This is well worth consideration.

[R J]

Certainly an  option very worthy of your consideration!  


Pass It On For  Our Country  And the memory of  our Founding Fathers  

At least read  this.  Form your own opinion, even if you disagree with this issue,  but at least read it.   You and I owe  that to our  country  

 All I ask is that  you consider the suggestion  here.

The entire Congress of the  United States  is  corrupt.  And I mean both Houses and I mean both major  parties.

I realize that a few Members of each House are  trustworthy, but, as a group they are  absolutely the most corrupt bunch to ever disgrace our  Nation.

In November  of 2010 the entire House of Representatives will stand for re-election;  all 435 of them.   One third of the Senate, a total of 33 of them, will also stand for  re-election.  

Vote every incumbent  out.

And I mean every one of them.  No matter their Party affiliation.  

Let's start all over in  the House of Representatives with 435 people who have absolutely no experience  in running that  body, with no political  favors owed to anyone but their own constituents.  Let's make  them understand that they work for  us. They are  answerable to us and they simply have to run that body with some common  sense.

Two years later, in  2012, vote the next third of the incumbents in the Senate  out.  

We can  do the same thing in 2014 and, by that time we will have put all new people in  that body as well.

We, the People, have got to take this Country  back and we HAVE to do it peacefully.

That's what the  Framers of our Constitution envisioned.  

I am also suggesting  term limits on the NEW BUNCH -- 8 YEARS FOR  REPRESENTATIVES   two terms that’s all.  AND 12 YEARS  [2 terms]   FOR SENATORS.  NO EXCEPTIONS.  THE  LONGER THEY STAY IN OFFICE THE MORE POWER THEY GET AND THEY  LOVE IT  AND WILL DO  ANYTHING TO GET RE-ELECTED.  

WE HAVE TERM LIMITED THE  PRESIDENT –  NOW LET'S  TERM LIMIT THE LEGISLATORS.  


And we do away with their  Special Retirement system and their health program (they should have same health  programs everyone else in America does). When they are through serving their  country they go back to being private citizens.  They  should view their service  as a privilege; after all it was designed to be a part time job to represent the  voice of the people,  NOT the special interest  groups and those who can do favors for them.  

If  they don't like this proposal then don't run for office…  

Please, if you love this  Country,  send this (as I have  done) to  absolutely everyone whose email  address  appears in  your address book.

This thing can permeate this Country  in no time.    

Let's make it  happen.

VOTE THE POWER ABUSERS OUT........LET'S  TAKE  AMERICA  BACK !!!!!!!!!  


IF YOU LIKE THE WAY  THINGS ARE GOING IN OUR COUNTRY,  


THEN DO  NOTHING.........

[X Ring]

Hey RJ, I've got a suggestion.  As the House is re-elected every 2 years, limit them to 3 terms, 6 years total. Limit the Senate to 1 term.  That way they are limited to 6 years in either house and if someone makes the jump, they will be there for a max of 12 years.  Your way would allow them to be there for 20 years.

Marty

[rmrc51]

I'll be sending it on!

[JimC]

RJ,
I posted this link on a couple other posts, but your post hits it on the head.
PLEASE LISTEN to the interviews attached. I think it makes sense, and it may be our best option to do just what you want. By the way, they are suggesting limiting the terms to ONE.

http://goooh.com/home.aspx

Jim

[Willow]

This "plan" has been proposed several times and I mean no disrespect for those who believe it's a good idea, but my opinion is that it's just not very well thought out.

We have two controlling political parties.  If all the incumbents are voted out, the controlling party will simply shift from one side to the other.  We've seen a similar result several times.  The party voted in proclaims an overwhelming mandate and moves on down the road with not much more than a "Thank you very much".

The candidates on the ticket are politicians, some with state level experience, some with national level experience, and some with little or no experience, but all with the backing of a strong political party.  What makes anyone believe that the politicians being voted in by the "throw all the incumbents out" movement will be any different than the politicians being voted out?  They're all politicians or they wouldn't be running for office.  They've all been trained and honed by the same system and political affiliations.  The problem doesn't begin with politicians in Washington.  The problem grows from the earliest experiences of the politicians who eventually get to Washington.  Elect a new wave of Washington bound politicians and you'll simply get more of what we've got.

