Nope. Just an all-too-human group of well-off men of European descent with an incomplete concept of oppression and very specific requirements for "We the people," as opposed to "Them---the others over there."
Having said that, they did the best they could at the time. We should be doing better.
Definitely wrong to hate on the electoral college more than the Senate, alas. Both are, of course, stupid, but as a good consequentialist I like to save my hatred for the one with worse substantive consequences. GWB was a massive unforced error, but the popular vote in that election was in fact quite close and in general the popular vote and electoral college do not appreciably differ in result. De facto supermajority requirements in the senate, however, have had pernicious implications throughout American history, from holding back civil rights for decades to unfailingly supporting business interests over individuals for all but the tiniest fraction of the 20th century. As far as dumb ideas go, I think the Senate is bad enough that the electoral college barely ranks.
I'm slowly working my way through Robert DeCaro's "Master of the Senate" now, the main lesson of which is that Lyndon Johnson was a very bad man, but an important secondary lesson is that the Senate has always been horrible, has always held back progress in everything, and has almost always been a bad influence on America.
I don’t think that the Founding Fathers can get the Senate off the hook with this one. The last time I read the Constitution (too many years ago, admittedly) the filibuster was not in it, at least explicitly. I recall bits about both houses of Congress setting their own rules of operation and a simple majority vote being required to pass most matters.
No the Senate wrote its own rules of operation in such a way that a few assholes could bring progress to a crawl and the minority party could block virtually everything if they were willing to/thought they could get away with putting their own partisan interests in front of the nation that they were supposedly serving.
Personally, I think part of the problem is that the jerks can fly back home on the weekend now. My understanding is that there are three ways of breaking a filibuster in the Senate rules. One is simply amending the rules to get rid of it (sacrilege!). Two is invoking Cloture which is the method used pretty much exclusively today. The third is Attrition, which means just waiting for the bastard to be worn down and then get on with the actual vote. The problem with attrition is that it requires that a large number of Senators be at the Capitol at all times during the process in order to maintain a quorum. That’s hard to do when you’re pulling long Friday to Monday weekends to go to fundraising dinners back home every week.
I agree with David. I don't think the filibuster would actually be a problem if Senators were actually willing to force other Senators to actually filibuster. How long could those old men really stand up and yammer on about icky gays? I'm sure they wouldn't last more than a day or two, tops.
Hate? No, not hate. I do wish they were paid based on yearly review by their employers during which time they were NOT allowed to fabricate, lobby, bribe, etc. You know, like most of us are handled where we work.
Human beings are fallible, prone to self delusion, given to weakness and torn between our childish, basic, selfish desires and the expectations of our society. Government at best is a compromise and a questionable entity, although it's the thing humans have come up with as preferable to previous forms.
Isn't it interesting that we both think of ourselves as an advancing, growing, improving species, developing a better sense of what is right and what is wrong, of what is good and what is bad, and yet we revere the words, thoughts, and actions of those who came before us, who could easily be seen as more primitive and less developed than us?
Unfortunately, we have not developed past being controlled by fears (real, imagined, and outlandish), being manipulated by anger (justified and unjustified), and trading choice for comfort.
Maybe if we didn't elect the persons who can fake being perfect the best (for who is really perfect, and why do we demand perfection rather than competence?) we could get along better, but I think that's stretching.
I would dearly love to see Joe Biden or some future Vice-President bring a lawsuit against the Senate in the Supreme Court in connection with the Senate's requierment of 60 votes to achieve cloture.
Art. I, Section 3 ("The Senate") declares that "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
Clearly, the Constitution contemplated that voting in the Senate would be by simple majority; to the extent the Senate has adopted a rule that 60 votes are required for cloture, that rule appears to abrogate one of only two things the VP is Constitutionally required to do (succeeding to the Presidency, obviously, being the other).
And I know . . . . you don't need 60 ayes to carry a substantive, legislative vote, but I don't see where this grant of Constitutional tie-breking authority to the VP was limited to only "substantive votes."
I know the Senate has the right to create its own rules, and I suppose the Supremes could always punt on this issue -- i.e., declare it a "political question between the other branches of gov't," which they are loath to entertain -- but I'd still like to see this argument get made.
Our founding fathers feared what we have today, but they could not have foreseen the size of the country nor the media's influence. They also assumed the with the branches of government, they would police each other. Of course you know the definition of Politics? Poli - Latin for many(or city) Tics - Blood sucking insects
That little voice that keeps hoping beyond hope that Kornbluth was more pessimistic than prescient is constantly drowned-out by the shouts of the Idiot Cong.
I do miss Bobby Byrd. Societal decay and collapse should always have have some damned fine fiddle accompaniment.
So, the upshot is, I can't marry my GF and I can be gay in the military as long as I don't tell anyone. Dammit. Quit making Canada look *good*, lol.
I don't know about the Founding Fathers plural, but from what I hear, yes, Ben Franklin was an infallible alien Superman. He also invented the internet.
Owen: there's a few things wrong with the notion of "well, let them filibuster then."
1. One person "actually" filibustering is time consuming but dealable-with. An entire caucus filibustering will just eat the entire senate session. The threat (and occasionally the reality) of this killed several civil rights initiatives through the 30's and 40's, before the current rules were implemented.
2. One of the worst powers of the filibuster is exactly the power to delay under the current rules. A given senate has maybe 80 weeks in session and if a single senator (or a small group) is determined to filibuster something then getting a vote on it takes a week. That is, against a determined minority caucus the senate can vote on maybe 80 things even with live filibusters, a number which sounds big but isn't in light of the number of executive nominees and other small issues that must pass through the senate. A single senator, even under "actual" filibustering, can easily waste a week over any tiny parochial concern, which gives rise to the power of the hold -- essentially a threat to waste time throwing a hissy fit, but one that has power in light of the tight schedule. In reality, there are hundreds of appointments outstanding for months and qualified nominees are opting for non-Senate posts because they won't even get a hearing for years.
3. Letting the other side talk about an issue forever in front of CSPAN isn't usually the right way to make progress on your issues -- it amounts to free airtime for the opposition.
So, unfortunately, mere "real" filibusters won't solve the problem. The senate is worse than you think.
Well, not ALL of them. But I have it on good authority that James Madison was found as an infant by his adopted parents in the middle of a vast, smoldering crater in their cornfield. The implications, while unclear at the time due to limited access to astronomy, are obvious now.
Also, would Ben Franklin have made it as far as he did if his parents hadn't been murdered in that alley by a British Royalist? We can, at least, respect his potent THIRST FOR VENGEANCE that led to modern democracy.
@David and Owen, it's actually not that easy - the majority can't just decide to make the minority stage a real filibuster instead of trying and failing to invoke cloture. The Senate rules since . . . I want to say the 1970s have allowed a notice of a filibuster by 41 senators to prevent bills from coming to the floor without anyone needing to actually pull a Mr. Smith. I think the original idea was to make it so Senate business could continue while compromises were being hammered out; you see immediately the problem with this plan.
The answer is to amend the rules to disallow notice and require an actual filibuster, but amending the rules mid-session is crazy hard to do - I think it requires a supermajority as well.
Why they couldn't just have gone with a European style parliament escapes me. Not that parlimentary-style politics is perfect by any means but at least it has rules that prevent clusterfucks like this from deadlocking an entire branch of government just because a handful of twerps want to throw a hissy fit. I'm beginning to think the founding father we should have listened to was Patrick Henry. All I smell these days in Washington are rats.
