I thought this was an interesting view on politics

Not to start a politics thread, but this was an interesting article that shows what needs to start happening all over the country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1134 n an interview on MSNBC this morning, newly retiring Sen. Evan Bayh declared the American political system "dysfunctional," riddled with "brain-dead partisanship" and permanent campaigning. Flatly denying any possibility that he'd seek the presidency or any other higher office, Bayh argued that the American people needed to deliver a "shock" to Congress by voting incumbents out en masse and replacing them with people interested in reforming the process and governing for the good of the people, rather than deep-pocketed special-interest groups. Bayh's announcement stunned the American political world, as up until just last week he looked to be well on his way to an easy reelection for a third term in the Senate, and his senior staff was aggressively pursuing that goal. But Bayh had apparently become increasingly frustrated in the Senate. In this morning's interview he noted that just two weeks ago, Republicans who had co-sponsored a bill with him to rein in the deficit turned around and voted against it for purely political reasons. He also stated repeatedly that members of his own party should be more willing to settle for a compromise rather than holding out for perfection. "Sometimes half a loaf is better than none," Bayh insisted. It's no secret that the Senate has struggled to take action this year. With the two major parties unusually far apart in their substantive proposals for the direction of the country, even finding half a loaf to agree on has been difficult. Though the Democrats have had a substantial majority in the Senate for the last year, Republicans have escalated their threats to use filibusters (by forcing a cloture vote, see the graph below) to force Democrats to come up with 60 votes to pass any major legislation. And after Scott Brown's election to the Senate last month gave Republicans a 41st seat, health-care reform and other Democratic goals were stopped dead in their tracks. Bayh blamed the current atmosphere of intense partisanship on the need for senators to constantly campaign to be reelected to another six-year term. Citing his father, a popular liberal senator in the '60s and '70s, he noted that "back in the day they used to have the saying: 'You campaign for 2 years and you legislate for 4.' Now you campaign for 6!" He noted that the need for constant fundraising made it nearly impossible to focus on passing legislation. Frustration over the increasing amount of money being spent on political campaigns isn't exactly a new thing, as spending by candidates in the 2008 presidential election nearly quadrupled the amount of money spent by candidates in the 2000 election. Additionally, winners of House races in 2000 spent an average of $849,158 to do so, while House winners in 2008 spent an average of $1,372,591. Enhancing the concerns of many on the left and the right has been a recent Supreme Court decision to strike down the country's existing campaign finance laws. Put simply, the ruling opens the door for an even greater influence of money by allowing corporations spend money directly on campaigns. Meanwhile, voter frustration is high, making the fight for campaign cash all the more crucial to politicians hoping to remain in office. A recent poll found that 44% of Americans believe incumbents should be voted out of office. However, reforms of Congress appear unlikely. There doesn't appear to be any significant momentum at this time behind efforts to change the rules that govern passing legislation or Congress's need to constantly campaign and fundraise. With an election year beginning, it's also unlikely that congressional leaders will begin to see eye to eye more often on major legislation. Perhaps a "shock" is indeed called for in order to change that. -- Andrew Golis is the Editor of and Brett Michael Dykes is a contributor to the Yahoo! News blog

I have to agree with some of this. The partisanship is getting out of control. The recent WTF with the jobs bill and Harry Reid is messed up. A bi-partisan bill for SOMETHING and it gets scuttled. I know a few years ago people were saying "come election time anyone with an "I" next to their name is getting voted out" but this time it might happen. I've seen better bargaining tactics between grade school kids in a playground.

The John Birch society is co-sponsoring the Republican cattle call this year. The same one's who made McCarthy seem sane.

The leader of the John Birch society also called Reagan a "lackey".

Xceler8x wrote: The John Birch society is co-sponsoring the Republican cattle call this year. The same one's who made McCarthy seem sane. The leader of the John Birch society also called Reagan a "lackey".

Organizational character evolves, sometimes for the better, sometimes - not so much. The ACLU is a prime example.

Looks like the JBS' core-principles are rooted in extreme right-wing dogma.

http://www.jbs.org/core-principles

I do agree... politics has gotten way out of hand. I have a couple of friends who are heavy right wing.. and they are just as disinfrancised everybody else.

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

JB, interesting that the chart shown ends at the beginning of The O's term. Like somehow or other it's suddenly not proper to be obstructionist and perhaps sticking to a few principals as the voters look with more intensity. When your goal is to destroy the U.S. economy and implement a communist totalitarian society, suddenly it's "Can't we all just get along?"

