Term Limits
Patrick J. McGuinness
FYI on another Contract with America item ... From John Ashcroft:
Greetings. I wanted to take a moment to make you aware of an exciting
experiment in on-line democracy taking place in the days and weeks ahead.
As you may know, the United States Senate is preparing to take up Senate
Joint Resolution 21, a constitutional amendment to limit congressional
terms. The debate will begin on Monday, April 22 and continue through
Wednesday, April 24.
On April 10, I am announcing the first ever on-line petition drive for
an issue before the Congress as a means by which to illustrate support for
limited terms. In addition, I am also launching the first issue-specific
U.S. Senate home page (http://www.senate.gov/~ashcroft/termlimits). The
latter will provide intrested parties with access to information relevant
to the vote, including tallies of congressional support and daily updates
on the initiative.
Help me make this ground breaking experiment in on-line democracy a
success. Please contact your friends, your family, your coworkers and tell
them to send an e-mail to TERML...@jashcroft.senate.gov. Thanks in
advance for all of your help.
Sincerely,
John Ashcroft
U.S. Senate
TERML...@jashcroft.senate.gov
--
Observe -> Understand -> Direct -> Act
^_______________________________/
FizzTwo
According to the Christian Coalition there were 2 dozen Congressmen
who voted in favor of every single issue important to the Christian
Coalition EXCEPT for Roll Call Vote 277 (Term Limits). Of these
basically far-right congressmen there was one so-called Democrat,
Montgomery of Mississippi.
The rest of them are Republican extremists, ALL SUPPORTERS OF THE
CONTRACT WITH AMERICA, many of whom are not only extreme in their politics
but also extreme in their closeness to... Newt Gingrich. The list of
shame:
Salmon (AZ), Dreier (CA), Lewis (CA), Hunter (CA), Hyde (IL), Myers (IN),
Roberts (KS), Rogers (KY), Livingston (LA), Baker (LA), Wicker (MS),
Christensen (NE), Skeen (NM), Molinari (NY), McHugh (NY), Oxley (OH),
Quillen (TN), Barton (TX), Archer (TX-- one of the Speakers closest
allies in the House), Delay (TX), Bliley (VA), Petri (WI) and
Sensenbrenner (WI).
These are the folks that provided the margin of defeat for the bill!
-------------------------------
Term Limits was rejected 227 (for) to 204 (opposed). The 2 dozen
right-wing votes against it would have made it a winner. Do you think
Newt said anything to Delay or Archer about this? I can't imagine
these guys would oppose him if it were really, really, really important.
Do you?
I don't. I think Newt was behind the whole charade. They support term
limits when the Democrats are in the majority. These guys are a bunch of
cynical hypocrites. What happened to their initiatives regarding campaign
finance laws? There has NEVER been as much corruption and sucking
up to lobbyists and speial interests as there is now. No campaign finance
bill with teeth will ever pass while the Republicans are in control.
Just look who they put in charge of party fund raising-- the sleaziest and
most corrupt man on The Hill, the senator from the Mafia, Alfonse D'Amato
(who also happens to be the head of the Finance
Committee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Don't be taken in. The Republicans don't
care about term limits and they don't care about campaign finance.
They care about lining their own pockets and serving the interests of
the wealthiest segment of the population-- the owners of the media and
the fat-cat contributors to their cynical campaigns.
Tom Horsley
worth sharing with the net as well:
On the off chance that having announced this mailing address you will actually
pay attention to the mail you get, I would like to point out that term limits
are merely a desperate grab by people who imagine that they might provide
good government, and what people really want is government that works well,
they hope term limits might do that. I have no such hope about term limits,
but I do know how to get government that works well. If you really want to
do something meaningful for the country, check out my web pages at:
<URL:http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/TomHorsley>
Just to give you a short introduction to the ideas there, consider the recent
governor's conference on education. The conclusion seemed to be that if you
let kids know they are going to be held to high standards, they will rise
to meet those standards (even if they grumble about how hard school is) and
if you let them know you expect them to fail, they will have no difficulty
failing. So the governors now want to introduce performance standards and
performance measurements throughout schools in this country.
I congratulate the governors on arriving at the obvious after so many years
of leaping from one education fad to another, but somehow everyone seems to
have missed the larger lesson here. Performance measurements and standards
are the *only* thing which consistently makes *any* enterprise perform well.
The same kind of philosophy the governors want to apply to schools should
be applied throughout all of government. My web pages explain exactly how
that is possible.
For too long everyone has expected the government to fail, and it has had
no difficulty meeting that expectation.
--
--
Tom.H...@mail.hcsc.com
Work: Harris Computers, 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. Ft. Lauderdale FL 33309
The 2 most important political web sites: http://www.vote-smart.org (Project
Vote Smart), and http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/TomHorsley (Me!)
Zepp
p...@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) wrote:
>
>FYI on another Contract with America item ... From John Ashcroft:
Senate
> Joint Resolution 21, a constitutional amendment to limit
congressional
> terms. The debate will begin on Monday, April 22 and continue
through
> Wednesday, April 24.
It sure won't get my support. I don't want some idiot bureaucrat telling
me I can't vote for my representative just because he's been there for a
few years and knows what the hell he's doing. If you don't like your
Congressman, vote him out. If you don't like my Congressman, go to hell.
It's -my- perogative as to whether he gets another term or not.
(Actually, my Congressman is an incompetant and lying jerk. But I still
oppose term limits)
> TERML...@jashcroft.senate.gov
>
Be sure to send YOUR vote AGAINST term limits. If you like your
representative, you want to keep the right to vote for him.
***************************************************************************
"If atheism is a religion, then 'barefoot' is a type of shoe"
--Brad Macdonald
"We are statists so our grandchildren can afford to be libertarians"
--Unknown
***************************************************************************
David Lloyd-Jones
> These guys are a bunch of
>cynical hypocrites. What happened to their initiatives regarding campaign
>finance laws? There has NEVER been as much corruption and sucking
>up to lobbyists and speial interests as there is now. No campaign finance
>bill with teeth will ever pass while the Republicans are in control.
If anything FizzTwo understates the case against Newtie and his gang.
On top of everything else, they are incompetent: only _one_ part of
the Contract With America has passed into law, the bill which applies
the general run of US law to the Congress itself.
This is Democratic legislation which was filibustered into extinction
by Bob Dole in the previous Congress.
Apart from this one Democratic proposal, the Republicans have not
passed _any_ of their own promises.
-dlj.
Terry Hallinan
>I don't want some idiot bureaucrat telling me I can't vote for my
>representative just because he's been there for a few years and
>knows what the hell he's doing. If you don't like your Congressman,
>vote him out. If you don't like my Congressman, go to hell.
>It's -my- perogative as to whether he gets another term or not.
Oh, really?
Unless you are very, very wealthy and willing to share, it is unlikely
you have much say at all. Politicians are mainly beholden to those
who pay the bills and voters are the ones to be manipulated. And
those seeking favors must naturally show their gratitude to the
incumbents first.
Your dreams of power are rather silly, Zepp.
Best, Terry
"Positive - Being wrong at the top of one's lungs"
-The Devil's Dictionary
Dan Babcock
>fiz...@aol.com (FizzTwo) wrote:
>
>> These guys are a bunch of
>>cynical hypocrites. What happened to their initiatives regarding campaign
>>finance laws? There has NEVER been as much corruption and sucking
>>up to lobbyists and speial interests as there is now. No campaign finance
>>bill with teeth will ever pass while the Republicans are in control.
Well, of course there's more corruption. Government is bigger and more
powerful than ever. If you really want to reduce corruption, rather than
just bluster about it, work to reduce government.
All the previous compaign finance "reforms" have protected incumbants,
censored political speach, and invaded privacy. What makes you think the
next set will be any better?
>On top of everything else, they are incompetent: only _one_ part of
>the Contract With America has passed into law, the bill which applies
>the general run of US law to the Congress itself.
I've always thought it was idiotic to praise a congress to passing lots of
laws without any thought as to the content. Who cares if the laws are good?
Just "end gridlock" and "change people's lives" (another idiotic measure of
success).
>Apart from this one Democratic proposal, the Republicans have not
>passed _any_ of their own promises.
Omigosh, the dreaded "gridlock"! Clinton warned me about it. Notice how,
without the ability to make new laws, the country has fallen apart in just
a few short months? (That's sarcasm, kids).
--
Dan
"In addition, the system has 16-bit audio on-board, but it is not
Sound Blaster-compatible."
- PC Magazine on the Sun Ultra 1
T. Carr
>fiz...@aol.com (FizzTwo) wrote:
>
>> These guys are a bunch of
>>cynical hypocrites. What happened to their initiatives regarding campaign
>>finance laws? There has NEVER been as much corruption and sucking
>>up to lobbyists and speial interests as there is now. No campaign finance
>>bill with teeth will ever pass while the Republicans are in control.
>
>
>
>the Contract With America has passed into law, the bill which applies
>the general run of US law to the Congress itself.
>
>by Bob Dole in the previous Congress.
>
>passed _any_ of their own promises.
>
>
>
>
One last time.. The "contract with america" only promised to bring
to a vote those items on the contract. "Newtie" apparently understood
something that you do not, that the GOP could not unilaterally pass
laws without President Clinton's signature.
It will be interesting if the electorate remembers the votes on the
"contract with america" or President Clintons vetoes.
T. Carr
FizzTwo
>One last time.. The "contract with america" only promised to bring
>to a vote those items on the contract. "Newtie" apparently understood
>something that you do not, that the GOP could not unilaterally pass
>laws without President Clinton's signature.
Oh, sorry. I get it now. The people who voted in all these right-wing
lunatics were only promised this stuff would be brought up, not that it
would be passed? I understand. And are you saying Gingrich and his buds in
the GOP leadership sabotaged the vote on Roll Call 277 because they knew
Clinton would have vetoed it anyway? (Still it does seem a little
strange that the EXACT number of votes between passing it and killing
it came from right-wing congressmen totally in bed with Gingrich-- guys
like Delay, Archer and Christensen-- who you'd think would be in favor of
term limits.) Politics are so... arcane, when lying machiavellian
rightists are in power.
Just a little reminder:
Damion Schubert
>
> One last time.. The "contract with america" only promised to bring
> to a vote those items on the contract. "Newtie" apparently understood
> something that you do not, that the GOP could not unilaterally pass
> laws without President Clinton's signature.
>
> "contract with america" or President Clintons vetoes.
Or better yet, will they remember the House votes on the contract with
america, or if it will remember the fact that most of these proposals
died or never came up in the Senate, led by one Bob Dole, theoretical
GOP candidate for prez? Bill Clinton can claim that his opposition to
the contract comes from his political views. What's Dole's excuse?
------
c...@cyberramp.net
"As we move towards Endgame, consider this. We live in a
country that has never madea movie about Leonardo da Vinci,
and has produced three about Joey Buttafuoco." - Pete Hamill
Damion Schubert
wrote:
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote [in part]:
>>I don't want some idiot bureaucrat telling me I can't vote for my
>>representative just because he's been there for a few years and
>>knows what the hell he's doing. If you don't like your Congressman,
>>vote him out. If you don't like my Congressman, go to hell.
>>It's -my- perogative as to whether he gets another term or not.
>Unless you are very, very wealthy and willing to share, it is unlikely
>you have much say at all. Politicians are mainly beholden to those
>who pay the bills and voters are the ones to be manipulated. And
>those seeking favors must naturally show their gratitude to the
>incumbents first.
And you have some proof that freshmen politicians are somehow immune
from this bug? I give you as an example the 104th's congress freshmen
GOP conginent, who all approve of term limits, presumably figuring
they can make a fast buck before they get kicked out instead of having
years to accumulate it.
If the problem is campaign finance, fix campaign financing. Term
limits is not going to solve the problem, and it removes from me the
right to vote for a politician that may actually be doing a good job.
--damion
Frank Warner
>If the problem is campaign finance, fix campaign financing. Term
>limits is not going to solve the problem, and it removes from me the
>right to vote for a politician that may actually be doing a good job.
Damion,
A politician who may be doing a good job? Name one.
Face it, they're all fakes as long as they're career politicians.
They can't imagine themselves doing honest work, so they panic, taking
anyone's bribes and spending anyone's money to make sure they stay in
office.
The result: Corruption on top of corruption, and a $5,000,000,000,000
national debt and growing bigger.
We can't fix campaign finance because it is they who have to fix it,
and every time they pass a "reform" law they leave a tiny loophole in
a 1,000-page law that none of us is allowed to read, and in 10 or 15
years that loophole becomes the rule. The example: political action
committees.
A politician who may actually be doing a good job. Who? Congress
hasn't done anything creative and helpful in more than 20 years.
Members of Congress have been getting reelected not by intelligent,
honest policy making, but by saying yes to any spending and yes to any
subsidy thrown their way.
The Republicans have sold out to big business and can't even stick to
some of the wiser spending cuts they had promised.
The Democrats haven't done anything that might be labeled
intelligently liberal. Forty years in power, and they actually
lowered tax rates on the rich in that time, never banned handguns,
never banned the death penalty and didn't even have the courage to
legalize abortion.
So where's the competent, clean, courageous member of Congress out
there who couldn't be replaced by someone at least equally competent,
clean and courageous?
And how can anyone better than these corrupt cowards get elected when
their voices are drowned out in a flood of dirty money?
The only solution is term limits. And even though 70 percent of
Americans want term limits, we've got an uphill battle against the
personality worshippers who can't comprehend the egalitarian notion
that someone else really might do a good job.
Frank Damian Warner
Damion Schubert
Warner) wrote:
>c...@cyberramp.net (Damion Schubert) wrote:
>>If the problem is campaign finance, fix campaign financing. Term
>>limits is not going to solve the problem, and it removes from me the
>>right to vote for a politician that may actually be doing a good job.
>A politician who may be doing a good job? Name one.
>
>Face it, they're all fakes as long as they're career politicians.
>They can't imagine themselves doing honest work, so they panic, taking
>anyone's bribes and spending anyone's money to make sure they stay in
>office.
I can name several good politicians. Lloyd Doggett (U.S. Rep) and Dan
Morales (state attorney general), both from Texas, to name two. There
are (gasp!) even GOP members who I believe aren't backstabbing
betrayers of their constituents and the American dream (even though I
hate their views).
Now given that you yourself have pointed out that these men are rare
and far between, do you really want them kicked automatiically out of
office? Remember, the odds are in the favor of a sleazy scuzball
coming in to replace them.
