We have term limits now, it called the voting booth. Maybe if Americans got off their couch and researched canidates and held them accountable, we wouldn't have career criminals in D.C. The real problem starts at the party level. Getting your parties nomination is a process of who you know and who you make promises to, broken only by a vigilant electorate.
The problem with this approach is the fact the deck is stacked in their favor right now. The house was limited to 435 votes almost a centuryt ago. Right now, I think on rep represent 800k people. It takes a lot of money to convince that manyt people your worth voting for. The hill of money becomes less for the person in office controling the purse strings. Lower the number and individual represents back to 40k and less money is involved and less influence does the one in office have on the purse strings.
FYI, you just might find at the 40k/rep you could get a 1 on one appointment without a donation check in hand.
__________________
"Listen he's a nice person, he's very articulate"....
"he couldn't sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic." Dan Rather on Obama
The problem with this approach is the fact the deck is stacked in their favor right now. The house was limited to 435 votes almost a centuryt ago. Right now, I think on rep represent 800k people. It takes a lot of money to convince that manyt people your worth voting for. The hill of money becomes less for the person in office controling the purse strings. Lower the number and individual represents back to 40k and less money is involved and less influence does the one in office have on the purse strings.
FYI, you just might find at the 40k/rep you could get a 1 on one appointment without a donation check in hand.
Thats not the point. In order to get your parties nomination you still have to satisfy the groups and cliches within that party. Party nominations are not won by individual people voting for you, they are won by how many groups are on your side. Even at the local level you have various interest vying for your support, all the while informing you of the consequences of their unfavorable voting block. Say for example one gives a speech showing favor to the Off Road users association. After a speech that individual will be approached by dirt bike riders slamming atvers, and vice versa, all the while the both belong to the same Off Road association. It is a fragmented and branched system run by power brokers of special interest, and population representation dynamics are not going to change that. Until the populace has the fortitude to vote on their own, with their own ideology in mind, all canidates will be products of the favors they promised to PIG's and PAC's.
It is a fragmented and branched system run by power brokers of special interest, and population representation dynamics are not going to change that. Until the populace has the fortitude to vote on their own, with their own ideology in mind, all canidates will be products of the favors they promised to PIG's and PAC's.
Muley is right on again: Those in congress have no sense of loyalty to those who voted for them. The congress critter will vote with the monied interest 100 percent of the time. In addition to a very good checking out the first time a candidate stands for a congressional election; the voters need to find out exactly where the guys money is coming from once he gets into office because they all get greedy and pander to new PACs. In too many cases most of his campaign funds are not coming from the voters in his district or even from entities from within his own state. It is coming from national and international lobbying groups.
States need to pass laws that prevent congress critters from accepting funds from organizations and indivituals from outside his state.
Go online and find out whose pockets your congress critter is into. This is our congressional critter Tom Cole.
I just called the office of US senator Coburn to inquire as to why the senator did not vote on the ACORN bill in the US senate. The representative of senator Coburn stated: "He was unavailable for that vote." When i asked where the senator was when the voting was taking place, she stated: "I do not know that. Senator Coburn was a co-sponsor of the bill."
Coburn has been straight forward for the most part and i am not accusing him of anything. I do find it very strange that he failed to vote on this important issue.
This points to one of the tactics that the political puke in DC uses to deceive the dummies back home. He will sign on as a co-sponsor for a piece of legislation and then fail to vote on that issue. He then has it both ways.
The political puke will tell those back home that he co-sponsored the legislation. He will fail to tell his dumb constituents that he failed to vote on the issue that he co-sponsored. He can tell his lobbyist to pay up because he did not support that awful legislation that the lobbying outfit was opposed to.
I just called the office of US senator Coburn to inquire as to why the senator did not vote on the ACORN bill in the US senate. The representative of senator Coburn stated: "He was unavailable for that vote." When i asked where the senator was when the voting was taking place, she stated: "I do not know that. Senator Coburn was a co-sponsor of the bill."
Coburn has been straight forward for the most part and i am not accusing him of anything. I do find it very strange that he failed to vote on this important issue.
This points to one of the tactics that the political puke in DC uses to deceive the dummies back home. He will sign on as a co-sponsor for a piece of legislation and then fail to vote on that issue. He then has it both ways.
The political puke will tell those back home that he co-sponsored the legislation. He will fail to tell his dumb constituents that he failed to vote on the issue that he co-sponsored. He can tell his lobbyist to pay up because he did not support that awful legislation that the lobbying outfit was opposed to.
I suspect that if he thought the vote was going to be even vaguely close, he would have made sure to be present. Similarly for Sen. Hutchinson. I suspect she was busy greasing the wheels for her run against Gov. Perry...
When you are a co-sponsor on a bill that passes 83-7, I don't think that it's entirely fair to be accused of trying to take political cover by being otherwise disposed at the time of the vote, particularly for someone who has been "straight forward for the most part." If the guy had a history of being a snake, maybe...
I see the so called moderate/conservative democrat, NY sen(appointed) Kristen Gilibrand voted Nay WTF? Nay to stop funding a group that encourages underage, illegal alien prostitution, w/ tax payer $? In fact, I see all nays were dems and 1 indy. This is why I would never vote for a democrat.
When you are a co-sponsor on a bill that passes 83-7, I don't think that it's entirely fair to be accused of trying to take political cover by being otherwise disposed at the time of the vote, particularly for someone who has been "straight forward for the most part."
I never accused Coburn of anything.
Quote:
Coburn has been straight forward for the most part and i am not accusing him of anything.
All the Democrats except for Byrd and Mikulski, who are old and inform, voted on the ACORN legislation. For some strange reason seven Republican senators did not vote on the ACORN legislation despite the fact that this issue was very hot button with their constituents-especially so in OK. Next time Coburn is in town i intend to ask him face to face why he did not vote on ACORN.
WTF? Nay to stop funding a group that encourages underage, illegal alien prostitution, w/ tax payer $? In fact, I see all nays were dems and 1 indy. This is why I would never vote for a democrat.
