endorsed Allen for Governor. Both Allen and the female union President deny any connection between the forgiveness of the loan and the endorsement
_________________________________________________

Corruption is the status quo.
Incumbent politicians are bought-and-paid-for.
Pork-barrel is how irresponsible incumbents bribe voters with the voters own money, and provide corporate welfare to the big-money-donors.

Anyone got any more names?
It is all too easy to show how corrupt most (if not all) incumbent politicians are.

And voters wonder why little (if anything) seems to get better?

Interested in seeing more corruption, pork barrel, waste, corporate welfare, graft, greed, etc? See: cagw.org and issues2000.org

When will we know which 32 congress persons are on Jack Abramoff’s list ?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 2, 2006 1:22 AM
Comment #137397

I’m with YOU d.a.n….let’s send them all back to Mexico where they belong…oh, who are we talking about here?

Posted by: Marysdude at April 2, 2006 3:53 AM
Comment #137406

I see the word Incumbent and I want to throw up.
Why? I’m from the greater Boston area, where our senior senator drank, drove, fled a scene, comitted vehicular manslaughter, and not only avoids the jail time he deserved, but didn’t miss a beat in being continually re-elected. For over Four Decades. I haven’t been ALIVE for four decades.
I live in a state where we aren’t 100% if death itself will disqualify Ted and John from the senate.
In one man’s opinon, it’s Long past due that term limits be set for all elected officials.

Posted by: Bubba Ho-Tep at April 2, 2006 6:58 AM
Comment #137409

Voting against incumbents is a VOTE FOR restoring respect in politicians for the people and placing our nation’s problems before special interests, campaign donors, and their own political party machinery which values partisan turf wars far more highly than solving the country’s problems.

If you believe there is any more important agenda than forcing politicians back to working for voters instead of lobbyists, donors, and their own party machine, then by all means, vote for your Republocrats in Nov. and the status quo. But, a growing number of patriotic and intelligent Americans are recognizing that there is no more important agenda for our children and our future than what VOID and Independents are addressing.

Debt and deficits, immigration, saving social security, complete health care overhaul which can make our system much less costly and still provide access to our citizens, restoring world class K-12 education, effectively securing our country against illegal invaders and terrorists, are all problems that worsen under Democratic and Republican rule. The only way Republocrats are going to become motivatated to put partisan politics aside and solve these problems is if they recognize the power of the voters to kick them out of office.

As long as they enjoy 90+% incumbency rates regardless of how bad things get in America, they won’t be changing much of anything for the better, because their first priority will continue to be partisan turf wars, not the nation’s needs.

Democrats left control of Congress with almost 6 Trillion in national debt, they left our country vulnerable to attack, education standards had been dropping under their control for years, health care inflation had been rampant under their watch. And then came the Republicans to power, and it all just got worse.

But, by all means, if you truly believe that Republocrat incumbents are going to set aside their partisan differences and solve our nation’s problems, vote for your Democrat or Republican incumbents. But, your vote will make you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 2, 2006 8:14 AM
Comment #137412

Jack, David R. Remer, etc.

The biggest change we need is in people’s DEFAULT voting habits. Far too many people choose a party allegiance based on one or two issues, and then DEFAULT to that party unless they have a good reason to vote otherwise. For example, my mother occasionally votes for Democratic candidates (Evan Bayh and Bill Clinton being good examples), but DEFAULTS to voting Republican. If she doesn’t know the details of a given race, she’ll DEFAULT to the Republican. Likewise, my father would do the same thing in reverse. He voted for Eisenhower and Nixon, but otherwise DEFAULTED to the Democrats.

If you truly care about the outcome of a given election, and truly feel strongly for a candidate, then VOTE FOR THAT CANDIDATE, whether he’s an incumbent or not. But if you don’t really have a favorite in a given race, then voting party lines only makes the problem worse. You’re much better to vote out a lackluster incumbent than to stick with the status quo.

Take Ted Kennedy, for example. As a politician, the man’s a waste of human flesh. If the Democrats in Massachusetts had voted his butt out years ago, they would probably have a decent Democrat in the office today. But because they don’t want to break party lines (and — HORROR — vote for a Republican!), they’re stuck with a useless Senator, who serves more as a black-eye for the party than anything else.

By all means, vote for the incumbents who have done what you consider to be a good job. But maybe you should consider setting your standards a little higher. With a 90%+ incumbency rate, and still nothing getting accomplished, I think we all need to set them higher.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at April 2, 2006 9:47 AM
Comment #137415

Jack,
I’m in North Carolina, do I need to say more? And yes, before you even go there I did support Jesse Helms based on his Honor and Honesty to the Citizens of North Carolina.

My problem with Incumbents in Washington is that far to many in Leadership position has stepped over the line in Statesmen Conduct. Sorry if I have to submit to the Intent of the Law of the Land than Our Elected and Prominant Citizens need to hold and ensure the Safety of that Line in the Sand for Our Children’s Children. Now can you honestly state for a fact that the Democrats and Republicans have been Good Stewards and is leaving this World in a better condition than they inheritated it?

Additionally, while the Republican spin masters have fallen on their face in this Top Heavy Economy promoting Trickle Down Policies, a good format for a third party candidate would be to Intelligent Design, Create and allow to evolve a Trickle Up with Responsibilty Global Unlimited Sustainable Economy and Society based on a policiy of seeing every Citizen of America and Humanity’s Nations of Law become Economicially Viable and Financially Independent. After all that is were True Freedom of Freewill begins is it not?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 2, 2006 10:13 AM
Comment #137417
CFT wrote: I like both Frist and Alexander, however I am much more a fan of Frist. I am very much in line with Frist and Blackburn’s views.

______ Pork-Barrell by Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) _______
$4,000,000 added in conference for the Clarksville-Montgomery County School System. According to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s (R-Tenn.) website, the money was earmarked to “help the Clarksville-Montgomery County School System plan for the additional 1,000 or more students that could be entering the Clarksville-Montgomery County schools this fall as a result of more than 850 soldiers and their families being reassigned to Fort Campbell.” This would be more appropriate for the Department of Education than the Department of Defense.
___________ so which is it Bill ? ____________
[] Bill Frist Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995) (Of course he did? Reduce opportunites for self-gain? Get outa here)
[] Bill Frist Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997) (How can we troll for big bucks if we limit campaign finance, when we are all bought and paid for?)
[] Bill Frist Voted NO on banning “soft money” contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
[] Bill Frist Voted NO on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
[] Bill Frist Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
[] Bill Frist Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
[] Bill Frist Voted NO on an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
[] Bill Frist Voted YES on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999) (Really? What happened since then?)
[] Bill Frist Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
[] Bill Frist Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998) (more slave labor, eh?)
[] Bill Frist Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005) (Interesting? How does one explain this?)
[] Bill Frist Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997) (Strange. How about NONE ??? They are illegal!)
[] Bill Frist says Prescription drug benefit is lifeblood of our future. (Aug 2004)
[] Bill Frist Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
[] Bill Frist supports funding the 50 States Commemorative Coin Program. (Dec 1997) (This is important? Great use of tax dollars)
________________________________

Hmmmmmm. From what I see, Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) is a mess.

