[QUOTE=Villages Kahuna;219214]Is it any wonder that little has gotten done, or is getting done, in Congress? For one I'm really tiring of the political backbiting and sniping going on in Congress on a daily basis. If something is the other party's idea, it's dumb and awful and I won't vote for it. Those elected by the public continue to try to incite their "base" followers to feel the same. Much the same is evident even in this forum. Only occasionally are there productive discussions of issues. More often, it's more of the partisan mud-throwing.

Why do you feel that it is "party lines" that drive peoples decisions on issues? Many of us draw our opinions from life experiences and "common sense" knowledge. I've known plenty of people that are "learned" folk, but don't possess an iota of common sense.

We are capable of making up our own minds on issues independent of one party or the other. Freedom to choose is not a party line position, but a result of how we as individuals view ourselves and the issues involving our lives. Being fiscally and socially conservative does not make someone Republican, only conservative in nature. Likewise, fiscal and social liberalism doesn't mean a label of Democrat.

CHANGE...The ONLY Way It Can Be Accomplished
 

Both of the comments you make demonstrate the need for such a simplistic approach as vote out the incumbents. Unless the result of the mid-term elections is to simply replace the entire House and one-third of the Senate, we'll still be debating the partisan, dysfunctional governance that we have now in years to come.

As has been documented so many times, almost everyone who complains about the actions of the Congress does so with the caveat, "except for my Congressperson or Senator--they're OK. It's the others that are screwed up." Or, those that argue that they are independent enough to vote for the best candidate regardless of party, but when the curtains of the voting booth close, simply can't draw themselves to vote for the candidate from "that other party".

If the electorate tries to re-form the Congress by "building on the base of 'their' party", we won't get anywhere. At least we won't get anywhere soon. While the Democrats swept the GOP from power in the 2006 mid-term elections, there is little chance in my opinion, that the GOP can recover by attempting to keep it's existing Congressional seats and building on them by winning more seats back. It's been well documented by political scientists and practitioners far smarter and more experienced than me that the GOP has little chance of expanding it's role in government by continuing to rely on a base that is concentrated by age, religion, region, ethnicity and education. The GOP has to "expand the tent" and be more inclusive in order to succeed. They're making no move whatsoever to do that.

So, I'm left with the conclusion that the only way to achieve a quicker change in our government is to simply replace ALL that are there now. Throw out the incumbents, as Steve and I have suggested. I can see no other way that will work, certainly not beginning from the position that "my members of Congress and my party are OK, it's the other guys that are the cause of our problems".

I can only make the following arguments for simplifying the voting process and expelling the incumbents in upcoming elections.

• The shift in party makeup in the Congress would be instantaneous.
• Having said that the party makeup would shift, the political power of the parties would be dramatically diluted. They would have no solid base of long-held seats to rely on. They would be confused and be forced to re-create party organizations from the beginning.
• If the Congress is changed in 2010, as it could be, it would eradicate any political influence that the White House might have on those bodies.
• It would thoroughly confuse the special interest lobbyists. They too would lose their base of loyal Congressional constituents always willing to do their bidding in exchange for campaign contributions. Like the party leaderships, they too would have to "start over" in creating a loyal and submissive following who they can easily manipulate.

I'm sure there are more arguments for how a complete turnover of our representation might be an improvement over what we are and have experienced in our governance. Maybe others can add to the list.

In the meantime, the Congress could operate based on thought, debate and statesmanship instead of raw partisan politics fueled by special interest money. That would be a good thing. That would probably be more along the lines of what the framers of the Constitution intended, instead of what we're experiencing now.

But I'm sure of one thing, unless there is a massive turnover of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and in the third of the Senate seats up for election, this forum will be aruing and debating and biting one another's backs about the same things 2-3-4-5 years from now, as they are today.

[/QUOTE]

Very well stated,gnu. I also feel that the boomers are still a force to be reckoned with. If the republicans can get back the millions of votes lost because of the fiscal and immigration issues, you could see a big shift in 2010.
Also the millions of naive young voters who are now more savvy could make a difference.The millions of voters who thought they were pulling the trigger for a centrist.(Obama) have had a rude awakening.
I am convinced to stay with conservative issues and avoid the temptation of diluting our values to attract votes is wrong. Ronald Reagan didn't compromise his values to get votes and he took almost every state in the union.(or was it every state?)

Ms. Brown-Waite is an honorable person. I just don't want her to have the job as representative indefinitely.

I'll concede that most of the representatives start out with the best of intentions. However, there comes a time when it stops being a public calling and it changes to "it's my job, career and re-election is more important than anything." We've all seen it happen, that after a term or two, the representative becomes more of a DC fixture than a local one, and sees themselves more a member of the DC society than their district's. I just got back from 5 years in DC and was appalled by how I saw congressfolk live there than at "home." When congressfolk own $500K-$2Million homes/condos in the DC area, that should be a sign they've been there too long.

The Founding Fathers made being a representative a 2-year position, not a 20-year one. When congressfolk stay in office so long on 2 or 6 year positions that they need a retirement program, isn't that evidence enough that the seats need new bottoms in them at least every other term?

I thank Ms. Brown-Waite for her service, but I do not see having a "career representative" who needs a retirement program for service a necessity for this district. For the size of this congressional district, there must be others who also are qualified and willing to serve for a term or two, and then rejoin local society.

To me, the honorable thing for Ms. Brown-Waite to do is step aside in 2010, and nothing stops her from endorsing and campaigning for her party's candidate for this congressional seat. Anything less is having another career representative to join the likes of all those we complain about.