Secondly, what causes people to believe that inexperience (in D.C., not in politics) will make things run better?  What you see as you watch each Congressman or Senator is the head, perhaps figurehead, of a political organization.  Each member of the national legislature has a staff of bureaucrats that makes his or her office function.  Bring in a new wave of totally inexperienced (in D.C.) politicians and you make therm more than ever before dependent upon their bureaucratic staff.  Elected officials come and go, but the bureaucracy remains.

The proposal doesn't make sense on a couple of points.  One is the statement, "The entire Congress of the  United States  is  corrupt," followed immediately by "I realize that a few Members of each House are  trustworthy."  The other is the suggestion to limit Representatives to eight years or two terms.

I don't think trading out politicians for more politicians is going to fix the system.  The solution is for voters to each one vote for and support only candidates that he or she can truly trust.  When our political parties at the local level don't nominate candidates that we can support, we need to very vocally demand that they do so.  Perhaps we do need to form new political parties.  Unfortunately that will hurt us before those new parties become strong enough to help us.

One of our problems is that each one of us has only one vote, two or three if we can influence a few around us.  We cannot individually vote out a congress, a Senate, or an administration with which we are deeply dissatisfied.

Personally I believe that democracy as a form of government is functionally flawed in a media soaked culture.  As far back as the Nixon/Kennedy debate, we learned that more important than what a candidate stands for is how he looks on television, or whether his sound bites strike a note with the politically uninformed.  The voting mass that really turns elections right or left is not the politically passionate on either side.  It's that uncommitted, uninformed group in the middle that may swing either way, may or may not vote, and is likely to vote for someone, anyone, who is able to present something, anything, attractive to that unstable glob in the middle.  If we don't overcome that issue we won't solve the problem.

"We HAVE to do it peacefully."  Are you certain of that? 

The real problem is not the politicians, it's the voters and the significant voters, that group in the middle, are mostly interested in "What's in it for me?"  To borrow a phrase from our friend, Pogo, we have met the enemy and he is us.

YMMV                

[Charlie]

I agree with most of what Willow says.  The only exception being the group in the middle being the problem.  I think the group in the middle is what keeps political sides from destroying things further from where they already are. 

The size of a flock is what a politician uses when trying to get elected.  His sound bites are those the public gives him via the media.  After he is elected, his flock plays second fiddle to those who paid for his election, i.e. party bosses.

If the group in the middle were to keep quiet and not let the politicians know how they intend to vote, you would see a lot of sweating politicians, because they count on the middle to win the race. 

In my opinion, there shouldn't be parties, period.  The politicians need to rely on their understanding of what the population wants to get elected.

[JimC]

Willow,
I agree with most of what you said, BUT, I do not feel that the average American is at fault.

We are victims of corruption and greed, and currently are stuck with a failed two party system. To this day I have never seen a proposal that even gave me a glimmer of hope that we would be able to eliminate the two party corruption that exists.

If you listened to the film clips, you would have noted that there were 1 term limits on the GOOH party. Also, the people that were representing the party would be chosen by all of the members through a series of debates. Those two items would or should eliminate the career politician. PLUS, the GOOH party will not have a person on the ballot for president. They propose placing their candidates where they will be most useful, in Congress, forcing the president to adhere to the constitution. (novel idea heh)

On face value it seems that we could actually vote for a common sense person rather than for one party or against another. I for one feel that we have nothing to loose. Even if only a few, or NONE of them get elected, we would still be voting against the current system and its incumbents.

We have absolutely nothing to loose, and a lot to win.

JimC

http://goooh.com/home.aspx

[bigvalkriefan]

Everyone should read the constitution. Our founding fathers formed a republic not a democracy.
It seems like we have slipped into a Democracy. It will eventually fail.  The following was taken of off lexrex.com.

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

Some quotes about a republic:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money
.  Alexis de Tocqueville

The Bible is the rock on which this Republic rests.   Andrew Jackson

The national will is the supreme law of the Republic, and on all subjects within the limits of his constitutional powers should be faithfully obeyed by the public servant.  Martin Van Buren

Our Founding Fathers crafted a constitutional Republic for the first time in the history of the world because they were shaping a form of government that would not have the failures of a democracy in it, but had the representation of democracy in it.  Steve King

[valkmc]

I am with JimC, the problem with our form of government is not the voter or the gov. itself, it is the 2 party system. The struggle for control betwen the parties often leads to neglect of the average citizens.