Once again, this demonstrates how very low the bar is set. Pork-barrel, graft, corporate welfare seems to be OK with many Americans. Our government is irresponsible, corrupt, bought-and-paid-for, and look the other way.
Yet voters love them? Nuts ! Keep it up, and see
where it gets you.
________________________

______ Lamar Alexander (Sen. R-TN) __________
[] Lamar Alexander Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005) (of course he did; we can get cheap (slave) labor; that’s what illegal aliens are for!)
[] Lamar Alexander Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005) (Of course! Republicans want cheap (slave) labor)
[] Lamar Alexander Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005) ( ???? )
[] Lamar Alexander says he wants to reduce government to spur growth. (Aug 1995) (Really? What the hell happened?)
[] Lamar Alexander supports organized voluntary prayer in public schools. (Aug 1995) (bad idea).
[] Lamar Alexander Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003) (Great! We’re in debt upto our eyeballs. More entitlments will fix that problem? Never mind some troops don’t have body armor.)
______________________________________

Jeeeshhh. As I feared, voters are a huge part of the problem. Too many voters either support the stuff (above) and/or don’t even have a clue.

This is why this nation is in deep $#!+ …

I did the same research for my Senators (Kay Bailey Hutchison, John Cornyn) and Representative (Michael Burgess) too. They suck. They’re never going to get my vote.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 2, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #137420

CFT,
IMHO public funding of elections would solve the problem that the influence of money currently has on elections. I dont view my previous comment as a contradiction at all. When candidates are funded by big business, unions and special interest groups they end up beholding to those groups. When it comes time to vote on issues they are required to payback with their vote. If you take that money away from the candidate it would be necessary to replace it some how. Your idea of having certain rules attached to this money is a good idea.
As far as not doing business with these corporations that is so long term and ineffective as to be useless. At least so far in my expeirence it hasnt worked. I havent given up, it just doesnt seem to work.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 2, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #137421
By all means, vote for the incumbents who have done what you consider to be a good job.

Yes, I agree completely.
Who are they?

What are we? Sadomasochists?
Please, keep using and abusing me, and I’ll promise to vote you again and again.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 2, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #137422
Jack wrote: So don’t tell me how you feel about incumbents. That is a meaningless idea. Tell me how you feel about YOUR incumbents.

I did. And yours too (see above).

Posted by: d.a.n at April 2, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #137423

DAN

In a legislative record, you will find many things not to like. The funny thing is that many of votes you mention as negatives are things I actually like. I strongly supported CAFTA, for example and I am glad my representatives did.

The bought and paid for idea is really unfair. I know that all three of my representatives could make much more money out of government. They work hard for less money than people with similar backgrounds and ambition.

Rob

You make a good point about default voting. Nobody should vote a straight ticket and I believe that if you don’t think you know enough about an issue you shouldn’t vote at all. The idea that just voting is good without the caveat of how you are voting is not a good idea.

David

If you just vote out the incumbents, you get a random chance congress and probably even more greed because the new guys would see that they had only two years or six years to make their money or accomplish their goals.

I think we should talk about term limits. This is a different discussion. You can become stale in any job after doing it for too long. Although even this is a hard decision.

Our biggest problem is that government is too big and interferes too much with our lives and our economy. Many things are not the business of government at all. Think of the Abramoff case. Why was he ABLE to be corrupt? Because government micromanaged the Indian gambling industry, because people could make big money if the government changed its regulations. Take away this power and you will have less corruption.

So our big and continuing goal should to ask the government to do less for us. Don’t let it stick its nose into our business. This is easy when we are ones being pushed around, but much harder when we seek “justice”.

Posted by: Jack at April 2, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #137424

Aldous,

While I agree that Tom Delay is a crook, always have thought he was con artist and probably racist, given his constituency, WTF do you mean that Cunningham was a good Congressman? What is wrong with your thinking? Do you WANT bribery to run congress? Are you wealthy enough to buy your Congressman? Are you Mafioso connected. While some of your comments are off the wall, this takes the cake?

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 2, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #137425

Bubba Ho-tep, I know what you mean….the VP got drunk, fired a weapon without a hunting license, nearly killed a buddy, used offical powers to avoid a police investigation. Fortunately a heart attack may off the guy before term limits oust him.

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 2, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #137428

Hey Jack, whatever happened to term limits as a Republican issue? They were a big part of the so-called “Contract with America”, but as soon as Republicans got a majority, it went away. Come to think of it, the balanced budget amendment disappeared too.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 2, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #137436

Rob Cottrel, absolutely dead on right! If I had a stellar representative incumbent fighting for reforms which would solve more problems than they create, I would vote for my incumbent. But, I don’t have an incumbent who doesn’t put their political career and gutless cow-tow submissiveness to their party’s leadership ahead of voter’s needs and interests.

Border security without a border perimiter makes far more problems than it solves, costs enormously more in effective tax dollars than the perimiter would cost, and fails to halt those intent on getting in to harm us and our children. Just an example of how absolutely corrupt the system and the incumbents have become.

Republicans answer to entitlement spending is to bankrupt the country under unrecoverable debt. How does that NOT make more problems than it solves? Incumbents must drop like flies at election time if we are to restore government back to the people. It is now owned lock stock and barrel by the two major political parties and the fat cat donors who buy their reelections for them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 2, 2006 1:48 PM
Comment #137447

the citizens act of legislature hjres 73 was voted on. that would have placed a 12 year term limit on the senate and house on march 29 1995 it lost because it takes a two thirds majority. the results of the vote was ayes rep 189 .dem 38. total ayes 227. the noes rep 40. dem 163. total noes 203. at least at that time in history we saw who was in favor of term limits. today your guess is as good as mine. the contract with america did what it said it would do, take a vote on it, and you seen the results.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 2, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #137451

When you hear someone tell you to throw the bums out, ask which bums?

All of them. The Republicans have messed this country up but good.

Posted by: Max at April 2, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #137453

Max, I think you have to give credit where credit is due. The Dem’s have had a hand in this problem to. a big hand. Just one example would be social security. IN FDR’s day SS monies were left in the SS account. They accrued. It was years later when the Dem’s decided to use “excess” SS money to pay for other budget items. maybe a good idea at the time but I doubt it. Now SS is a mess. The repub’s are trying to fix it (well at least for there wall street buddies). But my point is its both parties.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 2, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #137455
Our biggest problem is that government is too big and interferes too much with our lives and our economy. Many things are not the business of government at all. Think of the Abramoff case. Why was he ABLE to be corrupt? Because government micromanaged the Indian gambling industry, because people could make big money if the government changed its regulations. Take away this power and you will have less corruption.