I don't think we can blame the Founders for this. As someone above noted, after 220+ years, we should by now have found a way to improve upon their original idea rather than make it so much worse.
This one is all on us, on the fact that we've allowed party to trump nation and ideology to trump governance (and the fact that our "majority" party is so incredibly spineless, but that's the subject for another rant).
The combination of the 24/7 news cycle and permanent campaign cycle has degraded politics to such a low point that I sometimes wonder why I try to teach my daughters about the issues. Because, hey, it's not like issues matter, right?
I despise the Senate. The House may be nothing but a catfight, but at least they will *fight* if they have to. The Senate, in its present incarnation, can do nothing more than clutch its collective pearls and hit the fainting couch at the mere *thought* of a fight (Harry Reid, I'm looking at you). What is goddamned point of being the party in control if you won't actually take frakking control? Just mow the sunsabitches down.
And if we're not actually gonna bring back dueling, can we at least resurrect caning? And maybe ask for citizen volunteers? 'Cause my no-account senators are Cornyn and KBH, and, dude, I would pay to take a stick to their worthless hides.
Who really is to blame for this latest legislative fiasco?
Most automatically assume the Republicans because of the nature of the bill.
In reality, it is both parties. Democrats linked the bill that kills 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' with other legislature that they wanted to get past Republicans. By doing this, the Democrats doomed the entire bill because Republicans can point at aspects of the bill they really don't like that have nothing to do with 'DADT' and say "I'm not voting for that now and it's not because I'm anti-gay. It's because of xyz."
I don't hate the Senate. I hate the constant partisanship of the two parties and REALLY hate the fact that any bill introduced is allowed to have crap addendums tacked on that have nothing to do with the bill.
Having proposed legislature BE about just the proposed legislature would go a long way towards helping our government and our nation. It would also be much easier to hold legislators accountable.
The problem is that this is how deals are made, pork is added, and personal egos assuaged to get votes. It is not likely to ever change. Just get worse.
John McCain seems to lie nearly every time he opens his mouth ... why are there not multiple headlines that read: JOHN MCCAIN, HABITUAL LIAR nearly every day I do not know, but I do know this ... he seems incapable of telling the truth.
Sorry, can't blame the Founding Fathers (who did a damn fine job of setting up a framework, all things considered). There's nothing wrong with a bicameral legislature, and a forum where all states have equal footing helps prevent the majority from tromping all over the minority (which is where pure democracy kinda sucks), a consistent theme in the way they set things up.
I read somewhere that the Founding Fathers actually intended the Senate to be the think tank-ier branch of the legislature, with lots of debate and analysis, while the scrappier House churned through business; however, they each took on the opposite role on implementation.
The Electoral College bugs me. I'm not convinced there's anything wrong with having the president selected by popular vote, rather than a consensus of states. It's not like the President has to work closely with all the state governors to get business done.
You know who I do like? The Government Accounting Office. We need more of them.
Though I hate to say it, Obama needs to do the same thing GWB did to get around the Senate... use executive orders and regulations.
That's how Truman integrated the military in 1947.
I couldn't stand Bush, but he got things done as he wanted them. If Obama wants to do the same, he needs to be "the Decider" -- less asking, more telling.
By doing this, the Democrats doomed the entire bill because Republicans can point at aspects of the bill they really don't like that have nothing to do with 'DADT' and say "I'm not voting for that now and it's not because I'm anti-gay. It's because of xyz."
This would be more compelling if some of the Republicans who are loudly saying this didn't also sit on the Armed Forces Committee, and voted to report the bill out as written. Because Senator Collins apparently didn't have any substantial objections at that point.
Having proposed legislature BE about just the proposed legislature would go a long way towards helping our government and our nation.
Okay, you do realize that the same Republicans you were previously talking about objecting to what's in the bill are also hiding behind the excuse that their ability to add amendments to the bill was being restricted? But other than that, yeah, a pox on both their houses. Democrats and most of the Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee couldn't resist larding up a military appropriations bill with two entirely unrelated measures having to do with staffing of the military. So they're just as bad as a bunch of shrieking immigrant-hating homophobes who have been obstructing practically everything. There, now False Equivalence Gnome can dry his tears.
I think it's also high time we take the idea of "bipartisanship" out back and shoot it in the head once and for all. Keeping it around is just asking to be taken hostage. The Repugs never cared about it when they were in control; why is it so sacrosanct now? Why do we insist on pretending a party that couldn't think its way out of a dry cleaner's bag *might* have an idea worth hearing?
Seriously, it's time for the Democrats to sack up and govern!
it's time for the Democrats to sack up and govern!
For most of our national history, we've had two political parties -- but not the same two political parties. Every now and then, a couple of new parties would crop up big enough and long enough to mix everything up, and we'd wind up with two somewhat different political parties. We are long overdue for another realignment. Perot was a nutjob, but he's the closest we've come to busting out of the entrenched party lines in decades.
We definitely need something better than "Those guys" and "We're not those guys."
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 56 (1 in 14) presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,500,000 votes. Gore's nationwide popular vote margin was 537,179. 537 popular votes determined the winner in Florida and who won the White House.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. Every vote would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored -- 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current state-by-state winner-take-all laws used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensure that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), DC (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These six states possess 73 electoral votes -- 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
Can we please dispense with the both parties are at fault crap? Due to the filibuster, it takes about 6 legislative days to pass anything , even if it's non-controversial. It takes two days to even get on the bill while the cloture petition on the motion to proceed "ripens," 30 hours after that, then another two days to get cloture on final passage, 30 more hours after that, and then final passage. All of that is with no debate on the actual bill. The result is endless days of the Senate biding time in quorum calls with nothing happening at all.
The natural result of all of this nonsense is that there are only a handful of bills that are going to pass the Senate and reach the President's desk and therefore if you want to actually do something you have to add it to one of those bills. Then, everyone else screams that it's not "germane" to the bill and "why don't you just bring it up by itself?" To which leadership responds "we don't have time." Rinse - Repeat.
The Senate was never a paragon of democracy but the Republicans have simply laid waste to what little legislating ability it ever had. And they'll be rewarded for it in this election - so, anyone want to bet on how much better it's going to get?
As irksome as the Electoral College may be--and it is most annoying--I think the modern Senate is much more irritating.
But mostly I agree with Keith. I'm really sick of the two-party system. When our choices are between evil and incompetent, we don't really have much of a choice at all. Parliamentary legislatures aren't perfect, either, but at least they allow for more useful diversity. And if they get paralyzed by partisanship like this one is, then they get to literally start over, right away. Sounds awfully attractive to me.
so, anyone want to bet on how much better it's going to get?
This is what confuses (and aggravates) the hell out of me – all those people (and, living in Texas, I am surrounded by them) who believe that, should the R's take back the Congress in November (God help us all), all the evil socialism the librul-commie-Muslim-fascist-anticolonialists forced on us will be magically overturned. Unemployement will disappear, the deficit will go away, we'll suddenly start winning in Afghanistan, teh gays will go back into the closet, the illegals will go back to Mexico, and we'll all be rolling in dough again. It'll all be just like it was back … never.
