Fergasun Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 The real debate over politics should be why the hell our country is being run by the same people who were running it 20 years ago. Let's just focus on the Senate, since they've been dominating politics for awhile. I'm going to list the folks who have been in the Senate since 1991 (and if they were serving in the House, I'll count that as tenure as well). I have no idea what the number is. Thad Cochran - Senator since 1978 (3 terms in the House) Max Bauchus - Senator since 1978 (plus 2 terms in the House) Frank Lautenberg - Senator since 1982 Richard Shelby - Senator since 1986 Harry Reid - Senator since 1987 (plus 2 terms in the House) John McCain - Senator since 1987 (plus 2 terms in the House) John Kyl - Senator since 1995 (plus 4 terms in the House) Herb Kohl - Senator since 1989 Jay Rockefeller - Senator since 1985 Joe Lieberman - Senator since 1989 Bill Nelson - Senator since 2001 (6 terms in the House) Danial Inouye - Senator since 1963 Daniel Akaka - Senator since 1990 (7 terms in the House) Dick Durbin - Senator since 1997 (7 terms in the House) Dick Lugar - Senator since 1977 Dan Coats - Senator since 2011 (5 terms in the House from 1989-1999) Chuck Grassley - Senator since 1981 Tom Harkin - Senator since 1985 Pat Roberts - Senator since 1997 (8 terms in the House) Mitch McConnell - Senator since 1985 Olympia Snowe - Senator since 1995 (8 terms in House) Barbara Mikulski - Senator since 1987 (5 terms in the House) Ben Cardin - Senator since 2007 (10 terms in the House) John Kerry - Senator since 1985 Carl Levin - Senator since 1979 Bernie Sanders - Senator since 2007 (8 terms in the House) Patrick Leahy - Senator since 1975 Orin Hatch - Senator since 1977 Tim Johnson - Senator since 1997 (5 terms in the House) Jack Reed - Senator since 1997 (3 terms in the House) Ron Wyden - Senator since 1996 (8 terms in the House) Jim Inhofe - Senator since 1994 (4 terms in the House) Kent Conrad - Senator since 1987 Chuck Schumer - Senator since 1989 (9 terms in the House) Jeff Bingaman - Senator since 1983 That's 35. Of the 100 people in the Senate, 35% have been "leading" our country for over 20 years. In my opinion, they all get F's and they should all get nice primary opponents the next time their up for a Senate election, and they should all get vigorous opponents in the general election. And someone should ask the American public, what do you think about your life the past 20 years? Did it get better? What do you think about the life that we're on course to leave to your children and grandchildren? And if you look at it, a majority of these folks are part of party leadership. Just think, these folks haven't had a real job for 20 years. Do you think they can relate to you? No! They can win elections, they can politic, they can pander; but they don't know you. So the next time you want to support anyone on this list, just think of this fact. In 20 years how have you changed? How has your life changed? Just think, all those changes; and you were under the guidance/leadership and policy making wisdom of that guy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 You should have seen it 16 years ago. I've been impressed with the turnover in recent elections. Last election was a monster. The Senate is the "elite" somehow. Its the people putting them back in there though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I do not think length of service can be as much a problem as only listening to special interests groups many of the new governors for instance are polling very low Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 It really demoralizes you and makes you laugh at all the political wrangling NO THIS SIDE IS BAD NO YOU GUYS ARE BAD You're both bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 The problem is we don't care, because life is goo. It's awesome to be American, no matters what happens. It'll change, but today, hell yeah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 The problem is out of touch leaders. The problem is an ignorant populace. The problem is that we want easy answers to complex issues. The problem is that we think it's better to scream at someone we disagree with rather than talk. The problem is that there is no one problem......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 So what you are saying is about 1/3 rd of the senators have a 20 year perspective on legislature issues. Why is that a bad thing? sounds to me like a pretty decent mix. Get some new guys and some old guys voices in on legislature issues. Your list includes some of the most respected names on the hill. Dick Lugar's on your list. Barbara Mikulski and Chuck Schumer are too. That's one reason the founding fathers designed the senate to be so incumbant friendly was to promote layers of legislative experience into the body. My pieve is the 80-90 year olds who sometimes collect in that body. I think we should have a manditory retirement age in both the house and senate of say 73 or even 70. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEREALTOR1 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 If you've been in the same job for 20 years you've figured out all the ways you can cut corners. Sometimes thats a good thing, and sometimes its not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I wonder what the average tenure of a staffer is esp. the high end important ones that tend to write the bills and attend the meetings? If they get recycled as much as I think then a change of Senator is even more irrelevent. Afterall, changing the name on the door doesn't change much if the managers, workers, directors, and all the employees are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 We get tHe politicians we deserve. When partisan clowns who only serve their own self-interest get voted back, we have nothing to complain about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 What amuses me is that when you talk to any of them F2F, they are very personable and come across as soooooo interested and caring. I've had to occasion to speak with at least 4 on that list, and the one thing they had in common was a complete lack of understanding about why anyone would fault them for the job they do, why the public doesn't appreciate their efforts and hard work. They genuinely believe that we are the problem because we just cannot appreciate the intricacies of what they do. I see the problem(s) as systemic, you don't have regular people with any