let me be the first to say, "very cool"`

Term Limits?

This is perfect example of what's wrong with Congress...a permanently-entrenched ruling class which, over time, loses touch with the people who elect them and are only beholden to Beltway insiders.

Meanwhile, the approval ratings are at historic lows, but imcumbents are returned to office at a rate well over 90%.

I call it Battered Voter Syndrome.

It's not hard to see why they keep voting him in. He's done a great job protecting the local interests of the state of Michigan.

soy_bomb: Term Limits?

Term limits would make government incredibly ineffective. There would be no incentive to moderate one's political beliefs for reelection or otherwise.-- and government would turn into a revolving door of extremists.

I can scarcely think of a worse idea.

I caught his speech on C-Span, and genuinely warmed to the man when he talked about meeting George Washington as a boy, and how the General inspired him to public office, I also think it's a shame that the chapter that mentions him was excluded during the Council of Nicea, he deserved his mention in that book as well.

DarnoKonrad: Term limits would make government incredibly ineffective. There would be no incentive to moderate one's political beliefs for reelection or otherwise.-- and government would turn into a revolving door of extremists.

I can scarcely think of a worse idea.

Exactly. I live in Michigan, where we have term limits for state legislators. All that's happened is that state legislators go into lobbying at the end of their terms, or move on to other offices. Meanwhile, the freshman politicians that compose a good percentage of the state capitol don't know anything about the legislative process; we nearly had a government shutdown last year because they couldn't hammer out a budget.

Carl Hayden of AZ and Robert Byrd of WV have served in Congress longer.
\the more you know(TM)

My dingel just seems older.

/what?

Eight comments in and no cryptically racist Detroit jokes? You guys are slipping.

John Dingell built this IN AN ABANDONED MICHIGHAN WEARHOUSE.

WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!
/got nothin'

Little bit of trivia about John Dingell (D): He is the one that originally called the ATF "jack-booted American fascists" in a speech in Congress. The NRA was basically just parroting his sentiments when they called them "jack-booted thugs", and in fact I think "thugs" is probably less inflammatory than "fascists", especially when you consider that Dingell is a WWII vet.

The old boy network....literally

Good on you, tailpipe.

Tenebreux: I caught his speech on C-Span, and genuinely warmed to the man when he talked about meeting George Washington as a boy, and how the General inspired him to public office, I also think it's a shame that the chapter that mentions him was excluded during the Council of Nicea, he deserved his mention in that book as well.

You are making me wake up my family from laughter

Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Meanwhile, the approval ratings are at historic lows, but imcumbents are returned to office at a rate well over 90%.

I call it Battered Voter Syndrome.

It comes down to people actively thinking their reps are good just because they represent them but think everyone else in Congress is to blame. I'll admit Feingold is the only rep I really support here, the other reps in WI suck and should be thrown out of office. However, the Republicans only present far right nominees and the Libertarians have been lacking organization skills, so we're farked here for now; I've been down to finding a good nominee and just writing them in.

That takes real berries.

DarnoKonrad: Term limits .......

I can scarcely think of a worse idea.


Not me. Get them the fark out, and be forced to compete in the real world with the very laws they implement.


/berry

Pro Zack: That takes real berries.

Bicycle safety tip: youwintehprize.com


Kind of a weak pic for the last surviving member of "The Wild Bunch".




/awesome movie

dittybopper: Little bit of trivia about John Dingell (D): He is the one that originally called the ATF "jack-booted American fascists" in a speech in Congress. The NRA was basically just parroting his sentiments when they called them "jack-booted thugs", and in fact I think "thugs" is probably less inflammatory than "fascists", especially when you consider that Dingell is a WWII vet.

Cite. Google finds no such quote.

Crow The Robot:
I call it Battered Voter Syndrome.
It comes down to people actively thinking their reps are good just because they represent them but think everyone else in Congress is to blame.

That is part of it but take my congressman, Jo Bonner (BTW kids were driving around his district and cutting out one of the "N"s from his name on his campaign signs). Jo is a decent enough guy who focuses on district issues mostly and not national ones but the problem is that he is a "go along to get along" type Republican. Don't make waves, don't challenge the system etc. I will vote for Jo over just about any Democrat nominee because he is the safer choice but I would vote for a more aggressive candidate in the primary against Jo but no one will challenge him so he keeps getting reelected.

