Looking at the headline and article my first thought was, I will believe it when it happens. I still think that.

I think it's a case of the evil you know as opposed to the evil you don't know.

Yeah, except for their congressman, who they think is doing a great job.

Most people see their congress person as " a good guy " and everyone else as the " bad guy "

I personally believe, and it being pretty simple, that IF there was a term limit on being in Congress, that more things would get done.

How many times have issues been kicked down the road, because it is political suicide to FIX the issue. They are always worried about how it will look come re-election time vs does it solve the problem.

You see it in speeches from both sides. I have no doubt that the PotUS speech was " poll tested " before it was submitted to him. Just like the Repubs and their speeches. They are all tested based of the demographic they are speaking to.

Screw the polls, screw being re-elected.. Get the s*I% fixed.

I will confess, unless the candidate opposing him is totally unqualified, I will be voting against my rep - John Mica. Reason. Unless it is election time, he completely ignores my part of his district. And we have some issues that need to be addressed.

Tired Old Guy, the evil you don't know hasn't been bought and paid for by lobbyists. We the People need to impose 10-12 year term limits. Imagine a world without Pelosi, Boehner, Reid and McConnell, along with Hoyer, Cantor .....

If you continue to vote for an incumbent that has more than 12 years in office, YOU are the problem.

White Collar Auto

Yeah, except for their congressman, who they think is doing a great job

Stiff Collar

Survey says --"But there are also warning signs specifically for Republicans.

More people say the GOP has brought the wrong kind of change (31 percent) in Congress than the right kind (12 percent)"

Got it? Probably not most righties can't see things clearly now.

Hiya Bev!

I know for certain one incumbent is TOAST in 2012 and that is none other than Dead Beat Daddy; Joe Walsh (R) IL!

Did you catch Martin Bashir rip him to shreds earlier in the week about Joe owing $117K in back child support?

I propose a trade ... my Senators for any of your Reps. Oh, did I mention that I'm in KY and the Senators go by the names Mitch McConnell & Rand Paul?

Part of the problem is no one likes to step into a dirty bath. ; )

Term limits would help clean the place up!

I'm definitely doing what I can to get my representatives out. All three (2 in Senate, 1 in House) have been in there way too long. Throwing them all out is just the beginning. Afterwords we need to push for term limits and also criminalize lobbying. Get the money out of politics and you might get a government that is actually worth a damn.

I'm in agreement with you Jake - I was just agreeing with Phine's comment alluding to the fact that most people won't vote against their rep as the polls indicate they would.

I personally believe, and it being pretty simple, that IF there was a term limit on being in Congress, that more things would get done.

Term limits won't matter. They will still go into the lobbying and/or staff role. Less then 100 house seats will truly be competitive each cycle. The same gridlock would still be there. The solution is to make all 535 seats of the house truly competitive and you do that through proportionate representation. Gerrymandering districts, so they aren't competitive will not go away with term limits. Proportionate representation would give truer representation within states and would require the political parties to focus on all 50 states instead of 8 to 10 plus a few additional districts in other states.

bob-1805084

I wonder what the poll results would be if it was pointed out that .... the Dems have had control of the Senate for 5 of the last 5 years and control of the House for 4 out of the last 5 years.

So, out of the combined 10 years - it is that one pesky year, as Obama and the libs would suggest, the one year repubs had control of the House that is the big problem?

Yea ... right.

Wow, your math really sucks. You cannot combine the last 5 years with the last 5 years for a total of the last 10 years. People with your mindset is part of the problem as to why our elected officials are so worthless.

Term limit is the answer. 10yrs max. and NO lobbying after leaving office.

John Conyers has been serving the 14th district in Michigan since 1965.

57 freakin years.

His wife is in jail for corruption in Detroit.

Some here say that if a wife is guilty it should reflect on the husband (Clarence Thomas)

If he runs again he will win again.

John Conyers is the Poster Boy for term limits.

Except for the fact, bob-1805084, that the problem (with Congress) goes back many decades (not just half of one), and involves both parties (not one.)

Even if they agree that they want their own Congressperson out, they would likely replace him/her with another of the same party, same policy agenda, same general attributes (that is the nature of congressional districts - which have been gerrymandered by "redistricting" to insure reelection of the same party). The whole concept of polling for an "Opinion of Congress" is nonsensical. The poll means nada. You can only vote for your representative - not anyone else's. Governors and Senators are another thing altogether - they cannot control an entire state. However, that said, I still don't like the idea of "term limits," especially for members of the House of Representatives. It is a failed strategy that has been shown to often replace very competent legislators with half-wits and has become an internal political party game (of both parties) of "it's Johnnie's turn now." The Electorate needs to have the responsibility to vote out their own poor representatives - and not make the decision of who can or cannot run for office by outside people (or statewide political parties) who want term limits on "your" representative. Term limits do not reflect the choices of people within Congressional Districts and that is not consistent with our democracy.

I think it's official--this is the worst congress in a long, long time.

White Collar - "...

John Conyers has been serving the 14th district in Michigan since 1965.

57 freakin years...."

Ya think this is why Detroit is a cesspool and American car companies are junk? Could it be that white collar management can't even add?

I think one needs to have a legitimate reason to vote against their representative/senator (I stated mine, he doesn't serve my part of his district well). However, I am not going to vote against someone just to be voting against them. The person running against them has to be FOR something that I agree with. That's why I registered NPA - so I can vote the person, not the party.

Term limits will just give more power to the unelected staffers and to the unelected lobbyists. The answer is to cut the money away from the system. Ban ALL campaign donations, including those coming from the candidates own pockets and expect the candidates to campaign through public forums, such as debates.

The only way to solve the corruption problem in this country is to take away the money that feeds it. Term limits will only serve to increase corruption and make it impossible to vote the corrupt bureaucrats out of office.

Not just Congress. All 3 branches.

Talk is cheap. Just do it when you go in to the booth/box/whatever.

But nothing is really going to change until we DEMAND a REFORM of Campaign Finance - the Congress is crooked because every one of them knows when they get there new or re-elected they must pay up to the big Contributors/backers.

Although I may not agree with WCA's ideologies, he is correct that Conyers needs to go. When someone is in office that long it becomes a feifdom, not a district.

WCA,

I will never pick on typo's (I make too many myself).

So what do you think, just vote out incumbents or have a legitimate reason? And does it matter who opposes the incumbent?

That's on point Detroit Storm. That District will always elect another Democrat so it has nothing to do with Party.

24 terms is just crazy.

well, considering my congressman is considered the most corrupt member of congress by the doj, no doubt he should be voted out - but the wingnuts just love him, go figure, guy borrows all kinds of campaign cash from his daddy's bank and does not seem to have to pay it back. This was on the Nashville News (CBS) local channel back in the fall, yet they just fall all over him when it has been obvious all along he is as crooked as they come. I'm with you phine, he does not represent our district either, I sent him an e-mail, he answered, when I tried to answer back guess what? It just won't go through - I guess he can't take the truth and would not know it regardless who tries to explain it to him. Fincher is a crook plain and simple.

Makes no difference if we vote them all out and get new ones..the new ones will be same as old ones. ALL ABOUT GREED..not the people!

Skiddy - You're right.......all three branches should go by term limits. This particular congress is the worst I've seen. They are the problem facing this nation.

WCA- 57 yrs? I don't care what party or ideology, that's ridiculous.

That poll is absolutely perfect to demonstrate the worthlessness of polls. I would be shocked if LESS than 50% of Congress persons standing for re-election were not sent right on back to Washington, D.C.

Combined with identity politics and a very poorly-informed electorate, gerrymandering virtually guarantees a stagnant legislature.

The problem is that starting at the local level, political parties don't run primaries against their incumbent candidate, so you're stuck with that candidate. In the end, the people would rather vote for their favored party again, rather than the other party. Maybe independents will do much better in the 2012 elections.

phine, sure it matters who opposes. You won't vote for a radical Right and I won't vote for a radical Left.

And there has to be legitimate reason. Change for change sake is usually not a good thing.

My point is more in my previous post. Some Districts, like Michigan 14, will always be Democrat. It is up to the parties to be able to push people out that have been there too long, but that will never happen because time in office equals power.

By the way another Michigan man , John Dingell-Democrat, is the longest serving Congressman he has been serving since 1955 and if my math and typing is right, he has been serving for 57 freakin years!

So that only leaves it to us.

I don't have an answer other than term limits, because voters just don't pay enough attention.

David Walker,

I am afraid to say anything negative about polls. I complained yesterday about too many polls and Newsvine went wonky! (I blame myself for it LOL)

We'll see about voting out all the incumbents. It could work as a sort of people mandated term limiting, and that wouldn't be a bad thing. The theory is this: absolute power corrupts absolutely. Mao, believe it or not, started off as a man for the worker. By the end of his life, he had a house in every village in China, and they always brought him the prettiest virgin to sleep with.

The longer these people stay in office, the more corrupt they get, on both sides. It's just human nature.

So vote out the incumbents, as long as you replace them with new democrats.

Talk is cheap. Nevada had a chance to get rid of Harry Reid. Never happened!!!! No one will ever get rid of their Senator or Congressman. Same crap different day. America gets what it deserves.

If it were possible to put term limits in place, then our politicians might work for the people instead of the special interest groups in the country. I hope we all wake up to this fact soon or all Americans will lose faith in our system. I pray I'm right on this!

I think this article is right on! The congress we have is horrible and the in-fighting seems to get worse day by day. The Republicans and the Democrats are so married to the party-line, we may as well have one member from each party as THE congress. Sick to death of partisan politics at the expense of the American people. And sick to death of the "money talks" syndrome in congress as well. We need to do away with lobbying dollars and institute term limits. I agree every single one of the current members of congress need to be voted out if for nothing more than to make a statement that we the people are sick and tired of the do-nothing partisan politics!

Vote for Ron Paul if he makes the ballot.

Vote LIBERTARIAN if he does not.

Vote LIBERTARIAN for all Senatorial and Congressional seats

mike227,

We the people think GREEd IS GOOD. We blame the victime instead of the person who is dishonest.

I think the ballads should have like a bulls eye next to the incumbents name so the public knows who they don't want to vote for ..... :-) Now this is where the real change begins ...

I would say term limits with no-consecutive terms allowed. Otherwise they are spending half their time campaigning instead of working.

WCA,

At this point in my life, I don't want a radical ANYBODY (don't care which side they are on). I, myself, prefer a moderate with a little tilt to the left, but will consider, seriously consider those who tilt right (just not too far right)

And for the record, made a comment about polls again, and wouldn't you know, I got knocked off line. LOL

A nation always gets the kind of politicians it deserves: With multiple interest groups and "fringe" lobbyists we end up with a splinted House/Congress.

It is time to stop the super PACS, limit election spending ( the media'll hate that as their the ones cashing in), Stop all these "debates" (they're not debates when the mediator grandstands and only ask questions of the couple of candidates who are on top of the heap).

Get behind America, not he utopian dream that some envisage, we will get there when we work together, hard.

With all due respect, term limits will accomplish nothing. Most reps don't do squat (sorry guys)... what they do is listen to the "staff".... the "staff" in politics pretty much runs everything.... you get 10 year 12 year.. .you name it.... the new pols come in... and the staff tells them what to do or what's in the bills... the pols are too busy out raising money for the next election...

What we need to realize is that the present form of divided government (in my humble opinion) isn't the way anymore.... the British model of a leader from the majority party works better... you don't like it... vote them all out.... but with our pols "fixing' the districts in all states (whether its GOP or Dems)... all seats are pretty safe....

Sad to say...

Don't fool yourself on term limits. All that leads to is cronies being elected one after another. When a congressman's term limit is up, their assistant or "deputy" runs on a platform acting like an extension or continuation of their predecessor's policies. The party will ensure that nothing is interrupted regarding policy, no matter which face is filling the seat. The real legislation needs to govern the abilities or parties, PACS, and corporate influence on elections and public policy.

I would LOVE if all incumbents were fired. Just simply for not handling the budget like adults.

But as the second poster said, I'll believe it when I see it.

Get rid of the "Career" Politicians. NO ONE at the National level should be in office more than 8yrs. That should go for the Supreme court as well, but that will never fly.

If we get rid of the "Professionals" we will get rid of a lot of the lobbying and greed. We should also get rid of their perks and pensions. They work for 8yrs. They should be paid ONLY for the time worked.

There are two ways to achieve this, both offered by the Popular Amendment Movement. Help circulate these petitions found at faircampaignreform(dot)us. Don't just sit here on Newsvine complaining about the current state of US politics. Get involved. Print out the petitions, sign them, circulate them among family, friends, neighbors. Send the .pdf files from the website to everyone on your email list and encourage them to get involved in their state. It will take at least 38 states calling for Constitutional Conventions, then passing the amendments at those Conventions to get these amendments passed. If enough people get onboard and get involved, it CAN be done.

Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Election Reform

We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.

Election Reform:
1. Abolish the Electoral College (Repeal Amendment 12)
2. ONE NATIONAL primary date to be held on the Tuesday eight (8) weeks prior to the General Election day for Congressional offices and for the President. Candidate petitions must be filed with the local/state elections boards 60 days prior to the Primary Election date. Federal election petitions shall be uniform in every state and shall include a “contract with the voters” that spells out clearly what that candidate stands for on all issues that they may have to address in elected office. They shall be held accountable in court for breach of that contract if elected and any/all terms are not met.
3. NO campaigning allowed for any elective federal office more than 60 days prior to the National Primary Date.
4. NO campaign contribution shall be donated to any candidate of more than $200 from an individual or $500 maximum from a family (spouses/children living in the same household.) No donations shall be made to a candidate more than sixty days prior to the primary date. No candidate shall contribute from their own funds more than 60% of the total donations from other private individuals.
5. NO campaign contribution from any PAC, corporation, union, non-profit organization, special interest group, etc. shall be allowed for any elected federal office.
6. NO third party campaigning (separate PAC ads, corporate ads, etc.) for/against any candidate shall be allowed at any time during or before the election season.
7. NO party conventions shall be held to select the presidential candidates. The selection must be done at the ballot box in the primary election.
8. The One Man/One Vote Supreme Court ruling shall be enforced by this Amendment, namely that NO federal candidate selection shall be by any means other than the ballot box on Primary/General Election Dates.
9. National Party Organizations shall NOT raise money for or donate to specific candidates of their party prior to the dates outlined above.
10. PAC’s shall NOT be granted tax-exempt status by the IRS, and any non-profit organization who uses their funding for political purposes shall lose their tax-exempt status.
11. All lobbyists shall be outlawed from influencing Congress at all times.