My problem with this argument is that it will not really change
anything. Despite your argument to the contrary, ex-politicians never
end up as normal citizens again. They end up as lobbyists. Do you
really want to hurry the process of transforming politicians to
lobbyiists? I think that it will only create a new form of piranha -
one which will try even harder to cater to special interests, to
ensure that he has a cushy job when he gets out.
Tack onto this the importance of experience. Example: Bill Clinton
made a lot of promises that he couldn't keep when running for
election. In '94, the GOP freshmen did the same thing. Neither knew
the rules of the game or the real extent of their power and influence
until they were in office, actually looking at what needed to be done.
Do you want a government with less experience and more lobbyists?
Didn't think so.
News flash: Representative McLaughlin became the first incumbent GOP
house member to lose his bid for re-election. Granted, most GOPs are
scuzballs, but this guy was a democrat for 10 years before having a
miraculous change of heart (immediately after the '94 elections, oddly
enough), and flopping over to the GOP - just after winning re-election
as a democrat. He lost despite having heavy declared support from
Newt GIngrich and Phil Gramm, both of whom are idols in conservative
Texas country. See? Sometimes, the voters *can* see opportunistic
sleazeballs and kick them out on their own.
John Yeardley
Now, on to my diatribe.....
Yeah, yeah, yeah, the logic of "if we're gonna get another one just like
this one, why change?" has got to be THE MOST ANNOYING DEFENSE OF THE
STATUS QUO.
By that logic, you're saying regardless of affiliation, the way things
are is OK. Ergo, a Repub Congress is just fine with you, given that
all pols are sleazeballs. A persuasive argument, indeed, for keeping the
Congress conservative.
Now, on to another thought.
You libs have no sense at all. If for one minute you would think of a
different way of doing things, maybe, JUST MAYBE, you would win. You
are, however, hell-bent on doing things as those great citizens LBJ,
Carter, and that inbred currently in the White House are doing them.
The era of big gummint is over. Time to get out of the past and live
with today's realities. We've spent and spent and SPENT ourselves under
the table on social programs. Howzabout focusing more on personal
responsibility, and less on equal outcomes?
John Y.
The Founding Fathers were right. To be a democrat is to call for mob
rule.
Patrick J. McGuinness
>
> On Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:35:07 GMT, waki...@postoffice.ptd.net (Frank
> Warner) wrote:
> >Face it, they're all fakes as long as they're career politicians.
> >They can't imagine themselves doing honest work, so they panic, taking
> >anyone's bribes and spending anyone's money to make sure they stay in
> >office.
>
> I can name several good politicians. Lloyd Doggett (U.S. Rep)
Gack. Career politician Liberal Lloyd Doggett has been a
partisan attack-dog for the Democratic House leadership, one of
their pet pit bulls they use when they want to demagogue an issue.
He is one of the biggest spenders Texas has sent up
(calculated by NTU's Vote Tally).
> and Dan
> Morales (state attorney general), both from Texas, to name two. There
> are (gasp!) even GOP members who I believe aren't backstabbing
> betrayers of their constituents and the American dream (even though I
> hate their views).
Lloyd Doggett is indeed a backstabbing betrayer of his constituents.
He is in the pocket of the same trial lawyers who funded his
Texas Supreme Court runs, and is the main reason why he is a point man
against tort reform.
He feels he is in a safe seat, so he doesn't deign to actually
worry about what his constituents think as opposed to his own
strident ideology.
> Now given that you yourself have pointed out that these men are rare
> and far between, do you really want them kicked automatiically out of
> office?
The likes of smarmy left-wing lawyer-politicians like Lloyd Doggett
are anything but rare. If anything, there are too many of these arrogant
lawyer-types like him in Congress, who think they can make up all
the rules because they think the people are too stupid to be trusted.
> Remember, the odds are in the favor of a sleazy scuzball
> coming in to replace them.
Lloyd Doggett has told enough lies in the well of the House.
His quota is up already (yeah, quite rare for a Freshman, but Lloyd
has a big mouch and like to hear himself talk).
If defeated for re-election, a black businesswoman would replace him.
Now THAT'S a perspective that is truly underrepresented in Congress.
> My problem with this argument is that it will not really change
> anything. Despite your argument to the contrary, ex-politicians never
> end up as normal citizens again.
Ah, the Jimmy Carter effect.
> They end up as lobbyists. Do you
> really want to hurry the process of transforming politicians to
> lobbyiists? I think that it will only create a new form of piranha -
Lloyd Doggett is a piranha.
In this session of Congress he voted for $42 billion in extra
spending, opposed every spending cut proposal, opposed the Balanced
Budget Amendment, demagogued heartlessly on Medicare reform, etc.,
all to support his agenda of bigger Government and more spending.
As a lobbyist, I doubt Doggett could gouge that much out of the
American taxpayer. I think it is better to reel this piranha in.
> News flash: Representative McLaughlin became the first incumbent GOP
> house member to lose his bid for re-election. Granted, most GOPs are
> ...
> See? Sometimes, the voters *can* see opportunistic
> sleazeballs and kick them out on their own.
That's Laughlin ... They voted for the more conservative candidate.
As for opportunistic sleazeballs like Lloyd Doggett - they will
always be in politics.
John McMullen
Lloyd-Jones)Sun, 14 Apr 1996 04:33:14 GMT writes:
=
=
=
=If anything FizzTwo understates the case against Newtie and his gang.
=
=On top of everything else, they are incompetent: only _one_ part of
=the Contract With America has passed into law, the bill which applies
=the general run of US law to the Congress itself.
=
=This is Democratic legislation which was filibustered into extinction
=by Bob Dole in the previous Congress.
=
=Apart from this one Democratic proposal, the Republicans have not
=passed _any_ of their own promises.
=
= -dlj.
=
Errr, you forgot one big fact about the CWA: It *NEVER* promised to
pass the items. It promised to bring them up for a vote. Nothing
more, nothing less.
John McMullen
jmcm...@mcmullen.org
Visit My WEB Page @ http://www.intergate.net/uhtml/jmcmulln.html
Bill & Hillary Clinton: It's hard to believe that out of all the
million's
of sperm available when they were conceived, their's was the fastest.
Frank Warner
What courageous actions have Lloyd Dogget and your other heroes taken?
Have they ever taken an action that genuinely endangered their
reelection?
The fact is, more than 90 percent of the incumbents who run get
reelected not because they're coming up with good ideas for the
nation. Heck, they've given us a $5,000,000,000,000 debt, endangering
the nation's ability to do anything important in the next couple of
generations. It's easy for panderers to run up a debt. Say yes to
everybody, and declare yourself a hero.
And if the Democrat Clinton and the freshmen Republicans didn't
succeed in enacting a balanced budget plan, did anyone with more
experience do better? Have incumbents done any better in the last 27
years?
Incumbents get reelected because they've sold us out for their own
personal gain and drown out their opponents with dirty money. The
devil we know wins over the better candidate we never get to meet.
And if, after a 12-year term limit, we need to prohibit elected
officials from becoming lobbyists, let's prohibit that. It would be a
lot easier to prohibit former office-holders from lobbying than to
close the endless loopholes in campaign laws.
The fact is, we don't need any of the incumbents in Congress,
Republican or Democrat. The fact is, there really are people who can
do good.
Some Americans love to worship personalities. Some Americans would
rather have a better America.
Frank Warner
Zepp
d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>fiz...@aol.com (FizzTwo) wrote:
>
>> These guys are a bunch of
>>cynical hypocrites. What happened to their initiatives regarding
campaign
>>finance laws? There has NEVER been as much corruption and sucking
>>up to lobbyists and speial interests as there is now. No campaign
finance
>>bill with teeth will ever pass while the Republicans are in control.
>
>
>
>
>
>
never imagined that they would have control of Congress -- let alone with
a DEMOCRAT as President. So they passed it after just 18 months, despite
a clear majority and support from hilarity-stricken democrats who passed
on their common sense in order to stick it to the 'Pubs.
> -dlj.
Zepp
hall...@borg.com (Terry Hallinan) wrote:
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote [in part]:
>>I don't want some idiot bureaucrat telling me I can't vote for my
>>representative just because he's been there for a few years and
>>knows what the hell he's doing. If you don't like your Congressman,
>>vote him out. If you don't like my Congressman, go to hell.
>>It's -my- perogative as to whether he gets another term or not.
>
>
>Unless you are very, very wealthy and willing to share, it is unlikely
>you have much say at all. Politicians are mainly beholden to those
>who pay the bills and voters are the ones to be manipulated. And
>those seeking favors must naturally show their gratitude to the
>incumbents first.
>
>
Danny & Norma
>
> In article <4kmk25$9...@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
> p...@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) wrote:
> >
> >FYI on another Contract with America item ... From John Ashcroft:
>
> > As you may know, the United States Senate is preparing to take up
> Senate
> > Joint Resolution 21, a constitutional amendment to limit
> congressional
> > terms. The debate will begin on Monday, April 22 and continue
> through
> > Wednesday, April 24.
>
> me I can't vote for my representative just because he's been there for a
> few years and knows what the hell he's doing.
Do you want some idiot bureaucrat telling you can't vote for your
representative because he is too young? Because he was born in a foreign
country? Because he didn't collect enough signatures? There are many
limitations for who you can vote for, decided by our founding
fathers. Do you think these limits are idiotic?
A few years? 12 years limit in the house + 12 years limit in the senate = 24
years. This is much more than a few years.
> If you don't like your
> Congressman, vote him out.
In an ideal world this would work. Unfortunately 90%+ of the candidates
that win an election are the candidates that spend the most money. This
means that many congressman spend a lot of their time fund raising. I
recall from a news show that candidates spend 20% of their entire term
doing fund raising. Wouldn't it be nice if they spent 20% of their time
doing something else besides prostituting themselves?
The candidate that wins is usually the candidate with the most name
recognition. Does this make sense? Our system of electing representatives is
horrible considering alternative options. And our representatives our not going
to change it, if it works for them. Who wants to give up a 130K a year job with
lots of perks, no boss, and a nice retirement plan?
> It's -my- perogative as to whether he gets another term or not.
Not really. Its $$$$$$$$$$$$$ and name recognition that makes up the
prerogative. The cards are stacked against anyone who wants to appose an
incumbent. The chance that an incumbent will loose an election is
slight. Do you think that the challengers are that bad?
> (Actually, my Congressman is an incompetant and lying jerk. But I still
> oppose term limits)
>
> > TERML...@jashcroft.senate.gov
> >
Be sure to send YOUR vote FOR term limits. If you are dissatisfied
with our government then term limits will go a long ways towards fixing
the wide and many injustices of our federal government.
- Danny
Bill Mechlenburg
>
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote [in part]:
>>I don't want some idiot bureaucrat telling me I can't vote for my
>>representative just because he's been there for a few years and
>>knows what the hell he's doing. If you don't like your Congressman,
>>vote him out. If you don't like my Congressman, go to hell.
>>It's -my- perogative as to whether he gets another term or not.
>
>Oh, really?
>
>Unless you are very, very wealthy and willing to share, it is unlikely
>you have much say at all. Politicians are mainly beholden to those
>who pay the bills and voters are the ones to be manipulated. And
>those seeking favors must naturally show their gratitude to the
>incumbents first.
>
>Your dreams of power are rather silly, Zepp.
>
>
>Best, Terry
>
>"Positive - Being wrong at the top of one's lungs"
> -The Devil's Dictionary
>
Despite the greatest turn over in decades the reelection rate for
incumbents in the past election was 90% and the Republican party
attained a majority position for the first time in forty years.
Over the years, congress has gradually warped the system so in favor of
incumbents that they have destroyed the democratic process and the
intent of the founders to have citizen legislatures. Prior to this
century the majority of congressman were citizen legislatures who
served one or two terms and went back to their districts and
professions.
The reelection advantage of incumbents is so strong that in many
districts they are able to run unopposed by any viable challenger
because the odds and expense of mounting a successful challenge are too
daunting.
Here are just a few of the advantages of incumbency;
1. The franking privilege provides approximately $160,000 per
congressman for mailing what is essentially campaign propaganda at tax
payer expense. And in addition it is selectively and professionally
targeted via the use of a government provided computer system.
2. 85% of PAC contributions go to incumbents providing an additional
massive war chest of money for election propaganda.
3. Congressmen are provided with free video and audio studios to
prepare campaign propaganda that would cost challengers many thousands
of dollars to attempt to match.
4. Name recognition and easy access to the media further oil the
propaganda machine.
5. The legislative procedures are so structured as to permit
congressmen to be listed as sponsors of legislation they have no
intention of getting passed - so their public position can be one thing
and their support for positions to satisfy their PAC contributors can
be another. Because of the system is structured to facilitate
obfuscation, there is not one person in one hundred that REALLY KNOWS
what his representative is actually doing. Congress has tries to put
in jail those who lie to it but have no laws threatening jail for
congressmen lying to their constituents! There are stringent laws and
regulations against false or misleading advertising but they don't
apply to congress! This is why the majority of the people
believe that CONGRESS is CORRUPT but that THEIR congressman is ok.
6. They have a large high pay, tax payer paid staff that is devoted to
working for the reelection of their boss.
For all these reasons and more, incumbents are pretty well assured of
reelection unless they are caught beating up children and little old
ladies. This gives unreasonable and unintended power to incumbents
and power corrupts. It also creates professional politicians who are
more interested in maintaining their power and perks than in the
welfare of the country. This is not what the founders of this great
country intended.
How can the opposers of term limits claim that term limits are
undemocratic when poll after poll has shown that over 70% of the
population is in favor of term limits and term limit opposition is
largely by professional politicians, government bureaucrats and their
clients?
The only solution is to create a citizen legislature by having them
serve two terms the same as the president and then go home to live
under the laws and regulations they helped created.
Bill Mechlenburg
Terry Hallinan
>On Sun, 14 Apr 1996 07:17:41 GMT, hall...@borg.com (Terry Hallinan)
>wrote:
>>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote [in part]:
>>>I don't want some idiot bureaucrat telling me I can't vote for my
>>>representative just because he's been there for a few years and
>>>knows what the hell he's doing. If you don't like your Congressman,
>>>vote him out. If you don't like my Congressman, go to hell.
>>>It's -my- perogative as to whether he gets another term or not.
>>Unless you are very, very wealthy and willing to share, it is unlikely
>>you have much say at all. Politicians are mainly beholden to those
>>who pay the bills and voters are the ones to be manipulated. And
>>those seeking favors must naturally show their gratitude to the
>>incumbents first.