I am tempted (and just vindictive enough) to say, "fine, do it, you deserve what you get," except that the rest of us will go down with them.
Joshua James: The reason no one in the News media calls McCain on his lies is because he invited them on The straight Talk Express, gave them all BBQ and sold them on his Maverick image. Reporters gave up on scrutinizing McCain once he did that and after he lost the election, he ceased to be an entity of any importance. What's it matter if Grandpa McCain lies?
all those people (and, living in Texas, I am surrounded by them) who believe that, should the R's take back the Congress in November (God help us all), all the evil socialism the librul-commie-Muslim-fascist-anticolonialists forced on us will be magically overturned
A sign posted at an intersection before the local primaries: "Are we all so naive & ill-informed to believe that the Democrats caused it & the Republicans will fix it?"
You know what will fix everything? More deregulation...
The truly ironic(depressing, but still ironic) part of this whole thing is that the Senate was meant to do the exact opposite sort of thing.
The Senate, like the Supreme Court, is supposed to serve as a check on the House of Representatives and the President when popular opinion is poised to steal rights from a group. Instead this president and house are the ones trying to codify natural rights for a group of people(in this case the right to die for your country without being forced into the closet) as well as providing an important tool for humane immigration reform in the DREAM Act.
I don't hate the Senate as much as I hate the President. He could have been twisting arms and playing hardball...which he could have, and should have, been doing his whole term thus far on any number of issues.
We've known from the beginning what to expect from the Senate. The President promised us a bunch of stuff and didn't even fucking break sweat trying to get ANY it done.
As far as I'm concerned, the Gutless Wonder is guilty of fucking bait and switch. And that's the least of it. What really pisses me off is he, and his whole administration, is whining non-stop because we don't appreciate his accomplishments.
With a solid majority in both houses, and a 70% approval rating upon taking office, any random Democrat off the street could have accomplished more than Obama has by now. For Michelle's sake, I hope his dick isn't as tiny as his so-called accomplishments.
@Rebecca: The entire complaint from the public this past election cycle was that the executive was *TOO STRONG*. So Obama, as part of his goddamn campaign promise, tried to work with congress. The problem being that Congress is the home of a varied collection of principled individuals, scumbags, and special ed students.
What frustrates me is that people either see him, like you(and I do to a point)do, as a pussy or they see him as overly partisan for trying to do just a little bit of what he was elected to do and then blaming the obstructionists. The man had just come into office after the worst administration competence/civil rights-wise in the past 40 years and you're expecting him to wave a wand.
With a solid majority in both houses, and a 70% approval rating upon taking office, any random Democrat off the street could have accomplished more than Obama has by now.
Actually, no. The horrible thing is that I think most people would do worse and we'd be even worse off.
Well, the Founding Fathers didn't come up with the idea of having the Senate be directly elected by the people. That's on those of us who followed them. Whether the Founder's belief that having the senators chosen by their state legislatures was a good way to ensure good senators who wouldn't get caught up in politicking is a whole other question - people were agitating for change as early as the 1820s. Given how awful state legislatures are, I can't blame them.
But the basic idea of the Senate as (famously) the saucer that cools the tea of rash decision-making isn't an awful one, particularly when you remember what freakin' snobs most of the Founders were in their hearts of hearts. The problem is, that like many systems designed as occasional brakes, it's become stuck in place as a permanent one.
The question for us is, how can we make it un-broken? I don't know if in such a hyper-partisan era it can be done. I do know that the Great Orange Satan (as Atrios calls Daily Kos) took it as their first email action to ask people to call for an end to the filibuster in the next Senate's rules, so there's at least some pressure from the Democratic base to fix this thing. Now, if only the Democrats listened to their base...
The electoral college once served a very valuable service in a country without telephones and computers. It was needed to ensure that every community got to vote. But that is no longer the case. The electoral college has serviced it's purpose but now needs to be retired.
As for The Senate... I wonder what the Founding Fathers would say if they were able to see what is happening today.
Recently I was at Disneyland and, in the Hall of Presidents, heard Abraham Lincoln give one of his famous speeches. It was idealistic and logical and moving - he talked about the purpose of the senate and the obligations of the senators.
My immediate reaction was that every single senator ought to be required to watch this anamatronic Lincoln give this speech - that it should be required viewing once at the beginning of the term and then every 6 months after that.
Because clearly these senators need to be reminded why they are serving. It's not to be big, childish footstompers who block bills because they're mad that the other party holds the Presidency or the senate majority. It's not to make as much money as they can (legally or otherwise) off lobbiests. It's not so they can spend their time away from the senate campaigning for reelection.
They have lost their way. All of them. The GOP who wouldn't pass healthcare until they added one millions of dollars of things that would only benefit their constituants (screw everyone else). And the Democrats who are just so ineffectual that even when they are in power and even when they have the majority of senators believing that "Don't Ask Don't Tell" should be repealed still can't get that vote to pass.
They ALL need to be taken out back and horsewhipped for their petty, selfish, self-serving behavior.
And the voters need to stop buying into the fear the media is muckraking - they need to spend a few minutes getting information on their current elected officials to see what they voted for and against, and if they aren't voting the way you want them to or they're fillabustering so voting can't even take place when there's no good reason for it, then we need to vote them out, even if he's the guy in your party. If he's not doing his job, vote him out.
And the same goes for the new candidates. Who do you really want running for office? The lady who never says anything good about herself, but has barrels of bad stuff to say about the other guy - is she going to be the right person to represent you? How about the guy who puts down them "intellectuals" - do you think he's going to get more money for our schools or do you think he's going to seek out expert opinions on anything, will he be unbiased, will he have the American citizens' best interests in mind, does he even have a concent of what those best interests are, or is he just gonna go with his gut on everything, swayed by passionate works, regardless of the actual truth of them?
You're right to be angry at the senate. The question is, what are you going to do about it? What are we going to do about it?
It's just like the movie "Slapshot": sometimes, you might as well just give up and skate naked. Or, in more "Star Trekian" terms: "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."
I agree with "How to seduce a woman" -- I, too, appreciate John's intelligence, and since we are in such agreement I will be sure to follow the link to his website and purchase the services and/or goods sold there!
(This will be less funny when he 'bots comment gets deleted).
In all seriousness, I think the senate deserves much more structural hate than the electoral college. The Electoral College screws us out of a popularly-elected president 1 in 14 times (apparently), plus electioneering every four years. The senate screws us pretty much all the time.
Term limits for both the senate and the house; lengthen the house term to 4 years, because now they're all just running all the time; limit the length of campaigning to six months before the election and, most important, only allow candidates to raise money from their districts or states.
I hear people suggest the Senate is obsolete or that allowing 2 votes for each state (even states with smaller populations than any borough of NYC) is silly. That's arguing for majority rule: California, Florida, New York, Ohio make the rules for the other 46 states. Sorry, no. I live in one of those.
I can't find the quote but there is a dialog between god and the serpent where in a discussion on the disposition of man, post-Eden, god misunderstands the serpent, thinks he wants to make laws for man. The serpent slyly replies, no, he thinks man should make his own.
We have term limits already. What we need to break is the power of incumbency. An effective campaign takes so much money and all it amounts to in the end is a windfall for broadcasters and ad agencies.
On the grounds that one should be suspicious of anyone seeking political power, perhaps we should just draft people to serve in the legislature, or at least be eligible for election. Kinda like mandatory military service, only for geezers.
