Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Eric,

Until the campaign financing laws are reformed, everyone is going to get as much money as they can, any way they can. Republicans have been in power for a very long time, and could have changed the laws at any point. They chose not to. Blame the rules of the game, not the players. Don’t act like it’s just Democrat candidates doing this either.

Posted by: Max at February 24, 2007 08:53 PM

Corruption is the name of the game in a capitalist society. It is a way of life in America from the top to the bottom. At least workers will get a little better deal from corrupt Democrats than they will from corrupt Republicans.

Posted by: jlw at February 24, 2007 09:19 PM

jlw

Do you have any experience in a non-free market country? Even the most corrupt city in the U.S. was better than an average communist jurisdiction. If you compare the economic freedom index with transparency international’s corruption index, you notice that the less free a market the more corruption you find. It is almost a perfect relationship.

And about these “workers”. Who are they? I work for salary. I bet everybody who writes here does. This is not 1917 anymore. Unskilled workers make up a ever smaller part of the workforce. Most of us are now skilled or white collared. The top 20% of the income group has more “workers” than the bottom 20%, many of whom do not work.

Posted by: Jack at February 24, 2007 09:40 PM

Thanks for another great laugh, Eric.

Posted by: ElliottBay at February 24, 2007 09:44 PM

Culture of corruption…in America…how shocking!

Jack
“you notice that the less free a market the more corruption you find.”
Ahh…correlation doesn’t mean causation…but you knew already now…didn’t you?

Posted by: greenstuff at February 24, 2007 10:16 PM

Jack: Corruption is just another one of man’s immoralities. Most men are immoral in one way or another. All human institutions will reflect that immorality. You don’t seem to have a bit of trouble seeing the mote in another man’s eye.

The current administration is the most corrupt, most immoral administration in American history to date. Some day in the not to distant future, there will be one that is even worse.

Posted by: jlw at February 24, 2007 10:18 PM

jlw

“At least workers will get a little better deal from corrupt Democrats than they will from corrupt Republicans.”

This you are correct in. The workers will take two steps forward under the dems. And three steps backwards when republicans are again able to regain power. Seems like it always works that way. But then business money runs the republican party, so I guess it is in their best interests to favor the wealthy. It is funny how some things just seem to stay the same and many people never really catch on to what is happening until it has bit them in the ass.

Posted by: ILdem at February 24, 2007 10:59 PM

Greenstuff

You have the “black swan” problem.

We see a consistent corelation of free markets with LESS corruption, richer societies, less pollution etc.

We cannot do an actual experiment with societies, but on two occassions we have come very close. Of course, I am talking about E&W Germany and N&S Korea. In both those cases, we took nearly identical cultures and split them. The only major variable was the type of economic system. Results were clear in both cases.

I agree that we cannot say for certain that free markets lead to better societies, but we can say that unfree markets never do.

So if we never see a black swan, we really cannot say that there are none. But it does mean that the conditions we have do not produce very many of them. If you wait for absolute truth, you will never make any decisions. But you knew that.

We can say, based on observation market economies produce the best results. We can also say that we have never seen a non-market economy that was not corrupt and oppressive. Is it possible to have a non-market good country, probably, but not in our world.

Posted by: Jack at February 24, 2007 11:05 PM

I think the democratic base is far more liekly to push their leaders to change. The Republican base seems to consider corruption the natural state of affairs.

One answer is public funded elections but we’ve already discussed that.

Posted by: muirgeo at February 24, 2007 11:08 PM

Eric

When was the last time the republicans attempted any reform on anything? Seems to me that they have fought reform from all angles. It would be too damaging to their agenda.

Serious campaign finance reform is in order. However until and if it is ever initiated you really can not expect the dems to sit back and allow the #1 party of corruption to outdo them in campaign financing. We might be corrupt but we aren’t stupid.

And as I said over on Jacks thread. This situation really is a sad state of affairs. It is shameful and does not speak well of our legislators who write our laws and should be held for all intent and purposes to the highest of standards. Instead there are those who accept it simply because it has always been. Doesn’t say much for their standards does it.

Posted by: ILdem at February 24, 2007 11:17 PM

Looking at this, I can’t help but see the virtue of public financing of campaigns.

Still, we do have to address one crucial, and altogether incurable element of all this: One way or another, the people with interests like this are going to get their access. That is they way it’s always been, and no systerm where people have access to their leaders like ours can prevent this from happening.

The campaign finance issues, important as they are, remain secondary to the other issue: whether our elected officials do their duty. Truth be told, a long as their interests aren’t suffering most Americans do not mind the elite getting together. It’s a free country. However, people do want to be part of the process and it’s scary to feel like that’s out of their control.

I believe it’s only right that we make them scared right back.

Let’s start with a movement towards public financing. We can start there because even if the problem is going to be chronic, we can at least moderate the disease, instead of letting it run rampant.

Then there’s the issue of knowledge. If they know that they’re going to get caught, and suffer in elections for that, they’re going to put limits on the favors they grant. This involves keeping up with what’s going on with particular candidates. I have a feeling that Barney Frank’s going to regret those words. Such regret is not a bad thing.

The parties need to start creating alternatives if they want to hold power. People need to be willing to punish incumbents in the primary, if only by giving them a good scare with a substantial challeng.

Last but not least, we need to change the overall culture, not just in Washingtion, but everywhere, because the thing to to remember is that these people are a reflection of us.

Now, the Republicans need to recall how their members reflected on them, and start taking a dose of this medicine they’re dishing out, but this bitter brew should be dosed by Democrats as well. We didn’t overcome the last Republican majority to become just like it. And the Republican should reflect that they aren’t going to be taken seriously as having the moral high ground, so long as memories remain of the last twelve years.

Overall, though, we need to admit that if we have a culture of corruption, a culture that encourages cheating and lying as a way to get ahead, it’s going to filter through to our politicians. We need to reform ourselves as well as our government.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 24, 2007 11:27 PM

Jack
Congratulations on your state apoligizing for its role in slavery.It took awhile but still it is the first to do so.

Posted by: BillS at February 25, 2007 01:03 AM

Eric, that rare moment has arrived again when we can completely agree on something. The Democrats are taking the bribes hand over fist as the Republicans did and do, and that is make 10’s of millions of us voters turn Independent with a penchant for throwing incumbents out from the unified REPUBLOCRAT Party, whose modus operandi is identical even if their foreign and domestic polices differ a bit.

The Republican Party and Democratic Parties have the same process priority list, Money givers and Wealthy Special interests first, reelection second, Party third, Lobbyists 4th, the voters 5th, the nation dead last.

This is the priority list of incumbents of both parties, which requires we voters vote to replace them with challengers yet untainted by the Party machinery which enforces this horrid priority set.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 25, 2007 03:50 AM

“Unskilled workers make up a ever smaller part of the workforce. Most of us are now skilled or white collared.”

That’s because all the unskilled jobs have been outsourced to China. Hence, a large unemployment that isn’t even recorded anymore.

Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at February 25, 2007 05:21 AM

The Bush Administration has just launched another assult on the American middle class. Mexican truck drivers will now be allowed to operate anywhere within the borders of the United States. American companies will now begin the process of replacing American drivers with green carded Mexican drivers. American trucking companies can now proclaim that this is necessary for them to compete with Mexican trucking companies.

On the bright side, illegal drugs and illegal immigrants will be more plentiful and cheaper. When the trucks loaded with explosives start coming across the border, let us hope that the first one goes to Midland.

Posted by: jlw at February 25, 2007 10:14 AM

Eric

I commended Jack for helping to keep this issue alive. The same thanks are in order for you. I often find your threads a bit sensationalistic and provacative. (this is not a slam, I have no problems with such threads) But while I do not necesarily see your analogies as fair and honest, I do see them as a means of highlighting what to me is propably the biggest concern in government today. That being corruption and the need for serious campaign finance and ethics reform. Thanks again.

Posted by: ILdem at February 25, 2007 11:33 AM

“Unskilled workers make up a ever smaller part of the workforce. Most of us are now skilled or white collared.”

Jack,

You might want to look at this graph from the US Dept. of Labor:
http://stats.bls.gov/emp/emptab1.htm

If you include all “Professional and related occupations” (which I’m sure also includes occupations such as nursing) and all “Office and administrative support occupations” (which I’m equally sure includes such low level jobs as mail room worker, etc.) along with “Management, business, and financial occupations” the total is about 46.3% of all occupations that might fall into your category of “white collar” although as I said previously, I’m sure a number of these are far from actual white collar jobs.

Regardless of that, what I find as a stark contrast between the “two Americas” I often refer to is the fact that the two largest major occupational groups are (1)Professional and related occupations which represent 19.6% of the workforce and (2)Service occupations which represent a whopping 19% of the workforce. Both fairly well dwarf the 10.3% represented in the Management, business, and financial sectors.

At any rate to disregard Americans at the lowest end of the wage scale, 19% in service occupations alone, as an insignificant number speaks volumes about how the Republican mindset works.

IMO America under conservative rule has been moving closer and closer to a truly “caste” society. I can’t see such a system surviving infinitely in a true democracy. Sooner or later the “lower classes” will say, “enough is enough” and vote for real change.

You might want to consider exactly what historical events led to such sweeping change as FDR’s “New Deal”. Then read this:
Poverty level is at a 32-year high
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.poverty25feb25,0,7802554.story?track=rss

BTW I’m not anti-free market, but it just makes good common sense that no democracy can stand while neglecting it’s most vulnerable citizens. The longer issues of inequality and disparity go un-addressed the harsher the change will be.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 25, 2007 11:56 AM

Eric,

What’s your point?

Democrats shouldn’t be able to hold fundraising events?

Maybe Franks’ “frankness” just threw you for a loop?