So our big and continuing goal should to ask the government to do less for us. Don’t let it stick its nose into our business. This is easy when we are ones being pushed around, but much harder when we seek “justice”.

Funny to hear you say that. Sounds like how I felt when I starting blogging here. It’s a nice ideal, but that’s probably about it. The one thing I have realized about human nature while I’ve been here is that most people want the government to keep its nose out of their activities while sticking it into everyone else’s. Tell me, in your opinion just what is “our” business? What’s your business and what’s mine? What’s our business in common? And what is the government’s? Can we even draw a line?

Posted by: Amani at April 2, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #137456

My Senators are Levin and Stabenow. Awful. They vote far left but claim moderate viewpoints. Unfortuantely, with large Democrat Detroit, the rest of this state doesn’t stand a chance.

Posted by: Ilsa at April 2, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #137457

ok people…the problem with the whole pork issue is that the government controls the purse-strings for infrastructure. We pay in exhobatent amounts of money in taxes and they spend it as they see fit (and 99% of the time overspend). If your congressmen and senators did NOT fight for “pork projects” for your state, then they wouldn’t be doing their JOBS. The point should be that the states should have more say in what money goes where instead of the federal gov’t. As a conservative, we believe in smaller government (for me more of a smaller FEDERAL government), but the locals having a little more power would be totally fine with me. I think that’s the BIGGEST problem we face, we have guys in Washington from Arizona thinking they know what’s best for people in Michigan. Does that make sense at all? How about allowing census data allow for how much money each state will recieve and then they dole out the money for their state to the different counties and such. That could help with some things, but when it comes to what happened in Louisiana…they were given money and the local guys pissed it away on things they didn’t need and not for what it was “earmarked” for.

Anyway, I live in Nebraska and am not happy with EITHER of my senators (Hagel-R and Nelson-D) and plan on voting out both when I get the chance. The joke is that they should both switch parties and make it easier on everyone, but neither of them are doing a very good job representing ME. However, I DO like our rep for the area (Dr Tom Osborne—yes the coach). You may say he’s an institution in Nebraska and only got elected b/c of who he is. He is running for Governor now and I think he will win, but I’m not originally from Nebraska and I DID vote for Osborne last time around, but it was b/c he came and spoke to us and I was thoroughly impressed. He’s an extremely intelligent man and also KNOWS what he’s talking about in relation to the political side of things.

By the way…Nelson is showing in his ads that he was with President Bush on a NUMBER of issues…think he might be pandering a little bit since he knows he’s in one of the reddest of red states?

Posted by: Robert at April 2, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #137458

Of course why WOULDN’T we be a red state…everyone even WEARS red here!! haha

Posted by: Robert at April 2, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #137460

Amani good point. We are all connected one way or another. Robert I used to think I was for smaller govt I thought that put me in line with the Conservatives. All we got was smaller govt for big business unless of course it was in their interest to have big govt.(ie: bankruptcy laws). The problem with smaller govt is one state can easily set the economic rules the rest of the country is forced to live by( ie:Dakotas and credit card rules). Maybe someone in Arizonia having a say isnt so bad.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 2, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #137461

well maybe that would cause some really good capitalistic competition between the states. We already see it for California and Nevada. Companies are leaving Cali for Nevada b/c of the HORRIBLE taxes and costs of doing business. Good luck to all 50 states!

Posted by: Robert at April 2, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #137462

There’s also something about those bankruptcy laws that had to be expanded or else we would have NO plane service for you and most of the other bloggers here. How would you get to your moveon.org dinners and such?

Posted by: Robert at April 2, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #137465

Good point Robert on the Cal/Nev competetion. I beleive its not only taxes and high business costs but the high cost of housing in California. However IMHO the consumer laws I was refering to are a bit different. How would you compete with credit card companies headquartered in South Dakota as a Nevada or California consumer?
Im not sure what you are saying regarding the bankrupcty laws, I was referring to the personal backruptcy laws recently passed on the Federal level.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 2, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #137471

the nevada department of taxation does not levy a state income tax. also the sales tax is much lower than california at 6.75%. and nevada seems to be business friendly unlike california.the housing values in las vegas are also climbing.

Posted by: mb at April 2, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #137473

Jack,
You certainly glossed over all that in a hurry.
So you like CAFTA?
Would you care to address any of the other many items listed above?
That is so lame to pick one measely thing like CAFTA, and ignore all the rest of it.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 2, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #137474

This seems to be as good a place as any to post my latest Song - free to the public domain - “The Cheneyman” (after all, he will be the GOP Incumbent, and their natural candidate for the Presidency). The tune is to “The Candyman,” by Sammy Davis Jr.


Who can take a Sunrise,
Cover it with Soot?
Black out all the light so you can’t even see your foot?
The Cheneyman, the Cheneyman can!
The Cheneyman can, ‘cause he mixes it with Greed
Which makes the World go `round!

Who can take a Country,
Wrap it all in Pain?
Fill it all with Death so no one ever comes again?
The Cheneyman, the Cheneyman can!
The Cheneyman can, ‘cause he mixes it with Hate
Which makes the World go `round!

The Cheneyman makes
Everything he bakes
Stratifying and pernicious:
Ratifying all that’s vicious,
My he’s certainly malicious!

Who can take Tomorrow,
Make it more Extreme?
Causing endless sorrow with his oligarchic scheme?
The Cheneyman, the Cheneyman can!
The Cheneyman can, ‘cause he mixes it with Power
Which makes the World go `round!

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 2, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #137476

Very creative, Betty !

Posted by: d.a.n at April 2, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #137486

DAN

Most people are probably less interested in my opinon about details of our Virginia politics, but here is my fast point by point.

Davis

NTIS This is National Technical Information Service, distributes information. It is part of Commerce Department. They are mandated to supply information and they are suppose to be funded by fees. But like most of the government, they have trouble actually making money. It is a judgment call whether to keep them in business, but not a clear pork.