>And you have some proof that freshmen politicians are somehow immune
>from this bug? I give you as an example the 104th's congress freshmen
>GOP conginent, who all approve of term limits, presumably figuring
>they can make a fast buck before they get kicked out instead of having
>years to accumulate it.
>If the problem is campaign finance, fix campaign financing. Term
>limits is not going to solve the problem, and it removes from me the
>right to vote for a politician that may actually be doing a good job.
I am all for public financing of campaigns much as they do in England
with all private financing out. Providing free television time for
those who accept the rules might overcome constitutional objectives.
But nothing will happen until representatives become less secure than
members of the House of Lords.
As for freshmen being equally corrupt it takes a while to get the hang
of things and to become appropriately cynical.
But you really did not address the challenge to the incumbent from an
outsider which is the main point.
Terry Hallinan
>A politician who may be doing a good job? Name one.
Damn, you ask tough questions.
Give me a few weeks. Maybe I can think of one.
Terry Hallinan
-
>You libs have no sense at all. If for one minute you would think of a
>different way of doing things, maybe, JUST MAYBE, you would win. You
>are, however, hell-bent on doing things as those great citizens LBJ,
>Carter, and that inbred currently in the White House are doing them.
You call those guys liberals. LOL!
Those are conservatives, genius. They came from the right wing.
You can tell right from left can't you? So did John F. Kennedy and
Harry Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt. I bet you were a whiz at
history. Not much on dictionary either. Look up conservative
sometime. Then look up reactionary and consider Reagan. I am sure
you will figure things out with a little time.
>The era of big gummint is over. Time to get out of the past and live
>with today's realities. We've spent and spent and SPENT ourselves under
>the table on social programs. Howzabout focusing more on personal
>responsibility, and less on equal outcomes?
>John Y.
>The Founding Fathers were right. To be a democrat is to call for mob
>rule.
Best, Terry
tehuti
>
> Unless you are very, very wealthy and willing to share, it is unlikely
> you have much say at all. Politicians are mainly beholden to those
> who pay the bills and voters are the ones to be manipulated. And
> those seeking favors must naturally show their gratitude to the
> incumbents first.
>
>
Term limits will make them far more beholden, not less.
At least now a politican doesn't necessarily face the
prospect of having to beg for a job after one or two
terms from the businesses he's dealing with while in office.
The only other alternative is that the politican is
already rich or owns his own business which he will
soon go back to, I guess that guarantees an unbiased,
objective, public spirited interest in all matters of
policy.
Doug MacIntyre
|> Now given that you yourself have pointed out that these men are rare
|> and far between, do you really want them kicked automatiically out of
|> office? Remember, the odds are in the favor of a sleazy scuzball
|> coming in to replace them.
If good men in office are few and far between, and the odds are that
a new officeholder will be a sleazy scuzball, how would that make things
any worse than they are today? I mean, you're saying that most of the
people in office now are sleazy scuzballs.
|> My problem with this argument is that it will not really change
|> anything. Despite your argument to the contrary, ex-politicians never
|> end up as normal citizens again. They end up as lobbyists. Do you
|> really want to hurry the process of transforming politicians to
|> lobbyiists? I think that it will only create a new form of piranha -
|> one which will try even harder to cater to special interests, to
|> ensure that he has a cushy job when he gets out.
But lobbyists are less likely to exert influence on one who knows
they have a limited term in office. In fact, the primary means by
which lobbyists influence candidates is by means of campaign contributions.
Such contributions take on far less importance when the candidate
knows they cannot make a life long career out of their post.
|> Tack onto this the importance of experience. Example: Bill Clinton
|> made a lot of promises that he couldn't keep when running for
|> election. In '94, the GOP freshmen did the same thing. Neither knew
|> the rules of the game or the real extent of their power and influence
|> until they were in office, actually looking at what needed to be done.
Aren't the complexity of the rules of the game the result of those
who have made them so so as to entrench themselves? It's a self-fulfilling
motivation and campaign slogan: "Vote for me, I'm an incumbent who
knows the rules better than the other guy because I had a hand in making
them so horribly complex".
|> Do you want a government with less experience and more lobbyists?
|> Didn't think so.
I want more real-world experience and less "procedural" experience.
Doug
FizzTwo
*Errr, you forgot one big fact about the CWA: It *NEVER* promised to
*pass the items. It promised to bring them up for a vote. Nothing
*more, nothing less.
I see, the Repugs just said they would bring it up and no one should care
that it was Gingrich's allies in the House that voted against it,
providing the EXACT margin of defeat for Roll Call 277? I wonder if they
plan to run on that piece of their record. A little reminder:
>According to the Christian Coalition there were 2 dozen Congressmen >who
>voted in favor of every single issue important to the Christian Coalition
>EXCEPT for Roll Call Vote 277 (Term Limits). Of these basically
>far-right
>congressmen there was one so-called Democrat, Montgomery of >Mississippi.
>The rest of them are Republican extremists, ALL SUPPORTERS OF THE
>CONTRACT
>WITH AMERICA, many of whom are not only extreme in their politics but
>also
>extreme in their closeness to... Newt Gingrich. The list of shame:
>Salmon (AZ), Dreier (CA), Lewis (CA), Hunter (CA), Hyde (IL), Myers (IN),
>Roberts (KS), Rogers (KY), Livingston (LA), Baker (LA), Wicker (MS),
>Christensen (NE), Skeen (NM), Molinari (NY), McHugh (NY), Oxley (OH),
>Quillen (TN), Barton (TX), Archer (TX-- one of the Speakers closest
>allies
>in the House), Delay (TX), Bliley (VA), Petri (WI) and Sensenbrenner
>(WI).
>These are the folks that provided the margin of defeat for the bill!
>>Term Limits was rejected 227 (for) to 204 (opposed). The 2 dozen
Zepp
c...@cyberramp.net (Damion Schubert) wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Apr 1996 07:17:41 GMT, hall...@borg.com (Terry Hallinan)
>>Unless you are very, very wealthy and willing to share, it is unlikely
>>you have much say at all. Politicians are mainly beholden to those
>>who pay the bills and voters are the ones to be manipulated. And
>>those seeking favors must naturally show their gratitude to the
>>incumbents first.
>
>And you have some proof that freshmen politicians are somehow immune
>from this bug? I give you as an example the 104th's congress freshmen
>GOP conginent, who all approve of term limits, presumably figuring
>they can make a fast buck before they get kicked out instead of having
>years to accumulate it.
>
>If the problem is campaign finance, fix campaign financing. Term
>limits is not going to solve the problem, and it removes from me the
>right to vote for a politician that may actually be doing a good job.
I've had some responses in my e-mail (where I never debate) that basically
amounted to this: the fat cats and special interests (the same ones that
don't influence the GOP) have all elections locked up because the voters
are little children who will always vote for the clown with the brightest
balloons. In a republic, you can't trust the people to vote right. But
putting the voting process on automatic pilot will fix all that, and make
the people free and independent. Imagine that.
***************************************************************************
If I'm ever put in a position of having to choose between betraying my
oath to the Constitution and pissing on the American flag, I hope I will
have the courage and honesty to piss on the flag.
***************************************************************************
David Lloyd-Jones
> d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>>
>>On top of everything else, they are incompetent: only _one_ part of
>>the Contract With America has passed into law, the bill which applies
>>the general run of US law to the Congress itself.
>>
>>This is Democratic legislation which was filibustered into extinction
>>by Bob Dole in the previous Congress.
>>
>>Apart from this one Democratic proposal, the Republicans have not
>>passed _any_ of their own promises.
>>
>Well, they -did- get LIV through, although when they pushed for that, they
>never imagined that they would have control of Congress -- let alone with
>a DEMOCRAT as President. So they passed it after just 18 months, despite
>a clear majority and support from hilarity-stricken democrats who passed
>on their common sense in order to stick it to the 'Pubs.
Did I miss something? My impression is the line item veto only passed
the House.
Since winning the California primary Dole has said he is in favor of
it, but I don't think they've found time for it yet. With Dole
something like 12% behind in the polls, I expect it to get lost in
commitee someplace.
A Democratic President using a line-item veto on a Democratic Congress
would be more fun than a four a.m. mark-up with Wilbur Mills drunk in
the Chair -- but don't bet any serious money on it standing up to a
Court challenge.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
>waki...@postoffice.ptd.net (Frank Warner) wrote:
>>A politician who may be doing a good job? Name one.
>Damn, you ask tough questions.
>Give me a few weeks. Maybe I can think of one.
Great line, but in fact I thought both Rostenkowski and Packwood were
both pretty good in finance. Hmmm, what ever happened to those two
guys?
-dlj.
Tom Horsley
>the House.
Yes, you did miss something. It passed both houses and was signed by the
President, but they re-wrote it so it doesn't take effect until after
the election and swearing in of the next president (this convinced
both repubs and dems to vote for it because they both think their guy
will be the next president :-).
--
--
Tom.H...@mail.hcsc.com
Work: Harris Computers, 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. Ft. Lauderdale FL 33309
The 2 most important political web sites: http://www.vote-smart.org (Project
Vote Smart), and http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/TomHorsley (Me!)
Frank Warner
courageous over the last 20 years will oppose term limits.
The egalitarians of America who want the corruption and cowardice
removed from government support term limits. That's 70 percent of
American voters.
The fact is, incumbents can drown out any opposition with their dirty
money. The devil we know almost always beats the good candidate we're
never allowed to hear.
But if you think the career politicians have done this nation well
with a Congress awash in bribes and a nation awash in
$5,000,000,000,000 debt (plus), continue worshipping your heroes and
oppose term limits.
Frank Warner
Terry Hallinan
>Terry Hallinan wrote:
>>
>> Unless you are very, very wealthy and willing to share, it is unlikely
>> you have much say at all. Politicians are mainly beholden to those
>> who pay the bills and voters are the ones to be manipulated. And
>> those seeking favors must naturally show their gratitude to the
>> incumbents first.
>Term limits will make them far more beholden, not less.
>At least now a politican doesn't necessarily face the
>prospect of having to beg for a job after one or two
>terms from the businesses he's dealing with while in office.
>The only other alternative is that the politican is
>already rich or owns his own business which he will
>soon go back to, I guess that guarantees an unbiased,
>objective, public spirited interest in all matters of
>policy.
Right now, today, an incumbent must raise cash contiuously throuth his
term of office. A challenger must usually have a source of funds even
greater than that of the incumbent because of a lack of the
perquisites of office. It is mostly the well-off who do indeed get
elected.
The only real solution is a method of financing campaigns other than
legalized bribery that we have now. But incumbency remains a
pernicious effect with a few exceptions such as a Proxmire, who
because of his stature could spend $200 or so on reelection.
Wayne Morse, for you other oldtimers was such a person and was one of
two members of the entire Congress to vote against the Vietnam War.
The other was Sen. Gruening of Alaska. Both had been unbeatable and
lost the next election because of their votes. In truth all forms of
government have their limitations.
I can name no other members than the two mentioned who could be
elected without funding. Even those who run unopposed raise funds to
scare off challengers. And for a nice retirement.
Patrick J. McGuinness
>d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>>On top of everything else, they are incompetent: only _one_ part of
>>the Contract With America has passed into law, the bill which applies
>>the general run of US law to the Congress itself.
This is simply untrue. Let us first leave aside the fact that, yes, parts
of the Contract that were passed by Congress - such as Welfare Reform,
the Balanced Budget Plan and Tort Reform - have been vetoed by Clinton.
Let us leave aside the fact that the Contract with America itself was a
promise only to bring items to a vote, not to make items law; the CofA was a set
of 10 planks that the House of Representatives ran on, and the House
did in fact vote on all 10 of their promised items and were even able to
pass 9 out of the 10 items in the House. This in itself is a genuine
accomplishment.
From the Contract, there are several items which have now made it into law,
signed by Clinton, already:
- Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
- Securities Litigation Reform, passed over Presidential veto
- Line Item Veto Act
- Congressional Accountability Law
Other items, such as national security issues, have been folded into
other bills. For example, "No U.S. troops under UN command" language
was put into the 1995 defense bill; Clinton vetoed it, and then a modified
version was sent to him which he signed. The "Taking Back our Streets Act"
was passed by the House and it will become part of a new crime bill, with some
parts falling into the "anti-terrorism" bill. Finally, I may be wrong about
this, but I recall reading about some action being taken recently on lifting
the earnings limit for seniors, which was the "Senior Citizens Equity"
plank of the Contract with America.
The items that were passed by Congress, but vetoed by Clinton:
- Welfare reform
- Family tax credit and "wage enhancement" tax reductions
- Product liability reform
In all three cases, Clinton had earlier signalled his support for the concepts
in the bills, but decided to veto the bills (undoubtalby for the political
reason of not wanting the Repbulicans to look good).
On these items, the Republicans may give Clinton another chance to sign,
but with Clinton having vetoed the GOP balanced budget plan, there really
is little hope for items such as tax relief which is wrapped up in the budget.
The other big items that have not become law are the Constitutional Amendments -
Balanced Budget Amendment and Term Limit Amendment - both of which failed
because too many Democrats opposed them in the House and Senate.
Give the Congress this much credit: They have put all their items
up for a vote; they got most of their items out of the House, and much
of it into bills that were sent to the President; the same President
who has complained about "gridlock" has vetoed some of the best bills they
sent him (e.g. welfare reform).
Damion Schubert
post, but here goes.
On 16 Apr 1996 12:08:57 GMT, maci...@tempman.hw.stratus.com (Doug
MacIntyre) wrote:
>In article <4kt5g6$b...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, c...@cyberramp.net (Damion Schubert) writes:
>|> Now given that you yourself have pointed out that these men are rare
>|> and far between, do you really want them kicked automatiically out of
>|> office? Remember, the odds are in the favor of a sleazy scuzball
>|> coming in to replace them.
>If good men in office are few and far between, and the odds are that
>a new officeholder will be a sleazy scuzball, how would that make things
>any worse than they are today? I mean, you're saying that most of the
>people in office now are sleazy scuzballs.
My point is that I don't see any evidence that suggests to me that
less of a sleazy scuzball will take office. Term limits will just
increase the rate of sleazy scuzball turnover.
The idea 'how will it make things worse?' is not a good enough reason
to change. The moral of the story is that, occasionally, you hit upon
a congressman that you feel is truly serving your district. I want
the ability to re-elect him.