This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.

Name Signature State Address

Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Congressional Term Limits

We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.

Term Limits for Congress:
1. Representatives to Congress shall serve no more than two two-year terms in the House.
2. Senators shall be elected to no more than two six year terms in the Senate.
3. No elected official shall serve more than six terms in office in any combined elected offices (House/Senate/Presidency.)

This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.

Name Signature State Address

BTW, when are posters going to start using correct terminology????? "Congress" does NOT refer to just one house of Congress. It is the SUM of the House and the Senate. (e.g. House/Congress or Congress/Senate is NOT correct.) Members of the House should always be referred to as Representative, not Congressman/woman, since Senators are also Congressmen/women.

Term limits will only work if we rework the compensation they are paid in retirement. Otherwise we will be in an even worse financial situation. And as Cygnus said, they just bounce from one job to another with their friends.

Read ".. the majority would vote out the Tea Party..."

Get em out before they sink the whole country, in addition to Congress!!!

I would hope, though I know it won't happen,this would open the eyes of all members of Congress. For many years people would lay the blame on Congress but at the same time they would say they'd reelct their Rep?Senator.

anti-trust, you're too generous with your term limits. They shouldn't serve more than 12 years total. I would also like to see the President serve 1 6 year term, no more. The House term should be 4 years.I'm tired of them taking the second year off to campaign.

Phine.....I not sure I understand, you wrote 'That's why I registered NPA - so I can vote the person, not the party.'

Except in a primary in Fl, where they are, as you know closed. In a general election, it doesn't matter what party you are with, you can vote for who ever is your choice no matter the party.

The Politicians that are complaining about the so-called Rich not paying taxes - they are the 1% and they created the tax Codes. A majority of the 1% don't pay a large amount of taxes because basic Income Tax is based on "WAGES EARNED" and they don't get a weekly or bi-weekly of whatever wage. Their money comes from "CAPITAL GAINS" or money earned on investments. Most people are not aware that is the same Capital Gain you get from selling property, interest from "some" Retirement Accounts, Savings Account Interest,etc., The Tax on these funds is less than on "Wages" but it is a Tax. The 1% Pay the Tax that they are legally required to pay. O'Bama and the Democrats can complain about the 1% not paying their "Fair Share" but I don't see them showing their Tax returns or volunteering to pay more than legally required.

I know one damn thing, I'll be doing my part to "kick the bums out" in November when I cast my vote for whomever is running against Eric Cantor in my district! And, as for the Senate seat up for grabs, I can't see wasting my vote on George "Macaca" Allen, since he's been there before and has shown he's a true Republican insider, only interested in putting the majority of Americans into poverty.

I'll tell you the truth, in 2016, I really hope Sen. Mark Warner decides to run for President. He's got the business know-how and experience with balancing budgets while working with congressmen on both sides of the aisle, along with compassion for his fellow man....something Republicans seem to lack in abundance!

The other problem with term limits is that representatives won't give a crap who they piss off. Why care about you're constituents if you can't be re-elected? At least they have some incentive now to do what the people in their districts elected them to do.

Plus, having constant rotation of all members of Congress would be chaotic. There would be even more laws and rules than now and nobody would be able to keep track of anything. There is something to be said for consistency, even if it is consistent a-holes.

Until money is removed from the equation there is little hope. The "new" problem replaces the "old" problem. It is exacerbated by the "corporations are people" debacle. The book "The Creature from Jeykell Island" explains the depth of control and exploitation of our country by the banking elite. Very scary, when our politicians are critically dependent on cash.

Many do hate the members of the Congress, yet, will turn right around and vote for the same sum-bitches again. Problem with the American electorate is way too much inaccurate, and out and out made up information. Confuses the hell out of It. Course the hidden agenda thugs are counting on this, and will continue their self aggrandized enterprises, fitting them right with the ignorant confusion of their particular constituency. It will be this way until we approve a constitutional amendment that effectively removes big money from our political system.

Term limits are no solution. Campaign finance reform is no solution. Making lobbying illegal is no solution. Almost all of you want to solve what you call a problem when it is nothing of the sort. Are you too stupid to be allowed to elect who you want to represent you? Are you too stupid to not notice that Politician X got money from interests you either support or oppose? Are you too stupid not to recognize that you can make lobbying illegal, but politicians--like us ALL--will easily figure a way around it?

Look, if you want less lobbying then ask Congress to do less. Less money spent by the government will mean less reason to lobby for it. If you want fewer long term representatives (can't do a whole lot about senators this way) then don't have term limits, have instead more competitive districts for them to represent.

But for crying out loud stop it with this incessant talk about needing more and more and more laws to prevent you from being responsible for the government you elect. One last thing...while I agree the Congress has failed to do much of its constitutionally mandated duties, the fact they have passed very few bills is a GOOD thing if you prefer liberty to serfdom. For those of you that want Congress to crank out the bills like the Fed is cranking out money you should think about that.

We voted them into office so WHY CAN WE NOT VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE!

Congress is dysfunction and thus ineffective so why cannot we fire them and take back all the bennies receive on our dollars. I don't wish to pay Boehner's Gold fees when I struggle to put food on the table.

I am tired of paying for all their entitlements for they have NOT EARNED THEM!!!!!Thus again can we The people VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE ALL OF THEM!

I think most of us know that the system is corrupt. People that might do a decent job in office haven't the money to be taken seriously. Right now it's all about cash. I'm not sure term limits would help, and frankly, I doubt they'd ever vote them in... it'd be like cutting off their own legs. Left or right wing it doesn't matter. I admit, normally I would vote for the democrats, but I'm sick of all the BS.

I think a lot of us had hope when Obama was voted in. Too bad he's a weak leader. He listens to yes men (which shows in the way he's thrown money into programs that are supposed to create jobs... only to fail). The rest of our reps refuse to compromise.

I don't think we should get rid of all of them... just all the bad ones. Maybe we the people need to do our own campaigning... instead of voting for the options that "big money" gives us... let's find people we can write in that we know would do the job instead of wasting our time and our country's money. Vote for the people who actually work... instead of the lesser of evils or the devil we know.

What does it say about our system that most of us view voting that way? Lesser of evils? The devil we know? I know I do it... I bet most of you do too. We're all accomplices... let's try to fix it.

Just say NO to the lazy and corrupt!

I've told you before Anti Trust @1.54,

Your Item #1 Destroys your movement. I will actively campaign against you if eliminating the electoral college is in it. The whole thing is to take back our congress, not destroy the fair election process.

Here in our state, they have gerrymandered our representative, a moderate Democrat, into a whole new district so I don't know who I will be voting for this cycle. Damn shame cause he was a good man who listened to his people, but he still voted for NDAA so he was going to have to go on that vote alone.

Rich-281385, best post of the day.

Simply trading in new congressmen for old will not work. The nation needs to do what it did under Reagan. When the Dems were acting like idiots, and unions were out of control - the nation voted Republican. Now that the Republicans have sold us out to corporate interests, we need to vote back in the Dems. 40 years of tax breaks, deregulation, and union busting worked great for the first 20+ years, now it has gone overboard. Time to change back to taxing and regulating those corporate monstrosities until they are under control That's what happened in FDR's time - and what do you know - we didn't have socialism - we had corporations working for the Government and the American People - rather than the Government and the American people working for corporations. Those were the "Good Ole Days" of America in the 20th century - the 40's 50's and 60's and 70's when the American middle class expanded, and wages went up.

@Dangerfield.... You Nailed It, Perfect!!!

jrae-1215199...(#1.28).... "Having a majority in congress no longer means anything. When was the last time a bill was passed by a simple majority? Everything takes a super-majority since Obama became president."

______________________________________

Really.....A little history goes a long way...

"The Constitution of the United States requires supermajorities in order for certain significant actions to occur.".............................

"Apart from these constitutional requirements, a Senate rule requires a supermajority of three fifths to move to a vote through a cloture motion, which closes debate on a bill or nomination, thus ending a filibuster by a minority of members. In current practice, the mere threat of a filibuster prevents passing almost any measure that has less than three-fifths agreement in the Senate, 60 of the 100 senators if every seat is filled and voting."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority

You can read the rest if you like.....

P.S.....The reason that is the case is because we are NOT a democracy.

anti-trust proponent - Can we also throw in a clause to change the # of years for Senators. There is no reason they get 6 year terms and the President only gets 4. They should be 2-3 years, whichever would work best symantically with elections.

Also, we need more online ways of petitioning the government. They use every ounce of the internet to campaign and advertise to us, but we have to use ways from the 1700s to try to get constitutional changes and our voices heard.

Right! all complaints and no answers. Well, go to Ron Paul.com and read his plan. Only Ron Paul can save our countries constitution and nation as it was created where government is a servant of the people and not where people are servants to the government. Anyone who thinks Ron Paul cannot be the right president is gravely mistaken. Do your research and draw your conclusions in an intelligent way. Believing the liberal media are the sheep of the nation. Thank god I am not one of them.

Sojourner and Mac,

There is no way to get money out of politics. Not, that is, if we want to maintain a self-governing republic in which we vote for our representatives. If you want to become an authoritarian state then it's possible, but still not likely as the money simply goes into bank accounts the despots hold. See EVERY authoritarian upon leaving power for proof.

Every law you can imagine has a way around it, that is the nature of political freedom. Say you want to limit how much I can give to a candidate more than even today. Fine, but why can't I make that candidate a business partner of mine and funnel money to him that way? You won't see it, so maybe you won't believe it, but it will happen. We'd do far better to simply eliminate all campaign finance laws and replace them at the federal level with a single reporting requirement. And to make it work all money that a campaign receives would be cleared through a third party where the donation would be immediately posted to the internet. Simple. Clean. Full knowledge. No impact on personal liberty. Places the onus of responsibility for who we elect back on us.

Or we could go your way and search for the perfect law which will finally stop people from financially supporting the candidate they want to elect. But I ask you, which way serves liberty more? Mine, or yours?

So Rich, your solution is don't do anything because they are going to find a way around it anyway? That's kind of fatalist, isn't it? Or do you just want it to be a free for all? With that attitude might as well just crown a king and get it over with.

edit: I just saw your second post, your idea about full disclosure sounds nice, but you know they will find a way around that too. Woundn't they?

For starters its the tea retards in Congress that is the main problem, what they are doing to this Country is beyond disgusting. This is a declaration of war on the American people.

Rich, I want a responsible government, and our current election system never gives us that. That is why I support the amendments I posted above. ECFR Section 2 begins that process with the required "Contract with the Voters" binding contract as part of a candidate's filing petition. By banning all political contributions other than the limited individual/family contributions, as well as "third-party" SuperPAC advertising and lobbyists, we will have a good start towards getting responsible candidates running for office. Until then, I encourage all voters to do like I do. If you don't agree with ANY of the candidates and you either have the option on your ballot or can do a write-in, vote NONE OF THE ABOVE (Nevada) or NO VOTE (like we can in the USVI.) In Nevada, you have to select that option for each office, in the USVI we can cast the blanket vote, telling ALL of the candidates on the ballot that they don't deserve our vote.

Mac, get involved with the Popular Amendment Movement because that is exactly what that ECFR does....it gets ALL big money out of the campaigns.....even the candidate's money to an extent, since no candidate can spend more than 60% of the total of donation out of his/her own pocket.

Why do you Republicans prefer a serial adulterer and professional flip flopper to a man who has
upheld the constitution over the past 20+ years? Why do you prefer draft dodgers to a man who
actually served while married with kids? Why do you prefer worshipers of Big Government to
someone who will strive to give us our country back?

Why are you not voting for Ron Paul???

OOH!!!!!!!! Came to the first "reply" spot straight from the Title on MSN page. Have to read the article later, though. I just wanted to say...........GO poll!!!! gO pOLL!!!!!!!!! GO!!!!!!!!! gO!!!!!!! Go!!!!....a.k.a....GET OUT!... :)... !!!!... :)!!!! (in this instance)

And, Mac Forrester, from the other night.(buried, sorry!) Ko-mop-sume-nee-dah (Thank you, in Korean)

I don't think Rich is saying that we are helpless. Geeze! He makes a good point, the more laws we make to trying to prevent the situation we have now, won't help. If anything, they might hinder us. And there is always a way around a law if you are smart enough.

He's right. The responsibility of who we vote in falls on each of us. And that includes nonvoters through their lack of participation.

We aren't helpless. We have options. It's a matter of coming together as a country/state to utilize them. There is a reason why the write in vote is there. If we gave real consideration to who we voted for, their qualifications, dedication, and what not... we wouldn't be here.

It's just easier to vote for the choices given. With all the campaigning done through television, with all their smear tactics, how much do we really learn about the people who represent us? What are we really basing our votes on?

Vote out all these crooks and vote in some new ones!

Perhaps some of you that think Congress is dysfunctional can explain to me why you think that, but please don't just repeat a poll result or a Sunday morning talk show guest. I think Congress is working EXACTLY as it was designed. When there is serious disagreement little gets done. Tensions rise. Then voters go to the polls after each "side" makes its best case and decides which position shoudl prevail.

What is dysfunctional, though was totally predicted by our founders, is the voting public. Many, MANY decades ago we decided to demand from Congress lots of things not authorized by the Constitution. And Congress, despite their oath to the contrary, and because they wanted to be elected, gave to us what we wanted. Maybe rather than blame Congress for doing what we want we should instead want something different.

IF there was a term limit on being in Congress...

We'd have a buch of newbies who would likely be even MORE incompetent. When you ask for term limits, you're really just asking for the other person's rep to get the old heave ho. Just look at what we got in 2010.