idea of what life is like for the vast majority of Americans in government anymore, it is populated (on both sides of the aisle) by a particular subspecies that aspires to the notoriety and is firmly convinced that all the perks are justified by their "selfless service of the nation", and they have no intention of letting that change no matter what they say publicly. Watch the Tea Partiers get wooed and co-opted by the royal treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 We get tHe politicians we deserve. When partisan clowns who only serve their own self-interest get voted back, we have nothing to complain about. I used to believe this. But I don't think we have much choice in our candidates anymore. It costs so much to run a campaign that it is well beyond anyone other than the very wealthy, for one, and they have demonstrated since time began that by and large they are a group that cares about themselves and no one else. We get t5he candidates that the two parties think we can be manipulated into voting for. The best person for the job is rarely the nominee, and I would suggest we never do know who that best person is. What we get is whoever the focus groups and Q ratings tell them to put in front of us. As South Park put it.. we get to choose between giant douches and **** sandwiches. We think we've got say in the primary, but not really. Even then we're choosing between douches and ****heads. It's just more of them at that point. Our senators by and large are rich white male lawyers. Very few of them have any connection to the common man in this country, except maybe to be related to one on their in-law's side. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 In a dream scenario, what would be the appropriate term limits for these guys? Say 8 years for the House and 12 for a Senator? Less?? How could we EVER get term limits to be a reality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 How about the Ethics committee (been talking about this since 2004). Doesn't matter if you've been there for 20 years if there are proper controls. The problem is the inmates (don't) run the review boards. If there were an ethics review board of regular people for each house it would fix itself over time. The same people that won't clean up their felony messes are expected to vote themselves oughta office after spending 3million to get in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Under the current structure, politicians have 2 priorities, getting elected and getting reelected. Terms limits would certainly open them up to do more than campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I think the problem is that politics is entirely about raising money, businesses enjoying the rights of individuals, and a built in reliance on lobbyists. After those things yeah... term limits aren't ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Under the current structure, politicians have 2 priorities, getting elected and getting reelected. Terms limits would certainly open them up to do more than campaign. Term limits wouldn't solve the problem either, the folks with the money would still figure out a way to manipulate the system. I mean seriously, do we think that a term limit is going to change who is funding these elections and what they want from the people they pay to win their seat in Washington. And do we really think that the seats will change from one party to another just because of a term limit? It's about what the parties want, no longer about what the candidate wants or what the people want. Sure the face may change more often, but that just means that it's a new face with the same old problems and most likely a face that won't even realize how much they are being used and manipulated until the damage is done and it's too late, and then it would be time for a new face because the one that just figured things out will have reached their term limit. In the end the more things change, the more they'll stay the same, term limits or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted March 24, 2011 Author Share Posted March 24, 2011 Here's my breakdown of part of the problem. Congress doesn't have to answer to anyone. I would like it if during the nomination process, interested citizens were able to get 10-20 minutes of grilling Senators the way they grill witnesses during hearings, with a minimum of something like 30 hours. The same way they grill Supreme Court nominees. When you have been in government for 20 years, you've had time to confront mistakes, and part of the reason I'm upset is the financial reform that was just passed. Most of these Senators have now been around for *two* financial reform efforts prior to Dodd-Frank. They were around during the S&L crisis years leading up to the 1989 FIRREA, around for the 1999 Graham-Leach-Bliley, and now the 2008 Dodd-Frank. At the heart of it, in my mind is that the reforms have been too weak as far as capital level requirements, and other mandatory requirements that are not up to "regulatory discretion". And this is for legislation that got a lot of attention in public. For those defending the Senators (Mikulski, Schumer, Lugar) I want you to name one or two things that Senator has done of any significance the past 2 years? Things that you stopped your life and said "good job Senator!". I'll go ahead with my list: Carl Levin's hearings on the financial crisis, particularly when he had Blankfein in front of him. I know other Senators were supportive, but Levin was chairing the hearings for like 12 hours straight! Bernie Sanders' filibuster of the late 2010 tax deal which continued the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Dick Durbin voting for the President's Financial Commission, even though he agreed that he wouldn't vote for the proposal (I think all the Senators voted it out, but his words caught my attention). 