News Fixing Congress: Is It Possible to Fix the "Broken Branch"?

[Angry Citizen]

My point, which you would have known had you bothered to quote the rest of my statement, was that scientific training does not in itself lend political brilliance.

 

[BobG]

No more Marco Rubios who think the Earth is 6000 years old.

Is that realistic?

In 2004, 34% of the people that voted in the election were conservative, 45% moderate, and 21% liberal. 37% were Republican, 37% were Democrat, and 26% were independent.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls, 35% were conservative, 41% were moderate, and 25% were liberal. 32% were Republican, 38% were Democrat, and 29% were independent.

While there's the same number of conservatives, the Republican Party is shrinking (which is why Romney's performance with Independents didn't help him as much as you'd think it would - he was picking up votes from Republican defectors; not true Independents).

In 2004, 21% of voters were white, evangelical voters and 79% of them voted for Bush. In 2012, 23% of voters were white, evangelicals and 79% of them voted for Romney.

With a shrinking Republican Party and an increasing number of evangelicals, I think it's possible that the Republican Party might already be more than 50% white, evangelicals. And if not, then they're awfully close to being half the Republican Party.

Earlier, someone posted a thread about what the Republican Party had to change in order to do better in future elections (perhaps it was a bit too soon after the election, as it couldn't go an entire 24 hours without being locked).

A more realistic question might be "Is it even possible for the Republican Party to change?"

Republican Party leadership doesn't get to choose the party's candidates. If Republicans don't like the establishment candidates, they'll just revolt and nominate their own candidate (which is a lot of what the Tea Party movement is all about). Do you think Republican leadership wanted Richard Lugar out of the Senate? No! It was Indiana Republicans that wanted Lugar out of the Senate and they nominated a Republican candidate more to their liking (Richard Mourdock)!

That didn't work out so well for that particular statewide election, but Tea Party candidates do quite well in the House, since those districts are much smaller than an entire state. So, it's unlikely we'll see an onslaught of Marco Rubios elected to the Senate, but I see no reason to think we won't have more in the House.

 

[BobG]

My point, which you would have known had you bothered to quote the rest of my statement, was that scientific training does not in itself lend political brilliance.

I was joking, so I only quoted the part that aided my humor (which needed all the help it could get). At least about electing clothing retailers and peanut farmers for the next 200 years. I do think it would be interesting to see a few more politicians with technical backgrounds, though.

 

[ImaLooser]

As a friend of mine once said, "Money is more powerful than logic."

 

[nanosiborg]

As a friend of mine once said, "Money is more powerful than logic."

Wise observation. The ability (both perceived and real) to do violence is also more powerful than logic.

Congressional reform is of course necessary. But, imho, not likely to ever happen.

 

[Astronuc]

Maybe this is the way to reform!

In an exclusive joint interview, Sawyer sat down today on Capitol Hill with the historic class of female Senators of the 113 th Congress . When the new Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3 rd, there will be a record-breaking 20 female senators - 4 Republicans, 16 Democrats -in office.

Hill Women Say They'd Have 'Fiscal Cliff' Solved
http://news.yahoo.com/female-senators-theyd-already-fiscal-cliff-solved-233143888--abc-news-politics.html

 

[BobG]

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said by nature women are "less confrontational and more collaborative,"

Typical female sexist stereotype!

 

[Evo]

Typical female sexist stereotype!

Wow, she didn't work with the women I did.

 

[russ_watters]

Lol, I was going to say -- I think she has the stereotype backwards!

 

[nanosiborg]

If you want congressional, etc., reform, then stop voting for major party candidates. People seem to regard this as a crazy radical thing to do. But it really isn't. The elected candidates of the two major parties have pretty much become corrupt and screwed the US in the process. Yet, you keep voting for them. Duh!

 

[BobG]

Actually, I see more and more problems with Congress before things get better.

Right now, one of the obstacles to resolving the "Fiscal Cliff" crisis is the number of Republicans that place their pledge to Grover Norquist above their pledge to the Constitution of the United States. There's a reason for that. If they break their Norquist pledge, the Club for Growth and other third party organizations will pour money into defeating them in the next primary election. The Club for Growth is just the most effective of these - they only go after "offensive" Republicans in districts where a Republican is sure to win. Not only that, primaries attract a lot fewer voters than general elections and are much easier for special interest groups to influence with extra campaign money.

Seems like a perfect way to bash Republicans, but that's a little short-sighted. The real importance is that a third party special interest group can influence any primary election successfully. People are naive if they think this is a Republican problem - it's a problem that just affected Republicans first. It's a problem that will almost certainly start to occur in Democratic primaries for "safe" Democratic seats in the future.

As things stand, this is just smart strategy - and a person would be a fool not to copy a smart strategy.

 

[OmCheeto]

Good god. I thought this thread was created just a few days ago...

Thank you Astro for paying attention. I was busy, and not yet a member of the forum.

---------------------------------one of many of OmCheeto's lame excuses ----^

 

[BobG]

Good god. I thought this thread was created just a few days ago...

Don't you know? It takes more than six years to fix Congress!

 

[Astronuc]

There seems to be a persistent and systemic dysfunctionality in the government and the political system.

 

[OmCheeto]

If you want congressional, etc., reform, then stop voting for major party candidates. People seem to regard this as a crazy radical thing to do. But it really isn't. The elected candidates of the two major parties have pretty much become corrupt and screwed the US in the process. Yet, you keep voting for them. Duh!

