uncertainbyprinciple's political foray
Some of you know that I'm pretty anti-political, so this post is pretty out of the ordinary for me. I read this opinion piece (take heed that I'm recognizing it as such!) in the Washington Post this afternoon, and I feel that it captures a lot of the reasons I try to avoid politics in general. Some very nice quotes from a few moderate Republicans:
I am really tired of obstructionism, and I'm tired of sheeple. The Dems are very guilty of these things, but I do see the Pubs as leading the way in this regard. This country is going to continue to face bigger and bigger challenges as long as people are only out to win the next election, and not working to make the country better.
The GOP’s evolution has become too much for some longtime Republicans. Former senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska called his party “irresponsible”
in an interview with the Financial Times in August, at the height of the debt-ceiling battle. “I think the Republican Party is captive to political movements that are very ideological, that are very narrow,” he said. “I’ve never seen so much intolerance as I see today in American politics.”
And Mike Lofgren, a veteran Republican congressional staffer, wrote an anguished diatribe
last year about why he was ending his career on the Hill after nearly three decades. “The Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe,” he wrote on the Truthout Web site.
When doomsday preppers need a break from organizing canned goods down in their bunkers,
they like to chat in the Huskermax forums. Don’t ever look inside. It can be a dark and scary place that
makes moon landing conspiracy theorists seem sane and rational. bigredfury.com
I think it depends on what one would consider "make(ing) the country better."
Those "obstructionists" ran on a platform to change the way the country spends its money. They got elected to change the way the country spends its money. And low and behold, they actually tried to change the way the country spends its money.
It is kind of strange these days to see people actually attempting to do what it was that got them elected to office. I don't know when it became "normal" for one to get elected and then just fall in line and continue down the path that's been followed for years and has led us into the financial mess we're in.
That appears to be all that's left. If things don't change, then perhaps the government actually needs to be held hostage in order to get things fixed.
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
“Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you.” -- (Benjamin Franklin)
Well done. It's not a D or R issue. It is About finding solutions instead of assigning blame.
A few years ago, a sat down with Ford D and Newt R after they left congress. They agreed about how to fix 85% of our problems.
Today, the price of compromise is too high.
Too many sacred cows involved. Everybody's all for changing the culture in Washington - as long as the left doesn't have to give ground on taxes and social safety nets and the right doesn't have to give ground on taxes and defense.
Originally Posted by redmachine
You're almost better off flushing everyone out of Congress.
From my perspective, congressional leadership has been getting progressively partisan since the Clinton impeachment trail. There ARE good politicians in Congress. Unfortunately, the leaders of the respective parties are so dedicated to running the party line, progress is inhibited because any progress must be a "win".
What is truly needed is change to incredibly strong and focused party leaders in the House and Senate. The likes of Pelosi/Reid/Lott are not going to get us anywhere. As my dad says, Another day older and deeper in debt.
Originally Posted by Nishioka
Yep. For every Republican intransigent about raising taxes there's a Democrat intransigent about reducing public sector pensions (for example.)
I guess I disagree with the article about who is leading, I can easily make a case for Democrats being in the forefront too. Or how the article talks about lack of compromise from the right when I read the events of non-compromise of our President that ended a possible transformational event at the last budget crisis. Yet I grinned and bared it reading through it.
Originally Posted by uncertainbyprinciple
People don't have to hate each other to disagree with each other, you can talk things out, but the problem is does someone make deals with a person they do not trust or believe is ineffective at his job? I would contend that we could negotiate and come to compromises on pretty much everything. But when it comes to election time and I speak my opinion about our elected officials that I think the current guy in office is a terrible president, does not keep his word and I wouldn't trust him politically if I made a deal with him to keep his end of the bargain, I would contend that people of the opposite side would tell me I was just polarizing with that talk. Is it polarizing that I post the Stimulus and Obamacare were bad legislation? Should I just sit here and take it, keeping my opinions to myself for fear that I would not be a good un-polarizing person and not voice what I feel about how things are going?
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand
"Hillary has been cheated on more than a blind woman playing Scrabble. With gypsies." Dennis Miller
1 - 20 - 17
"Change is Coming"
New book that might be worth a read:
"It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism"
Paddle faster, I hear banjo music!
Term limits were part of the Contract with America in 1994. I was pretty much against them at that time, but I was young and ideological. I thought that people would get rid of the poor performers. After all, isn't that the point of elections? But these days, I have really changed my mind. Those elected do not view their position as temporary. Every two, four, or six years, they go out and fight for their careers. They will say what needs to be said, cut whatever deals need to be cut... Pass (or not pass!) any budget needed (dems, looking at you here!) to ensure success on the next election cycle. If job security were no longer a factor, i.e. no matter what they did they would be limited to 12 years in congress, maybe something tangible would finally get done.
Originally Posted by Nishioka
Why did you not include Boehner and McConnell?
Originally Posted by BasilLongfellow
Paddle faster, I hear banjo music!
Lee Terry (R), my Rep, ran on term limits. Said nary a word after his election. Lee Terry is a tool.
Originally Posted by Big Red Rick