Lorton - So what? They close a Federal Prison in our county. There are costs associated with restoring it. My congressman got help. Good.
I don’t understand the complaint about the telecom. It sounds like ordinary business of writing bills.
Warner

John Warner Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997). I agree
[] John Warner Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995). Don’t care
[] John Warner Voted NO on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001). Complex issue. I don’t have an opinion.
[] John Warner Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003). I would be against this.
[] John Warner Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005) More complex than this states. It was protectionist legislation. Glad he voted as he did.
[] John Warner Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997). I agree with him
[] John Warner Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction BELOW tax cuts. (Apr 2000) I supported tax cuts. In 2000 the Feds were taking in too much money. Conditions changed, but the decision was good.
[] John Warner Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005) Great.
[] John Warner Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998). I don’t have a problem with this.
[] John Warner Voted YES on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999). I think lockbox was a dumb idea, but I don’t hold it against him.
Senator George Allen
[] George Allen Voted NO on banning “soft money” contributions and restricting issue ads. Free speech issue, no problem for me.
[] George Allen Voted NO on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001) See above for Warner.
[] George Allen Voted NO on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006) I don’t understand this one. Explain what you mean and I will give an opinion.
[] George Allen Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001). I disagree with Allen on this.
[] George Allen Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005) See above.
[] George Allen Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003) see above.
[] George Allen supports allowing churches to provide welfare services. (Sep 2000) I think it is a good idea.
[] Your Abramoff thing is speculation. Wait for the truth to come out before we can decide.
[] This is another speculation. Wait for the truth to come out.

So I don’t agree with everything they do, but with most. And in all these things, I see competence and honesty.

Perfection is not for this earth. These guys are good.

Posted by: Jack at April 2, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #137488

Betty

Cheney won’t be running again in any elections. Neither will Bush. You guys will have to start to move on.

Posted by: Jack at April 2, 2006 10:13 PM
Comment #137491

Jack, that just shows you don’t get it. Being pissed about the Republican-controlled government sending America to hell in a hand basket isn’t a partisan thing. We don’t care about Bush or Cheney; we care about America.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 2, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #137494

AP

The post is about voting out incumbents. The poem is about Cheney. You can’t vote Cheney out.

The Democratic leadership denies that it is planning impeachment. Maybe you know something I don’t.

The Republicans would be very happy to take on the impeachment issue. I got an an email from them the other day on that very subject.

So you got Cheney until 2009 unless he takes the road to glory or unless you plan to impeach him. (Good luck with that BTW).

Sweet little ditties won’t change those outcomes.

Posted by: Jack at April 2, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #137498
Jack wrote: The bought and paid for idea is really unfair.

Really?
Then why do they troll for big-money donors and why are they so beholden to those big-money donors? Ever heard of Duke Cunningham? Dan Rostenkowski? Jack Abramoff? And there’s more to come soon.

All of your responses are revealing.
Now it all makes sense.

Again, you ignored the following:


______ Senator John Warner (R-Va.) __________________________

[] Senator George Allen (R-VA), often mentioned for the Republican Presidential nomination, loaned $470,000 to a Union President with whom he was having an affair. Reports indicate that Senator Allen forgave the loan recently, while toying with the idea of running for Governor of his home state. The same Union has recently endorsed Allen for Governor. Both Allen and the female union President deny any connection between the forgiveness of the loan and the endorsement. (Jack, care to comment on that?)
_______________________________________

Jack, so you alright with all of that pork-barrel, corruption, waste, corporate welfare, growing entitlements, and voting records ?

And you don’t mind that they vote against campaign finance reforms, gifts to congress persons, etc. ?

And, you say they are not bought-and-paid-for?
You’re kidding? Right?

And how about all of these other porker award winners for 2005 (mostly Republicans)?
____________________________
Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Robert Bennett (R-Utah) , Christopher “Kit” Bond (R-Mo.), Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), Henry Bonilla (R-TX), Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss., Senate) , Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Robert Cramer (R-Ala.), John Culberson (R-TX), Randy Cunningham (R-CA.), Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA.), Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), John Doolittle (R-CA.), Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Chet Edwards (D-TX) , Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), Rep. Mark Green (R-Wis.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Bill Frist’s (R-Tenn.), David Hobson (R-Ohio) , Mark Kirk (Rill.), Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) , Tom Latham (R-Iowa), Rep. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), John McCain (R-AZ) ($1 million for the brown tree snake), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), George Nethercutt, Jr. (R-Wash.) , Anne Northup (R-Ky.), John Peterson (R-Pa.) , Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), Dennis Rehberg (R-Mont) (parking garage that voters petitioned to have the pork-barrel money returned), Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala., Don Sherwood (R-Pa.) , Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Ted Stevens (R-Alaska, Senate) (he is the worst), John Sweeney (R-N.Y.), David Vitter (R-La.), James Walsh (R-N.Y.) , Zack Wamp (R-Tenn.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Chairman Bill Young (R-FL)

Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.), Marion Berry (D-Ark.), Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Robert “Bud” Cramer (D-Ala.), James Clyburn (D-S.C.), Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.), Sam Farr (D-Calif.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Ernest “Fritz” Hollings (D-S.C.), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) , Mary Landrieu (D-La.) , Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) , Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.) , John Murtha (D-Pa.), David Obey (D-Wis.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.)

And, why don’t they want any one overseeing their greed either? Here is a list of politicians that voted against the creation of the Office of Public Integrity:
Senator Akaka (D-HI)
Senator Bennett (R-UT)
Senator Chafee (R-RI)
Senator Coburn (R-OK)
Senator Coleman (R-MN)
Senator Dayton (D-MN)
Senator Domenici (R-NM)
Senator Pryor (D-AR)
Senator Stevens (R-AK)
Senator Voinovich (R-OH)
Senator Warner (R-VA)

Mostly Republicans again.

Geeeezz, Jack.
You’re OK with all of that?
Interesting. And revealing.
Maybe I should vote Demopublican?
Naaaah. The only right thing to do is what voters were supposed to be doing all along. Vote out all irresponsible incumbents, always.

Jack, so this is how it always ends.
They are not perfect.
We should accept mediocrity.

Actually, it’s not even mere mediocrity. It is corruption.
And, you chose to skip right over the loan of $470,000 to a Union President with whom he was having an affair, and then later forgiving the loan?

This demonstrates why this nation is in deep $#!+

_________________________________________
Please Stop Repeat Offenders.
Don’t Re-Elect Them !
_________________________________________

Posted by: d.a.n at April 2, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #137502

d.a.n.,

I know you are serious about ousting corrupt incumbants, and I agree it would be ideal, but American voters have no interest in a moral government…fifty one percent of them re-elected Cheney/Bush.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 2, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #137503

Jack, why do problems continue to grow worse every year?

Care to comment on these unfair advantages ?

Perhaps you beleive only your Senators and Representatives from Virginia are good, and everyone else’s are bad? I wouldn’t be so sure of that. Abramoff was friendly with many congress persons from Virginia.

How would you score the following?

[_] Republicans, as a whole, have done a good job in the last 6 years?

[_] Republicans, as a whole, have done a fair job in the last 6 years?

[_] Republicans, as a whole, have done a poor job in the last 6 years?

[X] Republicans, as a whole, have done a bad job in the last 6 years?

Until recently, I was a Republican, since 1976.
But, of late, I’ve never seen so many Republicans leaving the party. I think voters, in the coming elections, are going to send a very clear message to Republicans.

Seriously, do you really think the Republicans are doing a good job?

