3
   

Kick the Bums out of Washington

 
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 05:01 pm
Quote:
A new Pew poll finds historic levels of unhappiness about the federal government and its role in the lives of average Americans, unrest that is at the foundation of what is shaping up to be a strongly anti-incumbent political year.

The current conditions in public opinion amount to a "perfect storm" of disgust/distrust toward government, according to Pew poll director Andy Kohut, who cites "a dismal economy, an unhappy public, bitter partisan-based backlash, and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials" as the critical factors in this building tempest.

While the report -- all 140 pages of it -- is chock full of great data, a few numbers stand out as typifying the current discontent coursing through the public.

* Roughly one in five voters (22 percent) said they can trust the government in Washington always or almost always, the lowest ebb on that question in 50 years.

* Just 38 percent said the federal government has an overall positive effect on their daily lives while 43 percent see its impact as broadly negative. Those numbers mark a considerable reversal from an October 1997 Pew poll when 50 percent said the government had a positive effect on their lives while 31 percent said it had a negative one.

* The public blames Members of Congress more than the system itself for their malaise. A majority (52 percent) said the political system can work but Members are the problem. Roughly one in three (31 percent) blame the system, not the Members.

Those soaring levels of dissatisfaction have to worry incumbents of both parties -- although the electoral pain will almost certainly be felt more by Democrats since, well, they have a lot more incumbents in the House and Senate.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/house/why-people-dislike-government.html?hpid=topnews

I am still liking the idea of making this a single issue election, take a list of imcumbents with you to the polls, and make sure that not one of them gets a vote from you. This is what I plan to do. I dont care how bad the other guy is, we cant do much worse in Washington than we are already...the down side is minimal, the upside is huge.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 1,516 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 05:23 pm
That is my plan too.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 05:26 pm
You are both completely incorrect, no matter whether you are talking about Republican or Dem candidates. Other people could do much worse then what is currently being done on either side.

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 05:28 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
True, but I think the odds of that are much lower than the current crop continuing to do as bad as they are.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 05:32 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

True, but I think the odds of that are much lower than the current crop continuing to do as bad as they are.


Are they? I don't think so.

As much as I hate the Republicans in Congress right now - venal pigs, every last one of them - they certainly aren't as bad as either the Republican pundit class OR the Tea Partiers. The elected Republicans consistently refuse to enact the full level of craziness that the other varieties of Republicans do.

As for the Democrats, I agree with much of what they have done lately - and see no reason to vote a lot of them out. Even the ones I disagree with ideologically aren't as bad, however, as a lot of the hotheads on the left side of the blogosphere....

Just be careful what you wish for. I think that residents of Mass. are figuring that out right now.

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 05:38 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I doubt my strategy will actually impact any elections (especially in Chicago, I mean Daley keeps getting elected for christ's sake).

I'm much closer to the center than you are Cyclops, much. I could see myself voting for anyone regardless of where they come from if they held positions leaning towards allowing more liberty (for gay marriage, for 2nd amendment rights, proabortion, pro separation of church and state, against bailouts for industry, against deficit spending, against the FED). If that person calls themselves a tea-partier, then so be it.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 05:54 pm
@maporsche,
Show me a tea-partier who is for gay marriage or supports the separation of church and state.

On the other hand, if you you found a Communist who was for second amendment rights and against the FED... would you vote for him (I think a Communist would agree with you on any other point).
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 06:01 pm
@ebrown p,
I tend to vote for people depending on many factors. If I felt our country was heading too far to the right, sure I'd support a communist. If I gel our country was heading too far to the left, I'd support a fascist. A vote in our country cannot be about just one canidate, it must be made in the context of ones greater goals.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 06:02 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
You are both completely incorrect, no matter whether you are talking about Republican or Dem candidates. Other people could do much worse then what is currently being done on either side.
I dont think that changing individuals will change much, for better or for worse, unless it is done on a large scale. It is the culture of Congress that has gone malignant, and that is what needs be changed. A massive change in personnel will not on it own do the job, but it is a required step.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 06:09 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Just be careful what you wish for. I think that residents of Mass. are figuring that out right now
WTF are you talking about??