Part of the problem is that 35% the country thinks Congress is awful because of the Republican political hacks, 30% thinks it's because of Demcratic political hacks, and 25% thinks it's because of Republicans AND Democrats (adjust the numbers as needed to suit your own prejudices).

Because of gerrymandering, it really doesn't matter what most people think anyway. There are very few swing districts, meaning the real election takes place in the primary for the ruling party in most districts, and nowhere are we allowed to vote in BOTH primaries (which would tend to favor moderate candidates over extremist ones).

But yeah, I'd vote to dissolve both houses right now if that were an option. ESPECIALLY the House.

Ron Paul has the best and most practical idea about how to fix the congress: cut their scope of power back to constitutional levels. The reason why there is so much corruption in government is because there is so much influence for sale and no amount of "regulation" will make a difference. The government is too big and the "regulators" are just as corruptible as the congressmembers themselves. Powers that are not specifically allowed by the constitution go back to the states - where the governments are much smaller and more easily monitored. Add the requirement of every congressperson to live under the laws that they pass and we would have a much more honest government.

Well, we DID replace the most productive Congress in US history two years ago, and put in a split Congress that was more sharply divided then any in history, and have more (mis)use of the fillabuster then any time ever...

What did everyone expect from this Congress?

BTW, the reason for the PAM is because the main method for achieving a constitutional amendment (through Congress/approved by the states) will never happen. The PAM is an implied method as described on the website's link to the US Constitution that utilizes the other method of states calling for conventions.

My congresswoman is Michele Bachmann.

Yes I will be voting her out.

Interesting notion...term limits. So all of the teabaggers that were voted into the House in 2010 will have to leave this year. To remain true to their rhetoric, teapeople will have to vote for the opposition, period. So, even if the opposition is a single black mom on welfare with her 5 kids, a devout muslim with a passion for shooting Americans that occaisionally enjoys dabbling in lesbianism, teapeople HAVE TO vote for her in order to remain pure in their ideology. Period.

If the teabagger manifesto were followed, then all of the teabagger reps have to resign this year. How many have done that? Teabagger term limits...seems to be a bit of a scam.

What ever happened to holding your Representative accountable???

Problem is, many people vote party. What is needed is for the members to be primaried so there is a choice. Before anyone piles on me, let me say both right and left would say then vote the other party. That isn't right since people vote their idealogy. All that would be would be voting for the OTHER evil, not even the lesser of the two evils. I find it very odd everyone piles on the president and his approval rating of what, 46 to 48% when congress is at a freezing 13%.

Its Ron Paul or War with Iran.
That is why Ron Paul gets so much money from active servicemen.

I would definitely vote OUT my congressman. He is a Democrat who ignores citizens, and panders to illegal aliens.

Illegal aliens that stuff the ballot box without ever having to show ID.

Here along the border. Probably come over from Tijuana to do so. There would be nothing to stop them.

libs clutching at straws....LMAO!! Bev of chicago says that the polls are pointing more at republicans... Get real libs, the 2010 midterms showed little discrimination between left and right especially when it came to the senate.

As white collar observed, everyone is bad except my congressman... Looks like this is the perfecvt time to take a serious look at congressional term limits.

Sidebar to WCA's post. Wanting to make spending cuts is the same... cut theirs, not mine.

I have no problem with voting all incumbents out who have served (and I use the term loosely) 4 or more years come nov 2012. and that includes the executive branch as well.

My Senators

Daniel Inouye----Jan, 1963---49 years

Daniel Akaka-----May, 1990--22 years

Hand picked and the only way they leave is in a box

Big shift in public opinion for Obama, 99% support his plan and 1% don't. Overwhelming majority of Americans will vote for Obama again. "OBAMA / 2012 GUARANTEED.

The only way is a vote of confidence of congress. The key would be they can never serve office again across the board. I have my likes and dislikes just like everyone else. Don't hate the player.....................

It would also turn the lobbying system upside down.

We already had our civil and revolutionary war. These rights have already been fought for use them.

Obama has NO plan; only a empty campaign speech.

Speeches are not plans. They are fantasy.

Poll: Majority would vote out entire Congress.

Fact: Majority of Congress Incumbents always get re-elected.

(Proof of the uselessness of polls.)

@Egilman. And you have yet to show a real reason for NOT eliminating the Electoral College, a very outmoded means of electing the president. For those who want to change the length of terms for House or Senate, that could also be done, but it really isn't part of election/campaign finance reform. It should be its own separate amendment, just like the Term Limits, or it could be made part of the term limits. The Term Limits was to restrict pols to the same two terms that a president is restricted to. Some wanted to make it six terms in ANY elected office combination (adding in local and state offices too), but that would really have stepped on "states rights".

These two amendments were created in August 2010 and I have been promoting them consistently on Newsvine ever since I helped to rework the original proposals (based on comments from posters on Newsvine, the original five sections of ECFR were expanded to the current eleven sections....including the first section.)

People need to understand that in order to achieve this, they need to pay attention and participate in the primary process! Get the incumbent out at that stage, and when you get the the general election, there are two new choices instead of one.

Though I too would like to see a completely new Congress, I'm not optimistic that it will happen.

More people say the GOP has brought the wrong kind of change (31 percent) in Congress than the right kind (12 percent).

First of all, 31% is not all that much, but kinda matches the current % of those considered Liberal. So this doesn't mean all that much. Additionally, since the GOP was voted in 2010, only then did any improvement in the economy start to happen. It is still not enough, but it was a step forward. If we get the rest of the obstructionist Democrats out of the way, then we will really get a grip and helping the economy.

John Conyers has been serving the 14th district in Michigan since 1965.

57 freakin years...."

Conyers has been serving nobody but himself since he was elected. Both he and his wife are pure greed and pure racists. That he keeps getting reelected speaks volumes about what Cygnus stated at 1.37, "political parties don't run primaries against their incumbent candidate, so you're stuck with that candidate". That mentality, from both sides of the aisle, needs to change before you will see any real change in politics.

With all of the money being thrown around, with the dumbing down of too large a percentage of the population, name recognition means more than actual stands and votes on issues. Term limits have good points, but far too many bad aspects as well. When you find that diamond in the rough who works for the citizens, instead of just themselves and their party, you don't want to lose them because of term limits. Bernie Sanders falls in that category in my opinion. The citizens need to start doing their job and voting on abilities, issues, and records, not on pure emotion or partisanship.

New blood and new ideas are not necessarily a bad thing or a good thing. It is more about what the person does with those ideas once they see the lure of easy money in the DC cesspool. Far too many jump in head first and end up turning their back on morals, ethics, the citizens, and the country. It will be up to each voter in each state to ask themselves before they pull the lever at the ballot box, am I better off by what my rep has done or promised as a candidate, or has my life ended up being made worse because of the person I helped to put in office. Vote based on that answer, not on the letter behind their name, or just on emotions.

Remember that our vote affects not only us, but our family, our neighbors, and our country. Vote wisely and we CAN make a difference. Vote because of a letter or an emotional reason, and prepare to suffer the consequences when things go to hell. Let's take our country back from the crooks and their special interest cohorts one politicians at a time. It needs to start now with ballots, before it gets to the point of needing bullets to effect any change.

My congresswoman is Michele Bachmann.

Ruken,

You have my deepest sympathies...

Another Seals rescue by Orders of Obama, Mission accomplished and another job well done. No thanks to "W" the guy that got this Nation into this mess.

@Tired Old Guy - I am from Kentucky too. I say vote them all out...Senators and Congresspersons. They have shown they cannot move past the old ways of doing things that no longer work anymore. Even though tea party reps talked a good game...they did little more than filibuster everything that might have helped us recover faster. Demanding things that no one really wanted but their small crowd. I am not even sure their small crowd wanted what they wanted either.

Both sides have been shameful and should be replaced. But it would be difficult to start with all new ones. I suggest vote for who you think will do the best job and who you think might have learned from their mistakes.

Rich-281385: Pretty much agree with your reasoning. A stupid electorate isn't as much a problem though, as one almost constantly being fed misinformation. What do people do, who are not constituents of a member whose constituents are mostly uneducated, and easily exploited by that member, and , as is often the case, the member takes every exploitive advantage of them. Additionally then, because the process is what it is, this exploitation is heaped upon the entire collective electorate. This is the rub. Republicans are especially adept at this.

Ruken,

You have my deepest sympathies...

But I think I heard they were going to redraw the lines soon. *Prays*

Feisty - My thoughts exactly. I would have to leave state.

John freeking Conyers! The man can't even walk, never mind talk!

The GOP Tea Retards are still Choking on "BIN" But the party is good at firing blanks at pigs like Newt ?

.....and congress is sitting back... laughing at all the miscreants that voted them into office... knowing that the people cannot get rid of them now....!

They will stay in their offices now... and whether or not you vote... they will stay there...!

Must have term limits for Representative and for Senate. Also, make all States government utilize the Iowa plan for reapportionment. Cut up Congressional and legislative district by population, with a computer formula that makes sure no Congressional district separate counties, or parishes. Then the Legistatures simply approve, if they don't like a map, they get a new one, if they don't like that one a third is drawn. Then it goes to the courts, they do not get to get to the third one and decide, no really, we like the first one best, or the second one best. It makes honest folk out of them all!

But I think I heard they were going to redraw the lines soon. *Prays*

I got my fingers crossed for ya!

Bonus points for admitting it in a public forum. lol

Feisty - My thoughts exactly. I would have to leave state.

The MN wild ding bat scares the bejeesus out of me! ☺

Patriotic - this is the 4th time you canceled your vision exam, 99% support obama? LMAOI!

I agree with Rich in that we shouldn't need laws limiting the number of terms; we should be able to vote intelligently.

I disagree strongly about campaign finance, however. If you are eligible to vote for a candidate, you ought to be able to contribute to their campaign, and who cares how much.

If you are NOT eligible to vote for a particular candidate, you have no business contributing to that person's campaign. If you are a corporation, you have no right to vote, should have no right to campaign, and ought not be able to BUY a candidate. If you are from a different state or a different district, you have NO RIGHT to interfere in another jurisdiction's elections. It should be THEIR choice, not yours.

Saying that there will always be murders is no reason to make it legal. You can't take money out of politics, but you can sure regulate elections, and we always have and always will regulate them. We decide who is eligible to vote and who is eligible to run, ad we have every right to regulate how the campaigns are run.

The other thing we need is more truthfulness. Right now we have an ill-informed – and quite often a deliberately MIS-informed – electorate, and spreading disinformation is considered free speech. That's not right. There should be fines and penalties for dishonesty. Hard to regulate, and a free press SHOULD be sufficient, but sadly, too many people these days are too easily fooled. Proof? Not long ago, nearly 40% of all Americans thought that the President of the United States was actually a foreigner.

That is amazing stupidity on a colossal scale or surprisingly widespread bigotry (he's black so let's pretend he's a foreigner, because then we can say he has no right to be President). If that's the best we can do, we will fall from greatness.

Having inherited the reins of the greatest nation in history, we need to be better than that.

Joe Walsh from the tea tard party said on MSNBC that the 1% should pay 0% in taxes when the majority of Americans want the 1% to pay more.

The MN wild ding bat scares the bejeesus out of me! ☺

To be fair, I was in college out of state when she was elected. I cannot be held responsible!

I looked it up the other week when I was gonna send in a note about SOPA / PIPA, and I had a 1/435 (?) chance on it being her.

God hates me.

Messenger: "The 93 senators and the 283 congressmen that voted for the NDAA (which allows the indefinite detention and torture of American citizens) should not just be voted out...they should be arrested for treason."

Vote Ron Paul! He is the only candidate for president (including Obama) that did not support the NDAA

Joe Walsh from the tea tard party said on MSNBC

PA,

Dead Beat Daddy Joe NEEDS to get his own finances in order before he's allowed to craft any legislation involving others...

Did I mention, while he doesn't pay for his own children, he does manage to find enough money to take his whore girlfriend on exotic vacations.

Not to mention he makes 174K per year for working 6 days a MONTH!

I cannot be held responsible!

Ruken,

LOL

No worries - we don't hold it against you! ;o)

You gotta love that Joe Walsh guy...

Who the heck VOTED HIM IN? I don't get it,

everything coming out of his mouth is BS!

Illegal aliens that stuff the ballot box

Sniper, obviously you are very busy evangelizing political assassinations and murder, but that doesn't give you the right to spread outright lies and disinformation unchallenged.

Please document your assertion that unauthorized immigrants "stuff the ballot box". You make it sound like it's something that happens a lot, but I'll make it easy on you:

Find ONE documented case of an unauthorized immigrant being convicted of voter fraud in ANY jusridiction in the United States at ANY TIME in the last 20 years.

It doesn't need to be anything recent.

It doesn't need to be where you live, or even anywhere you've ever lived.

It doesn't need to be 100 examples, or 20, or 10, or 5, or even TWO.

Provide proof of even ONE CASE, ANYWHERE in the US, at ANY TIME in the past 20 years, or admit that you don't know what you're talking about on the subject.

Gee - the Republicans and TEA Party claim that 2010 was a referendum on Democrats ...

Now the Republicans and TEA Party are praying for voter complacency to retain their fake 'mandate' ...

Looks like somebody screwed the pooch ...

AC, What about a recall on them all or just the rotten teabags, we did that with - that dirtbag walker ????????????????

Hi WhatsinaName,

No, I'm not suggesting we do nothing. I'm suggesting that we demand a smaller government so that politicians are able to attract less money from lobbyists (this assumes you think lobbyists are a problem). I'm suggesting that we allow as much money to be contributed as the contributor wants so long as it is publicly posted upon depositing to the campaign account (this assumes you think money in politics is a problem). And I'm suggesting that you accept the fact that liberty is better than serfdom (this assumes you believe markets--ALL markets btw--provide you with information). Politics and elections are simply the marketplace for ideas, so rather than outsource your own responsibility you should embrace it.

Go out and campaign. Run for office yourself. You might be surprised at how many people will support you. And how many people will oppose you, but do so without cynicism. It might, in short, change who you are.