Look at these numerous, collosal failures:
__________________________________
Iraq:

1. Failing to build a real international coalition prior to the Iraq invasion, forcing the US to shoulder the full cost and consequences of the war.

2. Approving the demobilization of the Iraqi Army in May, 2003 – bypassing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and reversing an earlier position, the President left hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqis disgruntled and unemployed, contributing significantly to the massive security problems American troops have faced during occupation.

3. Not equipping troops in Iraq with adequate body armor or armored HUMVEES.

4. Ignoring the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq – now Bush is belatedly adding troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said it would if there were not enough troops.

5. Ignoring plans drawn up by the Army War College and other war-planning agencies, which predicted most of the worst security and infrastructure problems America faced in the early days of the Iraq occupation.

6. Making a case for war which ignored intelligence that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

7. Deriding “nation-building” during the 2000 debates, then engaging American troops in one of the most explicit instances of nation building in American history.

8. Predicting along with others in his administration that US troops would be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

9. Predicting Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.

10. Wildly underestimating the cost of the war.

11. Trusting Ahmed Chalabi, who has dismissed faulty intelligence he provided the President as necessary for getting the Americans to topple Saddam.

12. Disbanding the Sunni Baathist managers responsible for Iraq’s water, electricity, sewer system and all the other critical parts of that country’s infrastructure.

13. Failing to give UN weapons inspectors enough time to certify if weapons existed in Iraq.

14. Including discredited intelligence concerning Nigerian Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union.

15. Announcing that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended” aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, below a “Mission Accomplished” banner – more U.S. soldiers have died in combat since Bush’s announcement than before it.

16. Awarding a multi-billion dollar contract to Halliburton in Iraq, which then repeatedly overcharged the government and served troops dirty food.

17. Refusing to cede any control of Post-invasion Iraq to the international community, meaning reconstruction has received limited aid from European allies or the U.N.

18. Failing to convince NATO allies why invading Iraq was important.

19. Having no real plan for the occupation of Iraq.

20. Limiting bidding on Iraq construction projects to “coalition partners,” unnecessarily alienating important allies France, Germany and Russia.

21. Diverting $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress.

22. Shutting down an Iraqi newspaper for “inciting violence” – the move, which led in short order to street fighting in Fallujah, incited more violence than the newspaper ever had.

23. Telling Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan about plans to go to war with Iraq before Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Counterterrorism:

24. Allowing several members of the Bin Laden family to leave the country just days after 9/11, some of them without being questioned by the FBI.

25. Focusing on missile defense at the expense of counterterrorism prior to 9/11.

26. Thinking al Qaeda could not attack without state sponsors, and ignoring evidence of a growing threat unassociated with “rogue states” like Iraq or North Korea.

27. Threatening to veto the Homeland Security department – The President now concedes such a department “provides the ability for our agencies to coordinate better and to work together better than it was before.”

28. Opposing the creation of the September 11th commission, which the President now expects “to contain important recommendations for preventing future attacks.”

29. Denying documents to the 9/11 commission, only relenting after the commissioners threatened a subpoena.

30. Failing to pay more attention to an August 6, 2001 PDB entitled “Bin laden Determined to Attack in U.S.”

31. Repeatedly ignoring warnings of terrorists planning to use aircraft before 9/11.

32. Appointing the ultra-secretive Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11 commission – Kissinger stepped down weeks later due to conflicts of interest.

33. Asking for testimony before the 9/11 commission be limited to one hour, a position from which the president later backtracked.

34. Not allowing national Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to testify before the 9/11 commission – Bush changed his mind as pressure mounted.

35. Cutting an FBI request for counterterrorism funds by two-thirds after 9/11.

36. Telling Americans there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

37. Failing to adequately secure the nation’s nuclear weapons labs.

38. Not feeling a sense of urgency about terrorism or al Qaeda before 9/11.

Afghanistan

39. Reducing resources and troop levels in Afghanistan and out before it was fully secure.

40. Not providing security in Afghanistan outside of Kabul, leaving nearly 80% of the Afghan population unprotected in areas controlled by Feudal warlords and local militias.

41. Committing inadequate resources for the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

42. Counting too heavily on locally trained troops to fill the void in Afghanistan once U.S. forces were relocated to Iraq.

43. Not committing US ground troops to the capture of Osama Bin Laden, when he was cornered in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in November, 2001.

44. Allowing opium production to resume on a massive scale after the ouster of the Taliban.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

45. Opposing an independent inquiry into the intelligence failures surrounding WMD – later, upon signing off on just such a commission, Bush claimed he was “determined to make sure that American intelligence is as accurate as possible for every challenge in the future.”

46. Saying: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”

47. Trusting intelligence gathered by Vice President Cheney’s and Secretary Rumsfeld’s “Office of Special Plans.”

48. Spending $6.5 billion on nuclear weapons this year to develop new nuclear weapons this year – 50% more in real dollars than the average during the cold war – while shortchanging the troops on body armor.

Foreign Policy:

49. Ignoring the importance of the Middle East peace process, which has deteriorated with little oversight or strategy evident in the region.

50. Siding with China in February, 2004 against a democratic referenda proposed by Taiwan, a notable shift from an earlier pledge to stand with “oppressed peoples until the day of their freedom finally arrives.”

51. Undermining the War on Terrorism by preemptively invading Iraq.

52. Failing to develop a specific plan for dealing with North Korea.

53. Abandoning the United States’ traditional role as an evenhanded negotiator in the Middle East peace process.

Economic:

54. Signing a report endorsing outsourcing with thousands of American workers having their jobs shipped overseas.

55. Instituting steel tariffs deemed illegal by the World Trade Organization – Bush repealed them 20-months later when the European Union pledged to impose retaliatory sanctions on up to $2.2 billion in exports from the United States.

56. Promoting economic policies that failed to create new jobs.

57. Promoting economic policies that failed to help small businesses

58. Pledging a “jobs and growth” package would create 1,836,000 new jobs by the end of 2003 and 5.5 million new jobs by 2004—so far the president has fallen 1,615,000 jobs short of the mark.

59. Running up a foreign deficit of “such record-breaking proportions that it threatens the financial stability of the global economy.”

60. Issuing inaccurate budget forecasts accompanying proposals to reduce the deficit, omitting the continued costs of Iraq, Afghanistan and elements of Homeland Security.

61. Claiming his 2003 tax cut would give 23 million small business owners an average tax cut of $2,042 when “nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less” than that amount.

62. Passing tax cuts for the wealthy while falsely claiming “people in the 10 percent bracket” were benefiting most.”

63. Passing successive tax cuts largely responsible for turning a projected surplus of $5 trillion into a projected deficit of $4.3 trillion.