Quote:
70% in Massachusetts Approve of Scott Brown’s Job Performance
Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Seventy percent (70%) of Massachusetts voters approve so far of new Republican Senator Scott Brown’s job performance, including 30% who Strongly Approve.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/massachusetts/70_in_massachusetts_approve_of_scott_brown_s_job_performance
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 06:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:

So far, Brown has voted with his party 85 percent of the time through his first 88 votes, according to a Washington Post database, an early sign that Brown’s vote isn’t always a sure thing for the GOP.

“We’ve been able to approach Scott Brown on some important issues, and he’s had an open door and open mind, and that helps,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), whose job is to count votes on legislation. “There aren’t that many.”


Durbin’s counterpart, Republican Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona, said Brown came to Washington with the makings of being a “very independent” senator.


“I think Scott Brown is going to be just fine representing his constituency in concert with the majority of his Republican colleagues,” Kyl said



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35833_Page3.html#ixzz0laxCtrVa
Sounds like a hella Senator to me...we could use more like him.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 06:48 pm
Andy Kohut of the Pew polling outfit was on NPR this morning. NPR started a week or so long series today on the issue of the record level of unhappiness that the public has with "government." I put that in quotes because it is not clear to me as to whether it is an anti-Obama, anti-Congress or anti-government bureaucracy notion.
I didn't have my notebook, so this is my memory of some points Kohut made.
> When Pew did the polling they were stunned at how high the unfavorable numbers came out. They figured there must have been some event that skewed the results. They waited a few weeks or so and did the poll again. Same outcome.
> It is true, he says, that typically satisfaction is lower when there is Democratic control of Congress than when there is Republican. People who describe themselves as Repubs are more likely to express disapproval when Dems are in power while Dems are more likely to be a bit more sanguine when Repubs run Congress. Not a huge difference, but worth noting.
> People who describe themselves as Independent -a group growing rapidly-are also more and more then ever in the government is failing category.
It seems to me that a lot of the injury to politicians is self-inflicted, with them making promises to the electorate that can not be kept. "If elected, I will ensure that all children will be above average" in education, for example.
Finally (thank you for bearing with me), I am covering the Senate races on A2K. One thing I noted was that, in the various states, there was large voter anger towards incumbents until those polled were asked about their incumbent Senator or House member. There was a significant drop-off. Go figure.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 05:51 am
@hawkeye10,
Do you have a real poll by a reputable polling outfit that asks that question?
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 06:08 am
i say once during the electoral term, members of the public (they could be chosen by lottery) should be allowed into the halls of power, to grab a few politicians (4-5) drag them onto the lawn, behead them and display their heads on poles, a good reminder for the rest of who they work for
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 06:54 am
@djjd62,
There are a many members of the public who deserve the same fate... I win the lottery I would ask for the right to select outside of government.

djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 07:02 am
@ebrown p,
we could have separate lotteries for corporate executives

i think for the public option, we could go with COPS: Public Execution, one episode a month everyone stopped on the show gets popped (make sure you signal when you turn)
ebrown p
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 07:06 am
@djjd62,
Quote:
There's the banjo serenader, and the others of his race,
And the piano-organist--I've got him on the list!
And the people who eat peppermint and puff it in your face,
They never would be missed--they never would be missed!
Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own;
And the lady from the provinces, who dresses like a guy,
And who "doesn't think she waltzes, but would rather like to
try";
And that singular anomaly, the lady novelist--
I don't think she'd be missed--I'm sure she'd not he missed!