Rich-281385

Perhaps some of you that think Congress is dysfunctional can explain to me why you think that,

Due to the current status of campaign funding, the "representatives" are beholden to the money, not to the electorate. You do need that money to get re-elected.

Due to the uninformed electorate, as you put it, they get re-elected because of the huge propaganda machine, driven by all that money coming from special interests.

Due to gerrymandering, entire swaths of the electorate gets split to convenient chunks which allow the placement of specific candidates (being republican or democrat) who do not accurately represent the population.

Due to no term limits they are somewhat afraid of the electorate and instead of doing the right thing, they do the popular thing (yes, they are not always the same thing). Otherwise they would not get re-elected.

Due to the fact that a different set of ethics rules applies to them, they don't really care to do the right thing, but more about doing what will net them the most personal benefit.

Thank you Ruken.

Hope all Minnesotans vote to give Bachmann the boot.

Wisconsin has Sen. Ron Johnson. Who you ask? We ask also, as he has done absolutely nothing, has nothing to offer, and is a total embarrassment to the state. And to think Johnson was voted in over Russ Feingold. Real sad. I've seen Johnson at committee meetings on C-Span. Absolutely clueless and usually gets his head handed to him on any comments he makes.

RECALL WALKER WISCONSIN. Then RECALL RON JOHNSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PLEASE...............................

Judging from the comments, this poll is bogus.

Why did the dems lose the house in 2010? It was because the dems passed Obamacare without consulting the republicans. That made the right mad, and they went out voted in force and thus the dems lost. Meanwhile what isn't said in this article, is that more voters left the democrat party than did voters leave the republican party and thus now there is a large independent party which is trying to get away from the stink of both parties.

The Tea party element doesn't get along with the status quo republicans because they were not conservative enough, meaning they want to compromise over issues the Tea Party thinks are ruining the country which is debt, personal liberty, and cronyism. But the status quo dems and republicans like Washington the way it is now. Both parties want to spend, just on different things.

Dems will buy the minority votes with promises to take care of them. The status quo republicans will do the same just not with the fanfare the dems do on issues. The problem is both parties allowed our nation to fall into debt and will never do anything to address that debt. Both parties will kick the can down the road until they can no longer.

If you are in the X and Y generation pay attention. You will be taxed considerably more in the future no matter what income level you are in. The 47 percent that now do not pay federal taxes will at some point be required to do so because this fairness issue will require that EVERYBODY pay their fair share. If you don't pay any now, you are not paying your fair share.

We can't run the government with half the workers not paying any federal taxes at all. The math won't work.

Search for "545 vs. 300,000,000"

Beverly and Feisty Redhead from Chicago. It is people like you, yes I said you who are the problem with this survey. You do not realize these voters are against voters like yourselves who think as long as your congressman brings home the bacon/fat to your town (Chicago) it's ok and they are talking about everyone elses congress. It's no wonder Illinois is in the dumps and last in the US on everything good and the polar opposite of every state that is doing positive things to enhance job growth. You are so lost you cant find yourself when you are looking in a mirror so who would expect you to understand this survey. Left wingnuts that could pass first grade math or simple business skills tests. You seem to think your city runs off the free money tree and the rest of the world has to pay for it. Chicago is a boil on the buttox of Illinois as far as tax use and fees abuse as the rest of the state suffers while you continue to bleed jobs off to Indiana with your Lefty Governors who don't understand business. Now expand that thought process to the US and your president and your on the right track.

american - OK so its 98.5% is that good for you ?????????????.......................... "Feisty" I agree, Joe Walsh is beyond a Loser !

Rich-281385

but do so without cynicism.

Oh, I've seen too much... it's too late in life for me to lose my cynicism, LOL.

Get rid of the fat cats 1% in congress and there should be a forced resignation if the people feel you are doing a @#$% job. Greece my pockets and I'll pass your bill, or look the other way, oh and by the way keep my corrupt 1% in office so I can keep living the fat life.

Thanks all you tax payers for not doing a damn thing about it all these years, and your corrupt as you other congress members for playing along!

Yes I will be happy to escort you down this long dark alley way little congress people. My pleasure!

Thank you Ruken.

Hope all Minnesotans vote to give Bachmann the boot.

Unfortunately not all of us can. I have no doubt that any DFL person in her district will vote against her, but a lot of it is rural and GOP. We might be in trouble.

Hey MacForrester,

I don't know why you think republicans are good at deliberately misinforming their voters but say nothing about democrats. Do you truly think Mr. Obama is honest and forthright with you? If so, then let me take just two examples from the SOTU and see what you think.

First, Mr. Obama said that because of the "investment" in GM that GM is a huge success, once again becoming the world's #1 automaker, and saving the jobs of a million people or so. Not long after, Mr. Obama said bailouts MUST END, that we should have them no more. If you assume Mr. Obama's earlier words were the truth (I don't) then how can his latger remarks be anything other than political posturing? Yet his supporters, perhaps you too, applauded both.

Second, Mr. Obama said he was in full agreement with Abraham Lincoln's beliefs that the government should only do those things for you that it can do better than you. He had many purposes here, but none of them were honest. Lincoln did not ever support the idea that government should do for you anything, let alone everything, that it can do better than you. So Mr. Obama was hoping to undermine the republican political position they hold by trying to show how "republican" he really was.

But it goes even deeper. What do you think Mr. Obama believes you can do better than the government, or at least as well? I have read hundreds/thousands of posts by liberals and I'm unable to conclude you all think the government does anything less well than you can. Using logic alone, if Mr. Obama thinks the same as the many liberals that post here, then he must think the government should do everything for the people. Do you actually believe this outcome was what Mr. Lincoln favored?

Of course it wasn't. There is much more from the SOTU, or from Mr. Obama's policy ideas, that I could point out but we really don't need to go there. The point of this post is that you are wrong to suggest republicans, unlike democrats, are good at this. And it drives home a larger, more important point too. If both sides are equally bad at this (I don't agree with that conclusion but it's workable for the debate), then I'd rather support the side that wants to do less for me over the side wanting to do more, since at least with the former I stand a chance and with the latter I don't.

Jo-An, #1.120 - Tough talk lady, l like that. Lets kick the teapubs out before they sink this Nation.

@Stop Funding Illegals - Your name says a lot about you.

I disagree with your views of the poll and the people on the post.

The problem is no compromise. We need the people we vote for to be able to compromise to do the best job for everyone not just one side or the other. Until you realize that...you are part of the problem.

I try to vote for the best person no matter what side they are on. I am from Kentucky and guess what...I will be voting against those in Congress & Senate right now. They have shown they don't know how to compromise or get things done that help the people that voted them in.

I hope everyone from every state would figure out that being biased doesn't get things done. Working together is how things are done.

I believe transparency before the elections would be good. Have the record of those running for office...what they voted for over the last term....etc. If we can really see what they did or tried to do...we can make a more informed decision.

Know before you vote and then vote for who will work for us all, not just a small party or group.

I believe to resolve most of the issues with congress we need: term limits; campaign finance reform, and more controls over the congressional lobby interactions and/or relationships. These actions may result in congress finally implementing laws that benefit the American public instead of special interests.

Correct me if I am wrong but when bus drivers loose their direction everyone on the bus misses their appointment. In this case the driver is the President, that’s why the country and its servants, the Congress and Senate, are dysfunctional.

I do however agree with limiting the length of the term our politicians serve. Any more than 10-12 years is unproductive and to the detriment of the nation.

Call me crazy... but the solution in my mind is to get rid of the lobbyist. It's the lobbyist who are the problem.

Ruken, There are rumors that nutty Michelle Bachmann and her gayaway husband are splitting ???

PA---you keep saying things like Republican Teatards, and clearly you despise the Tea Party, but I am curious why? They are for the Constitution, and against higher taxes on individuals...they are against corporate welfare and in many cases mirror (though more constructively and with better hygiene) the OWS movement. Typical Liberal Loon tactic of jumping up and down, and name calling really, really loud (with bold font) in hopes of creating a diversion from the truth. Your beloved President may get another term, but that's simply because we officially have less producers in this country than producers...and the non-contributors will always vote for the person who makes the most promises to them. Heaven forbid we get people working again...no, let's just break the backs of the middle class some more. PS--you might want to do some research on Small Business and S-Corporation Filing before you believe they hype...if BO gets his way, small business is completely F*ucked. Oh, and PPS--you are about as far from being a Patriot as I am from voting for a two term Marxist.

And someone please tell me why they deserve a lifetime paycheck? When are we going to finally say this is enough and do something about it, instead of the same old thing...doing polls of what we all already know, that everyone of them are crooks and do not deserve the right to be there. The only reason that ordinary citizens don't try to be elected is because they can't afford to keep up with all the money that corporations throw at candidates to keep them in Congress. All elections should have a spending cap of $100K...if you can't get elected then tough...no more buying your seat in DC.

What's the point of asking a benign question like that? Try asking the same people if they thought the congress should serve jail time for their inaction and I believe the numbers would be about the same. People will say anything for a survey, especially when there are no consequences to doing so. It's who shows up on election day that counts.

Palin & Bachmann's Endorsements are the "KISS of DEATH"

Hey Whats ina Name,

Let's see if I can do these one by one...

Money has always been part of politics. If politicians today, but not at some previous point, are corrupted by it (some are btw, but very few), then the problem logically is not the money, but the character of the people you elect.

I never said voters were uninformed. I don't think that, even when they vote for people or issues I disagree with. I'm not sure why so many people, right or left, think that just because someone disagrees with them they must be ignorant. I think you are wrong, not stupid.

Gerrymandering exists as it always has, and so has the same reply, essentially, as the "money in politics" issue above. The debate in highly gerrymandered districts exists in the primary race, not the general election, and because the district is so heavily in favor of one party the winner of that primary does, in fact, accurately represent the people of the district.

Term limits will do nothing to alter the desires of the people within the district who are forced to elect someone new, and so the idea that dumping Pelosi from her SF district will result in someone with more than a superficial dispute with her will win the replacement election is fatuous. We would be better to un-gerrymander these districts if you truly want politicians fearful of the electorate. But we have the incredibly dumb Voting Rights Act to deal with, supported by your side far more than mine, which helps to compel more gerrymandering than would otherwise exist.

Your last point isn't fully true, but it is the one landing closest to the mark, and it's the only thing Mr. Obama said two nights ago that made any sense. The reason your point is only partly true is because it's belied by your point about term limits, that without them representatives do what the people want, rather than what is right. Still, too many in Congress use knowledge they have from caucus meetings, and across-the-aisle handshakes about how legislation will go forward, and they use that to profit personally. The problem you have is the same with much of your other points though--people in Congress have always had this ability, and many have used it.

So if those previous Congresses, you know, from a hundred years ago, for instance, or even those which did things more recently that you approved of, were not corrupt and had all these same issues present, then what happened to make the change? I say it's voters. Too many of us want lots of free stuff, and got very comfortable knowing that with each succeeding Congress more free stuff might come their way, and that now with the current economy and more this outcome is in doubt.

@Rich: Since the above response I have read another of your posts. I am not advocating "autocratic rule". Your 3ed party suggestion is interesting but thin. Your suggestion that people want the congress to do things for them not provided for in the constitution has some merit here and there, but is generally without foundation. It is, I contend, more a Congress that denies time relative progression of Constitutional intent. This is much of what makes us think the Congress is in fact dysfunctional, when rather it is the cover guise of so many unscrupulous members who hide behind their versions of that documents limits. Overall I have to give much credit to "anti-trust proponent". While I may not agree with all He proposes He does make many valid points. Regards

• If you don't vote, you don't count!
• VOTE ABAR!
• ANYONE BUT A REPUBLICAN

If there is anyone who would like to keep any current congressmen or congresswomen in office than they are as corrupt as these politicians. Every single one of them needs to go.

I have a Tee shirt that reads ALL politicians Dems and Repubs. are like diapers, they need to be CHANGED OFTEN for the same reason.

NUFF SAID

Hi Pamela,

Give me an example if you don't mind of a bill that was passed that helped the people less than the special interests you claim favored it. The only fairly recent bill that became law that a plurality, or majority depending on the poll, didn't want but that Congress passed anyhow was the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. Before that there was a catastrophic health care bill in the late 80s that became law and was repealed in about 6 months because voters didn't want it.

Oh, if possible could you also indicate which special interest that wasn't representing a voting bloc supported the law that voters didn't want? For the record, I doubt you can answer or reply to either question. I know this idea that Congress is corrupted by special interests has currency, but it's just a way for people who don't understand how our system was designed to work to then criticize it. Congress has, since the beginning of the republic, had very low public approval ratings compared to the executive. Most people don't know this is a consequence of how it is supposed to work.

differnet...(#1.139)..."Call me crazy... but the solution in my mind is to get rid of the lobbyist. It's the lobbyist who are the problem."

OK....You're crazy.....Let's just suppose you work at Home Depot......The President, in his infinite wisdom, decides that building with wood is detrimental to the forests and has the EPA issue new rules to make the cost of lumber necessarily skyrocket ( Where have I heard that term before ??)....Home Depot sells lots and lots of lumber.....and because of the new regulations Home Depot sales will drop and YOU, yes YOU will lose your job....I think you just might want Home Depot and the other Lumber Sellers to have someone LOBBY Congress and The WhiteHouse to NOT implement those regulations.....That's what lobbyists do....Lobby for the interests of those that hire them......

What is the alternative you propose ???

Actually there is ONE congressman who has ALWAYS voted the way he said he would on legislation and has the voting record to prove it.

This honest congressman is running for president.

That is correct we have the opportunity to elect an honest president for a REAL CHANGE. Ron Paul 2012!

The GOP and their baggers should be Prosecuted and put in jail for Treason for deliberately Sabotaging our Nation.

Hey Mac,

I never wrote anything about a 3rd party. You must have me confused with another poster. And there is no time progression implied in Article 1. There is a progression contemplated in Article 5, where the way we can amend the constitution is defined. And the idea of "speedy" for instance, or "reasonable", can change with time. But the scope of the federal government is not flexible just because time passes.