@A Progressive Crank: You left out Texas,Illinois, and Pennsylvania(which are some of the six states larger population wise than Ohio).
Ohio is only ever in lists like the one you've made because of the electoral college and the fact that it(and more conservative states) are given inflated importance through the senate. The "big states" are pretty diverse politically and their constinuency does everything from farm to the creative arts. Should there be a Senate? Yes. Should Nebraska or Montana get to decide what happens in Indiana? No.
Had to love the irony of Colbert's House testimony. Can you make fun of something that is already a joke? Wasn't it a bit like when they "roasted" Hasselhoff? I do hope the satire doesn't obscure the point, re: migrant worker's rights.
At least it isn't limited to the United States government. Did I completely misunderstand or did the Iranian president, the diminutive Iamadinnerjacket, just say that his country would stop making nuclear fuel if the rest of the world would give them...nuclear fuel?
I keep hearing people complaining about "Career Politicians" like it's a bad thing. I dunno...I like having a career dentist, a career doctor, a career tv producer...why not somebody who makes a career out of crafting legislation? Surely, that's as important as a root canal.
I just wish there were a better way of selecting them. Maybe we should post Congressionial openings on Craigslist or monster.com and have them submit résumés.
I like the idea of career politician. I think there should also be training that instills ethics and purpose and a thorough understanding of the issues in the area they represent, and in the nations interests, and history.
I think that the democrats, when Bush was president, discovered that the Senate could be used to block the republicans, and now there is turnabout.
The Senate should be able to block things, for the same reason the house can. The problem is that they are blocking for the wrong reasons, partisanship. The house is not working correctly either.
In practice the Senate is just some more donkeys that have to be appeased. Does the effectiveness of government deteriorate as it increases in size? No, because if the Senate was just 1 person it would still be a bottleneck. If the Senate was combined with the House, I think it would function better than it does now. If the 2 parties were combined, would it also be better? I mean, just everyone for themselves.
Sekitar Vagina Tumbuh Daging, Berbahayakah? KutilPadaKepalaPenismiripbungakolataujengger ayam, Merupakan Penyakit Yang diakibatkan Oleh Virus.Kutil kelamin, atau disebut juga condyloma acuminata, adalah kutil atau daging berwarna kulit atau keabuan yang tumbuh di sekitar alat kelamin dan
88 comments:
Nope. Just an all-too-human group of well-off men of European descent with an incomplete concept of oppression and very specific requirements for "We the people," as opposed to "Them---the others over there."
Having said that, they did the best they could at the time. We should be doing better.
Definitely wrong to hate on the electoral college more than the Senate, alas. Both are, of course, stupid, but as a good consequentialist I like to save my hatred for the one with worse substantive consequences. GWB was a massive unforced error, but the popular vote in that election was in fact quite close and in general the popular vote and electoral college do not appreciably differ in result. De facto supermajority requirements in the senate, however, have had pernicious implications throughout American history, from holding back civil rights for decades to unfailingly supporting business interests over individuals for all but the tiniest fraction of the 20th century. As far as dumb ideas go, I think the Senate is bad enough that the electoral college barely ranks.
I'm slowly working my way through Robert DeCaro's "Master of the Senate" now, the main lesson of which is that Lyndon Johnson was a very bad man, but an important secondary lesson is that the Senate has always been horrible, has always held back progress in everything, and has almost always been a bad influence on America.
I don’t think that the Founding Fathers can get the Senate off the hook with this one. The last time I read the Constitution (too many years ago, admittedly) the filibuster was not in it, at least explicitly. I recall bits about both houses of Congress setting their own rules of operation and a simple majority vote being required to pass most matters.
No the Senate wrote its own rules of operation in such a way that a few assholes could bring progress to a crawl and the minority party could block virtually everything if they were willing to/thought they could get away with putting their own partisan interests in front of the nation that they were supposedly serving.
Personally, I think part of the problem is that the jerks can fly back home on the weekend now. My understanding is that there are three ways of breaking a filibuster in the Senate rules. One is simply amending the rules to get rid of it (sacrilege!). Two is invoking Cloture which is the method used pretty much exclusively today. The third is Attrition, which means just waiting for the bastard to be worn down and then get on with the actual vote. The problem with attrition is that it requires that a large number of Senators be at the Capitol at all times during the process in order to maintain a quorum. That’s hard to do when you’re pulling long Friday to Monday weekends to go to fundraising dinners back home every week.
I agree with David. I don't think the filibuster would actually be a problem if Senators were actually willing to force other Senators to actually filibuster. How long could those old men really stand up and yammer on about icky gays? I'm sure they wouldn't last more than a day or two, tops.
Hate? No, not hate. I do wish they were paid based on yearly review by their employers during which time they were NOT allowed to fabricate, lobby, bribe, etc. You know, like most of us are handled where we work.
Human beings are fallible, prone to self delusion, given to weakness and torn between our childish, basic, selfish desires and the expectations of our society. Government at best is a compromise and a questionable entity, although it's the thing humans have come up with as preferable to previous forms.
Isn't it interesting that we both think of ourselves as an advancing, growing, improving species, developing a better sense of what is right and what is wrong, of what is good and what is bad, and yet we revere the words, thoughts, and actions of those who came before us, who could easily be seen as more primitive and less developed than us?
Unfortunately, we have not developed past being controlled by fears (real, imagined, and outlandish), being manipulated by anger (justified and unjustified), and trading choice for comfort.
Maybe if we didn't elect the persons who can fake being perfect the best (for who is really perfect, and why do we demand perfection rather than competence?) we could get along better, but I think that's stretching.
What Owen said.
And I think dueling needs to be brought back to the senate floor.
I would dearly love to see Joe Biden or some future Vice-President bring a lawsuit against the Senate in the Supreme Court in connection with the Senate's requierment of 60 votes to achieve cloture.
Art. I, Section 3 ("The Senate") declares that "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
Clearly, the Constitution contemplated that voting in the Senate would be by simple majority; to the extent the Senate has adopted a rule that 60 votes are required for cloture, that rule appears to abrogate one of only two things the VP is Constitutionally required to do (succeeding to the Presidency, obviously, being the other).
And I know . . . . you don't need 60 ayes to carry a substantive, legislative vote, but I don't see where this grant of Constitutional tie-breking authority to the VP was limited to only "substantive votes."
I know the Senate has the right to create its own rules, and I suppose the Supremes could always punt on this issue -- i.e., declare it a "political question between the other branches of gov't," which they are loath to entertain -- but I'd still like to see this argument get made.
Our founding fathers feared what we have today, but they could not have foreseen the size of the country nor the media's influence. They also assumed the with the branches of government, they would police each other.
Of course you know the definition of Politics?
Poli - Latin for many(or city)
Tics - Blood sucking insects
That little voice that keeps hoping beyond hope that Kornbluth was more pessimistic than prescient is constantly drowned-out by the shouts of the Idiot Cong.
I do miss Bobby Byrd. Societal decay and collapse should always have have some damned fine fiddle accompaniment.
So, the upshot is, I can't marry my GF and I can be gay in the military as long as I don't tell anyone. Dammit. Quit making Canada look *good*, lol.
I don't know about the Founding Fathers plural, but from what I hear, yes, Ben Franklin was an infallible alien Superman. He also invented the internet.