>|> My problem with this argument is that it will not really change
>|> anything. Despite your argument to the contrary, ex-politicians never
>|> end up as normal citizens again. They end up as lobbyists. Do you
>|> really want to hurry the process of transforming politicians to
>|> lobbyiists? I think that it will only create a new form of piranha -
>|> one which will try even harder to cater to special interests, to
>|> ensure that he has a cushy job when he gets out.
>
>But lobbyists are less likely to exert influence on one who knows
>they have a limited term in office. In fact, the primary means by
>which lobbyists influence candidates is by means of campaign contributions.
>Such contributions take on far less importance when the candidate
>knows they cannot make a life long career out of their post.
That's not true, anymore. Lobbyists also cloy politicians for votes
with job offers once they leave office. Expect this practice to
increase dramatically if term limits are induced.
>|> Tack onto this the importance of experience. Example: Bill Clinton
>|> made a lot of promises that he couldn't keep when running for
>|> election. In '94, the GOP freshmen did the same thing. Neither knew
>|> the rules of the game or the real extent of their power and influence
>|> until they were in office, actually looking at what needed to be done.
>
>Aren't the complexity of the rules of the game the result of those
>who have made them so so as to entrench themselves? It's a self-fulfilling
>motivation and campaign slogan: "Vote for me, I'm an incumbent who
>knows the rules better than the other guy because I had a hand in making
>them so horribly complex".
All this may be true, but at the same time, knowing the rules of the
game is instrumental in getting stuff done. Clinton failed in
delivering his '92 promises for this reason, and the freshmen GOP
failed in '94 for the same reason.
Observing the high turnover in the last few years, I feel confident
that the voters are able to kick out the real sleaze buckets.
Granted, some sleaze-buckets such as Phil Gramm manage to build up
immense war chests, but both Forbes and Perot have taught us that a
lot of people are capable of seeing through money and voting on what's
important to them.
--damion
------
c...@cyberramp.net
"As we move towards Endgame, consider this. We live in a
country that has never made a movie about Leonardo da Vinci,
Damion Schubert
<p...@anegada.sps.mot.com> wrote:
>> I can name several good politicians. Lloyd Doggett (U.S. Rep)
>
>Gack. Career politician Liberal Lloyd Doggett has been a
>partisan attack-dog for the Democratic House leadership, one of
>their pet pit bulls they use when they want to demagogue an issue.
>He is one of the biggest spenders Texas has sent up
>(calculated by NTU's Vote Tally).
So you don't feel that Doggett does a good job. And that's fine.
Doggett's votes have been mostly on track with how I would have voted
on many issues (or were when he was first elected. I recently moved
out of district and don't see his scorecard as often), and the times
that he has spoken, he has been brave, even on occasion attacking his
own party's President.
So you don't like Doggett. That's fine. I, for one, hate Phil Gramm,
but I'm sure that there are people who believe that he is doing a good
job and voting precisely the way that they would. What right do I
have to tell them that they cannot vote for Gramm?
Damion Schubert
wrote:
>1. The franking privilege provides approximately $160,000 per
>congressman for mailing what is essentially campaign propaganda at tax
>payer expense. And in addition it is selectively and professionally
>targeted via the use of a government provided computer system.
So reform the franking system.
>2. 85% of PAC contributions go to incumbents providing an additional
>massive war chest of money for election propaganda.
So reform PAC contributions.
>3. Congressmen are provided with free video and audio studios to
>prepare campaign propaganda that would cost challengers many thousands
>of dollars to attempt to match.
So put some kind of limits on these, or guaruntee challengers access
to the same studio.
>4. Name recognition and easy access to the media further oil the
>propaganda machine.
Not much we can do about this legally without collapsing free press,
but there are some steps we can take, including putting more pressure
on our local medias to heavily show the policies of both candidates.
>5. The legislative procedures are so structured as to permit
>congressmen to be listed as sponsors of legislation they have no
>intention of getting passed - so their public position can be one thing
> and their support for positions to satisfy their PAC contributors can
>be another. Because of the system is structured to facilitate
>obfuscation, there is not one person in one hundred that REALLY KNOWS
>what his representative is actually doing. Congress has tries to put
>in jail those who lie to it but have no laws threatening jail for
>congressmen lying to their constituents! There are stringent laws and
>regulations against false or misleading advertising but they don't
>apply to congress! This is why the majority of the people
>believe that CONGRESS is CORRUPT but that THEIR congressman is ok.
So improve the sponsorship procedures.
>6. They have a large high pay, tax payer paid staff that is devoted to
>working for the reelection of their boss.
So pass legislation requiring congressmen to keep seperate staff for
day-to-day issues and for their reelection campaign (I thought this
was already in place).
Six problems that give incumbents advantages that can be solved or
largely dealt with without term limits. And what's more : term
limits won't keep the incumbent House members from using these six
advantages in the *five* re-election campaigns that they have.
You are trying to fix a broken leg with an arm cast.
>For all these reasons and more, incumbents are pretty well assured of
>reelection unless they are caught beating up children and little old
>ladies. This gives unreasonable and unintended power to incumbents
>and power corrupts. It also creates professional politicians who are
>more interested in maintaining their power and perks than in the
>welfare of the country. This is not what the founders of this great
>country intended.
Ah, yes. The "everyone in the country except for me and my close
circle of friends is a naive idiot who cannot help but pull the handle
for the guy with the most dough".
>How can the opposers of term limits claim that term limits are
>undemocratic when poll after poll has shown that over 70% of the
>population is in favor of term limits and term limit opposition is
>largely by professional politicians, government bureaucrats and their
>clients?
And yet, this same 70% of the population renominates and reelects
incumbent after incumbent. Could it be possible that these voters
actually prefer these candidates to their alternatives?
>The only solution is to create a citizen legislature by having them
>serve two terms the same as the president and then go home to live
>under the laws and regulations they helped created.
They don't become normal citizens again. They become lobbyists.
Danny & Norma
>
> (re-post):
>
> According to the Christian Coalition there were 2 dozen Congressmen
> who voted in favor of every single issue important to the Christian
> Coalition EXCEPT for Roll Call Vote 277 (Term Limits). Of these
> basically far-right congressmen there was one so-called Democrat,
> Montgomery of Mississippi.
> The rest of them are Republican extremists, ALL SUPPORTERS OF THE
> CONTRACT WITH AMERICA, many of whom are not only extreme in their politics
> but also extreme in their closeness to... Newt Gingrich. The list of
> shame:
>
> Salmon (AZ), Dreier (CA), Lewis (CA), Hunter (CA), Hyde (IL), Myers (IN),
> Roberts (KS), Rogers (KY), Livingston (LA), Baker (LA), Wicker (MS),
> Christensen (NE), Skeen (NM), Molinari (NY), McHugh (NY), Oxley (OH),
> Quillen (TN), Barton (TX), Archer (TX-- one of the Speakers closest
> allies in the House), Delay (TX), Bliley (VA), Petri (WI) and
> Sensenbrenner (WI).
> These are the folks that provided the margin of defeat for the bill!
According to Matt Salmon's newletter, he voted for several term limit
proposals, but he voted against the one that came closest to victory because it
was too weak. He objected to 12 years for Representatives, he wanted 6 years.
He also wanted a provision that if State laws where more restrictive then the
State law would take precedence. I know that some or most of the other
representatives voted against the measure for the same reasons.
While I don't agree with Matt Salmon's thinking, I do believe he is a sincere
proponent of term limits. He has promised to only serve 6 years in the house.
- Danny
Zepp
Danny & Norma <nc0...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>Do you want some idiot bureaucrat telling you can't vote for your
>representative because he is too young? Because he was born in a foreign
>country? Because he didn't collect enough signatures? There are many
>limitations for who you can vote for, decided by our founding
>fathers. Do you think these limits are idiotic?
Actually, I would support a Constitutional Amendment lowering the age you
can run at. If you're old enough to vote, you're old enough to serve.
Except for the Presidency itself, foreign-born citizens may hold public
office. Signature collecting is not that onorous if you run as an Indie
or have your own party. My district requires 100 signatures to get on the
ballot for congress. So to answer your question, some are idiotic, some
are reasonable. So, do you propose to "improve" the situation by adding a
REALLY idiotic restriction?
>
>A few years? 12 years limit in the house + 12 years limit in the senate
= 24
>years. This is much more than a few years.
>
Some of the term limit bills are for six years. The one you mention is
about the most lenient of the lot. Twelve years. In history, that means
that among other people we would never have heard of are John Q. Adams,
John Calhoun, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, Madison, Monroe, Barry
Goldwater, Gerald Ford, and of course, Newt and Bob Dole--all of whom
would have "termed out" before doing whatever it was that made them
notable.
>> If you don't like your
>> Congressman, vote him out.
>
>In an ideal world this would work. Unfortunately 90%+ of the candidates
>that win an election are the candidates that spend the most money. This
>means that many congressman spend a lot of their time fund raising. I
>recall from a news show that candidates spend 20% of their entire term
>doing fund raising. Wouldn't it be nice if they spent 20% of their time
>doing something else besides prostituting themselves?
Ah, so the voters are such morons they cannot possibly vote for anything
more than the clown with the brightest balloon. What say, instead of the
idiotic campaign laws we have now, we press for real campaign reform? And
yes, I would support reform that made it a bit tougher for incumbants.
>The candidate that wins is usually the candidate with the most name
>recognition. Does this make sense? Our system of electing
representatives is
>horrible considering alternative options. And our representatives our
not going
>to change it, if it works for them. Who wants to give up a 130K a year
job with
>lots of perks, no boss, and a nice retirement plan?
Well, if that's really the best the voters can do, maybe we should apply
to the UK to become a colony again. Let's face it--I would sooner see
democracy die a clean death instead of putting it on some sort of fake
autopilot like the term limits crowd wants.
>> It's -my- perogative as to whether he gets another term or not.
>
>Not really. Its $$$$$$$$$$$$$ and name recognition that makes up the
>prerogative. The cards are stacked against anyone who wants to appose an
>incumbent. The chance that an incumbent will loose an election is
>slight. Do you think that the challengers are that bad?
Again, reform campaigns. Not offices themselves.
>> (Actually, my Congressman is an incompetant and lying jerk. But I
still
>> oppose term limits)
>>
>> > TERML...@jashcroft.senate.gov
>> >
Term limits: For those who think the voters are easily gulled children.
Thomas F Brown
>72500
>
>The egalitarians of America who want the corruption and cowardice
>removed from government support term limits. That's 70 percent of
>American voters.
Why would limited-term politicians be less susceptible to corruption
and PAC money? Have you any sort of evidence or logical argument
to support this position?
David Nieporent
Frank Warner <waki...@postoffice.ptd.net> wrote:
>The personality worshippers who think Congress has been clean and
>courageous over the last 20 years will oppose term limits.
Nonsense; whether Congress has been clean or not has nothing to do with
term limits. Term limits don't encourage people to be more ethical; they
encourage people to be LESS ethical.
>The egalitarians of America who want the corruption and cowardice
>removed from government support term limits. That's 70 percent of
>American voters.
70% of American voters couldn't find Europe on a map. They're idiots.
>The fact is, incumbents can drown out any opposition with their dirty
>money. The devil we know almost always beats the good candidate we're
>never allowed to hear.
Right. We all know how Steve Forbes and Ross Perot bought those
elections, right?
If the candidate is so good, why can't we hear him? Why wouldn't people
contribute to his campaign if he were so good?
>But if you think the career politicians have done this nation well
I do. I think Madison and Jefferson and Hamilton did a pretty great job.
>with a Congress awash in bribes and a nation awash in
>$5,000,000,000,000 debt (plus), continue worshipping your heroes and
>oppose term limits.
I think that this nation is in pretty good shape. It's got a strong and
stable economy. Could it be better? Sure. Could it be worse? Even
more sure.
--
David M. Nieporent |"I have been participating in the USENET for many
niep...@pluto.njcc.com|years now. I have never found it to be a requirement
Plainsboro, NJ |for anyone to know anything about any subject to post
DAVEY & ORIOLES 1996!!!|on any newsgroup." -- seen on talk.politics.misc.
Patrick Crichton Mercer
> John Yeardley <jyea...@uga.cc.uga.edu> wrote:
>
> -
> >You libs have no sense at all. If for one minute you would think of a
> >different way of doing things, maybe, JUST MAYBE, you would win. You
> >are, however, hell-bent on doing things as those great citizens LBJ,
> >Carter, and that inbred currently in the White House are doing them.
Have you nothing to say of any content, or is your only form of argument
ad hominen?>
>
You call those guys liberals. LOL!
>
> Those are conservatives, genius. They came from the right wing.
> You can tell right from left can't you? So did John F. Kennedy and
> Harry Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt. I bet you were a whiz at
> history. Not much on dictionary either. Look up conservative
> sometime. Then look up reactionary and consider Reagan. I am sure
> you will figure things out with a little time.
>
Defining terms is hardly an argument, what are you going to do with them?
Franklin D. Roosevelt a conservative, who do YOU think created the
welfare state. If you want to define conservative as resistant to
change, well fine, but its got to be socially, e.g. integration, abortion,
death penalty. As for political change, Reagan is a conservative
because he was dumping the welfare state, Roosevelt a liberal for
creating it. They both created a lot of change. Do I have to explain YOUR
political position? >
> >The era of big gummint is over. Time to get out of the past and live
> >with today's realities. We've spent and spent and SPENT ourselves under
> >the table on social programs. Howzabout focusing more on personal
> >responsibility, and less on equal outcomes?
>
nobody wants equal outcomes, thats communism, we just want equality of
resources. Let the outcomes fall where they may. Responsibility comes
after equality of resources and THEN the market dictates responsibility.
If you would spend less time misunderstanding the situation and more time
developing arguments we might could talk.
> >The Founding Fathers were right. To be a democrat is to call for mob
> >rule.
>
I won't even start with the problems with that .>
>
later, patrick
Zepp
jmcm...@mcmullen.org (John McMullen) wrote:
>Errr, you forgot one big fact about the CWA: It *NEVER* promised to
>pass the items. It promised to bring them up for a vote. Nothing
>more, nothing less.
>
There you have American Conservativism in a nutshell: Form over
substance. Never say what you mean, and never mean what you say.
Charles Held
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Thomas F Brown) wrote:
=In article <4l10gr$2...@ns2.ptd.net> waki...@postoffice.ptd.net writes:
=>72500
=>
=>The egalitarians of America who want the corruption and cowardice
=>removed from government support term limits. That's 70 percent of
=>American voters.