DarnoKonrad: soy_bomb: Term Limits?

Term limits would make government incredibly ineffective. There would be no incentive to moderate one's political beliefs for reelection or otherwise.-- and government would turn into a revolving door of extremists.

I can scarcely think of a worse idea.

Perhaps the limit shouldn't be in the number of terms a person serves, but the number of consecutive terms. I.e. after five consecutive terms in the US House, a person would have to step aside for two years. If they were really that good for the decade they were there, they should have no problem being re-elected after two years.

wage0048: DarnoKonrad: soy_bomb: Term Limits?

Term limits would make government incredibly ineffective. There would be no incentive to moderate one's political beliefs for reelection or otherwise.-- and government would turn into a revolving door of extremists.

I can scarcely think of a worse idea.

Perhaps the limit shouldn't be in the number of terms a person serves, but the number of consecutive terms. I.e. after five consecutive terms in the US House, a person would have to step aside for two years. If they were really that good for the decade they were there, they should have no problem being re-elected after two years.

If we're going to be drawing up hypothetical reforms, I'd rather move to a more parliamentary system. Which would represent viewpoints rather than geographic areas.

ral315: we nearly had a government shutdown last year because they couldn't hammer out a budget.

New York's legislators-for-life couldn't hammer out a budget for 20 years in a row, and they had experience.

It was experience banging interns, experience putting bar tabs on the state's dime, and TONS of experience with kickbacks and bribes, but it was experience.

Gulper Eel: ral315: we nearly had a government shutdown last year because they couldn't hammer out a budget.

New York's legislators-for-life couldn't hammer out a budget for 20 years in a row, and they had experience.

It was experience banging interns, experience putting bar tabs on the state's dime, and TONS of experience with kickbacks and bribes, but it was experience.

Why no talk of personal responsibility? Maybe New Yorkers value banging interns and experience putting bar tabs on the state's dime.

Drawing up an arbitrary law to counter voter apathy just puts a blind trigger into a system that needs participation, not mindless automated musical chairs.


It's just a poor idea.

Dingell Dangell Dongell Dungell...

The House was an interesting failure by the Founders. They designed it so that with 2 year terms, they could be readily voted out. The senate was designed for the lifers, so that they could apply their experience and temper the more volatile congress.

Well, as it turns out, people vote for candidates that they hear about more frequently. When you're up for reelection every 2 years then people remember you and vote for you. Every four years, and election time becomes much more up for grabs... as seen by the starkly different rates of reelection between Congressmen and Senators.

career politicians are "cool"?

Bored Horde: When you're up for reelection every 2 years then people remember you and vote for you. Every four years, and election time becomes much more up for grabs... as seen by the starkly different rates of reelection between Congressmen and Senators.

FAIL, and you're wrong about contested reelections too - Senators do at least as well, and are better known at least in the more populated states.

It's not hard to see why they keep voting him in. He's done a great job protecting the local interests of the state of Michigan.

Sorry pal, the only interests he's protected are his own. Hasn't helped Michigan do anything but go down the toilet. Now that he's up in the years, Jenny helps him out as much as she can. The democratic voting base in Detroit and Flint keep people like them in office while the debris piles up.

DarnoKonrad: Term limits would make government incredibly ineffective. There would be no incentive to moderate one's political beliefs for reelection or otherwise.-- and government would turn into a revolving door of extremists.

Instead we get the same old corrupt insiders year after year because idiot constituents are more concerned about 'teams' than policies or personalities.

Shaggy_C: DarnoKonrad: Term limits would make government incredibly ineffective. There would be no incentive to moderate one's political beliefs for reelection or otherwise.-- and government would turn into a revolving door of extremists.

Instead we get the same old corrupt insiders year after year because idiot constituents are more concerned about 'teams' than policies or personalities.

Which is preferable to a system with blind and arbitrary triggers with idiot constituents that are more concerned about 'teams' than policies or personalities. IMHO.

DarnoKonrad: Which is preferable to a system with blind and arbitrary triggers with idiot constituents that are more concerned about 'teams' than policies or personalities. IMHO.