Anyone can look here and see which party gets how much and who they get it from:
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.asp

Posted by: KansasDem at February 25, 2007 12:07 PM

If only Eric could recognize the problem in both parties, and become a truly independant thinker.

I’m not sure public finance will solve the problem, and reform has real free speech issues, but anyone with any semblance of integrity recognizes a problem.

Posted by: gergle at February 25, 2007 12:23 PM

recognize the problem [is] in both parties,

I agree.
Too many irresponsible incumbent politicians exist in BOTH parties.
And, too many voters keep rewarding them for it by repeatedly re-electing them.

A large number of badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms (including campaign finance reform) are extremely unlikely to ever be passed by Congress.

There are a number of things that badly need reform, but:

• campaign finance reform alone won’t fix everything.


• an end to Gerrymandering alone won’t fix everything.


• election reform alone won’t fix everything.


• term-limits alone won’t fix everything.


• ONE-PURPOSE-PER-BILL alone won’t fix everything.


• line-item veto alone won’t fix everything.


• eliminating deficits alone won’t fix everything.


• eliminating debt alone won’t fix everything.


• stopping illegal immigration (and politicians pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other) alone won’t fix everything.


• stopping the plunder of Social Security surpluses alone won’t fix everything.


• stopping eminent domain abuse alone won’t fix everything.


• stopping corpocrisy, corporatism, and selling out American workers alone won’t fix everything.


• reforming the dysfunctional legal system that encarcerates and executes innocent people while letting pedophiles, rapists, and murders run loose, alone won’t fix everything.


• success in Iraq alone won’t fix everything.


• fighting terrorism alone won’t fix everything.


• securing our ports and borders alone won’t fix everything.


• reducing the insidious inflationist practices alone won’t fix everything.


• reducing CO2 emissions alone won’t fix everything.


• providing affordable and safe healthcare alone won’t fix everything.


• the next President, whoever it may be, alone won’t fix everything.


• fixing public education, declining in quality while increasing in cost, alone won’t fix everything.


• shoring up plundered pensions (PBGC $450 billion in the hole) alone won’t fix everything.


• solving our energy vulnerabilities alone won’t fix everything.


• reforming the ridulously complex, abused, and perverted tax system alone won’t fix everything.


• etc., etc., etc.

Few (if any) of those things above will ever be solved as long as slumbering voters keep rewarding politicians for ignoring it.

If the slumbering voters keep re-electing repeat offenders, then the list above will continue to grow in length and severity … until the consequences of it finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 25, 2007 02:11 PM

d.a.n.,

I hope everyone takes time to click on your ‘etc.” link. While I did a much poorer job of getting my point across I was headed in the same direction when I told Jack, “The longer issues of inequality and disparity go un-addressed the harsher the change will be.”

We still have time, but not a whole lot. For nearly three decades the Republicans have promised the middle class a better life thru tax cuts and reduced spending on “welfare queens”. Well it hasn’t really happened yet and we’re spending more, not less:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070225/ap_on_re_us/welfare_state;_ylt=AshNi1dzGuSzDOpqNK2PbNiyFz4D
“The welfare state is bigger than ever despite a decade of policies designed to wean poor people from public aid.”

This is not only the result of failed Republican policy. The Democrats are equally to blame. The problem is hardly limited to only social ills. At least as far back as Truman presidents have been thumbing their noses at congress regarding the use of military force in shaping foreign policy. Some outcomes have been better than others, but the end does not justify the means.

My two greatest fears are (1)continued failures regarding foreign affairs leading to World War III which will almost certainly have a MAD outcome and (2)the continued failure to address poverty and wage disparity that results in an extreme shift to the Left of true socialist proportions. (A third concern is a shift towards theocracy, but it’s a distant third)

I’ve recently been greatly influenced by the “Populist Papers”. While only registered with the FEC in 2002 The Populist Party of America “agenda” can be pretty well summed up in a few short paragraphs:

“Populists have no set agenda other than bringing the rule of the nation to the nation itself, and taking it away from the few who currently control our fate.

“With this in mind, Populism can be summed up in one simple phrase: “Rule of the People”

“Those against us will call us Nihilists. They say we have no place in society because we believe in nothing. This is completely untrue. Every Populist has their own personal political beliefs, but believes that each person has the right to vote to support their own, and to eliminate all underhanded political dealings.

“Political power is the greatest evil in the world today. Dictators and Senators alike are guilty. As campaigning has become expensive beyond belief, each politician becomes more and more indebted to the companies and groups that finance them, and less and less indebted to the people. Alternatively, more and more politicians are being required to have riches beyond the dreams of the average individual just to campaign. Thus, the leaders of our society are becoming less and less in tune with the needs of the people, and more and more in tune with the needs of the upper 10%.

“In other words, due to the need for wealth in political campaigns, and the enormous growth of wealth in the hands of the few, a dangerous majority of political power belongs to a small minority, and our current government cannot stop this. This is due to the reliance of legislators on political parties, which are, more often than not, financed and influenced by the wealthy minority. Populism seeks to eliminate this.

“Many will charge that we are trying to destroy this current system of Democracy. This is exactly what we intend to do. Most importantly though, we do not live in a democracy here in America. We intend to destroy the evils of our current system. After more than two centuries of the rule of the few, Populism intends to give the nation to the people. Political power is, after all, control over the people. In a nation deserving of self-rule, the people have the right to control themselves.”

You can read more here:
http://www.populistamerica.com/declaration_of_principles

Posted by: KansasDem at February 25, 2007 03:43 PM

dan-
The problem is us. The system is going to put pressure on anybody you put in there, challenger or incumbent. voting out incumbents without changing the system is like giving morphine to cancer patients without chemotherapy. It will relieve the symptoms, but not necessarily change things. You say that the aftereffects of voting out all the incumbents will be an improvement in their behavior. That reminds me of the argument that taxes increase revenue. Theoretically, it could happen, but usually it doesn’t.

There is no simple answer, because the problem is not essentializable. It’s emergent.

One part will be getting incumbents kicked out, because that is one of our major moderating controls on elected officials. But we can’t just snap our fingers and make it happen, and even if we do get incumbents kicked out, the system will come back and put pressures and temptations on our officials.

Even if we do go for campaign finance reform (one part of the answer to the emergent problem of corruption) The very nature of government will attract people to court, if you will. Power has always attracted those who want power used to their own ends.

We could theoretically sequester our official away from all access, and just feed them information. That, however, would only theoretically do any good, and it would have the added liability of decreasing our contact with those officials, making for an ivory tower government. Not what we need, we have too much of that as it is.

My suggestion? Leave the political B.S. behind. For years we’ve discussing engineered talking points which really have little to do with the real world, and more to do with certain people’s agendas.

The internet offers one part of the recourse, in allowing the quick distribution of information. When these officials of ours fail in their duties, the sooner and in greater detail that people know this, the better.

Another part of this will be changing our ideas of what constitutes our interests. When it comes to the federal government we should try and consider national interests above parochial, and we should do our utmost to make the resolutions not ones forced on others, but rather to make the policies of this country the product of agreement. The more our politics determines what we think is in our interests, the worse the policies will be, and the more bad leaders can linger by kissing ideological butt.

You need to expand your horizons, rather than shrink them to one simple idea, because no one simple anything will determine the future of this country and the quality of its policies. In the end, it’s more prosaic than that. Our priority should not be to implement political philsophies, but to deal with practical realities. That’s what political philosophies were meant to deal with in the first place. If they get in the way, they should be discarded.

There’s no perfect solution, there’s no permanent one. This is the struggle of people with their government from time immemorial. It can’t won on one front, it must be approach on a case by case basis with common sense and expert knowledge wedded together to create the best solutions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 25, 2007 04:24 PM

KansasDem,

Thanks for the populist link.
I agree with much of what you wrote.

What many don’t realize is that Congress has been enjoying a 90% re-election rate for over a decade.

I think that is creating an arrogant, elitist, bought-and-paid-for, FOR-SALE government that ignores the voters.

But, why not ignore voters, since the voters keep rewarding them by re-electing them?

Thanks for the link to the Populist Party.
Respectfully, I don’t have an affinity to any party.
From now on, I will strive to look at all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, and consider them individually … especially incumbents that already have an established voting record. I’m not knocking any one party. I simply don’t see the need to support one.
In fact, I believe parties abuse their power once they acquire a majority of support.

What Congress needs more than anything is a wake-up call. That is, stop re-electing repeat offenders. It’s really no wonder politicians are the way they are. We reward them for it. We actually (sort of) program them to be irresponsible, by rewarding them every election with re-election, regardless of their voting records.

The Republican party has been hijacked by extremists.
The Democrat party has been hijacked by bleeding hearts, and selling out Americans by pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other. Republicans too, since they, and their big-money-donors, love cheap labor.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You need to expand your horizons, rather than shrink them to one simple idea,

Still trying to tell me what to do, eh?

What I stand for is voter education.
Why are you against that?
Is it because YOUR party is now the IN-PARTY?
Because it might lose a few votes for YOUR party?

Stephen Daugherty wrote:You say that the aftereffects of voting out all the incumbents will be an improvement in their behavior. That reminds me of the argument that taxes increase revenue. Theoretically, it could happen, but usually it doesn’t.

Nonsense.

Refusing to re-elect repeat offenders is mere common sense?
What’s wrong with that?

Ahhhh … I see. The previous OUT-PARTY and is now the IN-PARTY. It’s interesting how the roles of the IN-PARTY and the OUT-PARTY swap places.

• the same teams (merely taking turns being the IN PARTY and OUT PARTY)
• the same players (90% were re-elected)
• the same old game
• the same old results (the nation’s problems still go ignored)

Haven’t you noticed the very slim lead that either of the two party duopoly has had in the last 10 years?