=
=Why would limited-term politicians be less susceptible to corruption
=and PAC money? Have you any sort of evidence or logical argument
=to support this position?
Yes. There was a study done last year (forget the source, sorry) that
demonstrated that the longer a congresscritter was in office, the more spending
he voted for. There was hardly any deviation from that pattern, and the
pattern held true across party lines.
Stephen Graham
Frank Warner <waki...@postoffice.ptd.net> wrote:
>The fact is, incumbents can drown out any opposition with their dirty
>money. The devil we know almost always beats the good candidate we're
>never allowed to hear.
This explains why the party distribution of Washington's congressional
delegation has looked like this over the past few years:
1990: 5 Democrats, 3 Republicans
1992: 8 Democrats, 1 Republican
1994: 2 Democrats, 7 Republicans
Of the current delegation, exactly one would be affected by a
twelve-year term limit. He's retiring this year. One other member would be
affected by a six-year limit. The other seven members took office in
1993 or 1995. No matter what happens in this year's elections, the
entire Washington State delegation will have started their terms of
office in 1989 or later.
Why do we need term limits?
--
Stephen Graham
gra...@ee.washington.edu
gra...@cs.washington.edu uw-beaver!june!graham
Terry Hallinan
>On Tue, 16 Apr 1996, Terry Hallinan wrote:
>> John Yeardley <jyea...@uga.cc.uga.edu> wrote:
>>
>> -
>> >You libs have no sense at all. If for one minute you would think of a
>> >different way of doing things, maybe, JUST MAYBE, you would win. You
>> >are, however, hell-bent on doing things as those great citizens LBJ,
>> >Carter, and that inbred currently in the White House are doing them.
>Have you nothing to say of any content, or is your only form of argument
>ad hominen?>
>>
> You call those guys liberals. LOL!
>>
>> Those are conservatives, genius. They came from the right wing.
>> You can tell right from left can't you? So did John F. Kennedy and
>> Harry Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt. I bet you were a whiz at
>> history. Not much on dictionary either. Look up conservative
>> sometime. Then look up reactionary and consider Reagan. I am sure
>> you will figure things out with a little time.
>>
>Defining terms is hardly an argument, what are you going to do with them?
When you sling around labels it is helpful to know what the labels
mean. Mike Dukakis was defeated largely because he was called that
awful thing - a liberal. He even admitted to it. He wasn't. OTOH a
true liberal like Bob Kerrey is called rightwing by clowns who have no
sense of history. Or language.
>Franklin D. Roosevelt a conservative, who do YOU think created the
>welfare state.
You will probably not learn. This country's great economic success
was founded on the public school system, which is nothing if not
welfare. Welfare, of course, is what other people get. This liberal
is intelligent enough to know that the welfare that is totally out of
control is Social Security. No rational person can argue. But it is
the first thing the GOP ruled out of beyonds when it claims to balance
the budget - sometime in the next millenia, or maybe the one after
that.
>If you want to define conservative as resistant to
>change, well fine, but its got to be socially, e.g. integration, abortion,
>death penalty.
What makes you think economics is any different? All are intermixed.
> As for political change, Reagan is a conservative because he was
>dumping the welfare state,
Government spending, including those on the dole for all reasons,
increased mightily under Reagan. And the debt increased beyond that
accumulated in nearly two centuries previously. Wonderful example.
In fact Reagan was a reactionary, dreaming of a time that never was.
>Roosevelt a liberal for creating it. They both created a lot of change.
>Do I have to explain YOUR political position?
Yeah, right. You know just what I think. You have these myths.
>> >The era of big gummint is over. Time to get out of the past and live
>> >with today's realities. We've spent and spent and SPENT ourselves under
>> >the table on social programs. Howzabout focusing more on personal
>> >responsibility, and less on equal outcomes?
>nobody wants equal outcomes, thats communism, we just want equality of
>resources.
Conservatives want to protect those that got from those that don't.
It is idiotic to claim that all get the same starting advantage. Or
can by government decree or munificence or whatever.
>Let the outcomes fall where they may. Responsibility comes
>after equality of resources and THEN the market dictates responsibility.
>If you would spend less time misunderstanding the situation and more time
>developing arguments we might could talk.
Be glad to discuss reality. It's difficult when a mind is closed.
Many people who have ideas most like mine deny the label liberal for
fear they would confused with the likes of Clinton or Cuomo - hardly
and unreasoning pathology.
But thinking leads in all sorts of directions. I firmly believe the
current bankrupcy of our government can be traced most easily to Nixon
closing the gold window - there has been little reason since to hold
spending in check. Most view that as a reactionary notion. So be it.
Best, Terry
Terry Hallinan
> hall...@borg.com (Terry Hallinan) wrote:
>>Unless you are very, very wealthy and willing to share, it is unlikely
>>you have much say at all. Politicians are mainly beholden to those
>>who pay the bills and voters are the ones to be manipulated. And
>>those seeking favors must naturally show their gratitude to the
>>incumbents first.
>Sorry to hear you've abandoned your responsibilities as a citizen.
I have?
I should shut up and pretend maybe.
tehuti
>
>
> > >
>
> Be sure to send YOUR vote FOR term limits. If you are dissatisfied
> with our government then term limits will go a long ways towards fixing
> the wide and many injustices of our federal government.
>
> - Danny
Mexico, that model of effective, responsible, far sighted,
public spirited, just government has term limits for all
or nearly all elected federal officials. When the advocates of
term limits (or any other policy) do everything they can to
avoid discussing the available examples of the policy they
advocate being put into practice, people should wonder about
the case for that policy.
T. Carr
>In article <4kub42$6...@cornerstone.intergate.net>,
> jmcm...@mcmullen.org (John McMullen) wrote:
>
>>Errr, you forgot one big fact about the CWA: It *NEVER* promised to
>>pass the items. It promised to bring them up for a vote. Nothing
>>more, nothing less.
>>
>There you have American Conservativism in a nutshell: Form over
>substance. Never say what you mean, and never mean what you say.
>
Contrast the CWA with the typical liberal politics. Actually deliver
on a campaign promise. Pledge to do something and actually do it.
You may not agree with what was promised, but it was delivered. In
addition, each menber of the house is on record for their vote on
each item. Makes it kinda of easy for the electorate this fall.
Dont tell me what you want to do, show me your voting record.
Now compare that to the campaign promises on President Clinton.
T. Carr
Eleanor Rotthoff
<snip>
>
>>The egalitarians of America who want the corruption and cowardice
>>removed from government support term limits. That's 70 percent of
>>American voters.
>
>70% of American voters couldn't find Europe on a map. They're idiots.
>
Ah! Another of the anointed (described so brilliantly by Thomas Sowell
in his book The Vision of the Anointed) who divides the American
people into the small group of the self-appointed elite who "grasp the
complexities", "understand the problems" and "have a vision for the
nation" as opposed to the vast mass of our fellow citizens who are
merely mindless boobs. If you truly believe your statement, why don't
we just scrap democracy altogether? :-)
Eleanor Rotthoff
(erot...@io.com)
"Before the people can trust their government
again, the government is going to have to
trust the people again." -- The People's Budget
Patrick J. McGuinness
>jmcmulln writes:
>
>*Errr, you forgot one big fact about the CWA: It *NEVER* promised to
>*pass the items. It promised to bring them up for a vote. Nothing
>*more, nothing less.
>
>I see, the Repugs just said they would bring it up and no one should care
>that it was Gingrich's allies in the House that voted against it,
>providing the EXACT margin of defeat for Roll Call 277? I wonder if they
>plan to run on that piece of their record. A little reminder:
Fizz Two is lying.
Even if *every* member of the GOP in the House voted for term limits,
it would not have passed by the two-thirds margin required. Here was the vote:
The Citizen Legislature Act (H.J. Res. 2 & 3)
+ Rejected 227-204 (two-thirds margin required)
(R: 189-40 D: 38-163), 3/29/95.
All the 229 GOP votes plus the 38 Democratic yes votes still don't add up
to the 290 votes needed for 2/3rd margin. It's only 267, 23 votes short.
>>>Term Limits was rejected 227 (for) to 204 (opposed). The 2 dozen
>>>right-wing votes against it would have made it a winner. Do you think
This is a lie. 24 + 227 = 251, which is FAR BELOW the 290 needed for
2/3rds passage.
>>>Newt
>>>said anything to Delay or Archer about this? I can't imagine these guys
>>>would oppose him if it were really, really, really important. Do you?
85% of Republicans supported Term Limits.
85% of Democrats opposed Term Limits.
Term Limits was defeated because too many Democrats voted against it.
Patrick J. McGuinness
>Damion,
>
>What courageous actions have Lloyd Dogget and your other heroes taken?
He opposed every spending cut proposal that was brought up.
>Have they ever taken an action that genuinely endangered their
>reelection?
He made a fool of himself on the House floor.
>And if the Democrat Clinton and the freshmen Republicans didn't
>succeed in enacting a balanced budget plan, did anyone with more
>experience do better? Have incumbents done any better in the last 27
>years?
Hmmm. *Good* question!
>Some Americans love to worship personalities. Some Americans would
>rather have a better America.
Patrick J. McGuinness
>On Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:12:32 -0500, "Patrick J. McGuinness"
><p...@anegada.sps.mot.com> wrote:
>>> I can name several good politicians. Lloyd Doggett (U.S. Rep)
>>
>>Gack. Career politician Liberal Lloyd Doggett has been a
>>partisan attack-dog for the Democratic House leadership, one of
>>their pet pit bulls they use when they want to demagogue an issue.
>>He is one of the biggest spenders Texas has sent up
>>(calculated by NTU's Vote Tally).
>
>So you don't feel that Doggett does a good job. And that's fine.
No, I think he does an excellent job - as a demagogue.
>Doggett's votes have been mostly on track with how I would have voted
>on many issues (or were when he was first elected. I recently moved
>out of district and don't see his scorecard as often), and the times
>that he has spoken, he has been brave, even on occasion attacking his
>own party's President.
Every time I heard him, it was bitterly partisan. This is no more brave than
flaming people on Usenet. What did he say about Clinton? I missed that.
>So you don't like Doggett. That's fine. I, for one, hate Phil Gramm,
I never said I didn't like him, I just don't like his politics.
Still, he is my Congressman, dammit, and he is a very symbol of everything that
is wrong IMHO with Politics, with Liberals, with Lawyers and with Washington.
So when you say: "look at this Politician-Liberal-Lawyer, that's what
we need!" gack ... if that's what America needs we'd have been in
Nirvana squared by now!
>but I'm sure that there are people who believe that he is doing a good
>job and voting precisely the way that they would. What right do I
>have to tell them that they cannot vote for Gramm?
Yes, Phil Gramm is doing a fine job.
BTW: What right do I have to tell Doggett, my Congressman, that he should
vote more like Gramm and speak less like a bombastic partisan?
Frank Warner
Stephen,
The rare case of Washington makes a point for term limits. The state
of Washington isn't falling apart because their elected officials left
within a dozen years.
But the real case for term limits is in how it changes the
office-holder's perspective from day 1 in office. He or she isn't
thinking "I've got to do anything to get re-elected forever." The
office holder is thinking, "I'll do what good I can for a limited time
in office; then I'll go back to the real world. Losing an election
won't be the end of my life."
It's when they think winning election is winning a lifelong jackpot of
high pay, high privilege and high pensions that elected officials
start making bad decisions for the nation. They'll take anyone's
bribe and spend anyone's money (even your grandchildren's) to stay in
power.
And 90 percent of incumbents who run win.
Washington state proves that, if incumbents leave office within 12
years, there actually are Americans who can take their place.
Frank Warner
Thomas F Brown
>=
>=Why would limited-term politicians be less susceptible to corruption
>=and PAC money? Have you any sort of evidence or logical argument
>=to support this position?
>
>Yes. There was a study done last year (forget the source, sorry) that
>demonstrated that the longer a congresscritter was in office, the more spending
>he voted for. There was hardly any deviation from that pattern, and the
>pattern held true across party lines.
Voting for spending is perfectly legal, and not a very
good indicator of PAC influence.
Damion Schubert
Warner) wrote:
>The rare case of Washington makes a point for term limits. The state
>of Washington isn't falling apart because their elected officials left
>within a dozen years.
Incredible. When incumbents *win*, it 'makes a point for term
limits'. When incumbents *lose*, it 'makes a point for term limits'.
Pardon me if I cease to take your silly arguments seriously.
Stephen Graham
In article <4l3seg$i...@ns2.ptd.net>,
Frank Warner <waki...@postoffice.ptd.net> wrote:
>gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) wrote:
>>Why do we need term limits?
>
>The rare case of Washington makes a point for term limits. The state
>of Washington isn't falling apart because their elected officials left
>within a dozen years.
It demonstrates that we don't need them. The voters are perfectly
capable of ensuring office rotation on their own.
>But the real case for term limits is in how it changes the
>office-holder's perspective from day 1 in office. He or she isn't
>thinking "I've got to do anything to get re-elected forever." The
>office holder is thinking, "I'll do what good I can for a limited time
>in office; then I'll go back to the real world. Losing an election
>won't be the end of my life."
But that's the intent of the two-year terms. If the voters are doing
their job, it's not a sinecure.
That's the fundamental error of term limits. No-one is forcing the
voters to re-elect incumbents.
Term-limits will do nothing to cure voter apathy.
>And 90 percent of incumbents who run win.
Worry about your Congressional district and I'll worry about mine.
Zepp
c...@cyberramp.net (Damion Schubert) wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Apr 1996 21:40:41 GMT, waki...@postoffice.ptd.net (Frank
>Warner) wrote:
>
>>of Washington isn't falling apart because their elected officials left
>>within a dozen years.
>
third of the voters who voted for George Nethercutt over Tom Foley thought
HE would replace Foley as House Speaker.
>Incredible. When incumbents *win*, it 'makes a point for term
>limits'. When incumbents *lose*, it 'makes a point for term limits'.
>Pardon me if I cease to take your silly arguments seriously.
Damion, do you get the feeling that these people figure term limits is the
only way they can get rid of other people's reps that they don't like?
And can't figure out that it'll get rid of those they DO like, as well?
It's interesting to note that the GOP was the party that pushed hardest
for Presidential term limits, reasoning that extended administrations like
FDR's must never happen again. They got it through Congress in '47, and
it was ratified in '51. Since then, the ONLY Presidents to be affected by
it were Republican--Eisenhower and Reagan. I remember people on the net
whining in '88, "WHY can't he run again?" I thought it was pretty funny.