Most people on your side of this question will front the idea that the "general welfare" clause, or the "proper and necessary" clause, are what forms your basis for the concept that the constitution is living. But the problem with such an analysis is clear if you read the constitution itself. Why would the founders identify any duties of the Congress or President or Courts if those duties were whatever we wanted whenever we wanted them? And why would the constitution contain within it a way to amend it if it needs no amendment in order to be changed? And why would the 10th amendment specifically states that those powers not enumerated as federal duties are reserved for the states, and the people?

See, for your conclusion about what the constitution means, or can be construed to mean, you must first conclude that it clearly doesn't say several things it does, or that the framers and the ratifying legislatures were either frivolous or disingenuous. Either way it's a bad way to develop and manage a national government. It can result in only one outcome, over time--despotism.

Eric Cantor & Mitch McConnell called the GI bill welfare, this is a huge dishonor to our Nation.

I would dump my Alabama rep's in a heart beat!

Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity are the Voice for the Kocheads, another dishonor for News.

"Newt Getmerich is a Felon in waiting"

I love the posts today, from what I can see the GOP/Tea Party types in Congress better start looking for REAL jobs. BTW.... the best statement for the day is Sic- N-Tireds post stating;

Rich,

Yes, money will always be part of politics, that's just the way of the world. But there is where my inner cynic comes in. As I see it, most politicians are there for the money not there to serve the people out of the goodness of their hearts. I am sure there is a few genuine ones, but money and power tends to go to your head and then you feel entitled (just like a dictator). That's just natural human behavior. Term limits would curve that.

I don't know why you think republicans are good at deliberately misinforming their voters but say nothing about democrats.

Misinformed, uninformed... same difference. Ignorance and stupidity and two completely different things, plenty of those people to go around on both sides.

Gerrymandering is done by both parties like I said. And yes it does shut voters out of representation. Say 20% of voters in a county are republican, all concentrated in a specific city, and the other 80% of the county are democrats. And (for sake of simplicity) their county gets 5 total seats. New Census data comes out and new lines are drawn. Since most of their representatives are obviously democrat, they draw the line to their favor and split that area with 20% of republicans evenly into their 5 districts. Now you end up with 5 democrats and no republicans representing the specific area. That does not accurately represent the county. And although this cannot be managed in smaller states, or in with senate seats; the house is a free-for all. House seats get eliminated by one-sided state legislatures all the time.

Here in Texas we applaud our morons. Republicans have successfully turned recent elections into a few issues: I'm more bigoted (hate hispanics, gays) than the other guy; more religious (hey. what are you doing in your bedroom, or conspiring with your doctor), or more militant (I'll bomb anything that thinks like me, but talks or looks like a muslim. Sigh. Perhaps now that Republicans are a demonstrated embarrassment, maybe we'll see a change. Probably not

Deborah, seriously? You say my name says it all and you know how I vote and say what that I vote straight GOP ticket??? Are you some kind of fortune teller or what cause if you are you aren't very good at it. Amazingly enough my views are similar to yours as I read through parts of your statement. I too vote for the best candidate, I think where we differ is that your not an Illinois resident and know little of our struggles and Chicago the pariah of the state. Have you researched our last two Chicago elected governors? How about Chicago Congressmen and their record of criminal conduct? They happen to be bring home the bacon liberal left wing extremists and I assume also those who voted them into office (Chicago populist vote). Yes they could be and have been Republican corrupt politicians as well but not in this case. Do your homework before you profess to being the professor.

So my name says a lot about me... Yes that I don't think we should be using Tax Payer money to give anything to Illegals. Follow the system, enforce the system, I am a citizen and should be able to say how I think my money should be being used and that should not be to educate and support and buy groceries and give a free life to those who did not come here legally or for that matter just about anyone else. So for that yes I must be a bad person, yep I am guilty. Remember my vote counts just like yours and according to your philosophy less than an illegals. Nice, just why are we here anyway to coddle to the left? Yuuup

Since the SC voted that corporations are "people" it will always be about money and offices will be bought and sold like wigits. That decision needs to be reversed and soon. But, alas, the SCOTUS are in it for life with no way to vote their sorry butts out. Any ideas on how to fix that issue? Seriously, I'm listening here.

Bill it appears you have issues with Republicans when your focus should be on your politicians. Is your way of thinking the only way? Sounds like it.

@Rich#1.134: Thought so. It's why I inserted; "republicans are especially adept at this" in my post #1.105. It's, at least for you and I respectively, smaller government absent regulation of big business enterprise versus a more powerful government regulating all business enterprise. While I like and admire Mr Lincoln, any position of government regulation imposed by him is really not worth a comparison, other than suspension of Habeas Corpus due to the war and the Homestead act, since his Presidency was spent managing a war. I think you and I could argue our respective beliefs on the role of government until hell freezes over without agreement. Doesn't mean I find you personally disagreeable though. My best to you. Regards

I voted against my congressman but I unfortunately got stuck with him. John Runyan(R-NJ) lives in a palatial multimillion dollar estate with 25 acres of land and in order to cheat the tax code and not pay his fair share of taxes he went out bought a couple of donkeys and tied them up out back. Then he used a loophole in the tax code and claims a farm tax credit and weasels out of paying many thousands of dollars in property taxes every year. Another stooge playing the system while the rest of us little guys pay our fair share of taxes. Do any of these clowns ever think about just doing the "right thing" ever? I'll try again to vote this phony out but the jackasses(pun intended)that live in my district will just keep voting this cheat in.

plain bob 2012...had to say it ...because ya'll deserve the best...

My congressman is Don Young. I have voted against him for the last two elections,because when you call his office in Juneau, he is in D.C. I call the D.C. office and he is not there either. I leave a message to have him call me and I never get a return call.But the biggest thing I disliked was trying to secure earmark money for a bridge to nowhere. I remember when they came to your door to meet them, when they wanted your vote. But they still (my state brothers an sisters) elect him again. I will say that the last two times he did have a close race Maybe this time he'll be removed by a large margin. And it is not just congress that needs new blood,the senate is also a problem. Limit their terms and their pay after they leave their seat.

People can start by being aware; it is the President that nominate for the court, then congress approve/disapprove. Be hyper alert for catch words like ,CONSERVATIVE,STRICT CONSTITUTIONIST,FAIR REFEREE ect...these are right wing 'code' words. Their actions will reflect just the opposite! Related to THE LAW, they will twist,stretch,revise and some time throw out laws that don't fit the AGENDA. Which is 'protect the status quo' at all cost...

This makes who the President IS, the most important part of who to vote for. Republicans nominate conservative right wing activist, with proven records of being just that. Including attending secret meetings in the desert with the Koch Bros and A L E C and other assorted 1%ers...

Hey colorblind,

The simple answer is that this court did not declare corporations are people. That determination came many decades ago. You can argue for that, or against that, but what the USSC faced in the Citizens United case wasn't whether corporations had free speech rights like persons do, but that since they were under the law similarly recognized as persons are that they should be able to spend their money just as persons can.

So firms had free speech rights regarding commercial speech, yet we could deny the right to political speech? I get that you and many people don't like that decision, and I might be willing to compromise to say no union money, no environmental money, no money from anyone without an ability to vote (which means kids too), but it's a mistake to think the USSC ruled because they favor corporations.

Term limits would be grat..if you could get congress to pass it on their own...but forget that....it is not likely that any member of congress will trully vote to limit their term in office or the funds they get while there....from lobbyist .

@Rich#1.154: You were advocating campaign money being cleared through a 3ed party not long after I engaged you. That's where that came from. Ensueing posts are revealing your true oligarchical meanderings. Republicans love to speak of the Constitution, always to their benefit. I, and those of my ilk contend, that document was framed then, of the language usage then, and with the intent of, lasting appropriate interpretations, into and beyond perpetuity. What the document says and doesn't say are both meant to be adhered to, relative to the needs, requirements and majority judgements of the people It serves through changing times, requirements, etc. Despotism is simply an inverse element of your proposed oligarchy. Both render the same quality. Now, I think my President said, when quoting Mr. Lincoln; government should do for the people what they cannot do for themselves. Not as you said;"better than themselves". Actually too, the arguable quote is somewhat more than either. If I have revealed I am no expert on either the letter or spirit of the constitution I have done well, as have you. Regards

Did any of you even bother to read the first paragraph?

"In a country sharply divided on almost every issue, most Americans agree on one thing: they don’t like Congress, and they would vote to replace every single member -- even their own -- if they had the option."

(Bolding and italics are mine.)

Out with the OLD!!!!! In with the NEW!!!! GO!!! GO!!!! GO!!!! ANY NEWBIE WILL DO!!!!!

Then we really will be "ALL IN THIS TOGETHER"!!!!!!!!!!!

All newbies and we each get to watch and learn right along with them from "their" very beginning. That is the only way we will EVER get REAL CHANGE and be right there with them for a real ground floor change!!!

To: Patriotic American.......when you actually start posting in keeping with your screen name, then people might take you seriously....or add an "UN" to the beginning and then your posts and screen name would be in harmony. You have the right to your opinion, but not misrepresentation. (Unless you are a Liberal, of course.)

Hey Mac Forrester,

Two simple points in reply. First, a constitution which means nothing but what you want it to mean at any given point in time is not a constitution at all, and it results in mob rule which is always despotic in nature. The winning mob will never applies the laws fairly and will instead use them to oppress and subordinate the minority. Which is a major reason our founders fought against the crown and wrote the constitution as they did.

Second, your president, as you call him, did in fact misrepresent Mr. Lincoln idea about what government could and should do, and did in fact say the words exactly as I quoted, that the government should do only those things for the people it can do better. But even if I accepted your historical revision of what just happened three days ago, it is still wrong. Mr. Lincoln did not favor government doing those things that people cannot do for themselves, he favored the government doing those things the constitution permits. This is a far different concept than what you ascribe to him.

Here is Mr. Obama's EXACT quote: “I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.” I don't know why you misheard, or misunderstood, what Mr. Obama says, and I am not much buoyed by the fact you think Mr. Obama said something less expansive than he actually did. Sure, it's good to know that you think Mr. Obama is going too far compared to what you think is permissible, but what you think is permissible is, likewise, too far itself. I guess that makes you less liberal than Mr. Obama, but this relates only to the speed at which you are both willing to take us over the cliff.

In any case, Mr. Obama did say this, and he is completely wrong. He has many highly paid people on his staff to help him write his speech. Together they should have, were they thoughtful about America, our history, and our prospects, known they were fronting a lie. If they didn't then they are merely ignorant. If they did then they are conniving. Either way what they think isn't good.

Rich-281385: Hey there Rich,

You're stating pure subjectivity in your explaination of the use of a Constitutiion. Same with mob rule. Majority consensus, even if the minority disagrees, is not mob rule unless the objective of that consensus is to deny or suppress the express rights and benefits the document affords all those it serves by virtue of the consenus. Additionally, malcontents, or disenfranchised have the right of rebuttal in and through the court systems. You see, this is one of the major reasons I dislike republicanism. Too many of these dolts run around, chattering about things Constitutional to those who have no idea of It's deliberative complexities, and often those doing the chattering do not either. Now, I listened again To the President's Lincoln quote. I heard him say; "government should do those things for people that they cannot do for themselves". This is the gist of the quote historically credited to Mr. Lincoln, but probably not a Lincoln original, nor is the quote, whomever the author, complete and accurate.

Rich, you and I could go on with this for a while and never get anywhere much. It is becoming quite apparent, to me at least, neither you nor I are Constitutional experts. I will not engage you in a devolving pissing match either, therefore since we began this discussion as gentlemen, let us end it that way, as two people who disagree, yet, respect the others rights of opposing opinions. Regards

Hey Mac,

How can one respect you when the president did not say what you claim he did, and when the attribution you give to Lincoln for it never occured? You talk about why you dislike republicans, and that is fine, but what else can one conclude about you other than you see and hear only what you want? You could not have listened to the president and conclude he didn't say what I wrote. Why? Because he said, exactly too, what I wrote he did. So factually you cannot be right.

Contextually you must be wrong as well though, both because what you claim you heard is less, presumably, expansive than what the president actually said, but more importantly because it is impossible to have a limited government if everything the government does is constitutional simply because the government says so. In short, what you think cannot be correct without you arguing that the framers of the constitution not only wrote, but meant to write, that anything is proper unless and until a majority on the USSC said it was not.

This isn't to say that you can't want, or advocate, more and more government. What it means is that without specific efforts to increase the scope of the government, along the lines of Article 5, then such increases are illegitimate. Why? Because government never proposes laws, regardless of who is in power, that have as their stated purpose to do anything other than improve the lives of the citizens. Given that this is the case, anything the citizens refuse to do on their own (using just your logic now, not the even less accurate version fronted by the president) gives the government the right to do it for them. We can end up no where else with your views, or the president's, than that the constitution is superfluous.

You can argue that you are no expert and so delegate the most important civic activity you can engage in to someone else, but I prefer a different outcome.

Nevada had a chance to get rid of Harry Reid. Never happened!!!!

What's really hilarious is that a drunken monkey probably could have beaten Harry Reid in 2010, but the GOP nominated Sharon "Der Weisse Engel" Angle whose campaign looked like something straight out of Adolph Hitler's play book.

Next time try nominating a drunken monkey. Or Mitt "the artful tax dodger" Romney.

Rich-281385: Afraid of this. You need to listen to the Presidents "entire" speech. You need to research the orgins and content of the original quote. Balance of your post is no more than "subjective gobbledy-gook. What one wishes, often, is far removed from what one denies to the favor of the wish. I have no more time to waste on this with you. Hope you the best though. Regards

Mac, it's an interesting reply. You still do not accept the actual words spoken by the president. Yet you call my posts subjective gobbledy-gook. Is this not political self-delusion?