[R J]

DAMN,,,,,,,,,,,,    I sure didn't want to stir up this big of a Hornet's nest...

[Jess from VA]

DAMN,,,,,,,,,,,,    I sure didn't want to stir up this big of a Hornet's nest...

No hornet's nest RJ, it is perhaps the best political post for discussion we've had in a while.  

Both sides of 'term limits,' and 'vote out all incumbants' are right.... and wrong.  I do believe a massive wave of 'vote the incumbants out' advocacy sweeping the county would do some good in making all politicos reassess their priorities.  

Here's the problem;  I believe many conservatives would be willing to clean house and start over.  But your blue-area confirmed left on both coasts, all cities, most immigrants (legal and illegal), and most every person on the dole (of any kind) never will.....ever.  

And how many elections do each of us get to take part in?  Pres, senate, our district Rep, and state and local.  Each one of those that comes up, I choose the lesser of evils, and for me that is nearly always my Republican candidate.  I have not been excited about a single candidate anywhere since Ross Perot.....and splitting that ticket got us 8 years of Slick Willie.  I would not likely ever vote a mediocre incumbent conservative out in favor of a leftist.  I do research the candidates for every election (even water commissioner), and would be willing to vote for a Democrat over a Republican IF he would go my way on the issues important to me more than the other guy, but I have yet to find one that qualifies.  A third party left of center would be great, right of center bad!!

As I see it, the real problem is getting good conservative candidates to run.   You look at the complete mess politics has become, public scrutiny, attack dog press, loss of privacy, complexity of problems and ask yourself would you want to do this?  Even for your Country?   It is likely that most corporate execs and CEOs of major corporations with strong leadership and financial skills are conservative, and most are absolutely not interested. On the other hand, libs have a gleam in the eye, drank-the-cool-aid mentality, and are driven to politics by the hundreds to teach and tell the stupid masses how to live and what to value (just like the mainstream press).  There is a never ending supply of them coming out of our exceeding liberal universities where the cool aid is manufactured.  

The best thing I've heard of in my lifetime was Newt Gingrich's contract with America platform.....shrink govt, taxes, intrusion, regulation back to what our founding father's had in mind, allow capitalism to flourish.  But our party screwed that up entirely, and became just another tax and spend organization with more conservative values.  Newt would make a great president, but became so vilified he backed out of politics for the good of the party.  

I do not think what we have can be fixed, short of ten megatons going off in DC or NYC, and perhaps not even then.

I love my Country but deeply distrust my government. 

Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.
        George Bernard Shaw
        Irish dramatist & socialist (1856 - 1950)


More on the 'liberal psychosis'
http://www.nevilleawards.com/liberal_pathology.shtml

[Gear Jammer]

[


"We HAVE to do it peacefully."  Are you certain of that? 

The real problem is not the politicians, it's the voters and the significant voters, that group in the middle, are mostly interested in "What's in it for me?"  To borrow a phrase from our friend, Pogo, we have met the enemy and he is us.
       

       

[PAVALKER]

Ray Stevens - We The People - RayStevens.com	powered by Aeva

[stormrider]

Had lunch today with a fellow that is a former lobbyist in DC. As he stated the real problem is 34,000 lobbyists buying your congressman/woman that you sent there to represent you. And like he said, most folks vote for whoever sounds good, looks good, and has good sound bites and offers them the most of what they want. Someone like Ron Paul that has real answers to the real problems will never get the top ticket because he doesn't "look or sound Presidential".
And besides, the banking cartel and corporate elite have run the show for so many years it will most likely require bloodshed before we can get control back.

[woefman]

RJ  and x ring  I like it I like it Pass it on !!!!!!!   

[Hoser]

"the banking cartel and corporate elite have run the show for so many years it will most likely require bloodshed before we can get control back."

 Is there a problem with that?  That's the reason for the second amendment.  hoser

[stormrider]

Exercise the 10th Amendment. And get rid of the lobbyist.

[Willow]

I'm going to attempt to clarify my perspective with a minimal amount of pissing people off.  Wish me luck.  

... The only exception being the group in the middle being the problem.  I think the group in the middle is what keeps political sides from destroying things further from where they already are.
 ...
In my opinion, there shouldn't be parties, period.  The politicians need to rely on their understanding of what the population wants to get elected.    