What Owen said.
And I think dueling needs to be brought back to the senate floor.
Only if you sell the rights to view Senatorial Smackdown on PPV. Man, that would turn around the economy in seconds.
"I don't want to give the government any more of my money and...50 bucks to see Pelosi Vs. Boener in a Steel Cage? Sold."
I think you're being too generous in just hating the Senate. The House is at least as bad.
Owen: there's a few things wrong with the notion of "well, let them filibuster then."
1. One person "actually" filibustering is time consuming but dealable-with. An entire caucus filibustering will just eat the entire senate session. The threat (and occasionally the reality) of this killed several civil rights initiatives through the 30's and 40's, before the current rules were implemented.
2. One of the worst powers of the filibuster is exactly the power to delay under the current rules. A given senate has maybe 80 weeks in session and if a single senator (or a small group) is determined to filibuster something then getting a vote on it takes a week. That is, against a determined minority caucus the senate can vote on maybe 80 things even with live filibusters, a number which sounds big but isn't in light of the number of executive nominees and other small issues that must pass through the senate. A single senator, even under "actual" filibustering, can easily waste a week over any tiny parochial concern, which gives rise to the power of the hold -- essentially a threat to waste time throwing a hissy fit, but one that has power in light of the tight schedule. In reality, there are hundreds of appointments outstanding for months and qualified nominees are opting for non-Senate posts because they won't even get a hearing for years.
3. Letting the other side talk about an issue forever in front of CSPAN isn't usually the right way to make progress on your issues -- it amounts to free airtime for the opposition.
So, unfortunately, mere "real" filibusters won't solve the problem. The senate is worse than you think.
Well, not ALL of them. But I have it on good authority that James Madison was found as an infant by his adopted parents in the middle of a vast, smoldering crater in their cornfield. The implications, while unclear at the time due to limited access to astronomy, are obvious now.
Also, would Ben Franklin have made it as far as he did if his parents hadn't been murdered in that alley by a British Royalist? We can, at least, respect his potent THIRST FOR VENGEANCE that led to modern democracy.
@David and Owen, it's actually not that easy - the majority can't just decide to make the minority stage a real filibuster instead of trying and failing to invoke cloture. The Senate rules since . . . I want to say the 1970s have allowed a notice of a filibuster by 41 senators to prevent bills from coming to the floor without anyone needing to actually pull a Mr. Smith. I think the original idea was to make it so Senate business could continue while compromises were being hammered out; you see immediately the problem with this plan.
The answer is to amend the rules to disallow notice and require an actual filibuster, but amending the rules mid-session is crazy hard to do - I think it requires a supermajority as well.
Why they couldn't just have gone with a European style parliament escapes me. Not that parlimentary-style politics is perfect by any means but at least it has rules that prevent clusterfucks like this from deadlocking an entire branch of government just because a handful of twerps want to throw a hissy fit. I'm beginning to think the founding father we should have listened to was Patrick Henry. All I smell these days in Washington are rats.
I don't think we can blame the Founders for this. As someone above noted, after 220+ years, we should by now have found a way to improve upon their original idea rather than make it so much worse.
This one is all on us, on the fact that we've allowed party to trump nation and ideology to trump governance (and the fact that our "majority" party is so incredibly spineless, but that's the subject for another rant).
The combination of the 24/7 news cycle and permanent campaign cycle has degraded politics to such a low point that I sometimes wonder why I try to teach my daughters about the issues. Because, hey, it's not like issues matter, right?
I despise the Senate. The House may be nothing but a catfight, but at least they will *fight* if they have to. The Senate, in its present incarnation, can do nothing more than clutch its collective pearls and hit the fainting couch at the mere *thought* of a fight (Harry Reid, I'm looking at you). What is goddamned point of being the party in control if you won't actually take frakking control? Just mow the sunsabitches down.
And if we're not actually gonna bring back dueling, can we at least resurrect caning? And maybe ask for citizen volunteers? 'Cause my no-account senators are Cornyn and KBH, and, dude, I would pay to take a stick to their worthless hides.
Who really is to blame for this latest legislative fiasco?
Most automatically assume the Republicans because of the nature of the bill.
In reality, it is both parties. Democrats linked the bill that kills 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' with other legislature that they wanted to get past Republicans. By doing this, the Democrats doomed the entire bill because Republicans can point at aspects of the bill they really don't like that have nothing to do with 'DADT' and say "I'm not voting for that now
and it's not because I'm anti-gay. It's because of xyz."
I don't hate the Senate. I hate the constant partisanship of the two parties and REALLY hate the fact that any bill introduced is allowed to have crap addendums tacked on that have nothing to do with the bill.
Having proposed legislature BE about just the proposed legislature would go a long way towards helping our government and our nation. It would also be much easier to hold legislators accountable.
The problem is that this is how deals are made, pork is added, and personal egos assuaged to get votes. It is not likely to ever change. Just get worse.
John McCain seems to lie nearly every time he opens his mouth ... why are there not multiple headlines that read: JOHN MCCAIN, HABITUAL LIAR nearly every day I do not know, but I do know this ... he seems incapable of telling the truth.
Sorry, can't blame the Founding Fathers (who did a damn fine job of setting up a framework, all things considered). There's nothing wrong with a bicameral legislature, and a forum where all states have equal footing helps prevent the majority from tromping all over the minority (which is where pure democracy kinda sucks), a consistent theme in the way they set things up.
I read somewhere that the Founding Fathers actually intended the Senate to be the think tank-ier branch of the legislature, with lots of debate and analysis, while the scrappier House churned through business; however, they each took on the opposite role on implementation.
The Electoral College bugs me. I'm not convinced there's anything wrong with having the president selected by popular vote, rather than a consensus of states. It's not like the President has to work closely with all the state governors to get business done.
You know who I do like? The Government Accounting Office. We need more of them.
the Founding Fathers were alien infallible Supermen
I would buy that comic book. WRITE IT.
Unfortunately, I have something that precludes me from pushing that hypothesis. It's called 'a degree in US History'.
Though I hate to say it, Obama needs to do the same thing GWB did to get around the Senate... use executive orders and regulations.
That's how Truman integrated the military in 1947.
I couldn't stand Bush, but he got things done as he wanted them. If Obama wants to do the same, he needs to be "the Decider" -- less asking, more telling.
By doing this, the Democrats doomed the entire bill because Republicans can point at aspects of the bill they really don't like that have nothing to do with 'DADT' and say "I'm not voting for that now
and it's not because I'm anti-gay. It's because of xyz."
This would be more compelling if some of the Republicans who are loudly saying this didn't also sit on the Armed Forces Committee, and voted to report the bill out as written. Because Senator Collins apparently didn't have any substantial objections at that point.
Having proposed legislature BE about just the proposed legislature would go a long way towards helping our government and our nation.
Okay, you do realize that the same Republicans you were previously talking about objecting to what's in the bill are also hiding behind the excuse that their ability to add amendments to the bill was being restricted? But other than that, yeah, a pox on both their houses. Democrats and most of the Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee couldn't resist larding up a military appropriations bill with two entirely unrelated measures having to do with staffing of the military. So they're just as bad as a bunch of shrieking immigrant-hating homophobes who have been obstructing practically everything. There, now False Equivalence Gnome can dry his tears.
Benevolent dictatorships do have some advantages over democracy, but they suck in other ways.