64. Moving to strip millions of overtime pay.

65. Not enforcing corporate tax laws.

66. Backing down from a plan to make CEOs more accountable when “the corporate crowd” protested.

67. Not lobbying oil cartels to change their mind about cutting oil production.

68. Passing tax cuts weighted heavily to help the wealthy.

69. Moving to allow greater media consolidation.

70. Nominating a notorious proponent of outsourcing, Anthony F. Raimondo, to be the new manufacturing Czar—Raimondo withdrew his name days later amidst a flurry of harsh criticism.

71. Ignoring calls to extend unemployment benefits with long-term unemployment reaching a twenty-year high

72. Threatening to veto pension legislation that would give companies much needed temporary relief.

Education:

73. Under-funding No Child Left Behind

74. Breaking his campaign pledge to increase the size of Pell grants.

75. Signing off on an FY 2005 budget proposing the smallest increase in education funding in nine years.

76. Under-funding the Title I Program, specifically targeted for disadvantaged kids, by $7.2 billion.

77. Freezing Teacher Quality State Grants, cutting off training opportunities for about 30,000 teachers, and leaving 92,000 less

teachers trained than the president called for in his own No Child Left Behind bill.

78. Freezing funding for English language training programs.

79. Freezing funding for after school programs, potentially eliminating 50,000 children from after-school programs.

Health:

80. Not leveling with Americans about the cost of Medicare – the president told Congress his new Medicare bill would cost $400 billion over ten years despite conclusions by his own analysts the bill would cost upwards of $500 billion over that period.

81. Silencing Medicare actuary Richard Foster when his estimates for the Administration’s Medicare bill were too high.

82. Letting business associate David Halbert, who owns a company which stands to make millions from new discount drug cards, craft key elements of the new Medicare bill.

83. Underfunding health care for troops and veterans.

84. Allowing loopholes to persist in Mad-Cow regulations.

85. Relaxing food labeling restrictions on health claims.

86. Falsely claiming the restrictions on stem cell research would not hamper medical progress.

87. Reducing action against improper drug advertising by 80 percent.

Environment:

88. Abandoning the Kyoto Treaty without offering an alternative for reducing greenhouse effect.

89. Counting on a voluntary program to reduce emissions of harmful gasses—so far only a tiny fraction of American companies have signed up.

90. Gutting clean air standards for aging power plants.

91. Weakening energy efficiency standards.

92. Relaxing dumping standards for mountaintop mining, and opening the Florida Everglades and Oregon’s Siskiyou National Forest to mining.

93. Lifting protection for more than 200 million acres of public land.

94. Limiting public challenges to logging projects and increased logging in protected areas, including Alaska’s Tongass National Forest.

95. Weakening environmental standards for snowmobiles and other off-road vehicles while pushing for exemptions for air pollution proposals for five categories of industrial facilities.

96. Opposing legislation that would require greater fuel efficiency for passenger cars.

97. Reducing inspections, penalties for violations, and prosecution of environmental crimes.

98. Misleading the public about the Washington mad cow case and the likely effectiveness of USDA’s weak testing program.

99. Withdrawing public information on chemical plant dangers, previously used to hold facilities accountable for safety improvements.

Other:

100. Cutting grants to state and local governments in FY 2005, forcing states to make massive cuts in job training, education, housing and environment.

I don’t know Jack. Maybe you’re hoping on the ignorance of Americans. That’s not a bad hedge bet. But, I wouldn’t count on it. Things aren’t lookin’ good.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 2, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #137504

Marysdude,
Well, I’m hoping they’ll learn from their mistakes.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 2, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #137505

d.a.n. the candy man could have!

Posted by: mb at April 2, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #137507

DAN

I vote in Virginia. The other parts of the country are none of my business when it comes to electing their representatives. There are no nationwide races in 2006. I told others to make choices about their own guys.

Re my own, I commented on each of the things you mentioned.

The loan thing is disputed. There are lots of allegations. Most don’t pan out.

I am not in favor of limiting contributions. Campaign finance limits simply force politicians to kiss ass more places. Remember that Eugene McCarthy was only able to challenge Johnson because of a couple of big donors.

It would be better if money was not so important, but it is. Reforms last time just drove the money into 527 organizations, where they were even more outrageous and less accountable.

Posted by: Jack at April 2, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #137511

Jack,

A lot of those rules and BILLs are useless anyway.
Only the voters can truly discourage the corruption.
I really don’t give a damn about those BILLs.
Honesty and Accountability will only be attained some day, when voters do their part to force government to be responsible too.

I simply bring up all those votes and issues, because they reveal the greed and corruption. It has always been there, in varying degrees, but it is also always growing. And, the last few years has seen a lot of growing corruption.

That complete nature of the $470,000 loan may be disputed, but it happened, and it is shady. Even if it isn’t illegal, it is unethical.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 3, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #137515

This thing about corruption. Corruption has been going on for decades, all the way back 150 years ago. Every decade has a new twist to it. Forget the Dems-Reps. Both parties are equally guilty. Do a study of Harry Reid, D-Area51, or San Fran Nan D-NLBT, John McCain R-Hemsley, or Ted Stevens R-Bridge-to-nowhere. And many more. This same thing would have applied 10, 20, 50, years ago. In the 40’s and 50’s we even had CPUSA members in congress i.e. Hamilton Fish Armstrong. We later on voted radical members of anti-government organizations to congress. Ronald Dellums and Jane Fonda’s ex hubby to congress. So each generation has its own people that surely would not be cannonization candidates. The people who elect these scoundrels are directly responsible for not learning more about them and what their principles or lack of principles are. When people don’t care who they vote for or even if they vote, they will get exactly the kind of representation that crawls out of the sewer. Would you be proud of your representative in congress slugging a security officer when the rep was not wearing proper id? Just great! So if you want scoundrels in congress just look the other way, or don’t vote, or make sure they are soundrels. You will get what you ask for!

Posted by: tomh at April 3, 2006 1:12 AM
Comment #137524

My Senators are Mike DeWine and George Voinovich (wafflers who try to be all things to all people and get nothing done in the process) and my rep is David Hobson, who I fairly admire. Care to dig up the dirt on these guys?

P.S. George Voinovich actually wept on the Senate floor to try to block the nomination of John Bolton to the U.N. (All Ohioans find a small crack in the wall and feel free to slink in)

Posted by: Duano at April 3, 2006 2:13 AM
Comment #137575

tomh,

You hit the nail on the head.
We are all culpable (voters and politicians).

The only thing I might add is that there are cycles. While corruption always exists, and has (as you say) new twists, there are some periods of increased corruption. Also, corruption is always trying to grow and flourish, whenever there is a lack of voters paying attention, and a lack of transparency and accountability, due to the natural, but frequently overlooked human factor.

Thus, there are periods and cycles that are worse than others. History repeats itself, and we fail to learn from it.

So, Education is an important part of the solution. And, pain can also be a motivator for people to want to understand.

