So I find it really, really disheartening to read stuff like this:

“Jon has the financial ability to match Adler’s fundraising abilities, as well as considerable name recognition from his professional football career,” he said. “It is vital that our Party is united in the effort to win this election and I feel that with the support of all three county-party organizations behind him, Jon Runyan will be able to raise the funds necessary and invest the time it will take to win in November.”

Really very sad that Hill's arguments for Runyan are money and name recognition with no mention whatsoever about positions/platform.

http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedm ... way-runyan

PS - I didn't see a new politics thread so if there is one feel free to move and delete (or just delete).

I've got to say, I've become intrigued about the idea of introducing term limits for congress.

JH how do you feel about potential term limits and their upside/downside? I've been thinking about it today and figured to give you a shout to see what you think about it.

Not a huge fan. People can vote out their representative if he's corrupt or ineffective. Maybe older members are worse on average, but I'm not sure that's true. Plenty of representatives and senators have been in office for a while and are still hard working. And a number of new members are grandstanding dicks who don't accomplish anything.

I think it would create a really weird dynamic in terms of lame ducks everywhere. But I'd give it a try. Maybe, just maybe, people would go back to looking at being a representative or senator as service instead of a career and you'd get a better caliber of candidate.

Reading about these strikes in Greece in the face of cuts they're doing to try and prevent the country from completely collapsing makes me want to go to Greece with a machine gun and just mow these people down.

I don't actually mean that

But jesus christ people

Anybody catch Anthony Weiner's rant on the floor today? That was AWESOME! Here is a link (I think):

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca ... iner_3.php

The big argument against term limits is that you court a dynamic in which by the time a legislator truly knows what s/he's doing, builds up both topical expertise and a mastery of the process, it's time for them to go home. And without the chance to build that skill set, they become tremendously reliant on aides, who aren't term limited.

That said, Vox's point--that it might help restore the public service ethos we've obviously lost--is a compelling one.

VoxOrion wrote:I think it would create a really weird dynamic in terms of lame ducks everywhere. But I'd give it a try. Maybe, just maybe, people would go back to looking at being a representative or senator as service instead of a career and you'd get a better caliber of candidate.

or more single-issue wingnuts purchased in wholesale lots by the highly motivated & well-heeled of whatever political persuasion.

I'd like to see some word-torturers revisit the founders' commentary on the constitution to find some evidence that they had a particular ratio of representatives to populace, and/or geography, particularly in the Senate, in mind.

Hard to imagine many of them pictured individual congresspersons representing 3/4 of a million people; or that there was some natural law dictating the allocation of 2 senators per state.

As for the Senate, I look at Federalist 62 and I am reminded a) of Madison's awesomeness and

b) that Madison et al were imagining a very, very different existence than that which we inhabit today, albeit with an almost uncanny appreciation for fundamental truths of human nature in general and American nature in particular. In it, Madison takes almost for granted that the chief function of that body was to mind the balance of federal and state powers, and be constituted so as to best produce an approximation of legislative "wisdom" rather than petulant fractiousness:

It may be affirmed, on the best grounds, that no small share of the present embarrassments of America is to be charged on the blunders of our governments; and that these have proceeded from the heads rather than the hearts of most of the authors of them. What indeed are all the repealing, explaining, and amending laws, which fill and disgrace our voluminous codes, but so many monuments of deficient wisdom; so many impeachments exhibited by each succeeding against each preceding session; so many admonitions to the people, of the value of those aids which may be expected from a well-constituted senate?

and only goes so far as to say that the Senate probably needs to be a smaller body than the House, but doesn't get too precise about its numbers, or even their distribution among states.

More delightful phraseology from Madison. Who doesn't yearn for the capacity to write such sentences?

But the most deplorable effect of all [of a "mutable government"] is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.

Since term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment, there's basically no chance of it happening. But if you want to see its effects, you can look at the state legislatures that have enacted it. It's neither the panacea that its supporters claim, nor a disaster. When the idea was first gaining ground in the early nineties, many feared that it would give lobbyists even more power, but it turns out that's not quite true. It probably does give staffers more power though. Much institutional knowledge is lost when long serving people leave office.