Rewarding bad behavior will only get more of it.
That’s the logic behind voting out irresponsible incumbent politicians that keep ignoring the nation’s most pressing problems.

What’s wrong with that?

You think voting Democrats will fix things, eh?
Here in the rose colored column, they thing voting for Republicans will fix things.

The sad fact is, neither are serious about fixing anything.

The slumbering voters will have to learn the hard (again).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 25, 2007 09:50 PM

KansasDem,

Thanks for the populist link.
I agree with much of what you wrote.

What many don’t realize is that Congress has been enjoying a 90% re-election rate for over a decade.

I think that is creating an arrogant, elitist, bought-and-paid-for, FOR-SALE government that ignores the voters.

But, why not ignore voters, since the voters keep rewarding them by re-electing them?

Thanks for the link to the Populist Party.
Respectfully, I don’t have an affinity to any party.
From now on, I will strive to look at all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, and consider them individually … especially incumbents that already have an established voting record. I’m not knocking any one party. I simply don’t see the need to support one.
In fact, I believe parties abuse their power once they acquire a majority of support.

What Congress needs more than anything is a wake-up call. That is, stop re-electing repeat offenders. It’s really no wonder politicians are the way they are. We reward them for it. We actually (sort of) program them to be irresponsible, by rewarding them every election with re-election, regardless of their voting records.

The Republican party has been hijacked by extremists.
The Democrat party has been hijacked by bleeding hearts, and selling out Americans by pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other. Republicans too, since they, and their big-money-donors, love cheap labor.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You need to expand your horizons, rather than shrink them to one simple idea,

Still trying to tell me what to do, eh?

What I stand for is voter education.
Why are you against that?
Is it because YOUR party is now the IN-PARTY?
Because it might lose a few votes for YOUR party?

Stephen Daugherty wrote:You say that the aftereffects of voting out all the incumbents will be an improvement in their behavior. That reminds me of the argument that taxes increase revenue. Theoretically, it could happen, but usually it doesn’t.

Nonsense.

Refusing to re-elect repeat offenders is mere common sense?
What’s wrong with that?

Ahhhh … I see. The previous OUT-PARTY and is now the IN-PARTY. It’s interesting how the roles of the IN-PARTY and the OUT-PARTY swap places.

• the same teams (merely taking turns being the IN PARTY and OUT PARTY)
• the same players (90% were re-elected)
• the same old game
• the same old results (the nation’s problems still go ignored)

Haven’t you noticed the very slim lead that either of the two party duopoly has had in the last 10 years?

Rewarding bad behavior will only get more of it.
That’s the logic behind voting out irresponsible incumbent politicians that keep ignoring the nation’s most pressing problems.

What’s wrong with that?

You think voting Democrats will fix things, eh?
Here in the rose colored column, they thing voting for Republicans will fix things.

The sad fact is, neither are serious about fixing anything.

The slumbering voters will have to learn the hard (again).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 25, 2007 09:51 PM

dan-
If you don’t have a taste for people telling you what to do, why show up at a political site where that’s just about all people do? I’m not telling you to do your chores, or not to go out with that young lady. I’m suggesting a different approach to politics. If that were out of the question on this site, I’d think this would be a pretty boring place!

You tell me I’m against voter education. Got any quotes of mine to support that? As far as I know, I’ve advocated it, in fact, gone further than you in addressing the shape of what should be done. I also recognize, though, that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

I haven’t argued with you that bad officials shouldn’t be re-elected. Many of my arguments have been about specifically targeting bad officials. I believe you broad brush them, which drains the legitimacy and the factual power from the effort. If we can’t give a convincing answer to people as to why they should dismiss these officials, just what do you expect to happen? It’s their choice, no matter how smart we think our plans are. If we don’t show respect for that, we become part of inspiring the exact opposite reaction.

You patronize me with your rhetoric, assigning motives to my actions, and overlooking places where I’m almost in agreement. How is that good rhetorical strategy?

People will not always feel concerned enough about things to kick out incumbents whenever folks like us feel its needed. We don’t need to patronize these people, to alienate those who might agree, given the right knowledge. We need to put our noses to the grindstone and start working out for people the daily consequences of the actions of their politicians. We shouldn’t be hiding behind generalities that are practically cliches.

In answer to your questions, no, I don’t think simply voting Democrat will change things. We’ll see whether they wise up. They’re better so far than those who came before them, but that’s depressingly easy. We need to do better than the bottom of the barrel when the last congress practically went through that bottom.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 25, 2007 10:51 PM

Stephen D. said: “voting out incumbents without changing the system is like giving morphine to cancer patients without chemotherapy.”

Stephen, voting out incumbents is precisely what happened in November and precisely why some aspects of the system are improving. Voting out incumbents is precisely what our Constitution calls for when the system of government fails the people. I think your comment above was either misstated or not thought through.

If voting out incumbents is not the answer to a flawed system, then revolution or servitude to the flawed system are the only alternatives.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 26, 2007 02:37 AM

David R. Remer-
Voting out incumbents who do wrong can be one part of it, and can have some effect. It isn’t everything, though. Tenure is not the only issue at hand when it comes to corruption.

First, there’s the matter of what the culture around us encourages and overlooks. When the general rule is that being competitive takes priority over other gravitational centers of behavior, then the former challengers are pulled towards the kind of behavior that the incumbents were doing before.

Second, there’s the matter of how that’s allowed to manifest according to the rules in the Senate and House. If those are not reformed, you preserve the advantage for those who fundraise in a competitive manner.

Even if a third party comes to power, these problems will persist, because these problems are created by the nature of any government that concentrates power in the hands of a few- essentially any modern government, by necessity.

When repairing a broken machine, it can often be tiresome to keep on replacing the same part over and over again. Sometimes, by replacing certain parts and recalibrating some of the other processes going on, you can stop short this cycle of excessive disrepair, and allow the parts to remain as they are longer.

There are benefits to incumbency, to experience, to influence, as well as problems. What we should seek is a positive equilibrium, the best mix of tenure maintained, and tenure cut short.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 26, 2007 11:38 AM

Two weeks ago, Hoyer and Bonner were on one of the talking heads shows. Hoyer said that the American people will not support public financing and the Congress would not pass it even if they did. Bonner agreed wholeheartedly.

Eric: Corrupt, inept and deceitful, the three words that best describes your great leaders administration. A couple of months ago the Musharraf regime signed a pact with the terrorists. The Bush administration signed off on that agreement. Now Cheney is in Pakistan threatening Musharraf that he has to crack down on al Qaeda or the Democrats will cut off aid to Pakistan. In other words, the administration loves and supports you but those terrible Democrats are serious about going after those responsible for 9/11 so you have to at least act like you are doing something about them.

Posted by: jlw at February 26, 2007 01:50 PM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You patronize me with your rhetoric, assigning motives to my actions, and overlooking places where I’m almost in agreement. How is that good rhetorical strategy?

Really?

Look whose talking.
I’m not going to draw a lot of conclusions about you or your statement.
Instead, I’m going to let your own statements say it all.

So, what do you call this (see your many statements below, Stephen)?

• d.a.n … Voting out incumbents without changing the system is like giving morphine to cancer patients without chemotherapy… .


• You say that the aftereffects of voting out all the incumbents will be an improvement in their behavior. That reminds me of the argument that taxes increase revenue.

Is that not patronizing and sarcasm?
That “giving morphine to cancer patients” analogy makes no sense.

Stephen Daugherty,
It seems you just don’t want any competition for YOUR party [Democrat], now that YOUR party is the IN-PARTY, as evidenced by the obvious bias of your many statements:
Stephen Daugherty wrote:

• d.a.n , “You’re wasting your time” [i.e. with VOID and One-Simple-Idea.com … both voter education sites]


• The question of what good third parties are without substantial presence in the offices of the land is a good one.


• They [voters] should be allying with us [Democrats].


• In my opinion, the proper people to run this party are the voters who elect Democrats.


• If third parties can’t win offices, what good are they to the voter?


• You need to expand your horizons, rather than shrink them to one simple idea


• I also don’t think replacing one set of people with another necessarily does the job.


• The new third party has to materialize out of something more than just a sense of entitlement.


• I don’t like to hear people get down on my party …


• How many people curse the green party for George W. Bush getting elected?

There ain’t nothin’ blindly partisan about none of that, eh?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You tell me I’m against voter education. Got any quotes of mine to support that?

Yes.

See your own quotes above and below.
Especially the one where you say “You’re wasting your time”.

One-Simple-Idea.com is not only about voter education, but about what voters were supposed to be doing all along.
It also contains data, statistics, and potential common-sense solutions … many of which many Americans agree with, but politicians and Do-Nothing Congress continue to ignore.
The last election contained some anti-incumbent sentiment.
The next election is likely to contain more of it, since Do-Nothing Congress is still ignoring the nation’s most pressing problems.

It’s funny that you didn’t mind me criticizing the Do-Nothing Congress until Democrats got the majority.
What’s up with that?
By the way, neither party has had much of a lead since 1996 (for over a decade: one-simple-idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm).

Stephen Daugherty,
It appears you are threatened by it, now that YOUR party is the IN-PARTY, as evidenced by your statements above.
You just want people, as you wrote, “allying with us [i.e. Democrats]”, eh?

Stephen, there’s a difference between telling people opinions and telling them what to do.

As for assigning motives and telling people what to do, your own statements below demonstrate a penchant for the very thing you accuse others of …
Stephen Daugherty wrote the following:

• Now you’re trying my patience.


• d.a.n, First, don’t call people brainwashed


• d.a.n, I told you that you shouldn’t do it, and you’re free to agree or not to agree with what I’m telling you to do.