The fact of the matter is so much of the bureacracy is deeply entrenched that even when you change the face of the representative, the things going on behind the scenes are beyond his/her control. Let's use the presidency as an example. I mean, really, if McCain had won the election, how many people do you think would have been kicked out of their repective posts? Even with Obama I'll say that approximately 90%+ of workers in the federal government saw zero change to their responsibilities or daily activities.

DarnoKonrad: Why no talk of personal responsibility? Maybe New Yorkers value banging interns and experience putting bar tabs on the state's dime.

Drawing up an arbitrary law to counter voter apathy just puts a blind trigger into a system that needs participation, not mindless automated musical chairs.


It's just a poor idea.

I don't like term limits either. Too blunt an instrument. I prefer something like a referendum, to be run in the off-year November elections. With these choices:

-Should the sitting President be allowed a chance to run for another term? (use this one next in '11)
-Should the committee chairs and ranking minority members of major Congressional committees be allowed to run for re-election next November? (this one can run in '09, '11, '13 and so forth)

If "no" on the Congressional vote, they leave office at the end of their term, there's a new election for an open seat, and everybody else on the committees moves up a notch. So you keep the experience while pushing the Rangels and DeLays out the door if they pull any bullshiat.

Shaggy_C: DarnoKonrad: Which is preferable to a system with blind and arbitrary triggers with idiot constituents that are more concerned about 'teams' than policies or personalities. IMHO.

The fact of the matter is so much of the bureacracy is deeply entrenched that even when you change the face of the representative, the things going on behind the scenes are beyond his/her control. Let's use the presidency as an example. I mean, really, if McCain had won the election, how many people do you think would have been kicked out of their repective posts? Even with Obama I'll say that approximately 90%+ of workers in the federal government saw zero change to their responsibilities or daily activities.

I could agree or disagree with this assertion depending on the scope and specificity of the claim.

But generally speaking, the United States is very very conservative with regards to changing the status quo. We were the last (or one of the last) to have slaves, to give woman the right to vote, to desegregate our society, or give gays equal protection under the law. . .etc etc.

However, There is something to be said for stability. Our dollar wouldn't be the de-facto currency of the world if we were changing constitutions all the time, or dissolving our governments willy nilly, or had the right to set bon fires in front of the capital building when we felt like it (ala Iceland).

Continuity has drawbacks and benefits. And considering how filthy stinking rich Americans are, and how comparatively free we are, it's worth considering any perceived draw backs to the American system with in the context of our historical narrative -- and the substantial achievements in western liberal society with all its faults.


And I can make a litany of things I think are absolute travesties of injustice and stupidity in the United States -- that doesn't mean I think the system is as broken as some rehtoric makes it seem.

Gulper Eel: DarnoKonrad: Why no talk of personal responsibility? Maybe New Yorkers value banging interns and experience putting bar tabs on the state's dime.

Drawing up an arbitrary law to counter voter apathy just puts a blind trigger into a system that needs participation, not mindless automated musical chairs.


It's just a poor idea.

I don't like term limits either. Too blunt an instrument. I prefer something like a referendum, to be run in the off-year November elections. With these choices:

-Should the sitting President be allowed a chance to run for another term? (use this one next in '11)
-Should the committee chairs and ranking minority members of major Congressional committees be allowed to run for re-election next November? (this one can run in '09, '11, '13 and so forth)

If "no" on the Congressional vote, they leave office at the end of their term, there's a new election for an open seat, and everybody else on the committees moves up a notch. So you keep the experience while pushing the Rangels and DeLays out the door if they pull any bullshiat.

A different idea. A better one. But I broadly dislike referendums. Too much risk in abuse by the majority.

Here's what I would do. Get rid of congressional districts and go parliamentary. So, for example, here in Indiana you'd have all 11 congressmen up for vote.

The top 11 guys in vote count get the job.

Volla. No more gerrymandering, and the political landscape just got much more diversified.

4 would be Democrats, 4 would be Republicans, 2 would probably Nazis, and 1 would be a Socialist.

Debate suddenly gets relevant in Washington.

Someone make me a waffle.

FarkedOver: Someone make me a waffle.

*POOF!*

You're a waffle.

dittybopper: FarkedOver: Someone make me a waffle.