Ummm... No. We didn't.

Ok. Well. We did. But our elected officials seem to have brains out here on the left coast.

Left coast: Defazio: Tax Wall Street: Cha-Ching for America!
Right coast: Cantor: Short the American Dollar: Cha-Ching for Me!

etc. etc. etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JHH6iwgIek

Very well, your Majesty...

Nixonian expletives, as always, preemptively deleted...

ps. I have a right wing radio station tuned in for my clock radio in the morning to wake me up. LimBelch/LimBlahblah repeated his propaganda, over, and over, and over, and over again... Fortunately for me, it did not sink in...

World at War! BBC! Why did Nazi-ism whatever... First two episodes.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4bd_1264726972

God save the Queen...

 

[OmCheeto]

Gads. Just like my spark plugs, I am perpetually cross-threaded.

 

[nanosiborg]

There seems to be a persistent and systemic dysfunctionality in the government and the political system.

Duh. But I don't mean that in an offensive way, as I very much respect your objective and well researched opinions. Just that the need for congressional reform seems to me to be clearly, without requiring any sort of deep research, pretty evident. The question is: how can congressional reform possibly, ever, be made to happen?

My current personal opinion, maybe overly cynical, is that it won't, ever, happen. At least not to the extent that there will ever be significant reforms regarding the generally greedy and wasteful actions of government.

Ummm... No. We didn't.

Ok. Well. We did.

Yeah. I think it ultimately comes down to us. Not any president. Not the government. But, us. We cast the votes, and, therefore, potentially determine the course of national policy. But, this only works well (ie., in the best interests of the mass populace, both of the US and the world) if we, the voters, actually care enough to do our homework. Unfortunately, in America at least, this doesn't seem to be the case. So, our general civic lethargy and complacency allows us to be manipulated by corporate mass media (which more or less obviously, imo, has vested interests at odds with what's best for the US in particular and the world in general).

Yes, we need congressional reform. But I think that before that can happen then significant reforms in the way that average US citizens approach civic issues and elections has to happen.

This can only be brought about by changes in our educational system. Changes which are, imo, not likely to ever happen. So, I think, there you have it. We are, like it or not, for better or worse, more or less locked into the current status quo. I'm not optimistic about the evolution of human society and the future prospects for the survival of humanity. I conjecture that we are our worst enemy, and the US congress seems to support that conjecture.

 

[OmCheeto]

...

Yeah. I think it ultimately comes down to us. Not any president. Not the government. But, us. We cast the votes, and, therefore, potentially determine the course of national policy. But, this only works well (ie., in the best interests of the mass populace, both of the US and the world) if we, the voters, actually care enough to do our homework. Unfortunately, in America at least, this doesn't seem to be the case. So, our general civic lethargy and complacency allows us to be manipulated by corporate mass media (which more or less obviously, imo, has vested interests at odds with what's best for the US in particular and the world in general).

Yes, we need congressional reform. But I think that before that can happen then significant reforms in the way that average US citizens approach civic issues and elections has to happen.

This can only be brought about by changes in our educational system. Changes which are, imo, not likely to ever happen. So, I think, there you have it. We are, like it or not, for better or worse, more or less locked into the current status quo. I'm not optimistic about the evolution of human society and the future prospects for the survival of humanity. I conjecture that we are our worst enemy, and the US congress seems to support that conjecture.

For the most part, I pretty much agree with what you've posted here. If I were ambitious, I would even show you where you've quoted me. But I'm not, so I won't.

------------------------------
Hopefully I don't get an infraction for not fighting in the P&WA arena.

 

[turbo]

Yes, we need congressional reform. But I think that before that can happen then significant reforms in the way that average US citizens approach civic issues and elections has to happen.

The first thing that needs to happen, IMO, is a negation of the Citizens United decision.

The second is to finance all the Congressional campaigns with public funds and forbid private donations and PACs. This would greatly reduce the number of "candidates" who are in it only to suck up corporate donations, and not to represent us.

It might take a long time to get through this, since many of these "lifers" have slush-funds that they can subsist on before transitioning to private positions with their sponsors. Still, (IMO) the only way to get honest representation in DC is to fund their campaigns with adequate public funds and cut off the private donations.

These reps and senators need to get down in the trenches with the rest of us, and pay attention to making sure that the poor and the middle-class get a fair shake. I am not real hopeful, since common citizens have no voice anymore.

My wife and I can't afford to pay either of our senators $20K to come to our house and speak at a "breakfast". When we write, we get vague form-letters back, with no substance. It is really sad. IMO, the gridlock in DC is less about ideology, and more about money, and who is paying the bills. It's sad.

 

[Astronuc]

There is a spam message passed by email or through the internet, usually on social networking sites - Congressional Reform Act of 2012. It has been falsely attributed to Warren Buffet [sic], and is a variant of some email spam that has been around for a few years (see snopes link below). Some of it is rather drastic or extreme, but there are some good ideas, such as restricting pensions and healthcare benefits to Congress persons, and mandating that Congress should be subject to the same laws they impose on the public.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp

 

[Pete Cortez]

My wife and I can't afford to pay either of our senators $20K to come to our house and speak at a "breakfast".

Two words. Pot...luck.