Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, January 19, 2010
Politics One Slog Cricket Sings. . .
Posted by Chicago Fan on Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 7:49 AM
Yesterday, Dan asked why no one had been slogging or commenting on the Massachusetts Senatorial race, which may de-rail HCR by cutting the Dem majority in the Senate to 59, if Republican idiot Scott Brown beats Democratic hack Martha Coakley.
I cannot speak for other crickets, but I know why I haven't written about it: I am totally burnt out on politics.
Over the last 9 years, it's been seven years of mostly simmering-to-boiling rage (from the judicial coup d'etat of Bush v. Gore through Iraq, Katrina, and the economic meltdown), leavened with a year of cautious optimism (might we do the right thing and elect Obama?) to a year of biting my nails and hoping that the Democrats might actually, you know, accomplish something positive. Anything.
Now, having to watch the Republicans simply refuse to play ball, the D's desperately try to make nice and so accomplish nothing by watering down their bills, asswipes like Baucus and Nelson and Stupak hold their own party hostage, an MSM which is really more interested in Leno v. Conan than anything with substance (it took an earthquake in Haiti and maybe hundreds of thousands dead to drive two fucking late night comedians off the front page for the love of Christ), blogs with foci so narrow that you couldn't get a needle through. . . I've lost the will to care. I've stopped reading the Op Eds in the NY Times, much less the coverage. I'm done.
The system is just fucked. The Senate's refusal to let people fucking filibuster has created an unconstitutional requirement for a supermajority of 60 to get anything done (when the Dems are in power, that is; when the R's run the place, the D's fold like paper napkins.) (Tom Geoghagan's piece on that in the Times is one of the few things worth reading.)
Thinking about it all, only one thing now make sense to me: Term limits for all Federal offices. This has long been a conservative cause, because conservatives want to prevent government from doing anything, and so see term limits as a way to limit government power (especially when them damn libruls are in charge). But I think we could make a progressive/liberal case for term limits as well, one that would enable government to accomplish more by actually making legislators focus on the job at hand instead of just keeping their jobs.
I'll make that case tomorrow, after we see how the Clusterfuck in the Commonwealth turns out.
1
I have always liked the idea of term limits: One term for US Senators and two terms for the Reps.
And a limt of 5 years for working with any lobbing group for life.
Time for politicians to stop making politics a life long ambition.
Oh, and one 5 year term for the President and every 36 months a Supreme Court justice will have to step down.
And a limt of 5 years for working with any lobbing group for life.
Time for politicians to stop making politics a life long ambition.
Oh, and one 5 year term for the President and every 36 months a Supreme Court justice will have to step down.
2
What a long winded and childish ("Oh, I don't really care about politics anymore...nah...nah...nah...") just to say that your man Obama and the Democraps are a complete and utter FAILURE who can't get anything done even if they had 100 percent of the Government.
Reason -- They were elected to steal 2 Trillion in tax money and hand it out to their cronies and crooks.
And guess what? They did that in the first 3 months of office, so essentially there is nothing more for them to do except wait out their terms and then collect the loot when they exit office.
Look how many Democrats are "retiring" this year alone!
What a long winded and childish ("Oh, I don't really care about politics anymore...nah...nah...nah...") just to say that your man Obama and the Democraps are a complete and utter FAILURE who can't get anything done even if they had 100 percent of the Government.
Reason -- They were elected to steal 2 Trillion in tax money and hand it out to their cronies and crooks.
And guess what? They did that in the first 3 months of office, so essentially there is nothing more for them to do except wait out their terms and then collect the loot when they exit office.
Look how many Democrats are "retiring" this year alone!
4
"The system is just fucked."
This sentement is why the R's always win. Because their base does't ever give up. We are making progress on the left whether you see it or not. I should also note that you claim to have signed off and stopped reading the op-ed section among other things. So how are you so sure nothing is being done is you are done hearing about what is going on?
This sentement is why the R's always win. Because their base does't ever give up. We are making progress on the left whether you see it or not. I should also note that you claim to have signed off and stopped reading the op-ed section among other things. So how are you so sure nothing is being done is you are done hearing about what is going on?
5
"Now, having to watch the Republicans simply refuse to play ball"
now that's simply not true, Larry Craig and David Vitter...hello
now that's simply not true, Larry Craig and David Vitter...hello
8
Chicago Fan, you've got a primary coming up on Feb 2. What's going on other than that dude screaming about Mark Kirk's homosexuality, and his homosexual friends and supporters, and his homosexual EVERYTHING!! Are the teabaggers making noise?
9
Sounds like you're unclear on the meaning of the word "unconstitutional." The system that's in place is, in fact, quite thoroughly constitutional.
10
Just got back from voting here in MA. The Scott Brown people have been bonkers all week -- lots of sign thrusting and shouting -- but this morning I saw only Coakley supporters out and about at my polling place. Hopefully this means that Brown has been a lot of hype?