Rich-281385: You just made my point. Self delusion is believing only what supports our predispositions of things, and rejecting anything that doesn't. True though, how a thing is perceived, often is determined from the angle by which it is perceived, therefore, it is possible, and even probable, we both are somewhat correct, and as well, incorrect. During that speech the President alluded to that quote several times. Regarding what he said, I stand by my contention. Basically, you believe the best role of government relative to the betterment of the people is to leave them alone. I believe that role is better served through official government oversight policies that legally insure fairness, and equal opportunity for all. All the people do not have an equal forum, nor the resources to construct one. It is, has been, and always will be, the responsibility of the government to see to this on their behalf. Does this invite unintentional abuse by some? Yes. Those abuses though, are reduced through time, use, and modification of, and by, the relief modes, provided the dynamics aren't perverted. Look at FDR's "New Deal" which continues to yield benefits today as opposed to LBJ's "Great Society" which was a Dismal failure. There are basic reasons for this. The former was "societal driven", yielding real allievation, while the latter was "political posturing", yielding nothing of societal substance. Regards

Hey Mac,

No, he spoke about this only once towards the end of his speech. And no, I don't think the government should either leave the people alone or do nothing for them. But the converse of that is not to do everything for them. It can't be that the framers had anything in mind when they wrote the constitution other than to create a republican form of government which would energetically empower the federal level with limited duties. Otherwise there could be no reason to articulate what those duties are, or to write that the federal constitution is supreme.

I don't state for you your postition, and you should not do so for me. You are wrong, and that alone should be good enough reason not to decide for someone else what they mean. I think that the government should do for the people those things it is empowered to do, and no more. This is already expansive, providing for defense, courts, regulation of interstate commerce, and more. And I think that beyond that, absent an amendment to enlarge the scope of the federal government, you and the people in your state are fully competent to decide what additional duties the government wants to take on at the state level.

So if your state wants to hand out unemployment checks for 99 weeks, but my state doesn't, the feds should not intervene. If your state wants to educate kids only to the 8th grade, but my state wants to provide "free" education all the way through graduate school, the feds should not intervene. And the list of examples could go on for days, obviously, but each example would be a duty, if the state wanted to assume it, that was not delegated in the constitution to the federal government or prohibited to the states.

The only way I can get to what you claim is your political position is if I simply ignore this constitutional language, and, like I wrote long ago now, that is despotic. Either the government MUST follow the law, or it must be violating the law. Every decision of the court, ultimately, decides that clear question.

@Rich: Your not even close. Interpretations way too narrow. The extremities of your examples are by design I presume. Actually the President used the quote a short time into the beginning of his speech. I get the distinct feeling you didn't actually hear the speech, or you are going on what someone else told you. Maybe you're watching or listening to a republican sound bite. You seem hung up on "expansive" government in a very unrealistic inertia. Expansive government is as much a realistic "dynamic" as the peoples evolving requirements, wrought by innovation, invention,technology, and societal norms. This is going nowhere, as I have said.

Hey Mac,

You still don't get it. What I wrote that he said comes straight from the transcript of the speech he gave. And sorry, but virtually no one is talking about what I am, republican or not, so that trope that this is just a soundbite I've bit into is laughable. You are wrong as well on the concept of expansive. It isn't that we can't have a never-ending role for government into every aspect of our lives, it is that the constitution itself doesn't expressly allow this unless we amend the constitution to make it so. You, apparently if what you've written is taken to be sincere, believe no amendment is necessary in order to create a different result, that we can simply say we don't like the definitions of those words in that clause, and so we'll do what we want. But thanks for writing it for us.

This can't be the result of self-government. You can't argue that your opinion is of no value except to empower a politician's desires, whatever they may be, and only if that politician exceeds what five reviewers in black robes find acceptable then we will retreat back to the status quo ante. What you favor is what a poster just below us warns--that government will inevitably lead to service of itself. Which, not oddly, is exactly what the founders had rebelled against, and written in opposition to, and which you apparently believe they did not mean. And that must be political self-delusion.

@ Rich: Sigh. I engaged you erroneously, I think now, because I thought you appeared to be somewhat of an "intellect" in search of fundamentals, which rightly or wrongly support various "liberal bends" of Constitutional interpretation, as opposed to your claims of the correct and fundamentally Conservative, or constructionist interpretations of that document. Since then, you have hung us on a supposed quote by the President during his state of the union address.

Here is your version of the Presidents quote. Your post #1.134. Paragraph 3, 1st sentence and part of 2ed sentence. "Mr. Obama said He was in full agreement with Abraham Lincolns beliefs that the government should only do those things for you that it can do better than you". Unquote.

The President said, and I quote: "I believe government should do for the people what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more". Unquote.

Quite a difference there Rich.

The quote most attributed to Mr. Lincoln. "I think the primary job of government is to provide to and for the people those things they cannot provide nor do for themselves".

Very apparent the President's quote is much closer to that attributed to Mr. Lincoln than your quote is to either.

I did indeed tell you I heard the President say, "what the people cannot do for themselves". I did so knowing, while the words were not exact, the Presidents meaning was pretty much as the meaning of the Lincoln quote, and far removed from what you claimed. In fact, during my post #1.182 I said we could both be somewhat correct and as well incorrect.

The original quote, if there actually is such, is grammered with several variations, with the meaning remaining generally the same. The actual Author may have been Lincoln but probably was not, since several parts and variations of the quote are known by others before Lincoln, and at least one in another country.

Now the Constitution briefly. It,s a document that overturned the articles of confederation. It is the bed rock of America's "representative democracy". It is, to quote republican Chief Justice, the late Warren Burger; "a document of judicious mixture of definiteness in principle with much elasticity in details".

This forum isn't designed for a real debate on constitutional theory, and again, in truth, neither myself or you are knowledgeable enough to even begin such, if it was. You have in fact disappointed me, even so, I continue to wish you the best. I now disengage from this conversation.

Hey Mac,

AGain you are flat out wrong, and this time even resorting to ignoring not just what Lincoln is claimed to have said in context, but the actual words Mr. Obama spoke in the sentence he uttered. He said he agree with Mr. Lincoln about the government doing for the people those things it can do better than the people, and no more. And you claim my quote about doing those things for the people better than they can do for themselves is wrong?

My friend, you are delusional. Forget that you don't comprehend in context what has been said historically, and then use that miscomprehension to justify actions today that clearly were never contemplated in the constitution as written. You are unable to even accept the acual words spoken by the president just 6 days ago! We have got to do better as a people to produce knowledgable and reasonable students of their own birth-right: Self government.

The one thing you are definately right about is that this forum is poorly designed to facilitate a real debate. Partly because the written word is so difficult to communicate in, and partly because the anonymity of the forum participants allows them to be less inquisitive and more insulting. But, mostly, it's because too many people who use it, on both sides too, are not what I think we could fairly describe as intellectually honest.

@ Rich: Are you maybe illiterate or just plain crazy? I read the quote from the post you wrote. Don't you understand the meaning of your own words? I have a recording of the Presidents speech. You can find it in its entirety at several links online. I don't think you really know anything. Want to continue making an ignorant ass of yourself go ahead. I am now convinced thats really who and what you are. No more for me. You strew too much crap.

Term limits is long overdue. Being elected to Congress should not be a career.

looooooong overdue!!

Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class — whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy.

--Frank Herbert (Politics as Repeat Phenomenon: Bene Gesserit Training Manual | Children of Dune 1976)

Abyssoft -

Sounds like Dune is a lot like Earth. The Combine vs. the Fremen. Which group would be analogous to which political party I'll leave it up to others familiar with the Dune Trilogy to pick. I have made my pick.

Now, what we need is to ride giant worms into Washington and chase the whole bunch away and start over.

Career politicians?? NO, it's those new Teabaggers that came with unwaivering ideology that locked the system up.

Get rid of them!

Well played Abyssoft, well played.

Sure, it's easy to say "vote the bums out!", but who are you going to vote for instead? Those elected are ususally the ones most unobjectionable, not necessarily the ones you want to support. I can't vote for the right guys if they aren't on the ballot.

Take the presidential election. My choices will be Obama, Romney, or Gingrich. I don't want any of them, but what choice do I have? Write in Mickey Mouse?

Abyssoft - Unfortunately, I think Washington is already full of giant worms.

Bart Conner

Career politicians?? NO, it's those new Teabaggers that came with unwaivering ideology that locked the system up.

Get rid of them!

you are a perfect example of what we are talking about above.

So since this current Congress is only a few points lower than the last Congress (in terms of satisfaction) How can you with a straight face, blame a small minority who JUST got elected into office.

You cant, your a political hack.

If you vote Democrat or Republican, than your responsible for this mess.

Bart Conner - As much as I can't stand the teabaggers and this article PROOVES that they are not doing the job that they were elected to do, the problem is not just on the Republicans. The Democrats have also had to many situations of Lobbyist money, corruption, and greed.

If we the people want Congress to change, then it's up to us to make it happen. ""If there’s something wrong, those who have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action."

Thomas Jefferson, U.S. Declaration of Independence, as paraphrased* by Nicolas Cage's character in the film, NATIONAL TREASURE.

You are correct. Most decent people do not want to dive into the cesspool that is our political system. Only the corrupt, or corruptable seem to want the job. Political parties are the problem, they are self serving and have nothing to do with the American people. But by voting out all incumbants, maybe it will send a message that we really are tired of politics in general and it may may someone stop and think. Not only term limits but the biggie is holding politicians to the same laws we must abide by.

Every once in a while you get a Ron Paul that tries to fix things.

AG99

Sure, it's easy to say "vote the bums out!", but who are you going to vote for instead?

Knee-jerk response rarely fixes anything. If the alternative to "the bum" is a bigger bum, then what have you gained?

The 2010 Teabag election should have taught that lesson.

Bart...any idea who was working for Clinton when all the problems with the Fed and Wall Street started?

Summers and Geitner. Glass-Steagall was supposed to reel some of the problems in, but it was repealed. Who was put in charge again? Summers and Geitner.

It's politics as usual in DC. Are you blind? Can't you see that? It's business as usual in DC.

Obama was supposed to give us change. We had banks worth 4-5 trillion that were "too big to fail". Now those same banks are worth 8-10 trillion. We're not "right where we started", we are far worse off than that.

Rorschach...what we have to do is keep throwing out every elected official who panders to special interest. We elect them represent us, then they go to DC and represent special interest who buy them with donations to their re-election campaign. As long as we keep re-electing them, the special interest win. We have to take charge and throw them out. If you're polarized left or right, so be it. Get another one of your kind to run so the one already in gets voted out.

Ron Paul 2012, unless you like endless wars, foreign meddling, economic bubbles,
bailouts, big brother, runaway inflation, unfair trade deals, punitive taxation,
forced unionism, unreasonable regulations, eroded rights, unaccountable government,
social engineering, etc.

@StevenB

Ditch the lot of them. Career politicians have ruined us.

Public service was never meant to be a career; it was a patriotic chore/sacrifice one made to serve their nation, and then return to the private sector.

Now greedy pols only serve themselves.

If I might further add this, never, ever elect a Lawyer to a Public Office. This is what is predominantly occupying the HILL, and who has brought us to where we are today. Broke and In Debt. There's a reason for all the Lawyer Jokes, there are people who may not write as pretty, but who are significantly smarter and trained to solve problems, people like Engineers, Businessmen, etc.

Vote only for people who have succeeded and made their fortunes in the Private Sector, this is where American's live and breath. Get out and vote, vote for the new guy, especially if your current representative has served more than 4 terms. Allow no more fools to hold onto the Government Tit, flush them out of office and back into the workforce.

Combine that with Congress continuing to be at near-record lows in approval at 13 percent

A turd in a wedding reception punch bowl would get a higher approval rating than that!

Well, first off, I do not support repeling the 12th Amendment's Electoral College!

The electoral college is golden. If American went to a true popular vote, anyone NOT living in an urban area or big-population state would be ignored by candidates and have their fewer votes quickly overrun by the more populous urban dwellers and populous states!

The electoral college helps localize the vote. Otherwise, screw going to get votes in Rhode Island, Nebraska, Wyoming, Delaware, Kansas, etc. The fat-cat presidential candidates just need to focus all their time and ideas that serve California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, etc.

The Electoral College is one way for rural citizens and smaller-population states to be relevant in a presidential election (or in national issues).

Yep, that will do it - lets get the idea on the ballots. Lets put them all out of our misery. And, lets start with the five biggest career politiiician dead beats of all - Boehner, Cantor, Pelosi, Reid & Mccain. They are all four totally useless and behaving like maggots feeding off of public funds. While we're at it, lets get rid of all the special deals that they've voted themselves and institute a new law that says they can't vote themselves any raises or special benefits unless it's concurred by our vote. And, lets put term limits and see if these dead beats can go out & find a job in the real world.

Every once in a while you get a Ron Paul that tries to fix things.

There are many of his points I agree with. However, he tends to come off as a kook which scares a lot of people.

In a perfect world we would do away with the concept of a party. I am sure there are many out there (D's and R's alike) that blindly vote for the person wearing their team colors irrespective of fitness for the job or whether they represent their interests. Case in point: the roler-coaster-ride/clown-car-show that is the current Republican primaries.

I would like to see an experiment whereby a candidate's positions (barring the obvious ones like pro-life/pro-choice) were presented to a 50/50 audience of D's and R's without identifying the candidates affiliations. It would be interesting to see how people voted.

The romans had a really good idea of curing gridlock. They simply had everyone line up and every tenth one was gone. If I remember right, it only took one cycle of this to fix the problem.

A turd in a wedding reception punch bowl would get a higher approval rating than that!

If I saw it get dropped I know it'd have my approval.

@HS321 Read, research, and fact check before you repeat what you hear on cable and talk radio.

I am definitely not happy with the financial legislation passed during the Clinton administration which ultimately help create our current financial crisis. However, you are wrong in stating that Summer and Geithner are responsible for this legislation, Robert Rubin, who was Clinton's Sec of Treasury for the longest period of time and a true blue wallstreet insider was the father of the Gramm, Baily, Leach Act (repeal of Glass Steagal) and the Commodities Futures Trading Modernization Act (which legalized and resulted in the creation of $162 trillion in worthless unregulated credit default swaps). Rubin left and went back to wallstreet after he accomplished what he was sent to DC for. Now, notice the name Gramm (the Godfather of the legislation) in the first bill, Phil Gramm (who McCain initially wanted to make his Sec. of Treasury). Gramm was the chair of the Housing, Banking and Urban Affairs Committee. Along with sponsoring the two destructive bills, he was the one that insisted that credit default swaps not be regulated (the head of the CFTC resigned after that decision was made).