And while of course it means more people serve in state legislatures, it has not increased diversity.

traderdave wrote:Anybody catch Anthony Weiner's rant on the floor today? That was AWESOME! Here is a link (I think):

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca ... iner_3.php

Yeah, I saw that. It was a pretty tremendous rant. I'm not too familiar with House rules, but it seems like Lundgren asking for his "wholly owned subsidiary" comments to be struck from the record is essentially like an eight-year-old saying to another eight-year-old, "you take that back or I'm telling mom!"

jerseyhoya wrote:Reading about these strikes in Greece in the face of cuts they're doing to try and prevent the country from completely collapsing makes me want to go to Greece with a machine gun and just mow these people down.

WSJ wrote:Public- and private-sector unions called the strike to protest a range of measures aimed at reducing Greece's budget deficit. The government has announced a freeze on civil-service wages, cuts in public-sector entitlements and the closing of tax loopholes for certain professions, including some civil servants. It has also announced a fuel-tax increase.
"There is an all-out war against public servants, those who earn the least," said Spyros Papaspyros president of ADEDY, an umbrella union for public-sector workers. "We will fight to keep the little we have. The government and the EU must understand the crisis must be paid by the rich."

Personally, I think a national crisis should be shouldered by the people of the nation, and structural deficits are not the fault of X% of the population only. But I admit that my personal opinions are the distinct minority. These populist feelings are certainly the majority in this country as well. Not to go all Glenn Beck and worship at the alter at our founding fathers, but it does seem like a break from some of our traditions. What drives this sentiment (beyond the recent bailouts of course), and was it present 200 years ago? Did early Americans hate the rich?

The Washington Post was in Newtown for a man-on-the-street story recently. I know this is a kind of time-honored tradition in journalism, but I don't get the point of this one. Yeah, the people interviewed don't like the political bickering, but A) it's only about a dozen voters being interviewed, B) it's a lot easier to have that as a top priority when the economy didn't punch you in the gut as much as it did in other places, and C) I don't think it's a real big surprise there are pockets of people like this in America. There's no real insight -- lots of maybes and mights -- and the thing even ends with an "I don't know" quote.

drsmooth wrote:wholesale lots by the highly motivated & well-heeled of whatever political persuasion.

I was thinking it might have the opposite effect, but can't argue where you are coming from (though TV's insight may lean in my direction).

I think to balance dajafi's concern about "experts", you'd have to go from infinity to somewhere in between (which some nerd will point out is impossible) - say three or four terms for a rep and two for a senator. At the same time, I might prefer an experiment to see what amateurs would do, because experts sure as heck don't seem to know what they're doing.

Then again, as I think "out loud", amateurs would require strong parties and it would just push the parlimentary party rule nonsense even further. I have no problem with party loyalty and don't venerate people who "cross the aisle" like the chattering box does (particularly based on the rank hypocracy in the concept - cross east to west and you are courageous, cross west to east and you are an opportunist). Do it if it's what your constituants expect, but for crying out loud it's not sainthood.

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Reading about these strikes in Greece in the face of cuts they're doing to try and prevent the country from completely collapsing makes me want to go to Greece with a machine gun and just mow these people down.

WSJ wrote:Public- and private-sector unions called the strike to protest a range of measures aimed at reducing Greece's budget deficit. The government has announced a freeze on civil-service wages, cuts in public-sector entitlements and the closing of tax loopholes for certain professions, including some civil servants. It has also announced a fuel-tax increase.
"There is an all-out war against public servants, those who earn the least," said Spyros Papaspyros president of ADEDY, an umbrella union for public-sector workers. "We will fight to keep the little we have. The government and the EU must understand the crisis must be paid by the rich."

Personally, I think a national crisis should be shouldered by the people of the nation, and structural deficits are not the fault of X% of the population only. But I admit that my personal opinions are the distinct minority. These populist feelings are certainly the majority in this country as well. Not to go all Glenn Beck and worship at the alter at our founding fathers, but it does seem like a break from some of our traditions. What drives this sentiment (beyond the recent bailouts of course), and was it present 200 years ago? Did early Americans hate the rich?

You say "beyond the recent bailouts of course" as if that's a small thing.