Duano,
Their (i.e. incumbent politicians) antics are ridiculous.
The problem I have with almost all of them is how they always reject any common-sense reforms that may possibly reduce their power or opportunities for self-gain. When they aren’t voting themselves raises and cu$hy perk$, they are voting against the following:

[X] Vote NO on banning “soft money” contributions and restricting issue ads.
[X] Vote NO on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations.
[X] Vote NO on favoring McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.
[X] Vote NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts.
[X] Vote NO to the “Office of Public Integrity”

They don’t want transparency.

I don’t agree with Jacks conclusion that they are good guys, nor the lame argument that they could make more money in the private sector (OK, as lobbyists, maybe). They would actually have to do some real work, and solve some real problems in the private sector (instead of creating or ignoring problems).

_________________________________________
Stop Pepeat Offenders.
Don’t Re-Elect Them !
_________________________________________

Posted by: d.a.n at April 3, 2006 9:30 AM
Comment #137580

Interesting article Jack…

I’ve been on the fence with the whole “voting incumbents out” thing. In many ways I see the points of folks like Dan and David who are advocating doing just that. There are benefits in that it could help wake up the reps to understand that they only will get one shot at doing the right thing. If they do not then they are gone. But in many respects I agree with you Jack. The congressman in my district (Dan Burton) votes almost exclusivly how I would want and most of the things that he does not vote my preference on are issues that are not as important to me personally. I have no interest in voting him out.

The biggest problem is that most people don’t take the time to look at their respective representatives records on the issues. And most if them then just go and vote straight ticket for one party or another. This is the issue IMO.

Would a movement to vote out all imcumbents help this? I doubt it. If it took hold and could get all or most of these “uneductated” voters to follow it there is no doubt it would get rid of the career politicians. That could be good for a short time… But lets say it did take hold and this happened. When would these “uneducated” voters know when it was time to stop. If they did not take the time to look at the issues before how would they know that their new rep was doing it right and should be kept in…

A better educated voter and changes to the system that help eliminate the potential of bribery would be a great start to getting a hold back on our government. Easier said than done though…

Posted by: BradM at April 3, 2006 9:42 AM
Comment #137597

BTW slowthinker, ALL incoming congressmen and Senators have been required to pay into social security since 1983.

Posted by: Beak at April 3, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #137668

Jack:

Cheney won’t be running again in any elections. Neither will Bush. You guys will have to start to move on.

(Oh! So many possible responses!)

1.) Well, not winning any Elections didn’t stop them before

2.) Oh, you mean like you guys Got Over Clinton?

3.) That was before Martial Law was declared after the Newkewlur War with Canada!


d.a.n.: A very painstaking 100-point rebuttal (and I know that it could have been 1,000-points of light shed on their iniquities and violations, but you picked a Good List) - bravo!


American Pundit: Glad you at least can see the Burning Forest for the Smoking Trees.

:o)

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 3, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #137678

BradM,
You are absolutely correct about the Education.

We have tried everything else.
We simply let the two main parties take turns.
They know that.
They like it.
Is it working?

Why not, finally, try the simple, obvious, common-sense, peaceful, non-partisan, and responsible thing we were supposed to be doing all along ?

No grand schemes.
No vast conspiracies.
Nothing complicated.
Not resigning to futility.
Not rationalizing a vote for the same repeat offenders.
Just the one simple, right, common-sense, responsible thing we were supposed to be doing all along:

Vote out (or recall) all irresponsible incumbents, always, every election, until no more irresponsible incumbents exist, and government finally agrees to pass the many badly-needed, common-sense, responsible reforms that incumbents have refused to pass for so many decades.

QUESTION: How will voters know when to stop voting out all irresponsible incumbents?
ANSWER: When no more irresponsible incumbents exist.
When problems start getting addressed, instead of being perpetually ignored, and allowed to grow in number and severity.
When things start falling into place.
When incumbents start passing many badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms.

BradM,
Respectfully, I understand your dilemma.
I can’t criticize your conclusion.
I used to feel exactly the same way.
Voting out irresponsible incumbents seems impossible.
So, many feel it is best to do the next best thing.
__________

Now, please don’t get mad at me, but I have to point out a few things about Dan Burton’s votes and a few things that are hard to explain:

[] Dan Burton Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions.
[] Dan Burton Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads.
[] Dan Burton Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (so it is still being plundered)
___________ also, from Aug-1998: ______
… Sixty-five percent of the households Burton represents are married couples with families, which can be the only explanation for Congressman Danny’s vocal commitment to family values. “Character Matters” is one of Dan’s favorite campaign slogans.

A bitter dispute also erupted in the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee over Chairman Dan Burton’s description of President Clinton as a “scumbag” …

But … the words spoken on Aug. 31 (1998) sounded eerily familiar: an admission of regret, an attempt to deflect the moral issue by assurances that no law was broken, acknowledgment of pain caused to family, a dash of self-flagellation — but no specifics, no formal apology and, finally, a burst of defiance. But unlike the prevaricator in chief’s half-assed attempt at an apology and explanation for what we’ve known about all along, conservative Rep. Dan Burton, R.-Ind., wasn’t responding to any public allegations.

Unnerved by the thoroughness with which independent journalist Russ Baker and others have been probing his apparently active life, Burton outed himself. Believing Baker’s piece was going to be in the upcoming Vanity Fair, Dan Burton decided to cryptically pseudo-confess a slew of past sins with a kind of preemptive strike.

“If something comes out that you read about, that you think Danny shouldn’t have done, I will own up to it. I won’t lie about it. I will tell the truth,” said congressman Dan Burton, leaving one to wonder if he’d let us know what “it” was, should no story ever appear?

By week’s end, Dan Burton — by now fearing that revelations were imminent in the daily Indianapolis Star — further allowed that his definition of family values included an old adulterous affair followed by financial support of (but no personal contact with) an illegitimate son.

But sprinkled throughout Dan Burton’s hedges and acknowledgments were accusations — charges that journalists’ strings are being pulled by “friends of the president [Clinton]” who have been “spreading rumors” about his personal life.

While it is entirely possible that the Clinton White House has been up to no good in this case, those who have participated in or covered Indiana politics over the past 25 years found Burton’s conspiracy theory laughable for one simple reason: Tales of Dan Burton’s infidelities, true or not, have abounded in Indiana political and journalistic circles for years.

In fact, had it not been for a certain comment Dan Burton himself made back in March (1998), odds are that word of the tales would never have appeared in print at all.
______________________________

Thursday, April 3rd, 1997 — NEW YORK (APJP) — The heat was turned up on Rep. Dan Burton as lobbyist Mark Siegal testified before a federal grand jury yesterday. Siegal alleges that Burton — the Republican heading the House investigation into campaign fund-raising abuses — shook him down for campaign money.
_______________________________

There’s much more, but that’s sufficient.
Perhaps you did not know of some of these things?