Geithner was at a lower level and not in a major policy making but operational job while there, so there is no way you can blame him. With regard to Summers, I can't say but I never saw his name mentioned in any of the legislative history on either of the bills, but ole Slick Willie (Clinton was there all the time playing along). Summers did become Sec of Treasury after Rubin left, for about a year and a few months. Look up Rubin and you will see that he was knee deep in this credit debacle that almost destroyed our economy. Clinton's first Sec of Treasury, Lloyd Benson, who is an honorable honest man, was pushed out because he didnt cooperate.

@HS321 Read, research, and fact check before you repeat what you hear on cable and talk radio.

I am definitely not happy with the financial legislation passed during the Clinton administration which ultimately help create our current financial crisis. However, you are wrong in stating that Summer and Geithner are responsible for this legislation, Robert Rubin, who was Clinton's Sec of Treasury for the longest period of time and a true blue wallstreet insider was the father of the Gramm, Baily, Leach Act (repeal of Glass Steagal) and the Commodities Futures Trading Modernization Act (which legalized and resulted in the creation of $162 trillion in worthless unregulated credit default swaps). Rubin left and went back to wallstreet after he accomplished what he was sent to DC for. Now, notice the name Gramm (the Godfather of the legislation) in the first bill, Phil Gramm (who McCain initially wanted to make his Sec. of Treasury). Gramm was the chair of the Housing, Banking and Urban Affairs Committee. Along with sponsoring the two destructive bills, he was the one that insisted that credit default swaps not be regulated (the head of the CFTC resigned after that decision was made).

Geithner was at a lower level and not in a major policy making but operational job while there, so there is no way you can blame him. With regard to Summers, I can't say but I never saw his name mentioned in any of the legislative history on either of the bills, but ole Slick Willie (Clinton was there all the time playing along). Summers did become Sec of Treasury after Rubin left, for about a year and a few months. Look up Rubin and you will see that he was knee deep in this credit debacle that almost destroyed our economy. Clinton's first Sec of Treasury, Lloyd Benson, who is an honorable honest man, was pushed out because he didnt cooperate.

@HS321 Read, research, and fact check before you repeat what you hear on cable and talk radio.

I am definitely not happy with the financial legislation passed during the Clinton administration which ultimately help create our current financial crisis. However, you are wrong in stating that Summer and Geithner are responsible for this legislation, Robert Rubin, who was Clinton's Sec of Treasury for the longest period of time and a true blue wallstreet insider was the father of the Gramm, Baily, Leach Act (repeal of Glass Steagal) and the Commodities Futures Trading Modernization Act (which legalized and resulted in the creation of $162 trillion in worthless unregulated credit default swaps). Rubin left and went back to wallstreet after he accomplished what he was sent to DC for. Now, notice the name Gramm (the Godfather of the legislation) in the first bill, Phil Gramm (who McCain initially wanted to make his Sec. of Treasury). Gramm was the chair of the Housing, Banking and Urban Affairs Committee. Along with sponsoring the two destructive bills, he was the one that insisted that credit default swaps not be regulated (the head of the CFTC resigned after that decision was made).

Geithner was at a lower level and not in a major policy making but operational job while there, so there is no way you can blame him. With regard to Summers, I can't say but I never saw his name mentioned in any of the legislative history on either of the bills, but ole Slick Willie (Clinton was there all the time playing along). Summers did become Sec of Treasury after Rubin left, for about a year and a few months. Look up Rubin and you will see that he was knee deep in this credit debacle that almost destroyed our economy. Clinton's first Sec of Treasury, Lloyd Benson, who is an honorable honest man, was pushed out because he didnt cooperate.

Sorry, I dont know why the system causes some of my posts to print 3 times. It happens often. What a headache.

All of the Newsvine pundits either wants to get rid of Teabaggers or vote only Dems. The problem is both Republicans and DEMOBRATS. GET RID OF THEM ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe if Congress would stop whoring themselves out to special interests, they might just start to put the country's interests before their pimp's.

Let us all take a moment to realize that this mess was not created by this congress or this president, this mess has been decades in the making. I feel that we should not make hasty decisions based on some radical propaganda created by polls and the media. We have all had a hand in creating this mess,and we should all work to improve it (notice that I did not say fix it) I dont feel that we will see a complete fix in our life time,so we can only try to give our children and generations beyond a sound base to work with.

The mess has been simmering since the Democrats gained control of the congress in 2007 (following the election of 2006). Since then they have systematically run the country downhill. Not until the election of 2010 did things partially turn around.

All you statisticians and congress watchers can say what you will, but 2 full years of democratic house, senate and president DID NOT bring any success at all with jobs, the economy, health care or any other problem facing this country.

Obrainless is a crappy president, but it is really the congress that steers the ship onto the reef. Just cruising the sharp rocks so Barney Frank can wave at his husband on shore. If you follow the control of congress (ignoring who is president for a moment), it is obvious that since about 1963 a certain party has been F'ing things up with relentless ineptitude. I won't say who, but it sure isn't the Republicans. Who I am not real pleased with either.

Let's save some money: No UN. No foreign aid. No illegal immigrant rights. No free anything or lifetime pension for Congress or the president. No more money wasted propping unsaleable consumer goods up with tax money. (Chevy Volt). No expensive regulations on industries that our nation depends on for its well being. No printing money except to replace worn out money. Strict time limit on unemployment. Drug tests to get welfare and other government handouts. No expensive war on drugs, poverty, trans fats or any other damn thing that is our own business.

There, problem solved.

Corporations run this country and the SCOTUS gave them permission to do so.

what's a SCOTUS...

Supreme Court of the United States.

Northstar,

While the polls are close now, it looks like Bill Nelson may very well retain his seat.

Guess the TeaPeople are not happy with what/who they voted for......too funny!

Way to respond to the subject matter. Did you know that 50% of all married couples used to be woman?Come on. Say something that concerns the article.

I'm trying to picture the 12% who think that the GOP has brought positive change to Congress.

The top 12%.

Jon---good point. The top 12% plus the people who got post offices named after them, I guess.

i'd vote out my CONGRESSMAN anytime. I've voted against him several times yet he keeps on getting re-elected. In spite of the fact he hollered "YOU LIE" to the president a few years ago. That's right. My congressman is the illustrious JOE WILSON of SOUTH CAROLINA!

You have to love how he and his thug friends redistricted himself in lily-white areas so that he CAN be re-elected.

The Tea Party is a failed experiment.

Rod-Father I agree the Tea Party is crap but you think the Dems are really any better. A lot of my kin were Dems and KKK like Robert Byrd. I wouldn't be a Dem for any amount of money. Neither would I be a Republician. VOTE THEM ALL OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!

DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICIANS ARE THE SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOOKING OUT FOR NUMBER 1

At one time everybody was a ROOKY! Think about it. Including the President!

Bubba,

You are correct that at one time everyone was a rooky. There has been no time that I can find with the exception of the very first session that EVERYONE was a rooky. That would be total chaos!

I always wonder about these polls that say #% of voters when I was never polled nor were any of my co-workers. Where did they pick these people that were polled?

I certainly agree that there needs to be a lot of change but throwing out the whole bunch would be assinine.

Does it matter who gets the leadership positions, since holding the position doesn't make you a leader. We certainly don't have any leaders now!

The problem is everybody has a different opinion just like the elected officials on who would be best to keep. Yes there are those we would all agree upon to get rid of but not those on who to keep because we would all have to agree on one thing. Each Congress person and Representative should have an interest in their community first Country second POCKET last!

Nope I think my congressman is a crook and if we were not being redistricted I'd vote against him (voted against him two years ago and would proudly do it again).

I noticed Boehners' lack of lapel jewelry. Guess he's un-american...or he forgot as he was trying to gulp down the last drop of scotch before arriving in the chamber.

I think it was just the orange-glo suntan lotion made his fingers slippery and he couldn't get it pinned together.

oh thank you for that earth-shattering piece of info. Grow up.

I want to know if criebaby Bonehead Bonner cried when he was with Gabby Gifford after she resigned because a skinhead republican shot her

DID HE or NOT

Rsticker evidently you don't keep up with news he was not a Republican. Stop spreading false BS.

How superficial partisans are.

I think less of people who proverbially wear their "core beliefs" on their sleeves. Am I so stupid to think someone isn't proud to be American, or patriotic or interested in issues if s/he doesn't run around with a f***n' flag pin on his jacket or her blouse?

Why don't you just call me a traitor for not having a flagpole on my balcony or front yard, or no tacky truck painting with a wing-sprawled bald eagle on it.

Traitor

I would vote the whole da*n bunch out, President, senate and congress if it was possible. Put on the ballot and see what would happen. Career politician's just will not work, need term limits on all of them, also on the United States Supreme Court, and they also must be elected by the people not appointed by a party President.

Also Supreme Court judges must not be affilliated with any party, they must be registered as a independent.

It is asinine s#!t like "lapel-gate" that has put our government in the position it is in. It is poetic justice that we have the government we deserve.

I call you teabagger, you call me Kenyan-muslim-socialist. How about we stop the bulls#!t before we drive this country off the cliff.

RGiles The eventual Republican presidential candidate should be defeated, along with John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Michele Bachmann and others. Why?

Because they are simply grossly dishonest and consistently lie without hesitation or conscience. Because they put their political ambitions above all else, at any cost to the people. Because they cater to and patronize “the few”, acting as “puppets” for the influential, powerful and extremely wealthy who strongly support them and who “pull their strings”.

Because they are arrogant, obnoxious and stubborn, faulting and blocking any real efforts, as they put their self-interests first. Because, like what was clearly seen with Bush-Cheney, they totally neglect their responsibilities and completely count on, with the substantial covert and overt support of their backers, being able to simply con the people and manipulate public opinion. Because, like with Linbaugh, Palin, Beck, Hannity, the representatives themselves, and the SuperPacs and PACs, they aggressively push their deception and just boldly assume they can control people with their power, money and propaganda aimed to sway emotions and control thinking. Because, for twelve years now, they have insultingly taken the people for granted, focused totally on their political ambitions and singularly served just “the few”.

Because when people are really objective and rational, with their emotions checked so they can’t be used to con and manipulate them, they then see and understand these truths ... and fully understand and accept that the only way to “break the back” of “the money”, for the people to ever regain control and have real representation, is to firmly and totally reject “the money’s” candidates. That is the only way we will ever get money out of politics, ... to render it ineffective. The supreme court wouldn’t do it, the politicians won’t ever do it ... the question now is, can the people do it? We can rationalize that the Democrats aren’t “pure and holy” either, but they simply are no where near as owned and controlled as the Republicans and (contrary to propaganda) we actually have room to come back to the “left”, with it being a first step in the people regaining control. Then we can have representatives receptive to term-limits, caps on political spending, controls on 3rd parties and limits on lobbyists moving in and out of government - all currently significant abuses contributing to the problems. There really is no hope for the majority when they aren’t even honestly considered and rather are just conned and taken for granted; when the “more” mentality is aggressively pushed and the country is continually moved towards being a two-class society with “the few” competing in having it all and the majority struggling to simply survive.

Please elaborate on why you don't like your rep.

I can't stand the tea party moron who is my representative.

Ditto my tea party moron rep. He meets his constituents by holding town hall meetings on the phone. If you have a question, it gets screened before it goes on the airwaves. So guess what kind of questions get through to him. Right. The soft balls.

Jack---my rep does that too. My husband participated in one and asked a question about Social Security that the thought would be a softball but when he got a chance to ask it, he turned it into a question on why the Social Security earnings cap isn't increased. Our Rep was speechless. We will be working hard for his opponent.

Where do I start? Being part of the group that almost sent our country into default? Defending tax cuts for the rich but saying that the payroll tax cut should NOT be extended? Using the same old tired, worthless "tax cuts for the rich and corporations and getting rid of regulations" as their mantra - IT DOESN'T WORK morons!!!!!!? Saying that defeating the President is their most important priority (I thought jobs, helping fix the economy, etc. were #1 but apparently not for Tea Party MORONS)? Being part of the "job destroying" coalition -- have you seen any of these idiots actually propose anything that would actually create jobs? I work in the transportation industry and our INFRASTRUCTURE is failing in this country -- we will be a 3rd world country soon enough thanks to these LOSERS and they want to destroy funding for highways, electrical grids, water/sewer systems, etc. You have to spend money to make money and we need funding NOW to help REBUILD our country and to put people back to work. Can we talk about starting TWO wars without paying for them (that's a couple trillion I'd like to get back) and how about that great prescription drug plan that was not paid for (the GOP is great at doing things -- just not paying for them)? Attacking unions that provide decent wages and benefits to the middle class (apparently, the GOP would like everyone to work at Walmart for less than minimum wage (oh yeah, they want to get rid of that too --- gotta love these guys) and NO HEALTH BENEFITS. And to totally torque me off? These morons tell me I have to sacrifice? You know what? I have no problem with that -- I'm actually fine with paying more in taxes (since Federal taxes are at a 50 YEAR LOW -- no GOP will talk about that will they?) but guess what, these Tea Partiers are complaining about their wages and benefits (whaaaaaaa, $174,000 is not enough to live on, whaaaaaaaa, the gold plated insurance health plan does not kick in soon enough after I was elected, whaaaaaaaaaaaa, the 2 retirement plans I have are not enough, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa). And let's not even get started on these morons talking about trying to get the birth control pill outlawed, destroying social security and medicare/medicaid as we know it, etc. Wow, I could go on and on and on about these MORONS but I'm tired of typing.

Linda you aren't obligated to answer to Alan, but thanks none-the-less.

I will be voting against my current representative and State Senator McCaskill in the next election. Both have been career politicians.

Linda, sounds like our rep here in SoCal, but unfortunately we live in a district that is highly populated by the 1%, who've been re-electing him for years!!! This man keeps a Ferrari in DC for his run about car and a car collection with pricey Corvettes in his home district!!