Who knows how to engineer an organization that successfully works for the common good of the people, whatever that is? Are there any such things?
Corporations work to make money, so all we need is to make a corporation that gets paid when it serves the common good.
I guess we're too busy to define the common good, so we get a bunch of representatives to do that for us.
Where do political parties come from anyway? Who let them in here?
:)
I think it's also high time we take the idea of "bipartisanship" out back and shoot it in the head once and for all. Keeping it around is just asking to be taken hostage. The Repugs never cared about it when they were in control; why is it so sacrosanct now? Why do we insist on pretending a party that couldn't think its way out of a dry cleaner's bag *might* have an idea worth hearing?
Seriously, it's time for the Democrats to sack up and govern!
"Seriously, it's time for the Democrats to sack up and govern!"
strictly speaking, the time to do that was spring 2009. because it's too late, now.
it's time for the Democrats to sack up and govern!
For most of our national history, we've had two political parties -- but not the same two political parties. Every now and then, a couple of new parties would crop up big enough and long enough to mix everything up, and we'd wind up with two somewhat different political parties. We are long overdue for another realignment. Perot was a nutjob, but he's the closest we've come to busting out of the entrenched party lines in decades.
We definitely need something better than "Those guys" and "We're not those guys."
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 56 (1 in 14) presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,500,000 votes. Gore's nationwide popular vote margin was 537,179. 537 popular votes determined the winner in Florida and who won the White House.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. Every vote would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored -- 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current state-by-state winner-take-all laws used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensure that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), DC (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These six states possess 73 electoral votes -- 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Can we please dispense with the both parties are at fault crap? Due to the filibuster, it takes about 6 legislative days to pass anything , even if it's non-controversial. It takes two days to even get on the bill while the cloture petition on the motion to proceed "ripens," 30 hours after that, then another two days to get cloture on final passage, 30 more hours after that, and then final passage. All of that is with no debate on the actual bill. The result is endless days of the Senate biding time in quorum calls with nothing happening at all.
The natural result of all of this nonsense is that there are only a handful of bills that are going to pass the Senate and reach the President's desk and therefore if you want to actually do something you have to add it to one of those bills. Then, everyone else screams that it's not "germane" to the bill and "why don't you just bring it up by itself?" To which leadership responds "we don't have time." Rinse - Repeat.
The Senate was never a paragon of democracy but the Republicans have simply laid waste to what little legislating ability it ever had. And they'll be rewarded for it in this election - so, anyone want to bet on how much better it's going to get?
As irksome as the Electoral College may be--and it is most annoying--I think the modern Senate is much more irritating.
But mostly I agree with Keith. I'm really sick of the two-party system. When our choices are between evil and incompetent, we don't really have much of a choice at all. Parliamentary legislatures aren't perfect, either, but at least they allow for more useful diversity. And if they get paralyzed by partisanship like this one is, then they get to literally start over, right away. Sounds awfully attractive to me.
so, anyone want to bet on how much better it's going to get?
This is what confuses (and aggravates) the hell out of me – all those people (and, living in Texas, I am surrounded by them) who believe that, should the R's take back the Congress in November (God help us all), all the evil socialism the librul-commie-Muslim-fascist-anticolonialists forced on us will be magically overturned. Unemployement will disappear, the deficit will go away, we'll suddenly start winning in Afghanistan, teh gays will go back into the closet, the illegals will go back to Mexico, and we'll all be rolling in dough again. It'll all be just like it was back … never.
I am tempted (and just vindictive enough) to say, "fine, do it, you deserve what you get," except that the rest of us will go down with them.
Joshua James: The reason no one in the News media calls McCain on his lies is because he invited them on The straight Talk Express, gave them all BBQ and sold them on his Maverick image. Reporters gave up on scrutinizing McCain once he did that and after he lost the election, he ceased to be an entity of any importance. What's it matter if Grandpa McCain lies?
all those people (and, living in Texas, I am surrounded by them) who believe that, should the R's take back the Congress in November (God help us all), all the evil socialism the librul-commie-Muslim-fascist-anticolonialists forced on us will be magically overturned
A sign posted at an intersection before the local primaries: "Are we all so naive & ill-informed to believe that the Democrats caused it & the Republicans will fix it?"
You know what will fix everything? More deregulation...
The truly ironic(depressing, but still ironic) part of this whole thing is that the Senate was meant to do the exact opposite sort of thing.
The Senate, like the Supreme Court, is supposed to serve as a check on the House of Representatives and the President when popular opinion is poised to steal rights from a group. Instead this president and house are the ones trying to codify natural rights for a group of people(in this case the right to die for your country without being forced into the closet) as well as providing an important tool for humane immigration reform in the DREAM Act.
I don't hate the Senate as much as I hate the President. He could have been twisting arms and playing hardball...which he could have, and should have, been doing his whole term thus far on any number of issues.
We've known from the beginning what to expect from the Senate. The President promised us a bunch of stuff and didn't even fucking break sweat trying to get ANY it done.
As far as I'm concerned, the Gutless Wonder is guilty of fucking bait and switch. And that's the least of it. What really pisses me off is he, and his whole administration, is whining non-stop because we don't appreciate his accomplishments.
With a solid majority in both houses, and a 70% approval rating upon taking office, any random Democrat off the street could have accomplished more than Obama has by now. For Michelle's sake, I hope his dick isn't as tiny as his so-called accomplishments.
@Rebecca: The entire complaint from the public this past election cycle was that the executive was *TOO STRONG*. So Obama, as part of his goddamn campaign promise, tried to work with congress. The problem being that Congress is the home of a varied collection of principled individuals, scumbags, and special ed students.
What frustrates me is that people either see him, like you(and I do to a point)do, as a pussy or they see him as overly partisan for trying to do just a little bit of what he was elected to do and then blaming the obstructionists. The man had just come into office after the worst administration competence/civil rights-wise in the past 40 years and you're expecting him to wave a wand.
With a solid majority in both houses, and a 70% approval rating upon taking office, any random Democrat off the street could have accomplished more than Obama has by now.
Actually, no. The horrible thing is that I think most people would do worse and we'd be even worse off.
Well, the Founding Fathers didn't come up with the idea of having the Senate be directly elected by the people. That's on those of us who followed them. Whether the Founder's belief that having the senators chosen by their state legislatures was a good way to ensure good senators who wouldn't get caught up in politicking is a whole other question - people were agitating for change as early as the 1820s. Given how awful state legislatures are, I can't blame them.
But the basic idea of the Senate as (famously) the saucer that cools the tea of rash decision-making isn't an awful one, particularly when you remember what freakin' snobs most of the Founders were in their hearts of hearts. The problem is, that like many systems designed as occasional brakes, it's become stuck in place as a permanent one.
The question for us is, how can we make it un-broken? I don't know if in such a hyper-partisan era it can be done. I do know that the Great Orange Satan (as Atrios calls Daily Kos) took it as their first email action to ask people to call for an end to the filibuster in the next Senate's rules, so there's at least some pressure from the Democratic base to fix this thing. Now, if only the Democrats listened to their base...
@Owen
Haha, I just laughed at your reactions. But yet, still you have a point on it.
The electoral college once served a very valuable service in a country without telephones and computers. It was needed to ensure that every community got to vote. But that is no longer the case. The electoral college has serviced it's purpose but now needs to be retired.