• You need to expand your horizons, rather than shrink them to one simple idea,


• Again, I’m going to tell you, don’t …


• your quest to oust incumbents is nothing but a partisan political cause


• Wait until there are some actions actually taken by this [110th] Congress before you talk about their hypocrisy


• But you seem to think that somehow if people just listen to your idea, things will be fine


• Don’t call it pros and cons.


• David R. Remer, If you want something that badly, fight for it.


• Also, you’re not perfect


• On the subject of third parties being spoilers or fringe, I’d say you need to avoid that


• Don’t just excuse yourself by accusing those asking for those facts of being brainwashed idiots. Give the facts.


• Don’t expect them to save you any by simply agreeing with you because you think so highly of your own arguments


• [David R. Remer,] You can make all the generalized claims you want to …


• … Congress, even the scuzzball congress we just got done destroying in the polls
  (yet, Stephen doesn’t like anyone criticizing this 110th Congress now with a Democrat majority?)


• d.a.n … To be frank with you, you’re no better than the people you criticize.


• I don’t like to hear people get down on my party [Democrat] …


• d.a.n, You’re playing word games, though.


• If you want to accuse me of lying a few more times for the road, that’s fine by me.


• Your arguments are too abstract, too distant.


• d.a.n , I’m just pointing out that you have a tendency to accept right-wing talking points


• If you really know so much about what’s going on, you’ll be able to tell me a story about what’s happening.


• Jeez man, if that’s respect, I’d hate to get on your bad side!


• I’ve tried to do you the respect of not merely flatly contradicting you …


• Facts, d.a.n . Facts. Not your opinions, not your conclusions, not your claims, facts. A fact like …


• You’re flinging an ad hominem argument at me …


• Come on. Get out of pundit mode, and start treating this as if you were a lawyer or a reporter.


• Stop flinging rhetoric at me and calling it facts.


• d.a.n, … You had better be prepared …


• You had better come at us with good evidence …


• d.a.n … You’re not being evenhanded.


• If you want to badmouth us [Democrats] …


• You just want people to bow down to your case, as if they should obligated to think in your terms.


• we’ve told you no, we aren’t satisfied with facts you’ve provided.


• For me, that means putting opinions like yours to the test …


• you’re trying to win in front of me and everybody else …


• d.a.n , First, you don’t respect people’s right to have other opinions… .

Funny!
Do you see a pattern there?
So, who is patronizing, critical, sarcastic, assigning motives, and admonishing others’ opinions ?
(NOTE: that’s a question.)

Posted by: d.a.n at February 26, 2007 04:09 PM

Dan-
The analogy is plain: morphine takes away cancer patient’s pain, but the cancer remains. You can change out the politicians, but if the environment encourages certain kinds of politicians and makes it easy for challengers to rest back on their laurels once in office, then replacement provides temporary relief of symptoms without permanent effect.

If people see that throwing out the bums only lets in new ones, how long do you actually think people will have the heart to maintain your dream political system?

I’ll deal with the rest when I’m home from work.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 26, 2007 06:03 PM

Dan-
On the subject of my comparison of your strategy for improving government and supply-side style taxation, I believe the comparison there is apt.

These are both complex questions that are reduced by the proponents of these ideas to sure-fire notions that they demand everybody should take part in, until it proves right.

It’s not sarcastic, necessarily.

You seem intent on defining me as an opponent, defining me as a mindless supporter of the Democrats. In-Party, out-party, that stuff, over and over again. You’re critiquing me more than my arguments.

You talk about voter education sites, it seems like you tend to define voter education to be people learning about your strategies. I have a broader definition of what voter education means, I mean just straight forward learning and being told about what the people in congress are doing.

My bias is obvious. I post articles on the Democrats and Liberals column for all to see. If you’ve got a problem with me being a Democrat and a Liberal, that’s your problem, not mine. I chose to be like this. However, I don’t like doing things in a way that I know is arbitrary. It offends me. My comments about third parties are valid. How do you expect to elect a president from a party that has little or no presence in Congress? How do you expect to elect representatives and senators when you don’t have a strong presence in local arenas. People elect folks they know, and the quickest way to become known at the state and national level is to have served in office at a lower level. A nation third party will have to build it’s presence to present a challenge to the two-party status quo. Just being spoilers will ensure that a party remains obscure. How many on the left think about voting Green, and remember with a shudder how things broke in 2000?

I’m practically laying out a course of action for those wanting to succeed in building third party presence. Folks want people they know can do the job. Find people who seem like very good alternatives, who have background in executive and managerial positions. Find people known in the community. Chance favors the prepared party.

And to answer your question, no, it’s not blindly partisan, it’s a pragmatic and helpful analysis. Just because I’m critiquing the way third parties are working out in this day and age, doesn’t mean I don’t see the good from some good stiff competition.

I like to venture towards all kinds of different sources. I like to know what articles actually say, rather than just what’s getting quoted. I’m a college educated kid, and one thing they taught me is how to run down a source. I really don’t feel like restricting myself to any one source.

To be brutally honest, you’re not telling me much about modern politicians I don’t already know. You write as if I’m clueless about these things, or worse complicit. It’s insulting. I started writing here for a reason, and it wasn’t because I just fell off the back of a watermelon truck. Just about every link you post is back to your own site. I’d rather look up different sites, different newspapers and other outlets to find things out. I want to think and find things out for myself. You’d rather I learn at your feet. I’m not interested.

Now, to address the rest. You could have done everybody a favor and post links to the comments you’re quoting, but instead, you’re just going to real off this list of offenses.

The “trying patience” quote is from our debate on John Edwards. I busted my butt getting you counter examples, testimonials to his good character, but as with the 110th congress, you had your preconceived ideas, and not even those could get you to admit that Edwards could be anything more than greedy ambulance chaser.

I’ve been rather cross about your tendency to call the new congress a do-nothing congress, because you’ve never let them have the chance to do things before you slapped the label on them. I have no problem with criticism of a party or a congress for what it does, and what it has done, but for what it will do? Without a significant track record in office, that’s just unbound speculation

The pros and cons comments basically had you put all the points for what you liked on the pro side, and all the points for what you didn’t like on the cons side.

My comments about brainwashing concern the attitude taken to people who didn’t think the cumulative theory of convention calling was valid. You said, “I’m just calling them what they are”. For me, I’d rather not critique an audience, I’d rather reason with it, because that is a sign of respect. I would rather slave away for months telling people why I hold the opinion I do, and why they should as well, than ever imply that people simply have a diminished capacity for reason. Even if people aren’t using their brains as much as they should, diminished usage doesn’t preclude potential use.

What’s the pattern? I think your arguments are too rigid, too based on prejudice. What does that say about you? I don’t know. I know I can sometimes show a different side of my personality, not necessarily a flattering one when I get emotionally involved with an argument. I’d expect you’re no better and no worse than I am, in terms of being human.

I just don’t agree with you sometimes. And I don’t typically mince words with people I don’t agree with.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 26, 2007 09:01 PM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n If people see that throwing out the bums only lets in new ones, how long do you actually think people will have the heart to maintain your dream political system?

Repeatedly re-electing irresponsible politicians is why they are irresponsible.

So, we should keep re-electing irresponsible politicians?
That makes a lot of sense.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You seem intent on defining me as an opponent, defining me as a mindless supporter of the Democrats. In-Party, out-party, that stuff, over and over again. You’re critiquing me more than my arguments.

Nonsense.

One’s own statements and actions define them more than anything.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You talk about voter education sites, it seems like you tend to define voter education to be people learning about your strategies. I have a broader definition of what voter education means, I mean just straight forward learning and being told about what the people in congress are doing.

Nonsense.

There’s only one strategy and it is the one simple thing we were supposed to be doing all along, always.
Stop repeat offenders.
Don’t re-elect them.

That’s all.
What’s so complex about that?
What’s wrong with that ?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: My bias is obvious.

It certainly is.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you’ve got a problem with me being a Democrat and a Liberal, that’s your problem, not mine.

I have no problem at all.

Why get hostile and adversarial with a childish “that’s your problem, not mine” stuff?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I chose to be like this. However, I don’t like doing things in a way that I know is arbitrary. It offends me. My comments about third parties are valid.

Think so, eh?

Here’s a couple of your comments about third parties and independents …

Stephen Daugherty wrote:

They [voters] should be allying with us [Democrats].

In my opinion, the proper people to run this party are the voters who elect Democrats.

Yet …

Stephen Daugherty wrote:
I don’t like to hear people get down on my party [Democrat] …

No bias there, eh?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’m practically laying out a course of action for those wanting to succeed in building third party presence.

That’s nice. You’re a smart feller.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: And to answer your question, no, it’s not blindly partisan, it’s a pragmatic and helpful analysis.

Think so?

This isn’t blindly partisan ? …

Stephen Daugherty wrote:

They [voters] should be allying with us [Democrats].

In my opinion, the proper people to run this party are the voters who elect Democrats.

If third parties can’t win offices, what good are they to the voter?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Just because I’m critiquing the way third parties are working out in this day and age, doesn’t mean I don’t see the good from some good stiff competition.

Right.

This is critiquing third parties? …

They [voters] should be allying with us [Democrats].

In my opinion, the proper people to run this party are the voters who elect Democrats.

If third parties can’t win offices, what good are they to the voter?

Sounds a lot more like wanting people to vote for YOUR party.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’m a college educated kid, and one thing they taught me is how to run down a source. I really don’t feel like restricting myself to any one source.

That’s nice.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: To be brutally honest, you‘re not telling me much about modern politicians I don’t already know.

We know … afterall, you wrote …

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I see it through the eyes of somebody who knows all about technology and the limitations of design.

