Why Democrats are not Republicans when it comes to Congressional majorities.

[techs]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: techs
Reid is a lifetime member of Congress.

Ted Stevens has been there longer. So you're a big fan of his, I'm sure.
Robert Byrd's also been up on Capital Hill quite some time. He's a real gem, huh?

I'm not saying that just because you've been there awhile you are a good Congressman or that you know a lot about policy. I'm just pointing out the Dems tend to put governing ahead of flash or style, which the Republicans do.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: T2T III

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: techs
Reid is a lifetime member of Congress.

Ted Stevens has been there longer. So you're a big fan of his, I'm sure.
Robert Byrd's also been up on Capital Hill quite some time. He's a real gem, huh?

Incumbents must go.

Yes! Term limits, please.

I'm ambivalent on term limits. It's up to the voters to exercise them, and they get that chance frequently enough, but usually fail to do so. On the other hand, it's odd the executive branch is term-limited and the legislative branch is not.

I'm against them for practical considerations. Weakening term limits will likely weaken legislative power. Do we really want a Congress any weaker than we have now?

Of course. They've overstepped their power as it is. But I don't agree that would actually happen.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: techs
Reid is a lifetime member of Congress.

Ted Stevens has been there longer. So you're a big fan of his, I'm sure.
Robert Byrd's also been up on Capital Hill quite some time. He's a real gem, huh?

I'm not saying that just because you've been there awhile you are a good Congressman or that you know a lot about policy. I'm just pointing out the Dems tend to put governing ahead of flash or style, which the Republicans do.

But since it's bad governing, how's that better? Don't bother answering though - I don't accept your premise either.

 

[nageov3t]

Topic Title: Why Democrats are not Republicans when it comes to Congressional majorities.

Originally posted by: techs

Because I say so

adjusted for brevity.

 

[T2T III]

Term limits are not such a bad thing. People keep reelecting their Representatives and Senators because they keep "pulling" in opportunities and funds for the areas they represent. However, over time, a different perspective - from a different individual, or angle might be the right approach. Plus, as these politicians become too attached to their positions, they stagnate a bit and some dabble in corruption to keep things exciting.

I'm sure with some of my comments, I've pointed my finger at my man John McCain. However, that's a whole 'nother story in the race for the Presidency.

 

[Moonbeam]

A mighty wave is coming and it's coming from both coasts.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: techs
Many of the Republicans here predict that the Democrats will be just as extreme as the Republicans have been if they take a huge majority and the Presidency.
Sorry, but you are wishful dreamers.
Democrats have had large majorities many times, and never did what the Republicans did.
Look at the difference between the Congressional leaders. In the Senate Bill Frist was barely a Senator for 6 years when he became the Republican majority leader. Trent Lott for 8 years before him. Harry Reid, the Dem. Majority leader was in the Senate for 19 years before he became leader.
Frist came to Washington, did his damage, and scurried back to his medical practice.
Reid is a lifetime member of Congress.
There is something to be said for experience and seeing the country from the Senate over many years and learning the ins and outs of government. Republicans picked Frist because of his image, not his policy credentials.
Harry Reid makes a lousy speaker and lousy image as the Senate Majority Leader. He was chosen for his knowledge of the Senate and Government.
Many of the Republicans who did so much damage over the last 7 years came and went quickly. Many never intended to stay in Congress, like Frist, and knew they wouldn't have to live with their policies long term. Hence, they enacted their radical agenda and skedaddled.
It can be said the Republicans spend so much time outside of the majorities in Congress they are a party of criticism, not of governing.
The Democrats are the party of governing.

You're reasoning doesn't bode well for Obama...

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A mighty wave is coming and it's coming from both coasts.

It is the possible ironic truth of that statement that scares me. You have no idea.

Obama's is going to be a very interesting presidency.

 

[Farang]

There is something to be said for experience, eh? Maybe I'll vote McCain then.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A mighty wave is coming and it's coming from both coasts.

It is the possible ironic truth of that statement that scares me. You have no idea.

Obama's is going to be a very interesting presidency.

It is the possible ironic truth of that statement that excites me. You have no idea.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Don;t know if the Dems will be as bad as the Rep's have been .

Nothing will be as bad as the reps have been this past 8 years (well, 6 of it was anough to do the damage). I am 100% sure that even republican congress from the 80's and 90's (or any time ever for that matter) would look at the current crop of idiots and cringe in horror at the spending they allowed, and the way they tanked out economy.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A mighty wave is coming and it's coming from both coasts.

It is the possible ironic truth of that statement that scares me. You have no idea.

Obama's is going to be a very interesting presidency.

It is the possible ironic truth of that statement that excites me. You have no idea.

I can at least assume your vision is based on naivety rather than something sinister.

 

[Jaskalas]

Techs is always good for propaganda, I just wonder which email he got it from.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A mighty wave is coming and it's coming from both coasts.

It is the possible ironic truth of that statement that scares me. You have no idea.

Obama's is going to be a very interesting presidency.

It is the possible ironic truth of that statement that excites me. You have no idea.

I can at least assume your vision is based on naivety rather than something sinister.

Government is our savior, just ask 20 million dead Russians.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Government is our savior, just ask 20 million dead Russians.

If only the Democrats would take a minute to consider what future Republican presidents and congresses could do with the increased power they support under Democrat leadership, perhaps they wouldn't be so enthusiastic in their desires.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: T2T III

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: techs
Reid is a lifetime member of Congress.

Ted Stevens has been there longer. So you're a big fan of his, I'm sure.
Robert Byrd's also been up on Capital Hill quite some time. He's a real gem, huh?

Incumbents must go.

Yes! Term limits, please.

I'm ambivalent on term limits. It's up to the voters to exercise them, and they get that chance frequently enough, but usually fail to do so. On the other hand, it's odd the executive branch is term-limited and the legislative branch is not.

I'm against them for practical considerations. Weakening term limits will likely weaken legislative power. Do we really want a Congress any weaker than we have now?

I've always been somewhat on the fence on term limits. On the one hand I agree with eskimospy that for practical reasons you don't want to have turnover all the time and nothing but inexperienced legislators. On the other hand, you can see how these leeches...errr... representatives use the power of the office to entrench themselves and make it hard to boot them out.

I suggest a system where there are no absolute term limits, but where after two or three terms the incumbent has to win by increasing margins to remain in office. So after 3 terms, perhaps he has to win by at least 55% of the vote to stay in. That way if someone really does a good job, he/she can stay on, but it's hard to just stay around forever.