(Sidenote: Jefferson wanted Presidential Term Limits in the original
constitution, and fought hard for them. He lost. He did NOT, however,
support Congressional or Judicial term limits).
Zepp
p...@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) wrote:
>Yes, Phil Gramm is doing a fine job.
>BTW: What right do I have to tell Doggett, my Congressman, that he should
>vote more like Gramm and speak less like a bombastic partisan?
But you -do- have that right. I have sent a few FAXes to my Congressman,
and even written a letter to the editor, urging him to abandon his
political stance. He has the right to go ahead and vote the way he feels
is best, and I have the right to vote against him in the next election. I
also have the right to convince my neighbors that he has to go, and that
they should vote against him, too. Even if my chances of unseating him
are remote (and I would like to see him out of office), I much prefer that
to some idiot rule saying he can't run next year because he's already
served six terms. Trust me--my neighbours would not be amused to learn
they couldn't vote for their congressman because some assholes in
Washington said they couldn't.
Richard Foy
Frank Warner <waki...@postoffice.ptd.net> wrote:
>gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) wrote:
>
>But the real case for term limits is in how it changes the
>office-holder's perspective from day 1 in office. He or she isn't
>thinking "I've got to do anything to get re-elected forever." The
>office holder is thinking, "I'll do what good I can for a limited time
>in office; then I'll go back to the real world. Losing an election
>won't be the end of my life."
May I ask if you have done a study of Congresional thinking?
It just might be possible that if they had to face term limits, they
would be thinking things like, "How can I get rich in this office in
4 years?" or "How can I use this office to get into a higher office?"
--
"Be sure that power is never entrusted to those who cannot love.
-- Donella H. Meadows
Damion Schubert
McGuinness) wrote:
>In article <4l1ahe$c...@newshost.cyberramp.net> c...@cyberramp.net (Damion Schubert) writes:
>>So you don't like Doggett. That's fine. I, for one, hate Phil Gramm,
>
>I never said I didn't like him, I just don't like his politics.
>
>Still, he is my Congressman, dammit, and he is a very symbol of everything that
>is wrong IMHO with Politics, with Liberals, with Lawyers and with Washington.
>So when you say: "look at this Politician-Liberal-Lawyer, that's what
>we need!" gack ... if that's what America needs we'd have been in
>Nirvana squared by now!
Well, I happen to disagree with you, of course, and I of course
heavily disagree with your idea that 'Liberals' are what is wrong with
government, when the conservatives that are in Washington are just as
screwed. Just look at Gramm - Gramm is the *poster boy* for why we
should kick certain politicians out of office. I still would rather
do it at the ballot box.
Of course, that's not going to happen with his opponent, Mr. Victor
Morales, but you should love Victor. Sure, he's a democrat, but he's
a guy running on principle, who has so far not accepted one dime from
a PAC. He votes his conscience (unlike Gramm, who votes however the
NRA and the CC tell him). And he is a definite outsider. Should I
assume that you feel, therefore, that Morales is better suited to be
your Senator than Gramm?
>>but I'm sure that there are people who believe that he is doing a good
>>job and voting precisely the way that they would. What right do I
>>have to tell them that they cannot vote for Gramm?
>
>Yes, Phil Gramm is doing a fine job.
>BTW: What right do I have to tell Doggett, my Congressman, that he should
>vote more like Gramm and speak less like a bombastic partisan?
You have that right. You can send him mail, email, you can even try
to meet him in his office. You can call him or his staff, leave
messages, convince your friends and family to call him. You can write
the Austin-American Statesman and tell them not to support him. You
can gain a group of like-minded friends and lobby him on specific
issues.
Which part of this 'democratic republic government' thing are you
unclear on?
tehuti
>
>
>
> >Term limits will make them far more beholden, not less.
> >At least now a politican doesn't necessarily face the
> >prospect of having to beg for a job after one or two
> >terms from the businesses he's dealing with while in office.
> >The only other alternative is that the politican is
> >already rich or owns his own business which he will
> >soon go back to, I guess that guarantees an unbiased,
> >objective, public spirited interest in all matters of
> >policy.
>
> Right now, today, an incumbent must raise cash contiuously throuth his
> term of office. A challenger must usually have a source of funds even
> greater than that of the incumbent because of a lack of the
> perquisites of office. It is mostly the well-off who do indeed get
> elected.
>
Term limits and campaign finance reform are two separate issues.
Term limits without campaign finance reform won't help anyhing, sure
the same people can't be re-elected, but whoever is will be just
as beholden to the money providers. More in fact, because they will
need a job later and because the voters won't have any leverage
(the incumbents can't be re-elected anyway). If you have an
appropriate campaign finance system the reasonable arguments,
such as they are, for term limits no longer apply. Isn't it
interesting that the Republicans, who are the most resistant to
any limitations of the influence of private money in the political
process, are pushing term limits?
Frank Warner
> Isn't it
>interesting that the Republicans, who are the most resistant to
>any limitations of the influence of private money in the political
>process, are pushing term limits?
The Republicans aren't pushing for term limits. They'll never pass
term limits on their own, because they're as corrupt and self-serving
as the Democrats. They'll go through the motions of trying to pass
term limits, but they'll always be at least one vote short.
And if you think term limits is hard to pass, campaign finance reform
is even more difficult. The two major parties always find a way to
insert a loophole that makes sure incumbents get all the bribes they
want. Remember, political action committees once were called a
"reform," a "clean" alternative to corporate contributions. Now
they're the biggest part of Washington corruption.
The people who write the campaign laws will label them "reform," but
the loopholes will allow as much corruption as ever. It's time for a
new political party to clean up this mess.
Frank Warner
Terry Hallinan
>tehuti <teh...@eskimo.com> wrote:
As always the proponents of term limits will reach only the level
required to almost pass it. It will never get over the line until the
cost of voting against it is the assured loss of a seat.
Stephen Graham
> (Sidenote: Jefferson wanted Presidential Term Limits in the original
>constitution, and fought hard for them. He lost. He did NOT, however,
>support Congressional or Judicial term limits).
Well, Jefferson expressed an opinion in favor of a Presidential term
limit. He was in France during the convention and took no part in it.
It's worth noting that we went from a system with term limits under the
Articles of Confederation to a system without term limits under the
Constitution. That was a deliberate choice, as the drafters felt that
the electorate could be trusted to correct any problems.
CZ
]>Terry Hallinan wrote:
]>>
]>such as they are, for term limits no longer apply. Isn't it
]>interesting that the Republicans, who are the most resistant to
]>any limitations of the influence of private money in the political
]>process, are pushing term limits?
Term limits are really a bad idea, but unless we have real campaign
finance reform, it would be better than the current system. The
biggest problem being that during someones last term, he could do
whatever he wanted with no consequence.
Campaign finance reform would:
1. Limit fundraising to home districts/states - the DNC and GOPAC
would not be allowed to spend money on candidates. They could spend
money to advertise their parties, but could not mention names or
states.
2. All money contributed would go into a pool for all qualifying
candidates - qualified as they do now in most states by getting a
certain number of signatures on a ballot. The candidates would all
get an equal slice of the pie.
NO, this is not an ideal system, but it is a far sight better than
what we do now. Also, this or anything similar is IMPOSSIBLE to get
through Congress. If any real reform is to happen, it must come from
public referendum.
Politicians on both sides of the isle are bought by their contributors
- don't kid yourself if you think they are not.
--------------------------------------
.CCC..ZZZZ...................
C.......Z.....See the forest,
C......Z......not the trees..
.CCC..ZZZZ...................
--------------------------------------------
Paul H. Henry
> gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) wrote:
>
> >In article <4l10gr$2...@ns2.ptd.net>,
> >Frank Warner <waki...@postoffice.ptd.net> wrote:
> >>The fact is, incumbents can drown out any opposition with their dirty
> >>money. The devil we know almost always beats the good candidate we're
> >>never allowed to hear.
>
> >This explains why the party distribution of Washington's congressional
> >delegation has looked like this over the past few years:
>
> >1990: 5 Democrats, 3 Republicans
> >1992: 8 Democrats, 1 Republican
> >1994: 2 Democrats, 7 Republicans
>
> >Of the current delegation, exactly one would be affected by a
> >twelve-year term limit. He's retiring this year. One other member would be
> >affected by a six-year limit. The other seven members took office in
> >1993 or 1995. No matter what happens in this year's elections, the
> >entire Washington State delegation will have started their terms of
> >office in 1989 or later.
>
> >Why do we need term limits?
>
>
> Stephen,
>
> The rare case of Washington makes a point for term limits. The state
> of Washington isn't falling apart because their elected officials left
> within a dozen years.
[...]
> Washington state proves that, if incumbents leave office within 12
> years, there actually are Americans who can take their place.
In fact, Washington proves that turnover can be accomplished without
restrictive laws that tell the people who they can and cannot vote for.
--
=============================================================================
_ (phe...@halcyon.com) || I N M E M O R Y
|_) || Oklahoma City * April 19, 1995
| aul H. Henry - Seattle, Wash.|| Remember the Victims of Extremism and Hate
====================== http://www.halcyon.com/phenry/ =====================
Paul H. Henry
> In article <4l4r7k$j...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
> c...@cyberramp.net (Damion Schubert) wrote:
> >On Wed, 17 Apr 1996 21:40:41 GMT, waki...@postoffice.ptd.net (Frank
> >Warner) wrote:
> >
> >>The rare case of Washington makes a point for term limits. The state
> >>of Washington isn't falling apart because their elected officials left
> >>within a dozen years.
> >
> One of the more hilarious things to come out of Washington was that a full
> third of the voters who voted for George Nethercutt over Tom Foley thought
> HE would replace Foley as House Speaker.
You think it's hilarious that a third of the voters in the Fifth District
are Olympic-class morons? I have to live in the same state with these
weirdos. Horrifying is more like it. (Although it would tend to explain
why Washington went so heavily Republican in the last election.)
I think that people who can't trouble themselves to learn about the issues
and the way government works should just stay the hell home on Election
Day. A vote is a powerful thing, and like all powerful things can be very
dangerous if not used responsibly.
Michael Zarlenga
: This explains why the party distribution of Washington's congressional
: delegation has looked like this over the past few years:
: 1990: 5 Democrats, 3 Republicans
: 1992: 8 Democrats, 1 Republican
: 1994: 2 Democrats, 7 Republicans
: Of the current delegation, exactly one would be affected by a
: twelve-year term limit. He's retiring this year. One other member would be
: affected by a six-year limit. The other seven members took office in
: 1993 or 1995. No matter what happens in this year's elections, the
: entire Washington State delegation will have started their terms of
: office in 1989 or later.
How hard was it to De-Foley-ate in 1994? Was he a good, honorable,
worthy pol, or just deeply entrenched?
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
How many MORE empty promises will Clinton make THIS year?
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP Public key and killfile
Mitch D. Dowler
candidates who no longer represent them. Don't underestimate the people, term limits merely eliminate the
right of voters to choose the best candidate to represent their cause, even if he/she does have experience.
Terry Hallinan
It is impossible to underestimate the intelligence of voters. The
genius of our representative system is we get better than we deserve.
It is very hard to understand that you can't understand the infuence
of money and power of incumbency in elections.
It is very hard to understand you can't figure out how to set your
margins.
Patrick J. McGuinness
>On 17 Apr 1996 23:23:35 GMT, p...@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J.
>McGuinness) wrote:
>>Still, he is my Congressman, dammit, and he is a very symbol of everything that
>>is wrong IMHO with Politics, with Liberals, with Lawyers and with Washington.
>>So when you say: "look at this Politician-Liberal-Lawyer, that's what
>>we need!" gack ... if that's what America needs we'd have been in
>>Nirvana squared by now!
>Well, I happen to disagree with you, of course, and I of course
>heavily disagree with your idea that 'Liberals' are what is wrong with
>government, when the conservatives that are in Washington are just as
Liberal ideological fallacies, spun into myths and encrusted into failed
social programs, have screwed up America big-time this past generation.
Doggett personifies all those mistakes.
>screwed. Just look at Gramm - Gramm is the *poster boy* for why we
>should kick certain politicians out of office. I still would rather
>do it at the ballot box.
Gramm votes his conscience (you are dead wrong about him), and he is
right far more often than the Congress as a whole or the President.
One could just as easily say Doggett "gets his marching orders from
the Trial Lawyers Association".
I'd take PhD-economist-types over trial-lawyer-types anyday,
(and in 1984 Texas agreed by voting Gramm over Doggett).
>Of course, that's not going to happen with his opponent, Mr. Victor
>Morales, but you should love Victor. Sure, he's a democrat, but he's
... he's a Democrat who's never held any elected office. what a pal!
Yeah, that' my *favorite* kind of Democrat ... just so he and I stay on
friendly terms, here's to hoping we get another 6 years of Gramm. :-)
<snip>
>>>but I'm sure that there are people who believe that he is doing a good
>>>job and voting precisely the way that they would. What right do I
>>>have to tell them that they cannot vote for Gramm?
You can tell people *anything you like*!
To paraphrase your own question, which part of "The people have the right
to amend the Consitution of the United States, and the Constitution may
set qualifications for election to office" do you have a problem with?
tehuti
>
>
> >The people who write the campaign laws will label them "reform," but
> >the loopholes will allow as much corruption as ever. It's time for a
> >new political party to clean up this mess.
>
> As always the proponents of term limits will reach only the level
> required to almost pass it. It will never get over the line until the
> cost of voting against it is the assured loss of a seat.
>
>
> "Positive - Being wrong at the top of one's lungs"
> -The Devil's Dictionary
Calling for a new political party isn't going to absolve
you or anyone else of the need to figure out the specifics
of how a particular change in policy is going to affect a
situation and make the judgement about whether those changes
are good or bad. Specifically: Why would politics be better
if the politicans were called something other than Democrats
or Republicans? How SPECIFICIALLY would term limits change things?
Charles Packer
>It is very hard to understand that you can't understand the infuence
>of money and power of incumbency in elections.
As long as we're trying to protect the voters from themselves,
might as well go back, back, back to when Senators were elected
by state legislatures...
--
========== http://www.cais.net/whatnews/whatnews.html =========
========== Experiments in keeping informed =========
John Flanery
> > >Frank Warner <waki...@postoffice.ptd.net> wrote:
> > >>The fact is, incumbents can drown out any opposition with their dirty
> > >>money. The devil we know almost always beats the good candidate we're
> > >>never allowed to hear.
This is the only valid argument I've heard in favor of term limits. If
such limits are imposed, they will only achieve this goal if we
_eliminate_ reelection.
