YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6030601611.html Norm Orenstein writes about the ramifications of a part-time Congress, which he argues that we currently have. He says that it causes more problems than fixes. What do folks here think?
KD in CA Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 I think we should disband Congress entirely so they stop spending our fuggin' money.
VABills Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 I was just listening to our local "all news, as long as it's liberal" news station. They were now ranting about how many senators and congressmen have not been down to see the devestation in New Orleans. I am sorry but why should my tax dollars go to let these guys have a tour of the area? If they are not representing LA, MS, Fla, etc... they have no business seeing it first hand, and should read the !@#$ing reports handed to them. Used to be in this country congress only met for a short time each year. Now these guys spend too much time here "yeah right" and they no longer represent their home districts. VA used to be a short time frame as well but now these guys sit in session for 2.5 months. I believe not even 10 years ago it was 30 days. Too much legislation, for everything, not enough common sense in this country by the people anymore.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 I was just listening to our local "all news, as long as it's liberal" news station. They were now ranting about how many senators and congressmen have not been down to see the devestation in New Orleans. 620663[/snapback] I didn't hear the story, but caught the tag for it in the car. Let me guess...WTOP blamed Bush for Congress not touring New Orleans?
KD in CA Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 I didn't hear the story, but caught the tag for it in the car. Let me guess...WTOP blamed Bush for Congress not touring New Orleans? 620717[/snapback] That's funny. I saw an article this week blaming Bush for not rebuilding the house of a guy in MS that he DID visit after Katrina.
VABills Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 I didn't hear the story, but caught the tag for it in the car. Let me guess...WTOP blamed Bush for Congress not touring New Orleans? 620717[/snapback] No they are blaming republican senators for not caring enough and visiting. Since the likes of Clinton, etc.. did. WTF does Hillary have any business going to NO on my tax dollars?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 No they are blaming republican senators for not caring enough and visiting. Since the likes of Clinton, etc.. did. WTF does Hillary have any business going to NO on my tax dollars? 620731[/snapback] <WTOP>Queen Hillary would have enough tax dollars to visit New Orleans if we weren't wasting so much money on Iraq. Here to prove our point is a disillusioned, bitter, former Clinton staffer with an axe to grind working for a supposedly independent and unbiased Beltway Bandit...</WTOP> I don't consider them QUITE the uber-liberal whiners you do...but their constant interviewing of "experts" without disclosing they're also partisan ex-staffers with axes to grind pisses me off. At least they've gotten away from the 6:50 am daily "Bush Sucks!" interviews they were doing during the election.
VABills Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 <WTOP>Queen Hillary would have enough tax dollars to visit New Orleans if we weren't wasting so much money on Iraq. Here to prove our point is a disillusioned, bitter, former Clinton staffer with an axe to grind working for a supposedly independent and unbiased Beltway Bandit...</WTOP> I don't consider them QUITE the uber-liberal whiners you do...but their constant interviewing of "experts" without disclosing they're also partisan ex-staffers with axes to grind pisses me off. At least they've gotten away from the 6:50 am daily "Bush Sucks!" interviews they were doing during the election. 620743[/snapback] No Mike Buchanan is now on about 5:50 am blasting Bush with 10 minutes of Bush sucks, it's all his fault, and his grandmother could do a better job. Now not discounting his Grandmother, and maybe should could, but the same basic bull sh-- every day is almost commical. Of course he got canned from channel 9 for the same basic crap.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 8, 2006 Author Posted March 8, 2006 No Mike Buchanan is now on about 5:50 am blasting Bush with 10 minutes of Bush sucks, it's all his fault, and his grandmother could do a better job. Now not discounting his Grandmother, and maybe should could, but the same basic bull sh-- every day is almost commical. Of course he got canned from channel 9 for the same basic crap. 620747[/snapback] Man, with all this whining you would think the Dems are bacck. Please, take responsibility, the Republicans from day 1 have tried to shove this one under the rug, they only spend time there when the noise from NO get to loud to ignore. If the GOP did a little more hand holding like they do with Pat Robertson types, also a pain in the ..., and gotten the resulting positive P.R. from showing up, they could coopt half of all the complainers who just want an excuse to believe all the lies that you tell them, like they are going to be taken care of. Since you haven't even bothered to be consistently showing up down there in that devastation, reap what you sow and stop blaming Hillary, there is such a waste of words, at least she would suit up and show. There is one woman who knows how to put her pants on, one leg at a time. Bush on the other hand, has to have his mother zip up his fly. Get over it.
VABills Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Man, with all this whining you would think the Dems are bacck. Please, take responsibility, the Republicans from day 1 have tried to shove this one under the rug, they only spend time there when the noise from NO get to loud to ignore. If the GOP did a little more hand holding like they do with Pat Robertson types, also a pain in the ..., and gotten the resulting positive P.R. from showing up, they could coopt half of all the complainers who just want an excuse to believe all the lies that you tell them, like they are going to be taken care of. Since you haven't even bothered to be consistently showing up down there in that devastation, reap what you sow and stop blaming Hillary, there is such a waste of words, at least she would suit up and show. There is one woman who knows how to put her pants on, one leg at a time. Bush on the other hand, has to have his mother zip up his fly. Get over it. 620826[/snapback] No the point is why should anyone other then the representatives from the affected states even show up down there. Not a dem/rep thing, it's a tax thing.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 I think we should disband Congress entirely so they stop spending our fuggin' money. 620561[/snapback] At least the House of Representatives. The Senate is all we need and having it by itself would shine a brighter light on it and make it easier to keep an eye on. The House simply brings waaaay too many politicians to D.C....