In reply to mad_machine:

I have to agree, too. Political machinations are out of control because government is out of control. Bayh recognizes this, as do an ever increasing number of voters; except voters are more energized than ever to make big changes in Beltway behavior.

Extemists are either side of the political spectrum will always be disenfranchised; boo-hoo for them. The failure to compromise stems from both party's ambition to gain and expand legislative power then reward the special-interests that support and empower them

On the other hand, a stalemate in Congress has its' benefit as it prevents the passing of incredibly bad legislation. Perhaps things could change quickly if the current agenda was simply erased and re-written with the co-operation of both parties. If things don't change, it looks more and more likely they will later this year.

Purging Congress of incumbents is a great place to start. Senator Bayh just made the process a little easier.

On the one hand, it's ugly. Real ugly. OTOH, I think that this ugliness may be a prelude to something good. I don't see how the status quo can continue, and my gut feeling is that this is the best chance we've had in a LONG time for a third party to emerge.

Start assigning Congressmen by random selection from the populace (much like jury duty)!!

It would completely eliminate almost ALL election expenses!! It would also make parties FAR less powerful. Clearly there would need to be some pre-requisites for election. Why will it never be implemented... guess who would have to vote it in? (a constitutional change I am sure). If you say "hey, we might end up with a bunch of idiots on capital hill", my response is "what's your point".

P.S. Voting out incumbents will likely be only marginally effective, you will just vote in another person who is a bitch to the his money handlers (parties, interests etc.)

That may be the best idea yet, much like people who want to be president shouldn't be. Of course eventually it would go wrong to just like I don't know if I would want to be tried by people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty

Dr. Hess wrote: JB, interesting that the chart shown ends at the beginning of The O's term. Like somehow or other it's suddenly not proper to be obstructionist and perhaps sticking to a few principals as the voters look with more intensity. When your goal is to destroy the U.S. economy and implement a communist totalitarian society, suddenly it's "Can't we all just get along?"

I chuckled at that as well. It was in the story so I included it in the post.

makes me want to run for the school board elections next year..

Start assigning Congressmen by random selection

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

Wally wrote: That may be the best idea yet, much like people who want to be president shouldn't be. Of course eventually it would go wrong to just like I don't know if I would want to be tried by people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty

Wally, the best way to get out of jury duty is to commit a nice minor felony.

Dr. Hess wrote: JB, interesting that the chart shown ends at the beginning of The O's term. Like somehow or other it's suddenly not proper to be obstructionist and perhaps sticking to a few principals as the voters look with more intensity. When your goal is to destroy the U.S. economy and implement a communist totalitarian society, suddenly it's "Can't we all just get along?"

The 2009-2010 Congressional term is not over yet, which is why the line ends at 2008. Not everything is a conspiracy.

JeffHarbert wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: ...chart shown ends at the beginning of The O's term...

The 2009-2010 Congressional term is not over yet, which is why the line ends at 2008. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Now now, don't let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good conspiracy theory... besides, this clearly makes YOU part of the conspiracy!

What do your fancy "facts" say about that!!!

Dr. Hess wrote: JB, interesting that the chart shown ends at the beginning of The O's term. Like somehow or other it's suddenly not proper to be obstructionist and perhaps sticking to a few principals as the voters look with more intensity. When your goal is to destroy the U.S. economy and implement a communist totalitarian society, suddenly it's "Can't we all just get along?"

Hess,

As an observer of business and economic trends you are absolutely brilliant. When you start commenting on anything that involves government, you come off as intensely bitter and angry, spouting your thoughts about people and groups in highly denigrating terms. You make yourself easy for people I know that should be listing to you, to dismiss as a nutcase from the Arkansas hills that is pissed that he is not allowed to own the first family like is great great grandfather was. It has always amazed me that someone so skilled the art of healing, seemed to feel compelled to inflame.

I don't what has happened in your life to make you so angry. It obviously was profoundly hurtful and you deserved better. If you can find in you heart and mind to accept that those of us in different parts of the political spectrum are not seeking to destroy you or that which you hold dear, your thoughts, observations and intelligence would find a wider audience. You might find we want a lot of the same things, even if our preferred methods are different.

aircooled wrote:

JeffHarbert wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: ...chart shown ends at the beginning of The O's term...

The 2009-2010 Congressional term is not over yet, which is why the line ends at 2008. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Now now, don't let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good conspiracy theory... besides, this clearly makes YOU part of the conspiracy! What do your fancy "facts" say about that!!!

Cloture is a legislative tactic used to end debate and put a bill up for immediate vote. The spike depicted on the graph starts with the ascension of a Democrat-controlled Senate.

Coincidence?