There are some obvious problems with such a scheme; mostly that the
creation of a Congress utterly lacking legislative experience would
abandon our government to the bureaucrats and the lobbyists. So while I
do not recommend term limits, the following is their best possible form
(that I know of):
1 Term limits would not affect the House of Representatives,
2 Sitting Senators would be barred from running for reelection,
3 Former Senators would NOT be so barred.
Why would representatives not be affected? The Constitution was created
so that the House would be responsive to the current will of the
citizens, while the Senate took a longer, more judicious view. Retaining
reelection as an option in the House would serve as a discipline,
strongly motivating representatives to follow the will of their
constituents. On the other hand, eliminating reelection for Senators
would further insulate them from the whims of the populace.
Former Senators would not be barred in order to increase the pool of
qualified experienced legislators. Sitting Senators would not be barred
from running for the House, but they likely would face an entrenched
incumbent. A politician could wait two or four years, and run for the
other Senate seat; I believe this is long enough to reap the benefits of
term limits, but we could mandate a minimum 5 year, 11 month wait.
Harold Brashears
[edit]
>
>It sure won't get my support. I don't want some idiot bureaucrat telling
>me I can't vote for my representative just because he's been there for a
>few years and knows what the hell he's doing. If you don't like your
>Congressman, vote him out. If you don't like my Congressman, go to hell.
> It's -my- perogative as to whether he gets another term or not.
You should read Warren Rudman's book. He has some interesting
comments concerning long term congresscritters, and their attitudes
toward the people who vote for them.
Regards, Harold
----
Hiking the minimum wage is "the wrong way to raise the incomes of
low-wage earners."
---Bill Clinton, Time Magazine, February 6, 1995
Harold Brashears
>In article <4kub42$6...@cornerstone.intergate.net>,
> jmcm...@mcmullen.org (John McMullen) wrote:
>
>>Errr, you forgot one big fact about the CWA: It *NEVER* promised to
>>pass the items. It promised to bring them up for a vote. Nothing
>>more, nothing less.
>>
>There you have American Conservativism in a nutshell: Form over
>substance. Never say what you mean, and never mean what you say.
I am uncertain of your motive for saying this. As I read it, the
Contract with America said they would bring these things up for a
vote, it did not say they would pass it. They did mean what they
said, and they did say what they meant.
Regards, Harold
-------
"But whatever citizens may think of the particulars in the 1995 GOP
agenda, they should admire the willingness of Republicans to take
political risks and do what they had promised, regardless of public
opinion polls or the danger of [repercussions]. That's what
representative democracy is all about."
--THE BALTIMORE SUN, 10/27/95
Ed Redondo
pac...@cais.cais.com (Charles Packer) wrote:
>In article <4ldfsc$6...@ns2.borg.com>, Terry Hallinan <hall...@borg.com>
wrote:
>>It is very hard to understand that you can't understand the infuence
>>of money and power of incumbency in elections.
>
>
>As long as we're trying to protect the voters from themselves,
>might as well go back, back, back to when Senators were elected
>by state legislatures...
>
>
Hay! That *is* an idea I agree with. We *do* need to go back to the
original idea of our Founding Fathers that the Senate represents the
will of the States and the House represents the will of the people. Having
Senators appointed by State legislatures emphasized this. This would
remind those who are saying States have no power over the Federal
Government that they really do have that power.
==============================================================
The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its
credibility. And vice versa.
Religious practice is an individual's right; *not* a right
of the public to be imposed on other individuals.
====================================== Ed Redondo ============
Eleanor Rotthoff
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote for all to see:
>
>>In article <4kub42$6...@cornerstone.intergate.net>,
>> jmcm...@mcmullen.org (John McMullen) wrote:
>>
>>>Errr, you forgot one big fact about the CWA: It *NEVER* promised to
>>>pass the items. It promised to bring them up for a vote. Nothing
>>>more, nothing less.
>>>
>>There you have American Conservativism in a nutshell: Form over
>>substance. Never say what you mean, and never mean what you say.
>
>I am uncertain of your motive for saying this. As I read it, the
>Contract with America said they would bring these things up for a
>vote, it did not say they would pass it. They did mean what they
>said, and they did say what they meant.
>
>Regards, Harold
And in point of fact they *passed* every single legislative item
included in the Contract. The only ones that failed to pass both
houses were the two constitutional amendments -- term limits and the
balanced budget amendment -- which required a 2/3 vote.
Eleanor Rotthoff
Modern American liberals seem to regard themselves as
Plato's philosopher kings (and queens). Modern American
conservatives regard their liberal brethren as more
nearly akin to the Eupatrid oligarchs.
George Grapman
olitics.clinton,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.correct,alt.impeach.clinton,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.perot,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh
Followup-To: alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics,usa.congress,alt.politics.democrat,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.
politics.clinton,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.correct,alt.impeach.clinton,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.perot,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh:
References: <4kmk25$9...@newsgate.sps.mot.com> <4kng7i$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com><4kmk25$9...@newsgate.sps.mot.com> <4kng7i$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4kq2ec$q...@sam.inforamp.net> <4kub42$6...@cornerstone.intergate.net> <4l2t2n$q...@news.snowcrest.net> <317d
4684.11...@nntp.st.usm.edu> <317e4597...@news.io.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Let us remember that the proponents of term limits made sure that they
would be excluded from the provisions.
TCW
> And in point of fact they *passed* every single legislative item
> included in the Contract. The only ones that failed to pass both
> houses were the two constitutional amendments -- term limits and the
> balanced budget amendment -- which required a 2/3 vote.
>
> Eleanor Rotthoff
>
And are we better (or worse) off for the effort? I think not; the only
tangible thing produced by the "contract" was newties page out of the
Reader's Digest that he made such a big deal out of punching holes in. In
reality the CWA used up an enormous amount of time on what are purely PR
matters for the most part and resulted in a congress that was incredibly
unproductive, even by modern standards. The right got so chuffed with
their victory that they forgot that the people expected them to do
something and now it looks like they are reaping the fruits of their "all
government is bad government" rantings. You aren't new blood for long and
you certainly aint when you run for reelection.
--
T.C. Wright, Ph.D. * It isn't pollution that's harming the
Green Oaks Res. * environment, it is the impurities in the
go...@flash.net * air and water that are doing it
-Dan Quayle
John Flanery
On Thu, 25 Apr 1996 tho...@centerline.com wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.96042...@garcia.efn.org> you write:
> >1 Term limits would not affect the House of Representatives,
> >
> >2 Sitting Senators would be barred from running for reelection,
> >
> >3 Former Senators would NOT be so barred.
> >
> >Why would representatives not be affected? The Constitution was created
> >so that the House would be responsive to the current will of the
> >citizens, while the Senate took a longer, more judicious view. Retaining
> >reelection as an option in the House would serve as a discipline,
> >strongly motivating representatives to follow the will of their
> >constituents. On the other hand, eliminating reelection for Senators
> >would further insulate them from the whims of the populace.
> >
>
> A very good idea!
>
> But could a Senator go back to a house seat? :-) I see a sort of
> revolving congress...
Initially my vision was that, yes, they could run for a House seat; this
would promote competitive elections. On second thought, it would also
undermine the whole point of the ban on reelection: to prevent Senators
from pandering to voters and contributors.
How's this as an amendment: "No one who has been a Senator at any time
during the previous 23 months shall be elected or appointed either
to the Senate or the House of Representatives."
USAFeature
Does the voting electorate--those that bother, anyway--not have the final
say on "term limits?"
Seems to me that in order to best serve the will of the people, allowing
folks to vote in--and consequently, OUT--who they wish is our
responsibility, as provided for in the Constitution. There are built in
term limits, provided you have an electorate that feels it's necessary to
get out and cast a vote.
Forcing term limits, via an amendment, is subjugation of voter
responsibilities. This, to me, is merely a popular political tool to use
for reelection by some of the very people who need to be voted out to
begin with. If they're for it, perhaps there's something in it for them?
Jon Dougherty
**************************************************************************
***************
Become informed with the best news reporting and conservative analysis in
the business with USA Journal, print edition ($9.95 a year) or USA Journal
Online, email edition ($5.95 a year). 1-800-693-9858, or visit
http://members.gnn.com/usafeature/features.htm
email USAFe...@aol.com
**************************************************************************
****************
Zepp
In article <4l3ig4$b...@pravda.aa.msen.com>,
"T. Carr" <t...@IAV.coastnet.com> wrote:
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>In article <4kub42$6...@cornerstone.intergate.net>,
>> jmcm...@mcmullen.org (John McMullen) wrote:
>>
>>>Errr, you forgot one big fact about the CWA: It *NEVER* promised to
>>>pass the items. It promised to bring them up for a vote. Nothing
>>>more, nothing less.
>>>
>>There you have American Conservativism in a nutshell: Form over
>>substance. Never say what you mean, and never mean what you say.
>>
>
> on a campaign promise. Pledge to do something and actually do it.
Wow! They actually carried forth on a meaningless promise, and produced a
meaningless result! Boy, am I impressed!
>
> You may not agree with what was promised, but it was delivered. In
> addition, each menber of the house is on record for their vote on
> each item. Makes it kinda of easy for the electorate this fall.
NOTHING was delivered. It was an empty piece of blather, designed to
appeal to idiots. But even neocons should have figured out that the fact
that nothing happened meant it wasn't much of a promise.
> Dont tell me what you want to do, show me your voting record.
I promise not to destroy the world tomorrow. Find anyone who can top
that. If you can, vote for them.
> Now compare that to the campaign promises on President Clinton.
>
He's done pretty good, despite being stalled by that blip on the screen
with the grandiose name of "the Republican Revolution". But we won't
hear from them for another 40 years now...
***************************************************************************
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the
earth belongs in usufruct to the living': that the dead have neither
powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases
to be, and reverts to the society."
Letter to James Madison, September 6, 1789, from Thomas Jefferson,
which shows pretty clearly what Jefferson thought of Libertarian
Property Rights.
***************************************************************************
Zepp
In article <4l0aov$p...@sam.inforamp.net>,
d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>Did I miss something? My impression is the line item veto only passed
>the House.
You missed something. It passed the Senate, and Clinton signed it into
law...oh, musta been about three weeks ago. It goes into effect in
January, 1997.
>
>Since winning the California primary Dole has said he is in favor of
>it, but I don't think they've found time for it yet. With Dole
>something like 12% behind in the polls, I expect it to get lost in
>commitee someplace.
Dole is now 20% behind in this week's Harris poll, and in even worse
shape in California, where only 60% of the state republicans plan on
voting Republican this fall. (The GOP controlled Congress was bad
enough: the GOP uncontrolled state assembly will go down as the poorest
and most expensive joke in California history).
>
>A Democratic President using a line-item veto on a Democratic Congress
>would be more fun than a four a.m. mark-up with Wilbur Mills drunk in
>the Chair -- but don't bet any serious money on it standing up to a
>Court challenge.
> -dlj.
I'm hoping the courts strike it down. It gives far too much power to the
Executive branch, and should violate the seperation of powers clause.
Which isn't to say I won't giggle the first time Clinton uses it and the
GOP squeals like a stuck pig.
Gary Petiford
On Thu, 25 Apr 1996 01:04:53 GMT, sfge...@netcom.com (George Grapman)
wrote:
Jez, do you think you crossposted this insignificant message to enough
groups?
"The guvermint spens two much money on edjication"
The GOP
T. Carr
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>In article <317d4684....@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
> brsh...@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote for all to see:
>
>>Contract with America said they would bring these things up for a
>>vote, it did not say they would pass it. They did mean what they
>>said, and they did say what they meant.
>
>encoded, and the second came only because of Dem ridicule. ("WE want
>LIV. You say YOU want LIV. So bring it out of committee and give it to
>the President!") On most of the others, it turned out to be nothing more
>than bumber sticker sloganeering, a trap for the unwary and the stupid,
>stuff they didn't really want to do, or knew they couldn't do. Sort of
>like Newt's handshake and promise on campaign reform. Apparently, that's
>good enough for the dittoheads.
>
Well I'm not a "dittohead", and consider the contract one of the more
important things to happen in a long time. For once a party committed
to do something and they actually did it.
The point that only 2 items got past the "veto President" is well
taken.
The fact is for once the voters have a definite voting record if
they choose to use it in November.
They can decide based on deeds, not words.
If you did not like the contract in the first place, then your decision
is easy
T. Carr
Frank Warner
The Reform Party supports term limits as a key to cleaning up
Congresss.
Only personality worshippers who think Congress has been clean and
courageous over the last 20 years will oppose term limits.
The term limit proposal is the product of the American egalitarian
idea that many are capable of holding public office, doing a good job
and returning home to productive lives in the real world.
Seventy percent of Americans favor term limits as the best way to
remove the corruption and cowardice from government. It lets office
holders come into office with the understanding that they are there to
do some good for up to 12 years and then go home.
It removes the corrupting delusion that winning election is winning a
jackpot, and that each office holder must spend anyone's money and
take anyone's bribe to keep that personal prize for a lifetime.
With the advantage of office, incumbents can drown out any opposition
with their dirty money. And more than 90 percent of the time, the
devil we know beats the good candidate we're hardly allowed to hear.
But if you think the career politicians have done this nation well
with a Congress awash in bribes and a nation awash in
$5,000,000,000,000 debt (plus), continue worshipping your heroes and
oppose term limits.
Frank Warner
Frank Warner
REFORM PARTY COMBINES WITH PATRIOT PARTY
The Reform Party has organized in seven states, and plans to organize
in all 50. The Patriot Party is organized in 26 states.
With a goal of taking the best of liberalism and conservatism to clean
up government, the two parties have combined into one national
movement. Many of its principles have been voiced by Ross Perot, but
the effort goes beyond any one individual.
THE CLEAN, COURAGEOUS CAUSE.
A new political party for the United States of America.
Statement by Nicholas Sabatine III
Chairman of the National Patriot Party
After urging [Ross Perot] to enter the fray and support the new party
effort for almost three years, I was delighted to welcome him into our
ranks. He has applied his resources to the organization of the Reform
parties of California, Ohio, South Carolina, Arkansas, South Dakota,
Maine and Utah....
While we can interpret these calls for a new party as a verification
that the two-party system is not producing the kind of government
Americans want, it is not correct to assume that all these voices
speak in unison regarding what kind of new party is required to do so.
I believe the most important service the Patriot Party can presently
render to the third-party movement is to provide the leadership and
vision necessary to unite the various forces coming together outside
the traditional two-party system.
