Up to now, no one has addressed the 800 pound gorilla in the US voting booth. Specifically, the Congressional elections of 2008.
Brian PG said 02/20, 10:31 PM
Premises
The Congressional elections of 2008 are actually more important and influential to America than the Presidential election.
The current Congress has failed in the duties for which it was elected, including but not limited to:
Obedience to the will of the people who elected them;
Enactment and enforcement of laws which are beneficial to the American population as a whole;
Performing oversight and balance to the Administrative and Judicial branches of government;
Exercising fiscal responsibility; and
Disengaging itself from special interest groups.
The new President (Democrat, Republican or Independent) with visions of change and creative problem solving can only be successful if he/she has a like-minded Congress. That is to say, New President + Old Congress = Failure.
Since the USA has matured enough to support the idea to elect a female or an African American president, it is also ready for the challenge to oust all Congressional incumbents.
The current Congress must be replaced in its entirety.
Senator Sams said 02/20, 11:27 PM
The current Democratic-majority Congress has been unable to get key legislation passed into law because of President Bush's sudden favor for his veto pen. In his entire term in office, President Bush has vetoed only five bills. Since the new Congress was elected in November 2006, President Bush has vetoed four of those bills: legislation on stem cell research funding (S. 5), a children's health care package (H.R. 976), a bill for veterans' benefits and Katrina recovery (H.R. 1591), and the Water Resources Development Act (H.R. 1495). This Congress' "failure" at its "duties" is not a failure of their legislative body at all, rather it is a failure of President Bush to sign their legislation into law, since most Americans see the success of the Congress as based on its legislative accomplishments.
If the Democrats maintain their majority in Congress in 2008 and a Democratic president is elected in November, then the public will see this Congress as successful and thriving. We'll see a congruence between the legislature and the president, and THAT will eliminate the current dissatisfaction with Congress.
Brian PG said 02/20, 11:43 PM
My position has nothing to do with party affiliation or presidential vetos. It is that all Congresspersons have under performed and it is time to oust them. Time for a 2008 Election Grass Roots Rebellion.
Mission
This Rebellion focuses solely on the ouster of all Congressional incumbents.
This Rebellion is peaceful and orderly.
This Rebellion neither favors, nor endorses any party or candidate in the 2008 Election.
This Rebellion neither favors, nor endorses any political issue or position in the 2008 Election.
A voter can be loyal to his/her party and individual beliefs, and still replace incumbents.
This Rebellion encourages intelligent, honest, dedicated citizens to present themselves to the American public as viable alternatives to incumbents. Since voters are looking for a change, new comers have a real chance of success in 2008.
Voters are encouraged to nominate and vote for new candidates, who will bring creative solutions to the problems confronting our nation.
Voting in the Congressional primaries and Congressional general elections is the appropriate American tool to enact changes.
Senator Sams said 02/21, 02:34 AM
Your argument to oust all Congressional incumbents is simply ludicrous. First of all, you have given no valid evidence that all Congressional incumbents have "under-performed" in their duties as Representatives. Also, you don't give a compelling reason to oust Congressional incumbents who have consistently done a good job representing their constituencies throughout their time in office. You disallow the fact that many citizens approve of their Representatives. You simply promote ending incumbency for the sake of ending incumbency.
In my home district, we had a Congressman who served over 20 years and remained popular and truly representative for our district. Under your proposal, he would have been ousted from office for simply being an incumbent. It makes no sense.
What specifically has this Congress done to so offend you? If it wasn't failure to legislate, then what was it?
Many Congressional incumbents do a fine job in their duties as elected officials. I believe that their efforts should be rewarded by reelection, not simply disgarded for the fact that they've been around. The more competent, hard-working members of Congress, the better. And that includes incumbents.
Brian PG said 02/21, 11:16 PM
I respond to each sentences individually.
1) It's no more ludicrous than 50 years ago to suggest a woman or African American as President. Ousting all is statistically improbable. But many can be ousted.
2) Read daily newspapers for examples of under performance, waste and bad legislation. Permit me to reverse the challenge, I ask you for specific examples of superior performance. Good luck!
3) List 10 incumbents who have done a good job. I'll give list of published articles on each's inappropriate legislative choices. All are tainted or incompetent.
4/5) Current polls Congress approval is 25%. Your comment many citizens approve is unsupported. Fact: few approve.
6/7) Send his name and I'll send articles of his foibles.
8/9) Refer to item 2. Read newspaper and send list of good behavior of Congress.
10/11/12/13) Read newspaper and send list of hard working Congress.
Continuous power in Congress should not proceed unabated. In absense of term limits, it's up to us to give Congress what it really needs...THE BOOT!