As for The Senate... I wonder what the Founding Fathers would say if they were able to see what is happening today.
Recently I was at Disneyland and, in the Hall of Presidents, heard Abraham Lincoln give one of his famous speeches. It was idealistic and logical and moving - he talked about the purpose of the senate and the obligations of the senators.
My immediate reaction was that every single senator ought to be required to watch this anamatronic Lincoln give this speech - that it should be required viewing once at the beginning of the term and then every 6 months after that.
Because clearly these senators need to be reminded why they are serving. It's not to be big, childish footstompers who block bills because they're mad that the other party holds the Presidency or the senate majority. It's not to make as much money as they can (legally or otherwise) off lobbiests. It's not so they can spend their time away from the senate campaigning for reelection.
They have lost their way. All of them. The GOP who wouldn't pass healthcare until they added one millions of dollars of things that would only benefit their constituants (screw everyone else). And the Democrats who are just so ineffectual that even when they are in power and even when they have the majority of senators believing that "Don't Ask Don't Tell" should be repealed still can't get that vote to pass.
They ALL need to be taken out back and horsewhipped for their petty, selfish, self-serving behavior.
And the voters need to stop buying into the fear the media is muckraking - they need to spend a few minutes getting information on their current elected officials to see what they voted for and against, and if they aren't voting the way you want them to or they're fillabustering so voting can't even take place when there's no good reason for it, then we need to vote them out, even if he's the guy in your party. If he's not doing his job, vote him out.
And the same goes for the new candidates. Who do you really want running for office? The lady who never says anything good about herself, but has barrels of bad stuff to say about the other guy - is she going to be the right person to represent you? How about the guy who puts down them "intellectuals" - do you think he's going to get more money for our schools or do you think he's going to seek out expert opinions on anything, will he be unbiased, will he have the American citizens' best interests in mind, does he even have a concent of what those best interests are, or is he just gonna go with his gut on everything, swayed by passionate works, regardless of the actual truth of them?
You're right to be angry at the senate. The question is, what are you going to do about it? What are we going to do about it?
This is a sort of blog we can have loads of information i would like to appreciate the intelligence of this blog's owner
People get the government they deserve.
It's just like the movie "Slapshot": sometimes, you might as well just give up and skate naked. Or, in more "Star Trekian" terms: "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."
I hear Saskatchewan is nice....
I agree with "How to seduce a woman" -- I, too, appreciate John's intelligence, and since we are in such agreement I will be sure to follow the link to his website and purchase the services and/or goods sold there!
(This will be less funny when he 'bots comment gets deleted).
In all seriousness, I think the senate deserves much more structural hate than the electoral college. The Electoral College screws us out of a popularly-elected president 1 in 14 times (apparently), plus electioneering every four years. The senate screws us pretty much all the time.
Term limits for both the senate and the house; lengthen the house term to 4 years, because now they're all just running all the time; limit the length of campaigning to six months before the election and, most important, only allow candidates to raise money from their districts or states.
Solution to the Senate Problem: get California to subdivide into around 8 states with 16 senators total.
The Founders didn't make this mess, did they?
I hear people suggest the Senate is obsolete or that allowing 2 votes for each state (even states with smaller populations than any borough of NYC) is silly. That's arguing for majority rule: California, Florida, New York, Ohio make the rules for the other 46 states. Sorry, no. I live in one of those.
I can't find the quote but there is a dialog between god and the serpent where in a discussion on the disposition of man, post-Eden, god misunderstands the serpent, thinks he wants to make laws for man. The serpent slyly replies, no, he thinks man should make his own.
In response to what talea said:
http://www.paulbeard.org/wordpress/ideas-various/simple-campaign-finance-reform/
We have term limits already. What we need to break is the power of incumbency. An effective campaign takes so much money and all it amounts to in the end is a windfall for broadcasters and ad agencies.
On the grounds that one should be suspicious of anyone seeking political power, perhaps we should just draft people to serve in the legislature, or at least be eligible for election. Kinda like mandatory military service, only for geezers.
@A Progressive Crank: You left out Texas,Illinois, and Pennsylvania(which are some of the six states larger population wise than Ohio).
Ohio is only ever in lists like the one you've made because of the electoral college and the fact that it(and more conservative states) are given inflated importance through the senate. The "big states" are pretty diverse politically and their constinuency does everything from farm to the creative arts. Should there be a Senate? Yes. Should Nebraska or Montana get to decide what happens in Indiana? No.
In the immortal words of Bill Hicks: "All governments are lying cocksuckers. I hope you know that."
I hate the Senate too. In particular, Senate "Democrats" like Mary Landrieu who pull stunts like this.
And they wonder why there's an "enthusiasm gap."
I hear ya, John. They seem to spend money on the press release than on making the economy more stable.
Had to love the irony of Colbert's House testimony. Can you make fun of something that is already a joke? Wasn't it a bit like when they "roasted" Hasselhoff? I do hope the satire doesn't obscure the point, re: migrant worker's rights.
At least it isn't limited to the United States government. Did I completely misunderstand or did the Iranian president, the diminutive Iamadinnerjacket, just say that his country would stop making nuclear fuel if the rest of the world would give them...nuclear fuel?
Why does my head hurt?
Progressive Crank said: "We have term limits already."
Not on the Senate and the House.
You are correct that the power of incumbency is pretty hard to overcome -- that's why I think term limits should be mandatory.
I keep hearing people complaining about "Career Politicians" like it's a bad thing. I dunno...I like having a career dentist, a career doctor, a career tv producer...why not somebody who makes a career out of crafting legislation? Surely, that's as important as a root canal.
I just wish there were a better way of selecting them. Maybe we should post Congressionial openings on Craigslist or monster.com and have them submit résumés.
I like the idea of career politician. I think there should also be training that instills ethics and purpose and a thorough understanding of the issues in the area they represent, and in the nations interests, and history.
I think that the democrats, when Bush was president, discovered that the Senate could be used to block the republicans, and now there is turnabout.
The Senate should be able to block things, for the same reason the house can. The problem is that they are blocking for the wrong reasons, partisanship. The house is not working correctly either.
In practice the Senate is just some more donkeys that have to be appeased. Does the effectiveness of government deteriorate as it increases in size? No, because if the Senate was just 1 person it would still be a bottleneck. If the Senate was combined with the House, I think it would function better than it does now. If the 2 parties were combined, would it also be better? I mean, just everyone for themselves.
why not somebody who makes a career out of crafting legislation?
I suspect a lot of the actual crafting gets done by the staffs, rather than the politicians.
This was a fantastic article. Really loved reading your we blog post. The information was very informative and helpful...