*POOF!*

You're a waffle.

I heard that before he was a waffle, he was a Poof.

...Burstein Von Knackerthrasher...

DarnoKonrad: Term limits would make government incredibly ineffective. There would be no incentive to moderate one's political beliefs for reelection or otherwise.-- and government would turn into a revolving door of extremists.

Well maybe if the term limits were something out there, like 24 years.

Also I think the pay should be increased for both state and federal reps to make it less likely for them to accept bribes.

DarnoKonrad: Term limits would make government incredibly ineffective. There would be no incentive to moderate one's political beliefs for reelection or otherwise.

moderate political beliefs for reelection? in the house?

the senate is the moderate house of congress, designed to be so by giving them 6 year terms instead of 2. the house is intended to be (and really is) the more radical house, where it's members are pretty much always campaigning for their next reelection, and are beholden to a smaller set of constituents. the result is that they are always having to show off to a narrow set of beliefs.

and with gerrymandering, that narrow set of beliefs is pretty much all democrat or all republican.

term limits might not resolve all of those problems, but it would at least make it a more common occurrence that your representative would not have be in campaign mode and might be able to make policy decisions instead of political decisions.

burndtdan: it would at least make it a more common occurrence that your representative would not have be in campaign mode

I'm not convinced that would be a good thing. And there's little guarantee that there is any opposition at all that would want the job after the incumbent's mandate is over -- much less good opposition.

One could argue that removing an entrenched incumbent would foster more viable candidates -- like clearing a big tree allows the saplings to grow.

But that's really just conjecture. I can merely look at my own district -- and between a bad incumbent, a worse challenger -- and nonexistent to truly awful choices they beat to get there -- I'm not conviced term limits wouldn't be more harmful than good.

First off, submitter. Secondly...

GOSLING'S BIG BOOK O' POLITICAL ADVICE
#273: Voters can term-limit any politician any time they want. All they have to do is vote for the other guy.
#349: Incumbency isn't as big an issue in Congress as you might think. Look at the entirety of Congress. Get a good look at everyone in the team photo. In 10 years, half of the Senate won't be there anymore. 8 for the House.

Good to see a home-stater representing!

DarnoKonrad: burndtdan: it would at least make it a more common occurrence that your representative would not have be in campaign mode

I'm not convinced that would be a good thing. And there's little guarantee that there is any opposition at all that would want the job after the incumbent's mandate is over -- much less good opposition.

One could argue that removing an entrenched incumbent would foster more viable candidates -- like clearing a big tree allows the saplings to grow.

But that's really just conjecture. I can merely look at my own district -- and between a bad incumbent, a worse challenger -- and nonexistent to truly awful choices they beat to get there -- I'm not conviced term limits wouldn't be more harmful than good.

I have entries for that too. (I have entries for a lot of stuff. I have a huge file of these and I'm rapidly closing in on 300 total. Numbers are pretty much assigned randomly.)

#486: Just because the voters want to 'throw the bums out', that does not necessarily mean they want to throw out their particular bum.
#487: Even if they do wish to throw out their bum, you as a challenger are not necessarily a more qualified bum.

dittybopper: Little bit of trivia about John Dingell (D): He is the one that originally called the ATF "jack-booted American fascists" in a speech in Congress. The NRA was basically just parroting his sentiments when they called them "jack-booted thugs", and in fact I think "thugs" is probably less inflammatory than "fascists", especially when you consider that Dingell is a WWII vet.

Dingell is a nice compliment to his neighbor, Kwame's mom Kenyatta Kilpatrick, who is probably the most anti-bill of rights as they come. She is a freak show. His constituency is quite blue collar, blue dog democrat, pro-bill of rights.



Dingell gets it done. You should see the VA hospital in Detroit. Its huge and magnificent. The John D. Dingell VA hospital. There are a ton of other things named after him, which I can only presume are because of him slipping in pork and whatnot for Detroit and downriver.

To be fair, Detroit could probably use some pork right about now.

Tenebreux: dittybopper: FarkedOver: Someone make me a waffle.

*POOF!*

You're a waffle.

I heard that before he was a waffle, he was a Poof.

...I should be in this poof.


/Better not be obscure on Fark.