I think, Charlie, that you and I are using the same term to refer to two different groups of people.  I hope you're referring to moderates as the "group in the middle".  I was using the term to refer to a group of people who have no particularly strong political convictions, who may or may not vote, and, because they have no strong political convictions, they have no real desire to inform themselves on the issues.  My point is that both the major political parties have assumed positions that cause them to have already in their pocket slightly less than a majority of the voting public.  Each party, then, finds itself primarily in competition to draw that middle group in order to gain a majority in the election.  Moderates truly do play into that competition, but I believe they are secondary in importance to the larger group that have virtually no political convictions.

I see your point on political parties until I take a closer look at its implication.  Any group of people who band together based upon common interests will tend to be able to accomplish more than would the members of the group individually.  As soon as those common interests prove to have political implications, we have the beginnings of a political party.  We could eliminate the existing political parties, but to be safe and fair we'd also need to outlaw unions, professional associations, churches, and, of course, the PTA.  Ultimately, we'd have to just make it illegal for people to talk to one another.

I agree that the two parties that have emerged are too powerful and have certainly lost touch with their original reason for being.
        

Willow,
I agree with most of what you said, BUT, I do not feel that the average American is at fault.
...
On face value it seems that we could actually vote for a common sense person rather than for one party or against another. I for one feel that we have nothing to loose. Even if only a few, or NONE of them get elected, we would still be voting against the current system and its incumbents.

We have absolutely nothing to loose, and a lot to win.

Jim, I hope I can very respectfully disagree on both points.  I do feel that that average (whatever average means) American is at fault.  We're the voters.  Big business, lobbyists, and other financial contributors can only buy campaign opportunities.  We, the voters, cast the votes.  If we don't respond to those campaign dollars with our votes, then the dollars are almost meaningless in our current political arena.  The power brokers are complicit, but it's us they're manipulating.  Well, not you and me, but certainly everyone else.  

I sincerely believe that we do have something to lose.  The Ross Perot campaign should have taught us that.  

I stand solidly in a position that provides a possibility that those who hold a political view dramatically different than my own will not be elected.  I think some have referred to this as the lesser of two evils, implying that the alternative is the greater of two evils.  On the other side of the scale stands one who provides the same service for his opposing political view.  If I move off my position to a third or fourth political entity and my counterpart does not, I lose.  Thus my comment that the transition away from the two party system will hurt us greatly before it helps us.  In fact, if the emerging parties all arise, or even primarily arise, out of only one of the two major parties, then we never will see the benefit.    

Everyone should read the constitution. Our founding fathers formed a republic not a democracy.  

I do believe everyone should read the Constitution.

I've read the argument of democracy versus republic and my assessment is that it's at best an inaccurate toying with semantics and at worst a dishonest attempt to energize opposition with words that sound like names of political parties.

I think people who vote for a candidate solely because he is the Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian nominee is part of the problem.  I believe that anyone who votes against a candidate solely because he (or she) is the incumbent is part of the problem.  I believe that people who vote, but do not inform themselves on the issues are a big part of the problem.  I believe that people who vote, but have no political convictions are part of the problem.  I believe that voters influenced by the hope of bigger and better government entitlements are a big part of the problem.  I believe that voters who hold strong convictions different than mine are certainly part of the problem.

Clearly, I believe that I, an average American, am part of the problem.  Truly I don't know how to accomplish the whole solution, but my intent is, by my informed participation in the process, to be a very small part of some solution.    

[RoadKill]

Willow, That was VERY well said (as usual  ) And I must say I am in ALMOST total agreement... Until you said

"Clearly, I believe that I, an average American, am part of the problem.  Truly I don't know how to accomplish the whole solution, but my intent is, by my informed participation in the process, to be a very small part of some solution. "

You are FAR from average and the fact that you intend to have an 'informed" participation proves you are above the average voter. I believe most voters are not just ignorant, they are happy to be ignorant, they are misinformed on so many levels it is sickening ,only vote for what serves their own greed and the rest are too stupid to be worthy of the oxygen they consume! stupid can't be fixed but ignorance is a simple solution! Learn something. Any one incapable or lacking the desire to participate in an "informed' fashion can stay the hell out of the polls!
    That is the solution but I am with you on not knowin how to accomplish it. I doubt very much that it will be peaceful   

The whole purpose of a democratic voting system is to give majority rule is'nt it?  the ones in the "middle" are the blissfully ignorant,stupid,greedy,self satisfying,spoiled ass americans (I'm sure I missed a few other more colorful terms) that make up that majority.The rest are a dying breed. How does one correct that? How do we teach them to think for themselves instead of what "the party" tells them,or what CNN or Fox news,or Acorn or Mike Moore, or Al Gore ,or......