… so no doubt, there’s nothing …

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I [Stephen] don’t already know.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You write as if I’m clueless about these things, or worse complicit. It’s insulting.

I was not addressing you in this thread until you addressed me first with the following statements …

Stephen Daugherty wrote:

d.a.n … You need to expand your horizons,

You patronize me with your rhetoric,

You say you feel insulted?
But you don’t see your statements as insulting?
Did you see the long, growing list above, of things you wrote?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I started writing here for a reason, and it wasn’t because I just fell off the back of a watermelon truck … . You’d rather I learn at your feet. I’m not interested.

Here we go again …

You follow me from thread to thread, thow insults at me like that, and then tell me you feel insulted? ! ?
If you’re not interested, then why do you follow me from thread-to-thread to write insulting comments on my comments?
The evidence of all those insults are listed above, and the list keeps growing.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Now, to address the rest. You could have done everybody a favor and post links to the comments you’re quoting, but instead, you’re just going to real off this list of offenses.

Ahhh … an admission of offenses. That’s progress, perhaps?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The “trying patience” quote is from our debate on John Edwards. I busted my butt getting you counter examples, testimonials to his good character, but as with the 110th congress, you had your preconceived ideas, and not even those could get you to admit that Edwards could be anything more than greedy ambulance chaser.

You busted your butt?

Gee, that’s terrible.
So we disagree.
Can’t you accept that?
After all, it is you that wrote …

Stephen Daugherty wrote:

d.a.n , First, you don’t respect people’s right to have other opinions… .

Yet you are now telling me “not even those could get you to admit that …”.
There’s nothing to admit.
We simply disagree, and you are accusing me of the very thing you are doing … “not respecting people’s right to have other opinions”

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ve been rather cross about your tendency to call the new congress a do-nothing congress, because you’ve never let them have the chance to do things before you slapped the label on them.

Yes, indeed!

You ordered me not to disparage them …

Stephen Daugherty wrote:

d.a.n, I told you that you shouldn’t do it, and you’re free to agree or not to agree with what I’m telling you …to do.

Again, I’m going to tell you, don’t …

Did the orders work?

Guess not.
Giving orders over the internet don’t work too well, eh?
The 110th Congress is still a Do-Nothing Congress.
Congress is still ignoring the nation’s most pressing problems.
And that first 100 hour clock was a joke.
And they still haven’t worked a full 5 day week yet.
And if they thought no earmarks was good for now, why not make it permanent?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I have no problem with criticism of a party or a congress for what it does, and what it has done, but for what it will do? Without a significant track record in office, that’s just unbound speculation

No, it’s not speculation.

What has the 110th Congress accomplished so far?
Why is Congress still ignoring the nation’s most pressing problems?
Why is Congress still pitting U.S. citizens and illegal aliens against each other?
Why hasn’t Congress they done anything about campaign finance reform?
Why is Congress still ignoring election reform and Gerrymandering?
Why is Congress still ignoring wide-open borders and ports?
Why is Congress still refusing a ONE-PURPOSE-PER-BILL amendment?
Why is Congress still ignoring eminent domain abuse (6 cases per day)?
Why is Congress still ignoring the massive debt?
Why is Congress still printing too much money?
Why is Congress ignoring the entitlements iceberg we are sailing toward?
Why is Congress ignoring the PBGC over $450 billion in the hole?
Why is Congress ignoring declining public education?
Why is Congress ignoring it’s harmful role as a middleman in the heatlhcare system?
Why is Congress ignoring tax reform?
Why is Congress ignoring our energy vulnerabilities?
Why is Congress ignoring government FOR-SALE?
Why is Congress ignoring the nation’s most pressing problems?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What’s the pattern?

If you can’t see it by now, my telling you won’t matter.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think your arguments are too rigid, too based on prejudice.

Nonsense.

And look whose talking.
Your own numerous comments have already revealed a bias and prejudice.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What does that say about you?

Nothing about me.

What is revealling is your many comments above?
And you admit it here …

Stephen Daugherty wrote:
I know I can sometimes show a different side of my personality, not necessarily a flattering one when I get emotionally involved with an argument.

No doubt about that.

You addressed me in this thread first, as in many threads.
I was not addressing you in this thread until you addressed me with the following statements …

Stephen Daugherty wrote:

d.a.n … You need to expand your horizons,

You patronize me with your rhetoric,

You seem intent on defining me as an opponent

You talk about voter education sites, it seems like you tend to define voter education to be people learning about your strategies.

you had your preconceived ideas, and not even those could get you to admit

You‘re critiquing me more than my arguments. (whose critiquing who or what?)

If you‘ve got a problem with me being a Democrat and a Liberal, that’s your problem, not mine.

you‘re not telling me much about modern politicians I don’t already know

You‘d rather I learn at your feet. I’m not interested.

I’ve been rather cross about your tendency to call the new congress a do-nothing congress …

What does that say about you?

So, let me ask the question that you asked me …

Stephen Daugherty wrote:
What does that say about you?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 27, 2007 01:40 AM

Dan-
If you’re not so concerned about me, rather than argument, I would expect you not to spend a rather long comment attending to my faults and perceived offenses to you.

My position isn’t diametrically opposed to yours. I don’t see a problem with kicking bums out. But I remember the promises of the Republicans in 1994. I also remember what my own party was like before that, and acknowledge that it pretty much sorely provoked people into action.

Okay, so if I agree somewhat with your simple idea, what’s my problem?

My problem is: “who and why”.

Kick the bums out is a nice sentiment, but at the end of the day, you have to deal with people who are going to ask you “who should I have a problem with, and why?”. If you just tell them congress in general, especially the one they just elected, they’re going to blow you off, and rightfully so. It’s like asking people to do a full tune-up on a new car. They’re going to give this new congress time to work. They’re not going to second guess themselves so quickly.

You have to frame things for people in a way that makes sense of what you’re asking. Otherwise, people will blow you off.

One more note: sometimes it really is somebody else’s fault that your message isn’t going through, or isn’t being accepted. But too much thinking along those lines leads to a neglect of the kind of thoughtfulness and eloquence that people rightfully expect from those trying to persuade thm.

The complexity is not in the ideas driving our perspective so much as in dealing with the complex relationships people have to their politics. What are they willing to compromise on, what are they not? What’s their threshold for tolerating mishbehavior from their candidates? Is the alternative better than the incumbent? These are not simple questions for those who aren’t partisans of one kind or another, and sometimes, they aren’t simple for folks like us.

The angle I would take on things is not to fight these complexities trying to make some cause and effect occur, but acknowledge the challenge they present and address that.

There is no one simple idea that can address all that, but there are plenty of fascinating, rich ideas that can deal with parts of our concerns, parts of our needs. We just got to find the right mix.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 27, 2007 04:48 PM

Stephen D-
Nicely said. I rarely agree with you, but on this topic I am with you. Furthermore, the idea being presented that ALL incumbents must go is foolish and simple-minded, in my opinion.

Posted by: Don at February 27, 2007 06:43 PM

One thing I seem to notice is that Republican corruption is far more vicious, insane, evil. For example when they go out of their way to suppress science and lie to the public about nearly any environmental matter that could cost their corporate buddies money.

While corrupt Democrats have always acted sleazy and done questionable things for fundraisng, nothing compares to the Tom Delay/Frist/Abramoff culture of corruption that has been a big part in running our country into the groudn.I get the sense that Democratic corruption is bad, but Republican corruption is much more likely to, say, lead to the end of life on earth (at least for human civilization).

In any case, as long as the system allows this and politicians need large amounts of money for elections, this will always continue. A good reason for maybe having publicly funded elections and stopping all of this.

Posted by: mark at February 27, 2007 11:13 PM

Stephen, you are ignoring reality. Nov.’s election through out a bunch of incumbents. The guys replacing them came in with a different agenda, more responsive to the will of the voters who voted out the incumbents. Congress is addressing Iraq, Congress is poorly addressing corruption and ethics, but, at least addressing it, which the former incumbents DIDN’T. Congress is trying to move on the minimum wage, deficits and debt, and soon will be addressing the safety nets.

All these and more are a direct result of Nov.’s election which, by ousting incumbents, set new agendas more reflective of the people’s needs and wishes.

That reality is one which you seem to ignore in your attempts to minimize the potential of voting out incumbents as a popular strategy for dealing with corrupt, inept, and out of touch incumbents who control the government’s actions and decisions.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 28, 2007 09:26 AM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- If you’re not so concerned about me, rather than argument, I would expect you not to spend a rather long comment attending to my faults and perceived offenses to you.

Perceived offenses to [me] ?

It was you, Stephen that wrote about “perceived offenses to you” …

Stephen Daugherty wrote:
You write as if I’m clueless about these things, or worse complicit. It’s insulting.

It’s not mere perception.

It speaks for itself.

Stephen Daugherty wrote:
My position isn’t diametrically opposed to yours. I don’t see a problem with kicking bums out.

Yeah, right.

As long as they aren’t Democrats, eh?
Afterall, you wrote …

Stephen Daugherty wrote:

• I don’t like to hear people get down on my party …


• They [voters] should be allying with us [Democrats].


• In my opinion, the proper people to run this party are the voters who elect Democrats.


• If third parties can’t win offices, what good are they to the voter?


• The question of what good third parties are without substantial presence in the offices of the land is a good one.


• d.a.n , “You’re wasting your time” [i.e. with VOIDnow.org and One-Simple-Idea.com … both voter education sites]


• You need to expand your horizons, rather than shrink them to one simple idea


• I also don’t think replacing one set of people with another necessarily does the job. (No? It makes sense to keep re-electing bad politicians?)


• The new third party has to materialize out of something more than just a sense of entitlement.


• How many people curse the green party for George W. Bush getting elected?

