Republicans no longer a viable party?

[ThomasT]

... But with our two party system, I don't think any other party will become competitive enough to challenge the dominance of the two major parties.

I think this is true. The Democratic and Republican political machines represent the status quo, and the voting public doesn't seem interested in changing the status quo. So, what's the problem?

 

[ThomasT]

I agree, but it seems now the R's are in a weird place. I know both parties have to go to the fringes in the early part of a campaign, then veer to the center hopefully in time to capture independents and win the election. But it seems to me, the R's are going far too right and I don't see how independents are going to buy in.

Maybe it won't be a matter of buying into (or accepting as part of the platform) the more extreme views if the more moderate views prevail. Isn't this what's most likely to happen?

 

[KingNothing]

I don't think the Republicans are that far right - they want Government to learn the lesson that millions of Americans have learned - to live within your budget. You really can't borrow yourself out of debt.

IMO, the majority of them have the same #1 priority the majority of democrats have.

To gain/retain political power.

 

[WhoWee]

I think this is true. The Democratic and Republican political machines represent the status quo, and the voting public doesn't seem interested in changing the status quo. So, what's the problem?

I don't think the Republican Party will be diminished - unless the Tea Party grows solid legs and is taken over by small business owners and professional managers - those groups are currently unrepresented (IMO).

 

[lisab]

I don't think the Republicans are that far right - they want Government to learn the lesson that millions of Americans have learned - to live within your budget. You really can't borrow yourself out of debt.

I think it's going too far right to ask candidates to sign a pledge against gay marriage (something most people don't give a rat sass about), against sharia law (oh pander, baby, pander!), and against porn (that's government sticking its head waaaay too far into people's...private lives).

Holy cow, an early version of the pledge actually stated that black children born during slavery were better off than those born today...wow, you can't make this stuff up! (That statement was removed from the pledge. Not sure if Bachmann or Santorum signed it before or after it was removed.)

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/...out-slavery-from-pledge-against-gay-marriage/

 

[WhoWee]

IMO, the majority of them have the same #1 priority the majority of democrats have.

To gain/retain political power.

I'm in favor of term limits in the House.

 

[ThomasT]

Are there enough fanatics in the US to make the Republican party into 'the party of the weird'? Well, wrt certain regions, maybe. But I don't see this happening nationwide.

 

[SixNein]

You guys seem REALLY into the whole "impeach Obama" thing.

Agreed...

 

[WhoWee]

I think it's going too far right to ask candidates to sign a pledge against gay marriage (something most people don't give a rat sass about), against sharia law (oh pander, baby, pander!), and against porn (that's government sticking its head waaaay too far into people's...private lives).

If you want support from a religious segment of the population - they might want assurances?

How do you feel about Congress telling us we can't buy incandescent light bulbs?

 

[ThomasT]

I think it's going too far right to ask candidates to sign a pledge against gay marriage (something most people don't give a rat sass about), against sharia law (oh pander, baby, pander!), and against porn (that's government sticking its head waaaay too far into people's...private lives).

Holy cow, an early version of the pledge actually stated that black children born during slavery were better off than those born today...wow, you can't make this stuff up! (That statement was removed from the pledge. Not sure if Bachmann or Santorum signed it before or after it was removed.)

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/...out-slavery-from-pledge-against-gay-marriage/

Good points. Although I don't understand the part about sassy rats.

 

[WhoWee]

Are there enough fanatics in the US to make the Republican party into 'the party of the weird'? Well, wrt certain regions, maybe. But I don't see this happening nationwide.

Have you ever been to California - the Left wins the weird title (IMO).

 

[ThomasT]

I'm in favor of term limits in the House.

Me too. Is it possible that most everybody except the members of the House is in favor of term limits in the House?

 

[lisab]

Good points. Although I don't understand the part about sassy rats.

Lol, it's my way of getting around the profanity filter. I was wanting to say, "rat's ***". It's a mildly profane American term (not sure if it's used elsewhere), as in "I don't give a rat's *** what you say!" But see, that gets bleeped out.

 

[ThomasT]

Have you ever been to California - the Left wins the weird title (IMO).

Haven't been there in about 40 years. Why do you say that the Left wins the weird title there?

 

[WhoWee]

Agreed...

If you go back to the reason the impeachment comment was made - your agreement might not be as certain. The President is not above the law - it's doubtful the House would allow a power grab of that magnitude.

 

[WhoWee]

Lol, it's my way of getting around the profanity filter. I was wanting to say, "rat's ***". It's a mildly profane American term (not sure if it's used elsewhere), as in "I don't give a rat's *** what you say!" But see, that gets bleeped out.

That Lisa and her sassy rats.

 

[lisab]

Me too. Is it possible that most everybody except the members of the House is in favor of term limits in the House?

My concern is, where would the power would go? The system now allows power to concentrate in those members whose constituents have chosen to send them back into office many times. Representatives have to learn how to get things done, and slowly become more effective and powerful.

If terms are limited, where would that power go? Probably to career staff members, who know how things work because they've been around so long. And they aren't subject to elections - do we really want the power in the hands of people who never face the voters?

