The problem is the voter, they keep sending their local jerks back to Congress. The whole idea is they are supposed to go to Washington and figure out how to compromise and do what is right for the country, not just campaign for re-election.
Back at ya!..But, if you look at things more closely, people dispise Congress as a whole but generally like THEIR own Congress critter. What they hate is other people’s Congress critters.
Morty, don’t forget that the Founders really did not want an efficient government. The “checks and balances” were intended to prevent tyranny. As we have become a larger player in a more rapidly-moving world, it has indeed become a bit more awkward as a concept. The increase in Presidential power is not, formally speaking, Constitutional; it has evolved. Every major war has increased the power of the Executive Branch, after which of course no one takes it back. Having said that, the President lacks the power of any random British Prime Minister, because the PM owns the votes of Parliament and the President (as the last few years have made clear) does not have any similar power in Congress.
It is NOT the voters. With gerrymandering and corporate sponsorship of congressmen, the voters have very little effect on who gets elected. The problem is the system. Remove gerrymandering and private funding of elections, and you will get a congress that people actually vote for.
The “congressperson” does have a valid point. Much of our problem stems from the “local” voters saying “He/she may be a crook or idiot, but they’re MY crook or idiot!!” As a consequence, many of the worst of the worst keep getting elected, and retained! While some valid members, from BOTH sides still remain, the extremists, from either side, are the ones that need to go. That doesn’t mean always a “compromise” to every issue, but looking at both sides of REALITY and acting according to logic, not “party position”, is the valid way to assess members “performance” and retention.
I hear my liberal friends counter my desire for Congressional term limits with this absurd ‘well we have elections’ argument. My counter is always something to this effect.
Steve gets a bull’s eye on this one.
Will not happen in my lifetime.
Remember who is voting. You can recognize many of them by their well worn hand out.
Right on, Steve! Right on! They have a 10% approval rating yet better than 80% of them get re-elected. Then we moan and groan that we have elected officials that don’t listen to us.Doing the same thing over and over will not produce a different result.
Darsan54 Premium Member over 10 years ago
Gotta point there.
Darsan54 Premium Member over 10 years ago
Harry’s in the Senate. I would agree though the House run by Republicans is a huge problem.
Theodore E. Lind Premium Member over 10 years ago
The problem is the voter, they keep sending their local jerks back to Congress. The whole idea is they are supposed to go to Washington and figure out how to compromise and do what is right for the country, not just campaign for re-election.
Enoki over 10 years ago
Back at ya!..But, if you look at things more closely, people dispise Congress as a whole but generally like THEIR own Congress critter. What they hate is other people’s Congress critters.
Motivemagus over 10 years ago
Morty, don’t forget that the Founders really did not want an efficient government. The “checks and balances” were intended to prevent tyranny. As we have become a larger player in a more rapidly-moving world, it has indeed become a bit more awkward as a concept. The increase in Presidential power is not, formally speaking, Constitutional; it has evolved. Every major war has increased the power of the Executive Branch, after which of course no one takes it back. Having said that, the President lacks the power of any random British Prime Minister, because the PM owns the votes of Parliament and the President (as the last few years have made clear) does not have any similar power in Congress.
PAULHARVEY over 10 years ago
No, Dingy Harry is the problem
PAULHARVEY over 10 years ago
Repeal the 17th Amendment direct election of Senators started this problem
feanorr over 10 years ago
It is NOT the voters. With gerrymandering and corporate sponsorship of congressmen, the voters have very little effect on who gets elected. The problem is the system. Remove gerrymandering and private funding of elections, and you will get a congress that people actually vote for.
ConserveGov over 10 years ago
DING DING DING!You are correct Sir!
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
The “congressperson” does have a valid point. Much of our problem stems from the “local” voters saying “He/she may be a crook or idiot, but they’re MY crook or idiot!!” As a consequence, many of the worst of the worst keep getting elected, and retained! While some valid members, from BOTH sides still remain, the extremists, from either side, are the ones that need to go. That doesn’t mean always a “compromise” to every issue, but looking at both sides of REALITY and acting according to logic, not “party position”, is the valid way to assess members “performance” and retention.
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
^Over 400 “filibusters”, yep, the Republicans have worked ever sooooo hard to make the Senate functional!!
powaymojo over 10 years ago
I hear my liberal friends counter my desire for Congressional term limits with this absurd ‘well we have elections’ argument. My counter is always something to this effect.
Steve gets a bull’s eye on this one.
Will not happen in my lifetime.
Remember who is voting. You can recognize many of them by their well worn hand out.
dshepard over 10 years ago
Right on, Steve! Right on! They have a 10% approval rating yet better than 80% of them get re-elected. Then we moan and groan that we have elected officials that don’t listen to us.Doing the same thing over and over will not produce a different result.