Nothin’ blindly partisan about none of that, eh?

No bias there, eh?
Perhaps it really is true that …

Stephen Daugherty wrote:
… I’m clueless about these things, or worse complicit.

Stephen Daugherty wrote:
Okay, so if I agree somewhat with your simple idea, what’s my problem?
My problem is: “who and why”.

Vote for challengers, instead of rewarding bad politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.

What’s wrong with that?
Refusing that simple logic is illogical, and usually a result of blind party loyalty.
The problem is not that all politicians are bad going in.
The problem is they are corrupted once they get there, and that will continue until they understand that their career will be short if they continue to be irresponsible.
It’s difficult though, when newcomers are faced with 90% of Congress that are still incumbents.

Most (if not all) incumbents, because most (if not all) are irresponsible.
They are irresponsible because they are rewarded with re-election for it, enjoying a 90%+ re-election rate.
That is partly why, after over a year now, no one can name 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible, accountable, don’t pander, don’t vote on pork-barrel, waste, graft, corporate welfare, don’t troll for big-money donors, don’t look the other way, and don’t ignore the nation’s most pressing problems.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Kick the bums out is a nice sentiment,

Just plain common-sense. That’s all. You’re argument against common-sense makes no sense.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Kick the bums out is a nice sentiment, but at the end of the day, you have to deal with people who are going to ask you “who should I have a problem with, and why?”. If you just tell them congress in general, especially the one they just elected, they’re going to blow you off, and rightfully so.

That’s their choice.

They are the ones that will suffer the consequences most.
However, it is “Congress in general” that is corrupt and irresponsible.
The proof of it is what they accomplish (which ain’t much, or nothing, or worse by creating more problems).
If voters would start holding Congress responsible, in general, it might develop some peer pressure to police their own ranks. Instead, most (if not all) look-the-other-way.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s like asking people to do a full tune-up on a new car. They’re going to give this new congress time to work. They’re not going to second guess themselves so quickly.

It’s not really a new Congress, with 90% of the same incumbents stil there. What have they accomplished so far?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You have to frame things for people in a way that makes sense of what you’re asking. Otherwise, people will blow you off. One more note: sometimes it really is somebody else’s fault that your message isn’t going through, or isn’t being accepted. But too much thinking along those lines leads to a neglect of the kind of thoughtfulness and eloquence that people rightfully expect from those trying to persuade thm.

Common-sense doesn’t work on everybody.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The complexity is not in the ideas driving our perspective so much as in dealing with the complex relationships people have to their politics. What are they willing to compromise on, what are they not? What’s their threshold for tolerating mishbehavior from their candidates? Is the alternative better than the incumbent? These are not simple questions for those who aren’t partisans of one kind or another, and sometimes, they aren’t simple for folks like us.

Folks like us? You mean partisanly biased?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The angle I would take on things is not to fight these complexities trying to make some cause and effect occur, but acknowledge the challenge they present and address that. There is no one simple idea that can address all that, but there are plenty of fascinating, rich ideas that can deal with parts of our concerns, parts of our needs. We just got to find the right mix.

Nonsense.

It’s not rocket science.
Continually trying to portray it as complex and other nonsense is most likely motivated by blind party loyalty.
Repeatedly re-electing irresponsible incumbent politicians makes no sense, and it won’t accomplish anything but to make irresponsible incumbent politicians more irresponsible.

Education is the key.
Ignorance is the problem.
Ignorance breeds corruption.
Voters will get that educaiton:

• the smart, peaceful, responsible way,


• or the hard, painful way (again).

Don wrote: Nicely said. I rarely agree with you, but on this topic I am with you. Furthermore, the idea being presented that ALL incumbents must go is foolish and simple-minded, in my opinion.

What is foolish and simple-minded is rewarding irresponsible politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, eh?

Mark wrote: One thing I seem to notice is that Republican corruption is far more vicious, insane, evil. For example when they go out of their way to suppress science and lie to the public about nearly any environmental matter that could cost their corporate buddies money.

Nothing like fueling and wallowing in the partisan warfare.

Politicians and their hacks love that circular, distracting, divisive, manipulative, destructive partisan warfare.
The fact is, politicians of both parties, over time, are irresponsible.
The IN-PARTY abuses power and becomes the OUT-PARTY.
Republicans blew their small lead after only one decade.
Democrats had a large majority for most of 70 years before that.
Why did Democrats lost their majority temporarily?
Because they abused their power, and voters voted them out.
The Democrats become the OUT-PARTY.
Now the Democrats are the IN-PARTY again.
But what has changed?
What has Do-Nothing Congress accomplished thus far?

Mark wrote: While corrupt Democrats have always acted sleazy and done questionable things for fundraisng, nothing compares to the Tom Delay/Frist/Abramoff culture of corruption that has been a big part in running our country into the groudn. I get the sense that Democratic corruption is bad, but Republican corruption is much more likely to, say, lead to the end of life on earth (at least for human civilization).

They’re both corrupt.

Sure, the last Republican majority (small at that) was corrupt, but not the most corrupt in all of history. Not even close.
You have a short memory.
Do you not remember:

• Pardongate (1999, 2001)? Clinton’s 546 pardons (140 on his last day in office). Dan Rostenkowski (he pleaded guilty, but got pardoned by Clinton)?


• Lancegate: President Carter’s OMB Director Bert Lance resignation amidst allegations of misuse of funds (1977).?


• Tongsun Park “Koreagate” scandal involving alleged bribery of more than 100 members of Congress by South Korean government; charges were pressed only against congressmen Richard T. Hanna (convicted) and Otto E. Passman (not prosecuted because of illness); also implicated was South Korean President Park Chung Hee ?


• Senator Herman Talmadge of Georgia [“Hummen, they called him. Hummen Talmadge of G’ogia.] punished after his ex-wife produced cash “gifts” he had hidden in an overcoat (1979); Talmadge later wrote, “I wish I’d burned that damn overcoat and charged everything on American Express.” Talmadge the same year admitted to having spent five weeks in alcohol rehab; he was not re-elected to the Senate in 1980. ?


• There was the Abscam scandal in (1980) [“One senator, Harrison A. Williams (D-NJ), and five members of the House: John Jenrette (D-SC), Richard Kelly (R-FL) — later overturned — Raymond Lederer (D-PA), Michael Myers (D-PA) and Frank Thompson (D-NJ) — were convicted of bribery and conspiracy. John M. Murphy (D-NY), was convicted of a lesser charge. Most of the politicians resigned. Congressman Myers had to be expelled. Five other government officials were convicted, including the mayor of Camden, New Jersey, Angelo Errichetti. One politician targeted, but not indicted, was Congressman John Murtha (D-PA).] ?


• “Debategate”: briefing book of President Jimmy Carter stolen and given to Ronald Reagan campaign before the 1980 presidential election debate in Cleveland, Ohio. ?


• October Surprise (1980). Which, of course, the Democrats were still investigating in 1990.?


• Anne Gorsuch Burford refusal to turn over EPA documents (1982) ?


• William Casey insider trading (1983) ?


• Savings and loan scandal and the Keating Five (1980-1989): Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, Don Riegle, and John Glenn?


• Senator John Tower’s nomination as Defense Secretary derailed due to allegations of habitual and extreme alcohol abuse and improper ties to defense industry. (1987) ?


• Mario Biaggi convicted (1988) in Wedtech scandal of bribery, extortion, racketeering, filing a false tax return, mail fraud, and false financial disclosure; resigned from U.S. House before he could be expelled. He was a Democrat from New York. ?


• Speaker of the House, Jim Wright from Texas forced to resign after ethics committee investigation found dozens of violations of House rules, including alleged improper receipt of $145,000 in gifts by Wright’s wife from a Fort Worth developer and large profits from “sale” of Wright’s speeches. ?


• Anthony Lee Coelho of California. That’s Tony Coelho, who remains a major big shot organizing Democrat politics. He resigned from U.S. House for unethical finance practices including “junk bond” deal in 1989.?


• Alcee Hastings, federal district court judge impeached (1989) and convicted of soliciting a bribe. Nevertheless elected to U.S. House by the Democrats in Florida in 1992! ?


• Senator David Durenberger denounced by Senate for unethical financial transactions 1990. ?


• Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) scandal implicates former Defense Secretary and Washington insider Clark Clifford (1991). BCCI that was a Jimmy Carter Deal During his term in office. ?


• House Bank scandal (1992) ?


• Mary Rose Oakar (1992) allegations of “ghost employees” on payroll. ?


• Travelgate (1993) ?


• Zoe Baird’s nomination as Attorney General and Kimba Wood’s subsequent near-nomination were derailed by past employment of illegal aliens as nannies. (1993) Both nominated by President Clinton. ?


• Walter Fauntroy, Delegate to Congress from the District of Columbia, guilty plea regarding lying on financial disclosure form (1995) ?


• Wes Cooley (1996) ?


• Walter R. Tucker III of California resigned before bribery conviction (1996) ?


• Secretary of Agriculture Michael Espy forced to resign from office despite ultimate acquittal on criminal corruption charges (1998) ?


• Bruce Babbitt, Interior Secretary, independent probe (1998-2000) of alleged lying to Congress concerning influence of money in 1995 American Indian tribe casino decision finds no criminally prosecutable perjury by Babbitt. ?


• Vice-President Al Gore (1998) improper fundraising and “no controlling legal authority” defense. This is those nuns out in California they bilked, the Buddhist nuns. Then he went out and said “no controlling legal authority.”?


• Whitewater scandal (1994-2000) ?


• Dan Rostenkowski’s post office scandal (1994). Later, in Dan Rostenkowski’s house in Illinois, they found a bunch of furniture from his congressional office! ?