The system could work if society actually did. 

[JimC]

Willow,
I agree with all of your points! You and I have a very similar attitude as far as politicians go.
I just want to eliminate the recurring nightmare I have of my grand kids standing in soup lines 30 - 40 years from now. 

I do think that the GOOH political action group COULD make a difference if we get enough people that agree with RJ's original post. That is why I posted the link. Because the GOOH party (or what ever you want to call them) feel the same way, and they actually have a plan that fits with what RJ was suggesting.

Now, I am not saying that I would vote for a GOOH candidate for congress blindly.  BUT, if they succeed in doing do what they are trying to do, some of their candidates could (will) get elected. All I was trying to say with my post was that I would vote for their candidate because of their platform.

If they do the advertising that they are saying they will do, directing it at the disgruntled voters like many of us, the ones that are fed up, I think that the timing is good to do exactly what RJ said VOTE THE CAREER POLITICIAN OUT.

Will we get them out all at once? NO WAY!
Am I happy that someone actually has a well thought out plan to attempt it, YES.
Will the political parties take notice if a number of them get elected, YOU BET!

Jim

[Minnie Miles]

I am ready lets go!
http://goooh.com/home.aspx

[highcountry]

I am with JimC, the problem with our form of government is not the voter or the gov. itself, it is the 2 party system. The struggle for control betwen the parties often leads to neglect of the average citizens.

I agree with this.  I read recently that George Washington was absolutely opposed to a party system for the very reasons that we have seen in the last nine years.  The latest and greatest is the healthcare disaster.  The sheep vote their party line instead of using common sense or vote the will of their constituency.  The two-party system gave us the likes of Pelosi.  I never heard of that idiot until the Dems proudly paraded her out as the Speaker of the House.  The drivel escaping her lips is just appalling.

Our founding fathers failed us by not imposing term limits on congressmen.  In their defense, they couldn't imagine that anyone would want to spend decades in Congress.  In their era, it was a huge hardship that resulted in bankruptcy for some of them. 

God help us!

[RoadKill]

I am with JimC, the problem with our form of government is not the voter or the gov. itself, it is the 2 party system. The struggle for control betwen the parties often leads to neglect of the average citizens.

I agree with this.  I read recently that George Washington was absolutely opposed to a party system for the very reasons that we have seen in the last nine years.  The latest and greatest is the healthcare disaster.  The sheep vote their party line instead of using common sense or vote the will of their constituency.  The two-party system gave us the likes of Pelosi.  I never heard of that idiot until the Dems proudly paraded her out as the Speaker of the House.  The drivel escaping her lips is just appalling.

Our founding fathers failed us by not imposing term limits on congressmen.  In their defense, they couldn't imagine that anyone would want to spend decades in Congress.  In their era, it was a huge hardship that resulted in bankruptcy for some of them. 

God help us!

Do a little research on Pelosi....She should have been smothered at birth !

[dipstick]

Term limits are the key to our future for the house and senate. That along with trying to keep lawyers out of both houses.

[solo1]

As every one knows by now, the Senate bill passed today,  Christmas Eve,  with the usual partisan vote.

All the ideas and thoughts here are very good but one fact remains:  Power corrupts and Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  If I knew who originally said that, I would give him full credit..

[Willow]

  Power corrupts and Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  If I knew who originally said that, I would give him full credit..

Sources attribute Lord Acton (1887)

[solo1]

Thanks Willow, I knew that you'd come through

[Minnie Miles]

“I don’t see this as 60 Democrats versus 40 Republicans,” he said. “I see it as 60 leaders who stood up to insurance companies and stood up for working families all across America.”

[stormrider]

If ya got 47 minutes, this is a great history lesson on why and how we got to this vote. This first few seconds you'll think the video isn't going to work. Keep watching. Recorded in 1988.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4245169480003136735&hl=en	powered by Aeva

[Minnie Miles]

Time well spent.....THNX