Obat kutil kelamin herbal de nature
Obat kutil kelamin
cara mengobati kutil kelamin
pengobatan kutil kelamin
Obat herpes genital
Obat herpes genital
cara mengobati herpes genital
pengobatan herpes genital
Obat sipilis herbal de nature
Obat sipilis
cara mengobati sipilis
pengobatan sipilis
Obat kutil kelamin
Obat kutil kelamin herbal
Obat kutil kelamin tradisional
pengobatan kutil kelamin
thank you brother and i like share website
Pengobatan Kutil Kelamin
Obat Kutil Kelamin
Obat Kutil Kelamin Pada Pria
Obat Kutil Kelamin Untuk Ibu Hamil
Obat Kutil Kelamin Tanpa Operasi
Obat Kutil Kelamin Untuk Wanita
Obat Kutil Kelamin jengger Ayam
Obat Kutil Kelamin Pada Anak
Pengobatan Kutil Kelamin Pada Pria
Pengobatan Kutil Kelamin Pada Wanita
Cara Mengobati Kutil Pada Kelamin Wanita
Cara Menyembuhkan Kutil Kelamin Secara Alami
Obat Sipilis
Obat Sipilis De Nature Indonesia
Penyebab Kutil Kelamin Condyloma Acuminata
Tanda-Tanda Kutil Kelamin Condyloma Acuminata
Obat Kutil di Batang Zakar
Obat Kutil Di Kemaluan Wanita | Penyakit Kelamin Wanita
Obat Penghilang Kutil Kelamin
Tanda-Tanda Kutil Kelamin Condyloma Acuminata Di Bibir Vagina
obat jengger ayam untuk wanita
Kutil Di Alat Kelamin Serta Cara Menghilangkanya
Obat Penyakit kutil Kelamin Wanita
Tanda-Tanda Kutil Kelamin Condyloma Acuminata Pada Ibu Hamil
Cara Menghilangkan kutil Di Kelamin Pria
Di Sekitar Penis Tumbuh Kutil ? Obatnya Apa ?
Berbahayakah Kutil Kelamin
Penyebab Kutil Kelamin Condyloma Acuminata
Tanda-Tanda Kutil Kelamin Condyloma Acuminata
Obat Kutil di Batang Zakar
Obat Kutil Di Kemaluan Wanita | Penyakit Kelamin Wanita
Obat Penghilang Kutil Kelamin
Tanda-Tanda Kutil Kelamin Condyloma Acuminata Di Bibir Vagina
obat jengger ayam untuk wanita
Kutil Di Alat Kelamin Serta Cara Menghilangkanya
obat kutil kelamin tradisional
Obat Kutil Pada Memek | Cara Menyembuhkan Kutil Pada Kemaluan Wanita
Penyembuhan Kutil Di Bibir Vagina | Penyakit Kelamin Kutil
Penyebab Kutil Kelamin dan Cara Penyembuhanya
Tanda-Tanda Kutil Kelamin Condyloma Acuminata Di Bibir Memek
Cara Menghilangkan Kutil Di Kemaluan | Vagina, Anus, Atau Penis Tumbuh Kutil
Obat Menghilangkan Kutil Di Bibir Vagina
Tumbuh Kutil di Penis Dan Anus | Obat Herbal Penyakit Kelamin
Penyakit ini umumnya muncul karena penderita mengejan terlalu keras pada saat buang air besar. Dengan mengejan terlalu keras, maka pembuluh darah di sekitar anus dapat melebar dan pecah menimbulkan infeksi dan pembengkakan yang berakhir pada masalah wasir atau ambeien tersebut.
cara mengobati kutil kelamin pada wanita tanpa harus menggunakan operasi cukup dengan menggunakan obat khusus kutil kelamin paling manjur dari klinik de nature manjurserta sangat aman untuk ibu hamil
Apabila anda sedang mencari pengobatan kutil kelamin untuk pria maupun wanita segera kunjungi kami http://obatkutilkelaminwanita.blogdetik.com cara mengobati kutil kelamin pada wanita tanpa harus menggunakan operasi cukup dengan menggunakan obat khusus kutil kelamin paling manjur dari klinik de nature manjurserta sangat aman untuk ibu hamil
Penyakit kencing nanah bisa disebabkan oleh beberapa faktor seperti seks bebas, penularan, virus hpv, lingkungan, gaya hidup dan lainnya, Maka dari itu kita harus waspada dengan penyakit kencing nanah ini, karena penyakit kencing nanah sangatlah berbahaya, Namun untuk anda yang menderita penyakit kencing nanah, maka anda tidak perlu khawatir,
Berhati-hatilah anda yang suka berganti-ganti pasangan seks, karena sangat besar sekali kemungkinannya untuk terkena penyakit kencing nanah atau gonore maupun yang lainnya.
Berapa Harga untuk Obat Wasir Ambeien alami daun ungu Ambeclear – Ambeien adalah gangguan atau penyakit yang terjadi pada saluran pencernaan manusia
MANTAB * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MANTAB * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *******
Kadang disertai
dengan sakit saat kencing, perih, organ intim terasa panas menyiksa,
gatal,..
Bismillahhirrohmaanirrokhim.... *********************************
Sekitar Vagina Tumbuh Daging, Berbahayakah? Kutil Pada Kepala Penis mirip bunga kol atau jengger ayam, Merupakan Penyakit Yang diakibatkan Oleh Virus.Kutil kelamin, atau disebut juga condyloma acuminata, adalah kutil atau daging berwarna kulit atau keabuan yang tumbuh di sekitar alat kelamin dan
penyakit yang ditularkan melalui hubungan seks : vaginal, oral dan anal. Juga dapat menular melalui persentuhan kulit dengan daerah yang terinfeksi.
Obat Ambeien Resep Dokter Ambeclear dari De Nature Ampuh Tuntaskan Ambeien Sampai Tuntas
Sebelum kita membahas tentang pengobatan ambeien, dalam kesempatan ini
saya ingin menjelaskan sekilas tentang ambeien, agar kita semua bisa
memahami benar apa itu penyakit ambeien
Bismillahhirrohmaanirrokhim.... ************************************
???????????????????????????????????????
MANTAB???????????????????????????????
111111111111111111111111111111
alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami
Wasir atau dikenal juga dengan ambeien merupakan salah satu jenis penyakit
Wasir atau dikenal juga dengan ambeien merupakan salah satu jenis penyakit
yang sangat mengganggu. Ambeien atau wasir ini muncul..
yang sangat mengganggu. Ambeien atau wasir ini muncul..
yang sangat mengganggu. Ambeien atau wasir ini muncul..
شركة رش مبيدات بالدمام
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالدمام
شركة مكافحة الصراصير ببقيق
شركة مكافحة الصراصير بعنك
شركة مكافحة الصراصير بالجبيل
شركة مكافحة الصراصير بالقطيف
شركة مكافحة الصراصير بالظهران
شركة مكافحة الصراصير براس تنورة
شركة مكافحة الصراصير بسيهات
شركة مكافحة الصراصير بالخبر
شركة مكافحة الصراصير بالدمام
Assalamualaikum wr.wb, Salam Sehat semuanya. numpang komen ya gan.
Obat Kencing Nanah
Obat Sipilis
Obat Herbal Kutil Kelamin
Obat Kencing Nanah Manjur
Obat Kencing Nanah Paling Ampuh
Obat Kencing Nanah Pria
Obat Kencing Nanah Wanita
Obat Kencing Nanah Alami
Obat Kencing Nanah Ibu Hamil
Obat Kencing Nanah Di Apotik
Obat Kencing Nanah 3 Hari Sembuh
Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Wanita
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Ibu Hamil
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah Wanita
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah Ibu Hamil
Ciri Ciri Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Ciri Ciri Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
Ciri Ciri Penyakit Kencing Nanah Wanita
Ciri Ciri Penyakit Kencing Nanah Ibu Hamil
Tanda Tanda Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Tanda Tanda Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
Post a Comment