• Henry Cisneros resigns as Housing Secretary and, after lengthy probe that began in 1995, pleads guilty (1999) to lying to the FBI about money he paid former mistress; later pardoned by President Clinton in 2001(Possibly reclassify or cross-reference to Sex scandal) ?


• Linda Chavez, nomination as Secretary of Labor derailed by past employment of illegal alien. (2001) ?


• Jim Traficant (D-OH) we all know. ?


• Robert Torricelli bribery scandal (2002) ?


• Massachusetts congressman Gary Studds and playing with House pages?


• Teamstergate: Ron Carey’s and Bill Clinton’s 1996 campaigns for the Presidency of the union and the US, respectively, swapped Teamster’s Union general treasury funds into Clinton’s campaign for Clinton Campaign funds into Ron Carey’s campaign warchest. The Teamster’s political director was jailed. No Clinton officials were charged. Carey’s re-election was invalidated James Hoffa, Jr was elected when the Teamster election was rerun. ?


• Rep. Jefferson Williams (D(2)-LA) was videotaped (30-Juy-2005) by the FBI allegedly receiving $100K (of $100 dollar bills in a leather briefcase) at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Arlington, Virginia. The FBI later found $90K of it in his freezer, in $10K increments wrapped in aluminum foil and stuffed inside frozen-food containers. The serial numbers found on the currency in the freezer matched serial numbers of funds given by the FBI to their informant. Yet, the voters re-elected Rep. Jefferson Williams !

Want to talk about “culture of corruption” ?
There’s ample corruption in BOTH parties.
That’s why these discussions always devolve into which party is MORE corrupt.
The corruption of BOTH is undeniable.
Of course, partisan bias gets in the way of the facts.
People choose to believe what they want to believe.
The IN-PARTY usually is a little more corrupt.
That’s all.
Also, the culture of corruption has been growing for a few decades (in BOTH parties).
And rewarding incumbent politicians for being irresponsible and corrupt, by repeatedly re-electing them, will simply make them more corrupt.

Mark wrote: In any case, as long as the system allows this and politicians need large amounts of money for elections, this will always continue. A good reason for maybe having publicly funded elections and stopping all of this.

Yet, this Congress still refuses to address that. They ain’t about to do anything that may reduce their power, their opportunities for self-gain, or the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies.

David R. Remer wrote: Stephen, you are ignoring reality. Nov.’s election threw out a bunch of incumbents.

Well, almost 10%. And it had a good effect.

David R. Remer wrote: The guys replacing them came in with a different agenda, more responsive to the will of the voters who voted out the incumbents.

Well, they are certainly making it appear more like they learned something from the election (and ousting of about 10% of the previous incumbents).

However, I’m not sure they are serious yet.

David R. Remer wrote: Congress is addressing Iraq, Congress is poorly addressing corruption and ethics, but, at least addressing it, which the former incumbents DIDN’T. Congress is trying to move on the minimum wage, deficits and debt, and soon will be addressing the safety nets.

Yes, they are avoiding addressing corruption and ethics, which will probably tarnish and sabotage everything else.

David R. Remer wrote: All these and more are a direct result of Nov.’s election which, by ousting incumbents, set new agendas more reflective of the people’s needs and wishes.

Precisely.

The question is, was it enough to motivate Congress to really and truly adequately address and solve problems?
That remains to be seen.
Sure, I’m glad the Republicans lost their tiny majority.
That’s some progress.
However, was it enough?
What would really send a loud and clear message to Congress is to oust a large number of irresponsible incumbent politicians from BOTH parties, instead of merely letting 90% of BOTH parties take turns enjoying their cu$hy 90%+ re-election rates (for over a decade now: one-simple-idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm).

David R. Remer wrote: That reality is one which you seem to ignore in your attempts to minimize the potential of voting out incumbents as a popular strategy for dealing with corrupt, inept, and out of touch incumbents who control the government’s actions and decisions.

Partisan bias is at the root of that, as evidenced by … Stephen Daugherty wrote:

• They [voters] should be allying with us [Democrats].
• In my opinion, the proper people to run this party are the voters who elect Democrats.
• I don’t like to hear people get down on my party …

They keep asking the same question …

Stephen Daugherty wrote:
Okay, so if I agree somewhat with your simple idea, what’s my problem?
My problem is: “who and why”.

Vote for challengers, because rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them is why they are irresponsible.

What’s so hard to understand about that?
What sense does it make to keep re-electing bad politicians (such as Rep. William Jefferson for instance)?

You ask: “who and why” ?
There’s your answer.
What part of that do you not understand?
Please explain how rewarding irresponsible behavior begets anything but more irresponsible behavior.

The problem is obvious: Blind partsian loyalties.
Blind partisan loyalty can rationalize anything.
Politicians love it.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 28, 2007 11:42 AM

Dan-
Even if they are Democrats. In fact, there’s a certain logic to being willing to kick out your own, which I have emphasized quite a bit. That was the Republican’s problems, self-protective to the point of keeping their embarrassments in a position to embarrass them.

I talked about the previous Democratic congress as having provoked its own dismissal. How is that not admitting that my party has had a problem with Corruption?

You criticize me for not being able to take criticism of my party. What was my first response to the article above?

First thing I do is to suggest public financing instead of private.

Second thing I advocate is greater public knowledge, and then I use a fellow Democrat as an example, saying that Barney Frank could be made to regret his words

Third thing I advocate is to shake things up with primary challengers, who at the very least can put the pressure on irresponsible incumbents, if not push them completely out altogether

Fourth thing I advocate is less tolerance of everyday corruption. How will we have the moral strength to censure our representatives for what we do in day to day life?

Then I said this:

Now, the Republicans need to recall how their members reflected on them, and start taking a dose of this medicine they’re dishing out, but this bitter brew should be dosed by Democrats as well. We didn’t overcome the last Republican majority to become just like it. And the Republican should reflect that they aren’t going to be taken seriously as having the moral high ground, so long as memories remain of the last twelve years.

I’m not against voting out incumbents, I’m against presenting it as a panacea. These kinds of pitched political battles are exhausting, and people will not second-guess themselves so soon without good cause.

I’m not making an argument against common sense. I’m making an argument against thinking that everything in the world operates by common sense. There’s a more complex structure to things. You can say glibly that it’s “their choice” if they blow you off, but what if that choice is repeated again and again across the populace? You’re back where you started.

The real world IS complex, and so is politics in general. If it weren’t, a person could, observing a few rules, apply any sort of political order they wished. That doesn’t happen. It’s why the market sets prices better than a command economy. That’s why despite best efforts, not every Hollywood movie, even the good ones, succeeds. You’re confronted with that with the way the increases in the money supply cause economic problems rather than solving them. Common sense arithmetic would have printing more money be an excellent solution. However, if you are familiar with the more counterintuitive aspects of the problem, you understand that increasing money supply increases inflation, which creates a separate problem that compounds budget problems- that is, lower currency value buys less, which makes increasing the budget necessary, among other effects.

I’m addressing political persuasion the same way you address money supply issues, allowing for the higher-order behaviors of the system.

For me, voter education is simply keeping up with the news, keeping up with current events. I don’t think voters should have to go to some special site to learn from anybody. It’s nothing personal. I just think people should think for themselves, because the world is way too complex for anybody to appreciate fully.

It’s better to get a survey of sources than try to consilidate and centralize everything. That’s the charm of blogs. Occasionally they’re good as primary source, but the real killer app of blogging is drawing together different news and relevant information. It’s hypertext’s most powerful application, allowing people to get past the nuts and bolts of html to bring what they’ve seen and heard to other’s attention.

The key, as with any kind of education, is for people to want to know. The attitude people took in the 90’s was to turn a blind eye to corruption, to potentially problematic “reforms”, because they were told it was good for the economy. People did the same with the tax cuts, the same with the war on terror.

A great deal of the unaccountability of the last congress was in our blithe tolerance of the corruption. It’s that which keeps the irresponsible incumbents in there. Americans are beginning to awaken, but it’s difficult to care or pay attention without specific details, and a narrative to organize them.

You present a good list of examples down there. That’s the way to go. A word of advice: don’t info-dump. I guess the rule of thumb is that people shouldn’t forget the first thing they read before they get to the last. Mellow it out, mix into the text.

And also: look for common ground. Common ground means you know what you don’t have to write about. The more you get with less writing, the more efficient the point becomes. The less you argue with people about things they already agree with, the more you can fight the battles that really need to be fought.

I think you need to start singling out the real problem politicians, the people you see as getting in the way of good policy getting done. responsibility is judged in terms of what is expect and how folks fall short. Tell of that, and you will convince people of the need to push out these incumbents more easily.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 28, 2007 01:08 PM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think you need to start singling out the real problem politicians,

I just did …

• Rep. Jefferson Williams (D(2)-LA) was videotaped (30-Juy-2005) by the FBI allegedly receiving $100K bribe (of $100 dollar bills in a leather briefcase) at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Arlington, Virginia. The FBI later found $90K of it hidden in his freezer, in $10K increments wrapped in aluminum foil and stuffed inside frozen-food containers. The serial numbers found on the currency in the freezer matched the serial numbers of funds given by the FBI to their informant. Yet, the voters re-elected Rep. Jefferson Williams !

Yet, and I just heard Nancy Pelosi just recommended Rep. Jefferson Williams for a seat on the Homeland Security Committee ?
What’s up with that?
Why would Pelosi do that?
Oh … right … looking-the-other-way is Standard Operating Procedure for Congress (regardless of party).
Hence, the name of this thread “Culture of Corruption”.
I thought you said Rep. Jefferson Williams would be kicked to the curb? Guess not, eh?

And, then there’s this bunch that voted YES to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits.

I could fill libraries with corruption.
This blog ain’t big enough to list all the corruption of BOTH parties.