Linda,

That was an excellent post. You summed it up perfectly. Thanks.

Sorry about the "moron" talk -- I usually don't like that, but geez, seriously, anyone asking why I can't stand my my tea party Rep really gets me fired up. I say VOTE THEM ALL OUT. WORST CONGRESS EVER........

Jack, my rep. the very 'illustrious' Allen West, does exactly the same and constantly sends literature telling me how well he is working for senior citizens. I didn't vote for him and am working to get rid of him, he is an embarrassment to have as a rep.

Linda, a very excellent post. they should all be fired.

My Tea Party rep pulls that same screened call crap for his "town halls"; it's a joke and so is he. When he does hold live-events, you have to be an "invited guest" or you don't get in.

Excellent post Linda; my TP'er stays awake at night about "the advance of Socialism in our Presidency" and "the sanctity of marriage" but hasn't proposed anything of note regarding the economy or improving our technology to hold more jobs in the US.

GM,

The two previous terms we had a woman named Carol Shea-Porter as our Rep. Just a wonderful woman with integrity and a progressive bent. But in 2010 she lost to a Tea Party guy named Frank Guinta, who is as sleazy as they come.

Carol is throwing her hat into the ring again this year, and I sure hope people are smart enough to give Guinta the boot. What angers me to no end is that on his website he says he supported legislation that he didn't, and his screeners make it virtually impossible to ask him about the discrepancy! The gall of these people! They hold these telephone town halls under the pretext that they can reach more people. . . .

Get them out. Those antique corrupt stuffed suits have been there screwing this country long enough! They have lied to, stole from and minipulated the people far too long. Get out! Put term limits with watch dogs on the next batch. Remember what your Grandparents used to say about lying and stealing...if you didn't stop, you would end up in Congress! Well there you go...

i don't like my representative because...he spends to much time...on the yodeler's hot line...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig2xYPzF2lQ

I've got Eric Cantor supposedly looking out for my best interest out here in VA. No, no....pity me not.....if he continues to be the TP/Koch brothers' lapdog, he'll be booted out soon enough. Well, maybe not soon enough for my taste!

Seeing the types of people in my neighborhood with Tea Party signs and Confederate flags in their yards reminds me of something a wise man told me. He said,"Do you know how I know it was a TP'er who invented the toothbrush? Because if it had been a Progressive, it would have been called a 'teethbrush'".

Um, that happens every two years.

tberry,

um no it doesnt, all reps terms are for 2 yrs but its rare for the entire house to come up for election. initially their terms were staggered so this wouldnt happen but numbers being what they are.........

Does anyone know who is running against Boehner in the 8th District in Ohio? I can not find out - been looking all over. When I find out, I will be sending them money! And I will be voting against my rep also, he does nothing for my part of the state and never responds to emails.

jody ohio,

I don't mind volunteer work on a campaign, it is quite educational and a bit of fun, but...I have never nor will I ever give one red cent of my meager funds to ANY politician. My cousin ran for congress twice and never got a cent from me, just volunteer time. I respect your choices 100%, these are just mine...

I've refused to cast a ballot for republican or democrat for almost ten years. The people I vote for may never be elected, but my conscience is clean wrt the yahoos currently in office. If we get enough people to vote 3rd party, that would be an EXCELLENT way to shake up Washington in a meaningful way.

If you got enought people to vote third party it would be a guaranteed win for the incumbent

I have no problem giving up a Pelosi for a boner and a cantor.

Cindy, ah yes, I think we share the same rep! See my comment above about his exotic car collection!

You don't say just who you plan on replacing President Obama with.

Will it be Romney who wants to raise your taxes so he can make the bush cuts permanent and then give himself more tax cuts on top of that. With the new tax cuts, Romney also wants to increase the defense budget and start another war. Romney famously said that cuts don't hurt the poor and with him president you will find out just how much they don't hurt. Romney only made 42 million in two years, of course you need to sacrifice food and everything else you have to give him another tax cut.

Or will it be Newt who plans on getting even with the republicans for noticing his ethics problems. Newt tried to shut down the government because he didn't like his seat on Air-force 1. He is already on step 1 of his revenge plan, destroying the establishments candidate while using dog whistle code words like calling President Obama the first food stamp president to bring out the hate and racism. Newt along with the rest of the republicans want to raise your taxes so he can give the rich 1% like himself more tax cuts.

Voting for any republican will result in more tax cuts for the rich. Republicans want to get rid of the regulations put in place to keep Wall Street from robbing our country again. The Koch brothers have been fined for polluting and the republicans want to get rid of the EPA regulations so the Koch brothers can pollute at will.

You might ask why don't the Canadians run the dirty pipeline across their own country a third of the length of the one they want to run through our country? Could it be they don't want to pollute their own country but are more than willing to pollute our largest underground water source. For what you ask, so that Canada can sell their oil on the world market. This oil from Canada is not even for the United States use.

You might ask why are the republicans pushing something that does nothing for America and has the potential to do great harm? You might ask the Koch brothers.

I'm not dumb enough to vote for a republican for president, Obama/Biden 2012

Harry ........You can't touch the Supreme Court BTW........These guys/women are in for life or until they resign. That is why it is so important to have human beings on the court and not get someone like John Roberts who votes and acts like he was working for the 1%ers in the US.

@Americans First

Yes, please vote for Obama in 2012. Vote in more political gridlock so that NOTHING every gets done. Let those pesky unemployed living in tent cities eat cake (or whatever they find in the garbage). Let those returning vets fester on the streets due to lack of retraining or proper medical care. Right on brother!!!! Vote for Obama 2012 (sarcasm now off).

I'm not dumb enough to vote for a Republican OR Democrat (or anybody else for that matter), I plan on watching the grand farse we call an election, on television on election night shaking my head at the fools who keep voting fools into office.

Nobody 2012

ChuckinOlathe-AMEN-common sense from the heartland! Until us citizens rebel against the ridiculous notion being foisted on us all by all three branches of government that corporations are "people", and separate business from state, nothing will change and voting as it stands today IS a farce. The change this country needs won't happen at the voting booth as long as there are corporate donations, lobbyists, and a revolving door for staffers between government and private industry. Get rid of all that and install term limits on every elected official and the supreme court, and we might have a representative government again.

I will NOT vote for Gingrich or Santorum or Romney. I will NEVER vote for Obama. Did not in 2008 and will Never. Paul is the only different congressman that I could possibly vote for. OR no one.

They are the United Nations they live in New York if I'm right.

probably the medicare card carrying teabaggers living off the fat of the land and sending the bills to their kids and grandkids...

That's what I keep wondering too Ron when I see polls that there are actually 9 - 13% of people who actually think this Congress has done anything worthy of respect.......it actually scares me a bit that these people are actually ALLOWED to vote........

I'm with you Ron Brock; I think they misplaced a decimal point there. If it was 1.3% that would make sense because it would just about cover the Congressclowns themselves, their dead-beat relatives on the payroll, lobbyists getting kickbacks, mistresses and gigaloes, and political consultants they pay with our tax dollars and contributions. And lets' not forget the journalists and pundits that wouldn't have anything to do if not to comment on the drama they mutually create.

node4, the journalists are the hacks. The pundits are going to do what pundits do.

One day I realized why the Rush Limbaugh's and Sean Hannity's of the land get so much attention. The media does a piss poor and extremely biased and dumbed-down version of the news so people actually seek sources to explain the news to them in terms they understand. In a nutshell, people TRUST the Limbaughs more than the mainstream media....and politicians!

Having listened to many different political shows on the left and right, I have to say Limbaugh is unfairly demonized by the left simply because he is very successful at what he does. He actually is a nice guy and has a pretty good grasp of what is going on in our world. The left wants to muzzle him, plain and simple.

The Sean Hannity types is where I am more concerned. This guy is simply not very bright and seems to spread a lot of ignorance. Not that SOME Limbaugh fans don't get the message, but if you listen to Hannity you are going to leave very uninformed.

Left wing radio is mainly targeted at demonizing their opposition. Their arguments are based in emotional and irrational thought...lots of anger, envy, hatred. Other left wing hosts are very smug and consider themselves above all others. Yeah, there are a choice few on the right with the same opinions but they aren't who you'd think they'd be according to how the Limbaugh types get all the attention.

Shining a light on how lobbying works would mean you'd also have to go at the underhanded techniques of trial lawyers, unions, and environmental groups. Why? Because some lobbying exists solely to counter their lobby.

We need a fundamental transformation of America and that simply is not going to happen. We're divided upon ignorance. Just the way it is...

That's what I keep wondering too Ron when I see polls that there are actually 9 - 13% of people who actually think this Congress has done anything worthy of respect

I wouldn't say nothing: they did pass a non-binding resolution to keep "in god we trust" as the national motto. <sarcasm>

What the f#@k happened to E Pluribus Unum? I guess, we may as well make it Divided We Fall.

I do not think this Congress has done much of anything except bicker.

However, that is the fault of two groups of Congresspeople. the first is a small group who refuse to participate in the democratic process. That group should be removed immediately. And then there is a larger group, those who pledged their allegiance to Grover Norquist and not to the United States. They should be replaced as well.

But that leaves a fairly sizable group who have been futilely trying to get good things accomplished. They're not paragons, they're not perfect, but they should not have to forfeit their jobs just because this Congress couldn't get anything done. My Congressman falls into that category, and I think he deserves to be reelected.

As for term limits -- we can vote out any Congressperson who is not representing us properly. We do not need term limits. What we DO need, however, is campaign finance reform so that our legislators do not have to run around seeking funds for the next election. The idea that appeals most to me is the idea that they get a flat sum from the government to run for office, and no more is allowed. Not even their own money!

That a good idea, they really should have term limits and give financial reports on there incomes every year so we can see if there taking kickbacks, if we find that they do they go to jail/ don't pass go go directly to jail.

i agree, if they weren't so damned worried about getting re-elected every year, maybe they would have the balls to ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING

I say the blame lies directly on the shoulders of those who voted these clowns in. Hopefully they are suffering as much, if not more than the rest of us.

Term limits for EVERY office ---no more career/professional politicians!!!

Many, some politicians actually do not have to worry about being elected every cycle They are among the worst ones. They are in democrat or republican strongholds and their seats are firmly in their hands until they retire or a scandal breaks out where they are given pressure from within to leave.

girlfriend...Pitch as much cr@p my way as you choose, but I totally agree and am voting for President Obama because I want one politician that is not spending all his/her time campaigning for the next four years--also because he has some OJT. I don't agree with all his policies, but, maybe, just maybe he will be more interested in running the country this time around rather than running around the country campaigning. As for Congress....Eff em.

We really need to impose term limits on these people. The authors of the Constitution never far saw a day when people would remain in congress for 30+ years. Back then life expectancy wasn't much beyond the 35 years you have to have to even run for congress, (might be less for the Reps, don't remember off hand) The authors far saw a person being elected to a term, serving it, then going back to their farm or business, not becoming an institution on their own.

I think lobbyist are really against term limits though, I mean how much weight will a person with only 8-12 years on the line really be able to give. For that short period the lobbyist might have their way, but after that there would be no guarntee of continued support for whatever group the lobbyist is representing. And that's what we need, congress members who LISTEN to their constituents because that is who elects them not special interest groups.

You got it Nightcloud. It was a different society... there are many other reasons outside of a shorter life expectancy as to why people weren't career politicians. Also don't forget the senate was also not elected by popular vote either...something that has made things even worse.

If I had to put term limits on elected positions, I'd probably choose a generous 5 terms in the house (10 years) and two senate terms (12 years).

Lobbyists will work their way around this and still find "their guys". To attack lobbying, you have to reduce the reasons why companies lobby..not particularly the term limits.

What we really need is a new political parties... I'm thinking a more honest version of the Republican party and a more sane version of the Democrat party. The media is probably 90% of the problem. That's why people love Rush Limbaugh...he's better at explaining the issues than the lamestream media. I don't think the left gets it, and I don't think the right is aided by this either.

We're pretty well screwed.

I agree, we should vote ALL THE BUMS(those who are presently in congress) Out. They are there just for themselves and their Political Party. They just don't care about the people that elected them to office. Let's CLEAR OUT THE WHOLE BUNCH OF THEM!

So when most of the Congressional clowns get re-selected. We'll have yet more evidence the elections are rigged.

Congress as a whole should look at this as a warning shot across there Bow. It's time for all of them to stop playing business as usual and start doing there jobs. I am sick of each party talking about how great and right they are, when niether of them has done a thing to fix anything. The American people have done this, with out bail outs or hand outs. So get off your high an mighty horses, get your hands dirty and start doing your jobs!!!!, As the rest of us have had to do for the past 4 years......

Flush the monstrous toilet known as Congress!

Many new people were brought in in 2010, via the Tea Party, and from my point of view, this did not work out very well. If all of congress were dumped, and all new people brought in it would be a catastrophe," Amateur Night at the Biju" writ large. Further, I see no reason why term limits would solve many problems. What makes us think that term limits would attract more honest or qualified people to congress? Then a dishonest politician would have to make all their money in just eight years - get it while they can.

But, Henry, how do you also flush the SCOTUS that allows this corporate off the rack buying of politicians? Serious question....

There are all kinds of interpretations of the constitution. Some people think the constitution gives them carte blanche to make the United States a welfare state. Others think it allows us to enact laws to protect us from ourselves.

I have blame the media and the people pulling the strings behind it in order to enrich themselves financially the most.

William...there is the problem. Nobody every gave anyone permission to interpret the constitution. Politicians just took it, and point to the Supreme Court and ask them for an opinion as to whether something is constitutional or not.

Clearly the court stretches the boundaries of the constitution beyond recognition. School systems, roads, EPA, abortion...none of this is remotely in the constitution. A constitution that clearly puts limits as to what it will cover...and yet somehow something not even remotely touched upon in the actual documents is deemed constitutional. It is a lie, a travesty, yet politicians won't touch redrafting the constitution with a 10 foot pole. Everyone just closes their eyes and pretends we are actually living within the constitution...it is a crock.

Actually, T-Rex, the Constitution gave the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution.

Or haven't you read it?