How about you, Sam? Are you qualified? Could you can do a better job than your incumbent? Who deserves a better Congress more than we?
Senator Sams said 02/21, 11:44 PM
Ok, first off, my name isn't Sam.
Secondly, you have yet to give valid support for your underlying argument that it should be mandated that all Congressional incumbents be ousted from office. There are 535 members of Congress, and I'd bet all the money I have plus $1,000 that at least ten are pleasing a majority of their constituency. That doesn't mean ALL Americans will like what they're doing or approve of their work, but that's not the point of representative democracy. The point is that each representative adequately represents his constituency. Ron Paul, Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, and John Murtha have apparently pleased theirs. Even Senator Robert Byrd, the ultimate pork-spending waster, has seemingly pleased his constituency by bringing millions in federal funding to the people of West Virginia.
Look, it boils down to this: you and 75% of Americans (if you put a whole lot of faith in polls) disapprove of the Congress' job performance of late. Ok. So, let's elect people who want to fix that and re-elect incumbents who recognize the problems. Don't oust people who please their constituents. That would be undermining the point of representative government.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Nit-picking which individual Senator or Representative needs to be replaced will not change the overall makeup of Congress. And will only result in partisanship. A clean sweep sounds good to me. At least an attempt at a clean sweep. There is a lot be said for the idea that a new President needs a new Congress. Even without a new President, I think we need a new Congress! BTW: Austhus, we got rid of English rule in the Rebellion of 1776, who's to say we can't get rid of incumbent Congressional rule in 2008, even with the system stacked against us? Moreover, don't you personally deserve better that what you are getting out of Congress?
Disgruntled | 02/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
But what about Congressman who are doing a good job? Do you have any valid explanation for ousting them?
Senator Sams | 02/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Sam, name ten who are doing a good job. I will send you news articles about each of their fobiles. Don't you think we deserve better, Sam? How are we gonna get better if we don't unelect the problem? Give me a better solution? Or better still, Sam, ask your friends, family and neighbors what they think about ousting as many Congressional incumbents as possible. It is possible, you know. GO FOR IT! If not now, when? 2008 is a now or never year.
Brian PG | 02/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Hey, Sam, no matter the outcome of this debate, I got ya thinkin' about that 800 pound gorilla! Share the debate with others. You'll be surprise how many voters are willing to take a chance on a new Congress.
Brian PG | 02/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Congress needs a wake up call. The only alarm they will listen to is the possibility of being unelected! The only way to do that is give 'em some meaningful competition! What seat will you be running for, Sam?
Brian PG | 02/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
In your closing you said "So, let's elect people who want to fix that and re-elect incumbents who recognize the problems." You're now arguing 50% of my position for me. Threaten to oust them all and the truly smart ones will wake up. But voters have to threaten TOTAl ouster to get their attention. You can't kick 'em only half way in the ....!
Brian PG | 02/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Brian, argue your point in the actual debate area, you are polluting my space to leave comments. Aside from your failure to argue your point in the correct areas you have made a mediocre argument. As Mr. Sams has said already, name a few you already dislike and argue why you are so upset with them on an individual basis. A good place to start would be your home base: What state are you from? What have your Senators done to upset yet you? From that point you could tell us why it would be better to kick he and his cronies out and put in people who may be just as apathetic. I can clearly see you are upset (that, you have argued well), but I can not see how turning Congress inside out will correct the problem.
mr.politico | 02/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Disgruntled, we had a revolution back then because we didn't even have the option of electing officials. Remember "No taxation without representation"? Congress will eventually turn over, but booting everyone out simultaneously would lead to mass chaos and confusion on how to actually run Congress. I'll gladly keep the good ones, but it's up to the electorate to figure out who the bad apples are and boot them out of office.
Austhus | 02/22/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Israeli Soldiers Sweep Into Gaza
IDF tanks and infantry launch a ground offensive in the Palestinian enclave
(Uriel Sinai / Getty)
The Science of Snowflakes
Caltech physics professor Kenneth G. Libbrecht has turned his passion for the study of ice crystals into an art form. In his books and website, Snowcrystals.com, he breaks down some of the basics behind these miniature miracles of nature
(Kenneth G. Libbrecht)
My vote goes to Sam here. Revolution for the sake of revolution is the political equivalent of a temper-tantrum. Congress has done it's job as well as it can, given the political circumstances. True, there are a fair share of missteps on both sides of the aisle, but making a blanket statement of "all of Congress must be removed" shows complete ignorance about the system.
Austhus | 02/21/08
Report Offensive Comment