12
Term limits were tried in California. Nuff said. Public financing @1, on the other hand, is a good idea.
http://youstreet.org/about
http://youstreet.org/about
13
I'm not burned out. I'm simply not in a position do anything about the MA race. I don't know the two candidates. I'm not a voter in MA. Yeah, I'd like to see a D win it, of course, but there isn't really anything I can do about it, and nervous handwringing will just increase my blood pressure for no reason. So I have actively avoided caring about the MA race.
Plus, I sort of assumed that Coakley was a lock, and the close race came as a bit of a last-minute surprise. It sounds like that was the case in MA too. Coakley may pay for her complacency.
Plus, I sort of assumed that Coakley was a lock, and the close race came as a bit of a last-minute surprise. It sounds like that was the case in MA too. Coakley may pay for her complacency.
14
whine whine whine.
What happened to hope unity and change?
Clearly we need to change the 60 voe rule and we need to elect Democrats who will do that instead of giving big wet kisses to people like Obama, Murray and Cantwell who won't even talk about how the system is fucked and who preach change then get into office saying "nope not me, I'm not gonna change the 60 vote rule! Fuck you, majority of Americans, ha ha ha !"
Btw being "too tired of politics" is wimpy wimpy wimpy the GOP is never too tired. Fuck man, man up!
What happened to hope unity and change?
Clearly we need to change the 60 voe rule and we need to elect Democrats who will do that instead of giving big wet kisses to people like Obama, Murray and Cantwell who won't even talk about how the system is fucked and who preach change then get into office saying "nope not me, I'm not gonna change the 60 vote rule! Fuck you, majority of Americans, ha ha ha !"
Btw being "too tired of politics" is wimpy wimpy wimpy the GOP is never too tired. Fuck man, man up!
15
I understand the burnout. I'm so burned out I want to cry.
But this matters too much, and so many of us worked too damn hard for this health care bill to have given up caring about what happens with Coakley. I sent her money last week.
Even with the bill cruelly whittled down from what we fought for, there are still reforms left in that bill that will save a lot of people. Just the caps on out of pocket expenses will be a saving point for people who have insurance they pay a lot for, but who still face medical bankruptcy--and I personslly know several people in that boat, and I believe that in the case of most medical bankruptcys the people have insurance, but the coininsurance of 20-50% kills them. There are other reforms, too, that we would have been fighting for one bit at a time that we might as well get while they are still on the books. Not only would it prevent insurance companies from denying people with pre-existing conditions, but most importantly, they won't be able to discriminate in their premium costs, either. This will mean everything to people on the individual market who have no access to health insurance under the current system.
I really, really understand the burnout. But dragging ourselves a few more steps will at least help out a very sizable number of people who are currently hurting the worst.
I'm not religious so I can't pray--but I am wishing and hoping hard on this race today.
But this matters too much, and so many of us worked too damn hard for this health care bill to have given up caring about what happens with Coakley. I sent her money last week.
Even with the bill cruelly whittled down from what we fought for, there are still reforms left in that bill that will save a lot of people. Just the caps on out of pocket expenses will be a saving point for people who have insurance they pay a lot for, but who still face medical bankruptcy--and I personslly know several people in that boat, and I believe that in the case of most medical bankruptcys the people have insurance, but the coininsurance of 20-50% kills them. There are other reforms, too, that we would have been fighting for one bit at a time that we might as well get while they are still on the books. Not only would it prevent insurance companies from denying people with pre-existing conditions, but most importantly, they won't be able to discriminate in their premium costs, either. This will mean everything to people on the individual market who have no access to health insurance under the current system.
I really, really understand the burnout. But dragging ourselves a few more steps will at least help out a very sizable number of people who are currently hurting the worst.
I'm not religious so I can't pray--but I am wishing and hoping hard on this race today.
16
I absolutely concur with this assessment, and will add that we should just let the R's fucking filibuster if that's what they're going to do. Let them talk for days on end about why they don't think 45 million Americans need healthcare. Then when everyone realizing how goddamn stupid it looks, the Dems can pass the bill they really should with the simple majority that is required.
Republicans never had more than a majority of 55 during the Bush years and look at the horseshit they passed. Just saying. I wish the Dems would grow a backbone.
Republicans never had more than a majority of 55 during the Bush years and look at the horseshit they passed. Just saying. I wish the Dems would grow a backbone.
17
All term limits do is force out the talented and experienced- in other words, the only ones who are actually effective. The existing system of regular elections can be agonizingly slow to remove lousy incumbents, but they do get removed. Also, without the check of reelection, politicians would be much more likely to lie their way into office and then turn on their constituents. Term limits also don't eliminate careerism- they just make it so careerists have to change jobs at set intervals to stay in the game.