I could offer you a variety of other reasons why the "rich should pay more" including the fact that at the lowest level, you simply can't take money away from certain people because they'd starve to death. But the most important reason the rich should pay is that in times of crisis, they have more to lose, and if society breaks down and the poor band together, there's more of them than there are of the rich. It's not "fair", but neither is getting born into a poor family vs. getting born into a rich family.

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Reading about these strikes in Greece in the face of cuts they're doing to try and prevent the country from completely collapsing makes me want to go to Greece with a machine gun and just mow these people down.

WSJ wrote:Public- and private-sector unions called the strike to protest a range of measures aimed at reducing Greece's budget deficit. The government has announced a freeze on civil-service wages, cuts in public-sector entitlements and the closing of tax loopholes for certain professions, including some civil servants. It has also announced a fuel-tax increase.
"There is an all-out war against public servants, those who earn the least," said Spyros Papaspyros president of ADEDY, an umbrella union for public-sector workers. "We will fight to keep the little we have. The government and the EU must understand the crisis must be paid by the rich."

Personally, I think a national crisis should be shouldered by the people of the nation, and structural deficits are not the fault of X% of the population only. But I admit that my personal opinions are the distinct minority. These populist feelings are certainly the majority in this country as well. Not to go all Glenn Beck and worship at the alter at our founding fathers, but it does seem like a break from some of our traditions. What drives this sentiment (beyond the recent bailouts of course), and was it present 200 years ago? Did early Americans hate the rich?

I'm not sure what the Greek debt crisis has to do with the American founders, but Beck's account of the fathers is perverse to say the least.

His use of Thomas Paine is particularly amusing. Paine was a radical egalitarian. Like Beck, Paine was somewhat unbalanced though. Maybe that's the link.

Anyway, early American political thinking was extraordinarily diverse. If by Founding Fathers you mean the guys who put together the Constitution, many others at the time felt like Madison et al were traitors to the cause of the American Revolution. Stoner's Anti-Federalist runs some 11 volumes.

Of course, the other irony in all this is that the guys who put the Constitution together wanted a strong federal government, and it's likely that they would have made the central government even stronger if they thought they could get away with it. Thus, if you really believe in "the intent of the founders" as a guide to Constitutional interpretations, then you can pretty much be assured that the federal government can do anything it wants.

In the end, it makes almost no sense to try to read by twenty-first century policy preferences onto the eighteenth century. The so-called leftist Jefferson was a free trader, and the friend of industry Hamilton was a protectionist. Hamilton particularly wanted a strong central government, wanted to enhance the power of the government "a national debt, if it is not excessive, is a national blessing".

Harpua wrote:The Washington Post was in Newtown for a man-on-the-street story recently. I know this is a kind of time-honored tradition in journalism, but I don't get the point of this one. Yeah, the people interviewed don't like the political bickering, but A) it's only about a dozen voters being interviewed, B) it's a lot easier to have that as a top priority when the economy didn't punch you in the gut as much as it did in other places, and C) I don't think it's a real big surprise there are pockets of people like this in America. There's no real insight -- lots of maybes and mights -- and the thing even ends with an "I don't know" quote.

It's an ultra lazy journalism trick to fill pages or minutes on a broadcast.

traderdave wrote:Anybody catch Anthony Weiner's rant on the floor today? That was AWESOME! Here is a link (I think):

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca ... iner_3.php

That guy is an embarrassment. Not that he's the only one in Congress, but still.

I kind of feel like seeing odds for who will fall asleep first at this Health Care Summit.

Werthless wrote:These populist feelings are certainly the majority in this country as well. Not to go all Glenn Beck and worship at the alter at our founding fathers, but it does seem like a break from some of our traditions. What drives this sentiment (beyond the recent bailouts of course), and was it present 200 years ago? Did early Americans hate the rich?

a couple of thoughts:

I have no objective information to base it on, but I'd suggest that hate is probably the least-apt descriptor of popular sentiment among a selection that includes mistrust, fear, & hate;

and

Social history - to oversimplify, a history told by those who aren't the rich, or their apologists - is relatively newly-hatched as a mode of historicizing. It costs money to build a defense of past actions. Until relatively recently - even nowadays, on reflection - only a narrow, disproportionately well-heeled slice of the population has had its hands on the historical pen.