That’s because most (if not all) in Congress and the Executive Branch are corrupt and/or irresponsible.

Therefore, it would be easier to name the politicians that are responsible and accountable.

Know any?

I don’t.

That’s why, for over year now, no one can name 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of the 535) in Congress that are:

• Responsible


• That don’t look the other way


• That don’t fuel the partisan warfare


• That don’t vote on pork-barrel, graft, and corporate welfare (while our troops risk life and limb)


• That don’t vote themselves cu$hy perk$ and rai$e$? (Congress has voted itself a raise 8 times between 1997 and 2006).


• That don’t troll for big-money-donors to feed their campaign war chests


• That don’t refuse to pass any sort of campaign finance reform


• That don’t refuse a number of common-sense, no-brainier reforms (e.g. What good is a minimum wage increase when illegal aliens (cheap labor) are allowed to flood in by the millions, and the government refuses to stop those that illegally employ illegal aliens)


• That don’t give pardons to convicted felons (some who even pled guilty; like the 546 criminals pardoned by Bill Clinton; 140 on his last day in office, including Dan Rostenkowski, who pleaded GUILTY)


• That don’t pander and make promises that are fiscally irresponsible; bribe the voters with their own money (e.g. Medicare prescription drugs)


• That don’t continue to ignore the nation’s most pressing problems

That alone ought to be telling people something.

Rewarding irresponsible politicians by repeatedly re-electing them only makes them more irresponsible.

It’s that simple.
Yet, how can something so simple can be so elusive ?
Ignorance.
How can ignorance be overcome?
Education.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: For me, voter education is simply keeping up with the news, keeping up with current events.

Merely keeping up with the news and current events is not enough. Education about human psychology and government is needed too.

President Thomas Jefferson said: “If a people want to be both free and ignorant, they want what never was and what never can be”.

Unfortunately, too many Americans are sadly ignorant of the real history of our nation, of the basic laws, of the Constitution, of basic human nature, and of the fundamental components required for any healthy organization, government, or society.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 28, 2007 04:04 PM

One of you guys should start a thread on this side of the boards asking the question: Are the Democrats Failing?

I would put forth the following.

1) Two months into 2007 they still have no 2007 budget.

2) No plan for moving to a balanced budget.

3) Pay as you go is a failure because with no budget, they have no clue what if what they are spending is a part of the budget or needs to be covered by pay as you go.

4) no plan to fix social security, not even meeting on it.

5) No plan to fix medicare, not even meeting on it.

6) have failed to secure the boarder or fund the fence.

7) no plan to create and PAY FOR a national health care plan. Which should come AFTER they reign in spending and fix the BROKEN SS and Medicare.

8) No plan to stop corruption. They kept ear marks alive. They even put Reid in charge of the Senate. A man who took that one million dollar “property deal” in vegas, kept his ABramoff money, and whose own kids are being paid money to lobby him.

I’m seeing a lot of failure here and two months into the first year…..it’s time they start blaming republicans and take ownership of THEIR FAILURE to fix what needs to be fixed or to even plan to fix what needs to be fixed.

The Republicans FAILED. That’s HISTORY. The democrats ARE FAILING….that’s the here and now. That’s what needs to change. They need to be pushed to do what’s right and fix this stuff they promised to fix.

Posted by: Stephen at February 28, 2007 05:02 PM

d.a.n -

d.a.n. wrote: “Therefore, it would be easier to name the politicians that are responsible and accountable. Know any? I don’t.”

I’d say you don’t know very many “American” politicians. There are many who I believe are responsible and accountable on both sides of the Democrat/Republican aisle. I know at least two who are.

There is no point in ousting all incumbents. That’s like killing all cats because some are mean (not a bad idea, really, but a huge overkill for the problem). This is not a believable agenda.

Moreover, last year I recommended a Republican candidate to replace an incumbent Republican. You said you wouldn’t vote for ANY Republican. I don’t think that comes from an unbiased mind. That is to say that I believe your agenda is not what you claim it to be. Now you’re arguing against a strong supporter of the Democratic party (Stephen). So, you’re clearly not in favor of ANY Democrat either.

I wonder if there are any reasons a foreign agent would want to hinder the effectiveness of our “American” government by eliminating those who have experience in our government.

(Please don’t respond with one of those annoying “cut and paste” tomes!!!)

Posted by: Don at February 28, 2007 05:29 PM

Stephen wrote: The Republicans FAILED. That’s HISTORY. The democrats ARE FAILING….that’s the here and now. That’s what needs to change. They need to be pushed to do what’s right and fix this stuff they promised to fix.

Yes, it’s looking that way, isn’t it.

They are still ignoring the nation’s most pressing problems and many badly-needed common-sense, no-brainer reforms (especially campaign finance reform).
And today Pelosi recommended Rep. Jefferson Williams for the Homeland Security committee ? ! ?

Don wrote:

d.a.n. wrote: “Therefore, it would be easier to name the politicians that are responsible and accountable. Know any? I don’t.”

I’d say you don’t know very many “American” politicians. There are many who I believe are responsible and accountable on both sides of the Democrat/Republican aisle. I know at least two who are.

You know two?

Who?
Name them, if you reall do.

Don wrote: I’d say you don’t know very many “American” politicians.

Thinks so?

I know a lot more than most, which is why I think most in Congress don’t deserve to be re-elected.

Don wrote: There are many who I believe are responsible and accountable on both sides of the Democrat/Republican aisle. I know at least two who are.

You say “There are many” ?

Prove it ?
I don’t think you do.
Just give me 10 or 20 names.
Then consider how lame that is unless there are at least 268 (half of the 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable.

Don wrote: There is no point in ousting all incumbents. That’s like killing all cats because some are mean (not a bad idea, really, but a huge overkill for the problem). This is not a believable agenda.

Not all.

Keep the good ones.
You say you know many?
Then name some of them.

Don wrote: Moreover, last year I recommended a Republican candidate to replace an incumbent Republican. You said you wouldn’t vote for ANY Republican.

I never said that. You are mistaken.

In the last election, I voted for one Republican who was an unopposed non-incumbent for the Texas State Senate.
I voted for Libertarians, Greens, Democrats, and one Republican.

Don wrote: I don’t think that comes from an unbiased mind.

Nonsense.

Your conclusion is flawed since I never said (as you falsely allege) “I wouldn’t vote for ANY Republican”.

Don wrote: That is to say that I believe your agenda is not what you claim it to be.

My agenda is merely to stop rewarding irresponsible politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.

Your conclusions and suspicions are unsubstantiated by facts.

Don wrote: Now you’re arguing against a strong supporter of the Democratic party (Stephen). So, you’re clearly not in favor of ANY Democrat either.

Nonsense.

I have no favorite party, and have written many times that most (if not all) politicians in BOTH of the two-party duopoly are irresponsible.

Don wrote: I wonder if there are any reasons a foreign agent would want to hinder the effectiveness of our “American” government by eliminating those who have experience in our government.

So, now I’m a foreign agent?

That’s really off the deep end.? You’ve been reading too many spy novels.

Don wrote: I wonder if there are any reasons a foreign agent would want to hinder the effectiveness of our “American” government by eliminating those who have experience in our government.

That’s funny. Experienced at what?

• Experience at voting themselves cu$hy perk$?
• Experience voting themselves rai$e$? (Congress gave itself a raise 8 times between 1997 and 2006)
• Experience at fueling partisan warfare, and pitting voters against each other so a majority can never exist to vote out irresponsible incumbent politicians?
• Experience at ignoring our pressing problems as they grow in number and severity ?
• Experience at growing government ever larger to nightmare proportions?
• Experience at clouding the issues, obscuring the facts, manufacturing non-sequiturs to skirt the issues, change the subject, devising clever distractions, while they get theirs, pad their golden parachutes, and make they incumbency more secure?
• Experience at growing the National Debt ?
• Experience at creating Ponzi-schemes, like Social Security, skimming surpluses and replacing them with worthless bonds?
• Experience at pandering and trolling for big-money-donors to fund their campaign war-chests?
• Experience at votin’ on pork-barrel, corporate welfare, graft, bribes, and peddlin’ influence ?
• Experience at pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other, (for votes and cheap labor; an exploited, under-paid under-class)?
• Experience resisting campaign finance reform, term limits, One-Purpose-Per-BILL, Balanced-Budget-Amendment, tax reform, and many other common-sense, no-brainer reforms?
• Experience fooling and brainwashing voters to lazily pull the party lever, vote straight ticket, and wallow in the petty partisan warfare ?
• Experience at scaring voters about all the wrong things?
• Experience at leaking top-secret information?
• Experience at dirty, negative campaigning?
• Experience at excessive and wasteful spending?
• Experience at excessive money-printing?
• Experience voting on waste and pork-barrel while our troops risk life and limb?
• Experience blocking access to voting ballots and election debates for independent and third party candidates?
• Experience at appearing to be doing very hard and complex work (like rocket science), while actually doing very little (if anything, since most of the time is spent working to merely get re-elected, troll for big-money-donors, bribes, and peddling influence)?
• Experience at pretending to care deeply for the increasingly unaffordable and unreliable health care crisis, while doing nothing to solve that was primarily caused by greedy, irresponsible middlemen (government and insurance companies?
• Experience at pretending that homeland security is important, while both do nothing to secure the wide-open borders that are trespassed by thousands daily, and costs stemming from illegal immigration (exceeding $70 billion per year) are heaped upon U.S. citizens.?
• Experience at perpetuating the myth that we can all live at the expense of everyone else?
• Experience at making their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies more secure?
• Experience lying to The People (“Read My Lips”, “WMD”, “Your President is not a crook”, “I did not have sex with that woman”, et