5 out of 6 members of the House on that commission didn't even vote to consider the recommendations on the House floor. Now, what about the things that made you say "bad job Senator"? Max Bauchus and Chuck Grassley, bless their hearts appear to be so senile whenever they are questioning administration witnesses in hearings. Richard Shelby, head of the Senate Banking Commission completely boycotting negotiations on Dodd-Frank (Senator Corker had to pick up negotiations with Dodd, that was pathetic). They rarely seem to stray from the party reservation. Admittedly when they do folks get up in arms and they get attacked by their own party (see, Lindsey Graham). I guess one of the points I'm getting at is for 20 years many of these folks have been robotic, party hacks. I want to see diverse political viewpoints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 It costs so much to run a campaign that it is well beyond anyone other than the very wealthy, for one, and they have demonstrated since time began that by and large they are a group that cares about themselves and no one else.We get t5he candidates that the two parties think we can be manipulated into voting for. The best person for the job is rarely the nominee, and I would suggest we never do know who that best person is. What we get is whoever the focus groups and Q ratings tell them to put in front of us. We're the collectively malleable and gullible ones who make that system possible, though. We respond measurably to TV ads and radio spots and feel-good rallies and well-compensated strategists' empty phrases and goofy campaign photo ops in the local paper, and all of that crap. It costs a lot of money to make that stuff happen and it's all fluff. Campaign seasons are fully saturated with it because we actually internalize it for several months before finally saying, "enough" -- if we ever say it at all. Were we a sufficiently self-aware nation to see through that insanely expensive and shallow production, and were we to rely on more substantial methods for vetting candidates, then paying a lot to campaign would no longer pay. And we might see amazing improvements in the quantity and quality of voices in the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 In the end the more things change, the more they'll stay the same, term limits or not.A benefit of term limits is the freeing up of politicians to vote their conscience. This is not happening and will not happen so long as the threat of not being re-elected hangs over their head. The parties have too much power and too much weight to throw around. 12 years (which is my number) is more than enough to perform public service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Here is the funny thing: I've liked every Senator I've ever dealt with. This is has always been the issue with Congressional elections. We hate Congress, but we like our representatives. The best example I can give of this is Alfonse D'Amato. I had dozens of friends in college who were dyed in the wool New York City liberals. These are the type of people who hated Bill Clinton for being too conservative. However, they generally like Al D'Amato and were probably split on whether they voted for him or not. Because his constituent services were outstanding. The old joke in New York was that if you called Daniel Patrick Moniyham's office complaining about a pot hole on I-95, you got a 25 minute lecture on the history of the Interstate Highway System. If you called D'Amato's office, you got the pothole filled. The only way Senators typically lose is if they are caught up in political forces largely beyond their or anyone else's control or if they get into a scandal. The next election in Maine is going to be interesting. Maine is a "liberal" state now but has two Republican senators (RINOS in the modern parlance) and both have had remarkable popularity. I can't remember which one is up in 2012 but the Tea Party is going in there with a vengeance. I think they can hold off a Tea Party-backed primary challenge but primaries often come down to motivation so who knows? I'm fairly certain that a Tea Partier can't win state-wide office there though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted March 24, 2011 Author Share Posted March 24, 2011 Part of the reason this thread started was the thread on whether Obama was a "weak" leader. Our country is "lead" by Congress, and I think they have been doing such a poor job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I wonder what the average tenure of a staffer is esp. the high end important ones that tend to write the bills and attend the meetings? If they get recycled as much as I think then a change of Senator is even more irrelevent. Afterall, changing the name on the door doesn't change much if the managers, workers, directors, and all the employees are the same. Part of the justification for West Virginia re-electing Byrd every year was that it had reached the point where Byrd himself was irrelevant. His staff had been working on appropriations and his pet Constitutional issues for 40 years and knew every trick in the book to get the pork home. All they really had to do was make sure that Byrd showed up to the votes on time and hit the correct button. I assume that Thurmond's office was the same. All that they needed was the name behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 A benefit of term limits is the freeing up of politicians to vote their conscience. This is not happening and will not happen so long as the threat of not being re-elected hangs over their head. The parties have too much power and too much weight to throw around. 12 years (which is my number) is more than enough to perform public service. I hear what you're saying, but what will really change? The politicians and their staffers will be more motivated than ever to prepare for life after office, which at this time means a nice cushy job for a lobbying firm which normally requires political favors for that firm while in office. What's more is that the parties are still the one's who are deciding who the candidates will be and they will still come from the same shallow pool where they come from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 You have a system intentionally constructed to serve the interests of those who support it- and that ain't the voters anymore (if it ever truly was). It is staged and choreographed to get the results wanted, to gather money, funnel it to media interests, to pay staffers and spin doctors, etc., and finally to keep incumbents in that know whose voice to listen to that will keep the system running. When narrow interests decide what your choices are, you really don't have much freedom of choice, and it isn't just the feds, your mayor or governor went through the same process on a smaller scale. The one principle that unites all politicians is "don't rock the boat". People do not understand (or don't want to understand) that it is working exactly the way it is supposed to, that of course determined by those sustaining the system and themselves from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.