Sorry, a bit off topic.

 

[ThomasT]

Lol, it's my way of getting around the profanity filter. I was wanting to say, "rat's ***". It's a mildly profane American term (not sure if it's used elsewhere), as in "I don't give a rat's *** what you say!" But see, that gets bleeped out.

An ingenious workaround. Kudos. I thought you just made a typing error.

 

[lisab]

Have you ever been to California - the Left wins the weird title (IMO).

Oh I agree. It's wacko there. Not IMO, I do think that's an actual fact.

 

[WhoWee]

My concern is, where would the power would go? The system now allows power to concentrate in those members whose constituents have chosen to send them back into office many times. Representatives have to learn how to get things done, and slowly become more effective and powerful.

If terms are limited, where would that power go? Probably to career staff members, who know how things work because they've been around so long. And they aren't subject to elections - do we really want the power in the hands of people who never face the voters?

Sorry, a bit off topic.

That's why I said in the House - not the Senate. There are more House members and once a Representative hits a limit - they could run for Senate.

 

[ThomasT]

My concern is, where would the power would go? The system now allows power to concentrate in those members whose constituents have chosen to send them back into office many times. Representatives have to learn how to get things done, and slowly become more effective and powerful.

If terms are limited, where would that power go? Probably to career staff members, who know how things work because they've been around so long. And they aren't subject to elections - do we really want the power in the hands of people who never face the voters?

Sorry, a bit off topic.

A bit off topic, but I'll chance this short reply. I don't want Representatives to be concerned with power. I want them to be concerned with what's good for the county rather than politiking and raising money, etc. I want them to actually read the legislation they vote on. So, one term of six years is quite enough for any individual imho. I stopped voting for incumbents at a young age. About 20 years ago I stopped voting for Republicans and Democrats. Well, maybe I'm the weird one, eh?

What makes you think that career staff members' power would increase given term limits?

 

[lisab]

A bit off topic, but I'll chance this short reply. I don't want Representatives to be concerned with power. I want them to be concerned with what's good for the county rather than politiking and raising money, etc. I want them to actually read the legislation they vote on. So, one term of six years is quite enough for any individual imho. I stopped voting for incumbents at a young age. About 20 years ago I stopped voting for Republicans and Democrats. Well, maybe I'm the weird one, eh?

What makes you think that career staff members' power would increase given term limits?

Because over a career, they'd serve many different Representatives. While the elected people are replaced by newbies every 6 years, they would serve decades. They would learn how things work, make contacts, etc.

 

[lisab]

That's why I said in the House - not the Senate. There are more House members and once a Representative hits a limit - they could run for Senate.

It could work for Wyoming (one Representative, two Senators), but California or Texas (each with dozens of Representatives, two Senators) would be a tough sell.

 

[SixNein]

If you go back to the reason the impeachment comment was made - your agreement might not be as certain. The President is not above the law - it's doubtful the House would allow a power grab of that magnitude.

The executive branch is obligated by law to fund mandated services. So the debt limit creates a conflict between funds and obligations required by law. So the President would be well within the law to declare the debt limit unconstitutional.

 

[ThomasT]

Because over a career, they'd serve many different Representatives. While the elected people are replaced by newbies every 6 years, they would serve decades. They would learn how things work, make contacts, etc.

With term limits, things would work differently. A Congressman can learn everything he needs to know to be a good Congressman in a few months or less. With term limits, some Congressmen will be more powerful (in terms of influencing the legislative votes of others) than others through the force of their personalities and/or intellects. But what actual power does a staff person have simply because he's been at his job for, say, 20 years?

 

[SixNein]

My concern is, where would the power would go? The system now allows power to concentrate in those members whose constituents have chosen to send them back into office many times. Representatives have to learn how to get things done, and slowly become more effective and powerful.

If terms are limited, where would that power go? Probably to career staff members, who know how things work because they've been around so long. And they aren't subject to elections - do we really want the power in the hands of people who never face the voters?

Sorry, a bit off topic.

I agree that there would almost certainly be a brain drain because many of these members become knowledgeable in specific areas and serve on committees. I can see this effect in the house right now with all of the freshmen members.

 

[lisab]

With term limits, things would work differently. A Congressman can learn everything he needs to know to be a good Congressman in a few months or less. With term limits, some Congressmen will be more powerful (in terms of influencing the legislative votes of others) than others through the force of their personalities and/or intellects. But what actual power does a staff person have simply because he's been at his job for, say, 20 years?

Well this is well outside of my area, but I'm pretty sure that in politics it's not what you know, it's who you know. Having contacts is critical. Being around for a few decades, you'd know a lot of people.

 

[lisab]

I agree that there would almost certainly be a brain drain because many of these members become knowledgeable in specific areas and serve on committees. I can see this effect in the house right now with all of the freshmen members.

I'm not saying that term limits are across the board bad - I'm just saying, there may be unintended consequences if they're ever implemented.

It's best to be skeptical when talking about changing such a fundamental element of our democracy, I think.