You guys ( says the immigrant from the north !) need a 3rd party !

oldsaw wrote: Cloture is a legislative tactic used to end debate and put a bill up for immediate vote. The spike depicted on the graph starts with the ascension of a Democrat-controlled Senate. Coincidence?

Now, now, one conspiracy at a time please:

The original post talked about the increase in cloture, which was shown as an example of reasons given for a democratic senator not seeking re-election. The chart showed this increase, stopping in 2008 when Dr. Hess's president took office. See, the conspiracy (a Democratic one I am guessing) is that cloture is only bad when Mr. Obama is not in office!

Now, your conspiracy (OK, yours really is more of a fact, but why bicker), is that since the democrats have taken control of the congress, the number of clotures have increased markedly. This of course implies that if Republicans take control, this will dive back down. I find that pretty unlikely. I think they all are learning more about how to play the "game" and will use every weapon they can.

Type Q, doode, my great-great grandfathers were all Dutch, or Friesian, actually, if you know the difference. Twern't no slave owners there. Furthermore, I grew up in Los Angeles, y0, and I find your bringing racial undertones to this discussion interesting in and of itself. Do you ever consider that the majority of Americans disapprove of Barack Hussein Obama (or whatever his real name is, he's gone by many) because he is a socialist who uses the Constitution as toilet paper and not because of his skin color, whatever that is? Or is it just easier for you to take a racial cop-out? If you don't like the Constitution, then change it. There's a mechanism for that built in. Maybe they don't teach that in schools anymore since it was "discovered" that it really means whatever you want it to mean in the right now.

My political motivation comes from "get your hand off my wallet and don't tell me what to do." If your political motivation is "Give me your money or I'll kill you," as the D's profess, then we have a problem.

As for the chart, and as I alluded, that spike happened in the end of W's term and was led by the D's. The article implies that the chart is current and them pesky R's obstructing progress is the problem, even though no cloture votes in The O's administration are represented. Why doesn't the chart show a yearly total instead of a two year total? Why not show 20 year blocks instead? Because you can manipulate the chart by manipulating the time blocks. Just like in the global warming scam: Play with the data and the charts until it "proves" what you want it to. Want a dramatic "hockey stick"? Play with the ranges. Planet not warming up this decade? Throw out some data blocks, include others with extra noise levels, it all gets washed out in the statistics.

I read Ambrose's articles on the telegraph.co.uk. As interesting as his articles are, the comments following are even more so. The Your-a-peen's are just as pissed about their respective governments as we are. Interesting times.

aircooled wrote: Now, your conspiracy (OK, yours really is more of a fact, but why bicker), is that since the democrats have taken control of the congress, the number of clotures have increased markedly. This of course implies that if Republicans take control, this will dive back down. I find that pretty unlikely. I think they all are learning more about how to play the "game" and will use every weapon they can.

Ummm, the chart clearly shows that Republicans already know to "game" the system; there is a marked rise in cloture useage when the R's had control from 2000-2006. The current crop has just taken everything to a much higher level.

As for conspiracies, it is interesting how critics deplored Bush 43's use of Executive Powers and his trashing of civil liberties, i.e., "privacy" rights.

Conversely, the President (in his first year of office) is right on track to equal, if not exceed, the total number achieved by Bush. Heard about that much?

Oh, and where was the outcry when the Administration declared US citizens have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" if monitoring one's GPS footprint is deemed "necessary?

Just askin?

Hold on there a minute guys,

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

I invite everyone to personally conduct the following experiment to reveal the media’s habitual efforts to skew our views to the left.

-Pick a news program (except FOX) that has political content.

-Draw a two by two matrix

-Label the columns “Republican” & “Democrat”

-Label the rows “Positive” & “Negative”

Now, watch the program and populate the cells only when the Subject’s political affiliation is mentioned either visually or verbally.

For instance, if they say “Republican John McCain has been accused of smacking an old lady” put a check in the “Republican / Negative” cell.

What you’ll notice is that it’s significantly more likely for political party to be mentioned in R/N & D/P articles than in R/P & D/N articles.

Take the test...see how often you get to check the D/N box after hearing something like “Democrat Evan Bayh is throwing in the towel because he’s disgusted with his party”.

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

The interview is on CNBC (left) of a Democratic Senator Evan Bayh (left) about how dysfunctional the Senate is (majority left) and how he says the American people need to vote out the incumbents (which are mostly Democratic at this point).

So a left leaning organization is biasing its reporting by reporting that people should vote out the left? It seems like a pretty good example of non-biased (or maybe counter balanced) reporting to me.