The longer you practice something, the better at it you get. Some politicians practice only the art of getting reelected, but others practice the art of getting things done. A legislator's effectiveness increases sharply with time in office. Term limits are the enemy of vigorous and effective government. I know it's tempting to collectively punish the Congress for its ineptitude, but we can already do that by throwing out lousy incumbents, and it is neither fair nor beneficial to force out those who are actually good.
The longer you practice something, the better at it you get. Some politicians practice only the art of getting reelected, but others practice the art of getting things done. A legislator's effectiveness increases sharply with time in office. Term limits are the enemy of vigorous and effective government. I know it's tempting to collectively punish the Congress for its ineptitude, but we can already do that by throwing out lousy incumbents, and it is neither fair nor beneficial to force out those who are actually good.
19
@4: We're supposed to vote for change, and then accept that it was unrealistic all along? Whenever we try to hold Democratic politicians accountable for their promises, we're told not to undercut "our party." So what, exactly, are we allowed to do? Support them when they screw us over? Wait patiently for real change from a group that's at best spinelessly pragmatic and at worst corporate toadies? I don't want to sound like a shrill progressive, but it gets progressively harder and harder to support the party that simply sells out America a little bit slower than the other.
20
It's easier for dems to get burnt out that repubs because dems typically go for big, game-changing legislation, stuff that takes a huge effort and is very tiring, but that also makes a big difference when it finally (if ever) goes through. Like giving birth or something, tiring but actually productive.
Repubs, on the other hand, typically do tiny little things repetitively: small tax cut for the rich, followed by another small tax cut for the rich, followed by another, and another, and a little military budget increase, and a little more, and some more small tax cuts for the rich, ad nauseum. Like clipping your nails; easy but really not at all life altering.
Repubs, on the other hand, typically do tiny little things repetitively: small tax cut for the rich, followed by another small tax cut for the rich, followed by another, and another, and a little military budget increase, and a little more, and some more small tax cuts for the rich, ad nauseum. Like clipping your nails; easy but really not at all life altering.
21
@17 has it completely right. Term limits only succeed in further limiting the pool of experienced civil servants. For example, where I'm currently living, the former chief of police held positions in (and termed out in each one) the school board, city council, state assembly, and the county board of supervisors. He runs on a platform of "experience" every time. You could argue that when he terms out of a position, that opens it up for a newbie, but what actually happens is that he and a few other people just play musical chairs. At some point, they will term out of everything, get appointed to a state level positions or run for federal seats.
They are not beholden to their constituents at all, but to their parties' campaign machines. It's gross.
They are not beholden to their constituents at all, but to their parties' campaign machines. It's gross.
22
Great post. I think the American public realizes now how little influence they have over government, especially after the 2008 election cycle. Our whole system seems corrupted. It is no longer for the people, its for themselves.
23
I'm tearing my hair out about Repugnantkin filibustering as much as the nexy guy, but be very careful what you wish for. The cave people will be back in power before too long, there is little doubt about that, and when they are the filibuster is often the only means of preventing them from enacting their most odious initiatives (and perhaps more important - preventing them from installing their most odious fundamentalist thugs on the Supreme Court).
24
NO. It's been tried. The disastrous result is called "California." Half of the problem is Prop 13, and the other half is term limits, which (I'm sorry to say) I voted for. It is a horrible idea and breeds the sort of institutional ineptitude that allows special interests virtually unfettered ability to retain their institutional memory and roll the new guys into doing their bidding.
25
@9 - there's a strong argument to be made that the filibuster is unconstitutional - if you define that term as meaning "at odds with the constitution."
When the party with filibuster power uses it for everything, and not just in extreme circumstances, every vote then requires a super-majority, whereas the constitution specifies a super-majority only for a narrow list of circumstances.
The Republicans considered it unconstitutional in 2005. I bet they'd change their tune if you asked them now, though.
When the party with filibuster power uses it for everything, and not just in extreme circumstances, every vote then requires a super-majority, whereas the constitution specifies a super-majority only for a narrow list of circumstances.
The Republicans considered it unconstitutional in 2005. I bet they'd change their tune if you asked them now, though.
26
I'm not burned out on politics. But our presidential races are so long and so ill reported that it left a huge vacuum in the news when it was finally over. First we were blanketed with "horse race" election reporting for over a year, gradually pushing aside almost every other topic. Then it seemed to take too long for real subjects to move back into the news; journalists seemed to want to take the summer off and who could blame them. Another serious disconnect was all those months in which voters (and journalists) didn't know what direction to turn our energies. Forced inaction between Obama's election and Obama's swearing in, and then between Obama's swearing in and the establishment of his real working administration. Where were the go-to people during that time; no one even knew if there were any.
Regarding MA, @13 has described that disconnect perfectly.
Regarding MA, @13 has described that disconnect perfectly.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (26) RSS