 

[ThomasT]

Well this is well outside of my area, but I'm pretty sure that in politics it's not what you know, it's who you know. Having contacts is critical. Being around for a few decades, you'd know a lot of people.

What you know is still of paramount importance. It's just that this often depends on who you know. But a one-term Congressman wouldn't need to deal with that to the extent that a possible multi-term Congressman does now -- if he wants to get reelected that is. Anyway, so a staffer knows a bunch of people. That doesn't mean that they're telling him anything.

The absence of term limits breeds corruption of a few sorts. The idea is to minimize that. So, I vote for term limits.

 

[ThomasT]

It's best to be skeptical when talking about changing such a fundamental element of our democracy, I think.

I don't consider the absence of term limits to be a necessary fundamental element of our democracy. In fact, I would consider the absence of term limits to be antithetical to our democratic ideals, in that it sets the stage for several sorts of corruption that are simply structured out when terms are limitied.

 

[mege]

Agreed...

One person said 'impeach Obama' over a very specific incident declaring something 'unconstitutional'. There is this concept called 'checks and balances' and the President is still bound by certain laws. If he breaks them egregiously, then he's meant to be held liable.

But I thought recalls/impeachment, etc was the proper way to get your party's policies through? (I still see 'Impeach Bush' bumper stickers on the road, and President Obama has only expanded on any of President Bush's weak impeachable offenses).


(It's important to note I don't think many see President Obama in an impeachable light except when he's specificially failing to enforce Congressional policies, Conservatives aren't big whiners like that... look at WI. A bunch of congressmen LEFT THE STATE for a month+ and aren't getting recalled, whereas a bunch of folks are getting recalled for doing what they campaigned for? Spoiled whiney brat much?)

 

[mege]

I don't consider the absence of term limits to be a necessary fundamental element of our democracy. In fact, I would consider the absence of term limits to be antithetical to our democratic ideals, in that it sets the stage for several sorts of corruption that are simply structured out when terms are limitied.

Well I agree that something needs to be done wrt corruption and elected officials, I'm not 100% sure if term limits are the right thing. Basically then you have a bunch of lame-duck congressmen whom DONT have to worry about what people think. The point of this thread was too many people are idealoging - what happens with you have 4/535 lame ducks?

 

[SixNein]

One person said 'impeach Obama' over a very specific incident declaring something 'unconstitutional'. There is this concept called 'checks and balances' and the President is still bound by certain laws. If he breaks them egregiously, then he's meant to be held liable.

But I thought recalls/impeachment, etc was the proper way to get your party's policies through? (I still see 'Impeach Bush' bumper stickers on the road, and President Obama has only expanded on any of President Bush's weak impeachable offenses).(It's important to note I don't think many see President Obama in an impeachable light except when he's specificially failing to enforce Congressional policies, Conservatives aren't big whiners like that... look at WI. A bunch of congressmen LEFT THE STATE for a month+ and aren't getting recalled, whereas a bunch of folks are getting recalled for doing what they campaigned for? Spoiled whiney brat much?)

There is also a concept called the judicial branch of the United States government. If the president declares the debt limit unconstitutional, the question will go before the supreme court, and the supreme court will decide if the president is correct or incorrect. The supreme court will have the final decision on the issue.

I disagree with you that Obama is doing something unconstitutional.

 

[ThomasT]

Well I agree that something needs to be done wrt corruption and elected officials, I'm not 100% sure if term limits are the right thing. Basically then you have a bunch of lame-duck congressmen whom DONT have to worry about what people think. The point of this thread was too many people are idealoging - what happens with you have 4/535 lame ducks?

I'm not sure what you mean by not having to worry about what people think. They wouldn't have to spend time schmoozing for bucks and campaigning and that sort of thing. But they would still be accountable for their actions insofar as any improprieties might be concerned. Outside of clear cut corruption, which would hopefully be dealt with by their peers, isn't there a mechanism for initiating referenda to vote an elected official out of office if people think that he's doing a bad job?

By the way, I also don't think it's a good idea to allow any individual to hold more than one national public office.

And I'm not worried about there being a shortage of intellectually qualified candidates. It's a really big country.

Yes, there are lots of idealogues in the US, but I don't see how term limits would entail them having any more of a voice in the way things are actually run than they have now.

 

[SixNein]

I'm not sure what you mean by not having to worry about what people think. They wouldn't have to spend time schmoozing for bucks and campaigning and that sort of thing. But they would still be accountable for their actions insofar as any improprieties might be concerned. Outside of clear cut corruption, which would hopefully be dealt with by their peers, isn't there a mechanism for initiating referenda to vote an elected official out of office if people think that he's doing a bad job?

By the way, I also don't think it's a good idea to allow any individual to hold more than one national public office.

And I'm not worried about there being a shortage of intellectually qualified candidates. It's a really big country.

Yes, there are lots of idealogues in the US, but I don't see how term limits would entail them having any more of a voice in the way things are actually run than they have now.

Personally I think not doing what people think is one of the positive benefits of placing term limits. Our republic is looking more and more like a democracy.