The point is, the bar is set so, very, very low.
It is all too easy to reveal the corruption, but Americans don’t seem to care…even seem to accept it…which is why it continues to grow worse every year.

That corruption is so wide spread, it is truly difficult to find many (if any) incumbent politicians that are truly responsible and accountable.

And, it’s hard to overlook how most refuse to pass any campaign finance reforms (among many other badly-needed, common sense reforms), as incumbents continue to create ways to make their incumbency more secure.

So, voters have a choice.
Voters can continue to support repeat offenders by re-electing them; empowering them, or wait until our demise becomes sufficiently painful, and voters finally decide to do what we were supposed to be doing all along.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 3, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #137682
…Glad you at least can see the Burning Forest for the Smoking Trees.

Betty Burke, I love it !
You are a hoot !
Thanks !
: )

Posted by: d.a.n at April 3, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #137712

How about ya’ll down Georgia way. Congressman, oops Congresswoman, oops still got that man in there. Let’s try Congressperson, oops got son in there. Gee Whiz I don’t know what to call the female representative from Georgia. Anyway, she assaulted a security officer after he requested her to halt three times. What a royal treatment by one of our educated public servants (sic). She is calling it racial profiling and racist. What a load of manure. She did not have her ID on and refused to stop. Give me a break Congressthing McKinney.

Posted by: tomh at April 3, 2006 9:26 PM
Comment #137730

Woo HOOO!!!!! Tom Delay just announced he will not seek office in 2006. The chickens have come home to roost. Now I can only hope they’ll send his sorry a** to jail.

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 3, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #137765

d.a.n.,

You just keep chipping away…you’ll convince us one of these days. I’m beginning to hate Arkansas Senatorial incumbants, and I don’t even know if they are good ones or bad ones. They’ve each voted the way I wanted them too and they’ve each done some stupid stuff. I don’t think they’re crooked yet, but they’ll surely learn how before long. Let’s send them all home!

My Rep is a far right Republican who has voted so close to Cheney/Bush old Boz better hope Cheney/Bush don’t put his brakes on or Boz’s nose will break for sure.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 4, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #137853

I agree that I have 2 of the best Senators representing my state. Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions are Doing a good job representing the state of ALABAMA!
Deby

Posted by: Deby at April 4, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #137861

CFT,

Frist and Alexander are also my Senators….I think you need to check their voting record on spending and budget cuts…..

I’ll vote for a monkey before I would vote for either of these guys again.

Posted by: Tom L at April 4, 2006 10:16 AM
Comment #138044

There must be a stunningly large population of cavemen where you live, Jack.

Though I do believe the idea of voting out all incumbents (no offense d.a.n) is simply not going to work.

Posted by: Zeek at April 4, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #138046

Betty

I rarely say anything bad about Clinton. He was a good president and a good steward of the economy.

He was elected 4-8 years too soon. Had he lost in 1992, he would have had time to mature, maybe become less frisky. Had that happened he could have been a great president. Now he will be merely good. Historians will probably lump him, and both Bushes in the same pile - between the great Ronald Reagan and the almost great John McCain.

Posted by: Jack at April 4, 2006 8:25 PM
Comment #138048

Zeek

There are.

Posted by: Jack at April 4, 2006 8:26 PM
Comment #138051

Jack, how could you “lump” GWB in with his father and Clinton? Both Clinton and Bush 41 were mediocre presidents. GWB is definitely a good president and history will dictate how great he will (eventually) become. He sees the threat of terrorism in that of the same way (The Great) Reagan saw the threat of Soviets; Bush 41 and Clinton didn’t come close to that.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 4, 2006 8:36 PM
Comment #138061

Rahdigly

I am not sure how Bush will be seen. A lot depends on the outcome of Iraq. If that works out reasonably well, he will be seen as a great and transforming president. Otherwise, not.

He is already in the good category. I truly don’t understand the problem Dems have with him. The booming economy and general success in the war on terror are plusses. But the Iraq jury is still out, and that is a big factor.

Sort of like, “Besides that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”

Clinton was a good president. I don’t think we can (or should) take that away from him. U.S. policies didn’t change much from Bush I to Clinton to Bush II, until 9/11.

Posted by: Jack at April 4, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #138071

Zeek, No offense taken. : )
Maybe in a few years ?
We’ve tried everything else.
Why not try the one thing we were supposed to be doing all along ?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 4, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #138087

Zeek, you apparently don’t understand the anti-incumbent movement. Dan has never said VOTE OUT ALL THE INCUMBENTS. Dan has consistently argued for voting out irresponsible or incompetent or corrupt incumbents. The folks at VOID know full well that voting out all incumbents is not even remotely possible, nor desireable.

The goal is defeat enough incumbents to put the fear of the voters back into the hearts and minds of politicians so that the people’s and the nation’s agenda supercedes the agendas of political party, lobbyists, special interests, and fat cat donor’s.

Won’t take that many either. If just 10 to 15% of the Senate’s incumbents and 75 to 100 Representative incumbents were defeated in a single election, all the remaining incumbents and new freshman as well would realize they could be next if the people voters remain unhappy with the results of Congress.

You are free to misrepresent the anti-incumbent strategy all you wish, or continue to reveal your lack of understanding of it. But more and more of us will hold you accountable for it with the facts as just outlined making your comments the more embarassing.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 5, 2006 12:14 AM
Comment #138236

d.a.n. or david r. your take on ross perot btw he did get almost 20 million votes also he seemed to have a desire to remove ghw bush because of NAFTA and the economy and the gulf war. was that the main point or do you really think he thought he had a chance. and your thoughts about him not being in the race do you think clinton would have won?

Posted by: mb at April 5, 2006 6:53 PM
Comment #138339

mb,
I was going to vote for Ross Perot, until he quit. It angered me the way he strung everyone along, and then quit them.

Yes, Ross Perot was right about NAFTA (that huge sucking sound). Republicans want cheap labor.

I think Poss Perot was a result of what voters perceived as the ineffectiveness and irresponsibility of the two main parties. Many voters thought they saw something in Ross Perot that the nation needed. Ross Perot definitely revealed the growing dissatisfaction with the two main parties. However, parties are neither the problem or solution. Voters still fail to understand that the problem is irresponsible incumbents (of all parties) and voters that tolerate them.

Perot chose not to seize his great chance.
This should be a lesson to voters to not pray and hope leaders will come to the rescue.

Only the voters can fix the mess we are in now.
Irresponsible incumbents will not do it.

The theoretical possibility exists.
What would happen if voters started voting out irresponsible incumbents, always?

After all, isn’t that what the voters were supposed to do all along?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 6, 2006 1:55 AM
Post a comment