Experience tells us that an excessively broad agenda yields disunity
within our growing ranks. We were wise to first adopt a set of
principles to guide the general direction of our party, and then to
devise solutions to issues that we must address to achieve the power
necessary to bring about change within our democratic,
representative form of government. These solutions are consistent with
our principles.
Although Republican politicians acknowledge the federal government's
fiscal crisis, they have so far provided "solutions" that are limited
by a political mindset which is greatly affected by their need to be
reelected. This is exemplified by the continued funding for
agriculture subsidies, including tobacco, at a time when the
Republican Congress also finds it necessary to cut back on health
benefits for the poor....
Meanwhile, the Democrats seem brain dead and continue to support the
status quo that is, those Democrats who have the courage to remain in
Congress.
This state of affairs leaves the door wide open for a new political
party with solutions to our economic and social problems based upon
reality outside the political world (otherwise known as the real
world) to gain the support of voters who know that politics as usual
continues to prevail in Washington despite the year-old
Republican "revolution". Within our stated goals of fiscal
responsibility and political reform exists the opportunity to offer
such solutions.
Our current platform ... contains the core ideas with which we can
accomplish electoral success if we provide the leadership within the
third-party movement to achieve organizational success. Specifically,
we know that the root cause of deficit spending in Washington
is the need for professional politicians to buy the votes of those who
reelect them. It is my belief that term limits, coupled with our
platform for the elimination of pensions for members of Congress and
their staffs, will create the kind of citizen legislature which will
be immune to such pressures and which will be free to act
responsibly when it comes to spending your money....
The [national] debt will never be reduced solely by a reduction in
federal spending given the obligations we have to those who have
already contributed to a social security system depleted by the
greedy, arrogant, professional politicians who currently serve in
Congress and those who have already taken their booty and left
Washington. Our tax platform addresses the need for capital formation
and job creation by eliminating taxes on capital gains and most saving
income, and the elimination of the federal estate tax provides
incentive for the accumulation and uninterrupted flow of capital as
well. We need to review all current functions of the federal
government to see if they are first necessary, and second, if they can
be accomplished more efficiently by other levels of government or
perhaps the private sector. Our success depends in part on how we
address issues like crime, education, entitlements and, most
importantly, job creation.
However, I submit that the Patriot Party has already developed the
formula by which we can help unite those Americans who are rightfully
disenchanted with the two major parties, notwithstanding the need for
further policy development. The Republican "revolution" is little more
than a different set of foxes guarding the henhouse. The real
revolution will only come with the removal of the professional
politicians from Washington and the simultaneous development and
implementation of policy which allows the American people the
freedom to expand our economy, provide for ourselves and our families,
and finally, pay off the debt which the professionals in Washington
placed not only upon our shoulders, but on the shoulders of our
children and our children's children. In short, we must be prepared to
continue to sacrifice our personal agendas for the greater good of our
movement and by doing so to erect a political tent large enough to
encompass the majority of the country while maintaining the focus we
need to work effectively for the changes we seek.
The road to success in '96 requires us to adhere to our principles
while continuing to develop policy within our stated major goals of
fiscal responsibility and government and democratic reform and to
provide leadership to other factions within the third-party movement
by our example.
1995
For official Reform Party news, check out:
National Reform Party Web site http://www.reformparty.org/
Zepp
In article <317d4684....@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
brsh...@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote for all to see:
>I am uncertain of your motive for saying this. As I read it, the
>Contract with America said they would bring these things up for a
>vote, it did not say they would pass it. They did mean what they
>said, and they did say what they meant.
As I said, an utterly meaningless pledge. You got two of the ten items
encoded, and the second came only because of Dem ridicule. ("WE want
LIV. You say YOU want LIV. So bring it out of committee and give it to
the President!") On most of the others, it turned out to be nothing more
than bumber sticker sloganeering, a trap for the unwary and the stupid,
stuff they didn't really want to do, or knew they couldn't do. Sort of
like Newt's handshake and promise on campaign reform. Apparently, that's
good enough for the dittoheads.
***************************************************************************
Frank Warner
Tim Penny is one American who could bring honesty, compassion,
competence and energy to the White House.
Penny, the former Democratic congressman from Minnesota, already has
shown his interest in what Perot voters want more than anything else,
a balanced budget amendment, term limits, lobbying reform, clean,
courageous leaders and a better America.
He has a unique ability to include everyone in the solutions to
America's problems. With Republican John Kasich, Penny proposed
relatively painless budget cuts and spending restraints in the 1980s
that might have headed off fully half of the nation's
$5,000,000,000,000 debt.
At the age of 24, Penny was elected to the Minnesota state Senate in
1976 after he went door to door shaking the hand of someone at every
house in his district -- a Republican district.
He was elected to Congress in 1982, and after five re-elections chose
not to run again in 1994. Since then, he has worked with the Concord
Coalition to urge liberals and conservatives to work together to reach
a balanced budget and begin paying off the debt our children otherwise
will have to bear.
Penny spoke last year to the national convention of the Patriot Party,
which this year has affiliated in 26 states with Perot's Reform Party.
Penny can work well with Democrats and Republicans, and he has the
courage and integrity to get good things done. He also is a credible
leader, who as a presidential candidate could launch the Reform Party
as a permanent national movement.
Reform Party members, you pick your 1996 presidential candidate.
Nominate Timothy J. Penny for President of the United States!
Frank Warner
Chris Jones
As a former Capitol Hill staffer, I can tell you what I think term limits will do..
The legislative process is very complex (there are rules for the rules committee)
a maze of legislative processes and a boatload of parliamentary rules.
It takes quite a while to learn this..
When you have a member come in for a limited time he soon will use staffers and
lobbyists as guides and crutches to help him/her understand the process.
You have career staffers and career lobbyist running the game !
Is this what you want ?
Term limits are called the ballot box ! I bet 80% of the folks who
want term limits have never voted. Democracy is a relationship
between the governed and the government -- it does not work on
AUTO -PILOT !!!!
Tom Horsley
>As a former Capitol Hill staffer, I can tell you what I think term limits
>will do.. The legislative process is very complex (there are rules for the
>rules committee) a maze of legislative processes and a boatload of
>parliamentary rules. It takes quite a while to learn this.. When you have
>a member come in for a limited time he soon will use staffers and lobbyists
>as guides and crutches to help him/her understand the process. You have
>career staffers and career lobbyist running the game !
Of course, if they made term limits retroactive we'd get a whole new
Congress that could just decide to throw out all the old procedures, then
they wouldn't have to understand them :-).
Actually, I still think term limits would be almost totally neutral. I
don't believe they would solve any existing problems or create any new
problems. Try 'em if you want, but it will just be a diversion that
postpones tackling the real problems.
--
--
Tom.H...@mail.hcsc.com
Work: Harris Computers, 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. Ft. Lauderdale FL 33309
The 2 most important political web sites: http://www.vote-smart.org (Project
Vote Smart), and http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/TomHorsley (Me!)
Frank Warner
REFORM PARTY, for both liberals and conservatives
You're going to find both liberals and conservatives in the Reform
Party, but neither group defines the movement.
The Reform Party probably focuses most strongly on campaign reform,
term limits and a balanced budget. And as I've seen in Patriot (now
Reform) Party conventions, it's amazing how much liberals and
conservatives can agree on those issues when they put the national
interest first.
In their corruption and cowardice, the Republicans and Democrats can
be neither liberal or conservative. Their words and positions are not
the products of priorities chosen thoughtfully for the common good,
but the dangerous playthings of special interests.
The GOP displayed some courage when it showed how it would balance the
federal budget, but now so have the Democrats. Yet *if* that happens,
a balanced budget would be only a start. If all our elected officials
balance the budget and yet take bribes for special favors, we're
getting nowhere.
Living within our means only reminds us that priorities must be set,
choices made. It begins the debates. And if our elected officials'
decisions are distorted by dirty money, those priorities won't be
honest and are likely to be irrational, and possibly harmful. That's
why there is a Reform Party: to change that.
The Republicans failed to pass term limits. Despite the American
voters' overwhelming support for a constitutional amendment to limit
Congressional terms, the simple fact is the Republicans and the
Democrats won't submit the amendment for ratification by the states.
It threatens the personal interests of Republicans and Democrats.
Lobbying and campaign reform isn't coming from any of the major
parties either. The Democrats couldn't reform the electoral or
legislative process in 40 years. In their "reform," they gave us
political action committees. The Republicans seem even less inclined
to clean up the system. They'll pass a few laws and call them reform,
but you can be sure the loopholes will be giant.
If the GOP's actions on budget-balancing sometimes sound like the
Reform Party, don't be misled. Balancing the budget is not the issue
of any one party or philosophy. It is not a conservative issue. Real
liberals want balanced budgets, too. Only the rich benefit from
deficit spending, and if our government goes bankrupt because we can't
spend more wisely, the poor will be the first to suffer.
Liberals and conservatives are joining the Reform Party because the
party targets basic issues to make America better. The hot-button
issues, like abortion and gun control, are left to each individual
party member's conscience.
If you want to check out the National Reform Party Web site, call up:
If you'd like to find out more on the Patriot Party (now affiliated
with the Reform Party in 26 states) and other parties, call up:
http://www.emf.net/~er/polparty.html
The Reform Party currently is working hard to gain ballot status in
all 50 states. Against enormous odds and oppressive rules written by
the two major parties, progress has been significant.
This new party could become a permanent national institution, or it
could go nowhere. It depends on whether the two major parties ever
show a willingness to reform, and it depends on whether enough
individual Americans are willing to demand an honest, effective and
democratic government.
Frank Warner
Beldin
And you'll have to remind us, Mr. Warner, exactly which of the two major
parties voted 85% against term limits and which one voted 85% for them?
Remember that the next time the Little General comes on TV and accuses the
party which supports term limits of being the same as the one that opposed
them.
Beldin
Michael L. Coburn
In article <4lqkpj$k...@news.snowcrest.net>, Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>In article <4l0aov$p...@sam.inforamp.net>,
> d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>
>>Did I miss something? My impression is the line item veto only passed
>>the House.
>
>You missed something. It passed the Senate, and Clinton signed it into
>law...oh, musta been about three weeks ago. It goes into effect in
>January, 1997.
>
Stuff about Dole and Clinton deleted......
>
>I'm hoping the courts strike it down. It gives far too much power to the
>Executive branch, and should violate the seperation of powers clause.
>Which isn't to say I won't giggle the first time Clinton uses it and the
>GOP squeals like a stuck pig.
>
Long sig, deleted....
There has been very little debate or discussion on this Line Item Veto
thing here in alt.politics.economics. This is the only group I read so
maybe it is being hashed out somewhere else.
As described above I am somewhat ignorant of the actual provisions of
this bill. However, unlike 'zepp' (I hope I'm assigning this correctly),
I am very much in favor of stripping the congress of most of its power,
and vesting much more power in the executive branch. The President is
elected by ALL of the people. The President can be impeached by congress,
and that is all the power the congress should have. The mess that we
currently have with gridlock and absolutely no way to get anything done is
because of shared power. The result of this power sharing is actually
nothing but finger pointing, as the congress blames each other and the
president. With power vested in the executive branch, there will be NO
finger pointing and there will be accountability.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
* Let me assure you that | Michael L. Coburn | mco...@halcyon.com |
* my employer agrees with| Softfolks Inc. | softfolk.wa.com |
* what I say. He's me. | UNIX,c,X/Motif,Oracle,DCE,CM,& SYS ADM |
Zepp
In article <4lqur8$v...@beast.coast.net>,
>> brsh...@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>>>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote for all to see:
>
> Well I'm not a "dittohead", and consider the contract one of the more
> important things to happen in a long time. For once a party committed
> to do something and they actually did it.
Did WHAT? They passed two items, both of which were presented by
Democrat congresses and voted down by the Republicans or filibustered.
Your emperor has no clothes. You just got sold the middle of a life
saver.
> The point that only 2 items got past the "veto President" is well
> taken.
>
Compare the number of Clinton's vetoes with those of Ronbo and Bush. Get
back to me.
> The fact is for once the voters have a definite voting record if
> they choose to use it in November.
They sure do. The 'Pubs killed minimum wage legislation. They tried to
gut the EPA. The snuck through "logging without laws". They tried to
cut medicare by 35% over seven years (per captia, factoring in inflation)
and tried telling everyone they weren't. They put a Xenophobe who
doesn't know WWII is over in charge of the Senate Foreign Relations, and
tried to kill the Bradey law. The voters will remember, and I see where
overall preference for Congressional votes has Democrats with a 16%
lead--the biggest since FDR.
>
> They can decide based on deeds, not words.
>
> If you did not like the contract in the first place, then your
decision
> is easy
Boy, ain't that the truth!
PMccutc103
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>Did I miss something? My impression is the line item veto only passed
>>the House.
>
>You missed something. It passed the Senate, and Clinton signed it into
>law...oh, musta been about three weeks ago. It goes into effect in
>January, 1997.
Wait just one second, here. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the
President to veto part of a bill. Nor can Congress change the
constitutional mechanism by which legislation is enacted. If the
President wants a line-item veto, we will have to amend the Constitution.
________________________
Pete McCutchen
"Mr Kim, we're Starfleet Officers. Weird is part of the job."
-- Captain Kathryn Janeway --
"I am not interested in the beliefs of primitives -- only in what they
taste like."
-- Shockeye --
Don Rister
I would think the performance of this Congress, especially Mr. Gingrich
and the freshmen Republicans would be evidence enough that term limits
will not work. The inexperienced legislators (?) don't seem to understand
that compromise and negotiation are the means through which the
government works. I say the fact that we don't need any more
inexperienced extremists in Congress than what we have now is reason
enough to oppose term limits.
Frank Warner
hunc...@rosetower.thevale (Beldin) wrote:
>And you'll have to remind us, Mr. Warner, exactly which of the two major
>parties voted 85% against term limits and which one voted 85% for them?
>Remember that the next time the Little General comes on TV and accuses the
>party which supports term limits of being the same as the one that opposed
>them.
Beldin,
The Reform Party would be the party that *passes* term limits. The
Republican Party will pretend to favor term limits, but always will
come at least one vote shy of the necessary votes to send the
amendment to the states.
The Democratic Party isn't even pretending to favor term limits, which
makes Democrats no better..
Without a clean, courageous political party to enact the reforms
Americans want and need, Congress will continue on its undemocratic
and destructive path.
Frank Warner