KRC Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6030601611.html Norm Orenstein writes about the ramifications of a part-time Congress, which he argues that we currently have. He says that it causes more problems than fixes. What do folks here think? 620380[/snapback] I agree with some parts of the article and disagree with others. I agree that Congresscritters are not as devoted to their job, but more devoted to campaigning. This is especially true with Representatives, since they are up for re-election every two years. As soon as one campaign ends, their re-election campaign begins. At least the Senate has a little time before they run for re-election. The problem is that they just wait until re-election time before they start to do anything (bills suddenly appear and they suddenly start to be more vocal around election time). In both cases, it is not about what is best for the country or their constituents, but what is best for their re-election chances. Making Congresscritters stay in Washington more will not solve this. Right now, the whole system is fugged up. If they only want it to be a part-time job, pay them accordingly. Cut their salary and benefits and force them to live by the same rules as their constituents. Hell, we have enough trouble getting these representatives to actually read the bills they are voting on, let alone understand what they are voting on. Just take on look at roll call votes and the bills/items they are voting on and you can see that there is no reason to have them there longer. They can be there less. They, however, need to do a better job, which I think was the point of the article. Maybe, we should have televised hearings and form an independent commission to look into this issue.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 If you want my opinion, I think that in the future we're going to see the ultimate in direct democracy...instantaneous polling of the entire population over the Internet. In this scenarios, I'd think that congressmen would be irrelevant. As it is, they already ARE pretty much irrelevant.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 8, 2006 Author Posted March 8, 2006 Maybe, we should have televised hearings and form an independent commission to look into this issue. 620954[/snapback] Interesting thought, with a little elbow grease, it could be arranged. Question, do it in Washington, DC or say is somewhere like Chicago or St. Louis?
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 8, 2006 Author Posted March 8, 2006 No the point is why should anyone other then the representatives from the affected states even show up down there. Not a dem/rep thing, it's a tax thing. 620905[/snapback] Sorry, that part I understood, don't know...if they all fly jet blue and stay at an econo lodge, I might go for it. See how the other half lives, might be valuable. Otherwise, the $5 million dollar tour your right is probably a waste of time. A quick flyover in a barebones C-130 would probably work instead. Too noisy for any of them to talk!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Man, with all this whining you would think the Dems are bacck. Please, take responsibility, the Republicans from day 1 have tried to shove this one under the rug, they only spend time there when the noise from NO get to loud to ignore. If the GOP did a little more hand holding like they do with Pat Robertson types, also a pain in the ..., and gotten the resulting positive P.R. from showing up, they could coopt half of all the complainers who just want an excuse to believe all the lies that you tell them, like they are going to be taken care of. Since you haven't even bothered to be consistently showing up down there in that devastation, reap what you sow and stop blaming Hillary, there is such a waste of words, at least she would suit up and show. There is one woman who knows how to put her pants on, one leg at a time. Bush on the other hand, has to have his mother zip up his fly. Get over it. 620826[/snapback] Just as a point of clarification: I was criticizing WTOP, not Hillary Clinton. True, my criticism involved a none-too-subtle ad hominem attack on "Queen Hillary"...but that was hyperbole to emphasize my criticism of WTOP. Not that I wouldn't criticize Hillary (I do, frequently and vocally). But I'd do so with rational arguments, not with something as stupid as "WTOP and Hillary are both liberals, WTOP sucks, so Hillary sucks!"
Ned Flanders Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 but that was hyperbole to emphasize my criticism of WTOP. 621202[/snapback] I do like that they have Cal Thomas on some mornings, usually around 7:50 AM...and they get Russert to talk about the Bills sometimes during football season. Will be interesting to see what 1500 turns into once WTWP hits the airwaves.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 8, 2006 Author Posted March 8, 2006 Just as a point of clarification: I was criticizing WTOP, not Hillary Clinton. True, my criticism involved a none-too-subtle ad hominem attack on "Queen Hillary"...but that was hyperbole to emphasize my criticism of WTOP. Not that I wouldn't criticize Hillary (I do, frequently and vocally). But I'd do so with rational arguments, not with something as stupid as "WTOP and Hillary are both liberals, WTOP sucks, so Hillary sucks!" 621202[/snapback] Aah Jeez and we used to call WTOP, WGOP...P.S. I can hear it when it is cloudy or raining up in Western, MA. The wonders of AM radio.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Aah Jeez and we used to call WTOP, WGOP...P.S. I can hear it when it is cloudy or raining up in Western, MA. The wonders of AM radio. 621210[/snapback] It wouldn't surprise me if they were right-leaning when Clinton was in office. I only got down here towards the end of his term, though, and wasn't really paying attention. And bias either way pisses me off...that WTOP doesn't even try to put a veneer of objectivity on it is ridiculous.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 8, 2006 Author Posted March 8, 2006 It wouldn't surprise me if they were right-leaning when Clinton was in office. I only got down here towards the end of his term, though, and wasn't really paying attention. And bias either way pisses me off...that WTOP doesn't even try to put a veneer of objectivity on it is ridiculous. 621214[/snapback] I am not so sure, they used to frame things in a way that even up in the Senate the last four years we used to squirm at. Sure they don't give Bush much of a free ride, didn't give Clinton one either, but their bias seemed to be more towards congressional GOP. Not always and their editorial folks were all over the map, some biases I obviously liked, others I didn't. But we still think they gave way too much deference to the House.
Recommended Posts