CHORUS. He's got her on the list--he's got her on the list;
And I don't think she'll be missed--I'm sure
she'll not be missed!
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 07:12 am
I agree with Cyclo, we could do much, much worse than what we have. In our particular poltical environment, the challenger to the incumbent, especially in the primaries, is the more radical of the two. Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter. If the challengers were to win all the primaries, we would be faced with nothing but extremes in the final election. I haven't done a nation wide search, but I haven't seen one case where a moderate challenger is running against a more partisan incumbent. Around here, all the challengers have no qualifications for office other than they can spout the party line of whatever party they follow. I'll take a Washington insider with a pragmatic view over a radical, no-nothing every time. A challenger who doesn't display a significant grasp of the issues and an independent mind starts out with two strikes in my book.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 07:16 am
@realjohnboy,
I think these kind of polls are too vague. When you ask people if they are happy with their representatives, they generally are. It's other people's reps they are unhappy with. Of course, those reps weren't elected to represent them so why is that opinion meaningful? Alabama citizens unhappy with Pelosi? Who cares? As long as Pelosi's district is happy with her, she is getting the job done. Why would Alabama throw out their representatives because they are unhappy with Reed or Obama or Pelosi? The idea of throwing out all incumbents doesn't make much sense.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 09:31 am
@hawkeye10,
Brown doesn't have an open mind, he has an empty one. The man is an idiot and I have no idea how he got elected (0ther then the pathetic campaign ran by the other side).

Quote:
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Last week, the Boston Globe talked to Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) about his opposition to Wall Street reform. He initially explained that he disapproves of the bill because it adds "an extra layer of regulation," but that's absurd. Asked how the legislation could be improved, Brown told the reporter, "Well, what areas do you think should be fixed? I mean, you know, tell me."

Behold, the new Republican hero.

Yesterday, the dimwitted senator appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation," and was asked about far-right Tea Party activists and their fears about "socialism." Host Bob Schieffer wanted to know if Brown agrees with their paranoia. Here's the senator's response in its entirety, exactly as it appeared in the official transcript:
Quote:

"I know that the President should start to focus on jobs and job creation and -- and -- and -- and -- and that hasn't been done. Since I've been here we've done health care, which they obviously rammed through by using a parliamentary procedure that has never been used for something this big ever. And then the bill as we're finding out is -- is flawed, seriously flawed. It's going to cost medical device companies in my state, you know, thousands of jobs. But then, we're taking -- we're talking now about regulation reform. We're politicizing that. Maybe -- I've heard illegal immigration is going to come forth. When we're in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the only thing they talked about from the Presidents all the way down to the poorest farmer were jobs. Since I've been here, I've heard zero talk about jobs. So, I'll let -- leave that up to the political pundits, but I know from what I've seen that we need to focus on jobs and the President should start to do so."


Now, with a response like this, it's tough to know where to start. One could point out that Brown is wrong about the focus on job creation by pointing to the stimulus bill that rescued the economy. One could note that Brown is wrong about health care, which wasn't "obviously rammed through by using a parliamentary procedure," but rather, passed the Senate through regular order.

But I was particularly struck by the notion that Brown believes he's "heard zero talk about jobs." I realize Brown isn't the brightest light in the harbor, if you know what I mean, but after only three months in the Senate, I do expect him to have some sense of the bills he's already voted on. For example, he might remember voting on this "tax extenders" bill last month, which was intended to spur job creation, or perhaps voting on this job bill in February. In both instances, Scott Brown voted with Democrats, which was a fairly big deal with his far-right buddies. Seems like the kind of thing he might remember. It really wasn't that long ago.

And yet, there was Brown, telling a national television audience he's "heard zero talk about jobs." That's true, so long as one ignores all the talk about jobs.

In some ways, I almost feel bad for Scott Brown. He was elected to Congress before he was able to learn anything about public policy, and was put in a high-profile role before he could speak intelligently about any area of public policy. He didn't even expect to win his Senate campaign, so there probably wasn't any real point to him learning anything substantive before running anyway.

Brown, in this sense, is another classic example of a post turtle -- you know he didn't get up there by himself; he obviously doesn't belong up there; he can't get anything done while he's there; and you just want to help the poor, dumb thing down.

"Steve Benen 4:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023409.php

I've been watching Brown closely, and the many is empty-headed. He has yet to articulate a position on any issue which shows any analysis whatsoever and he usually dodges questions instead of answering them.

I guess it's fair to say that if you think he sounds 'like a hella senator,' then you shouldn't be relied on to make recommendations for who makes a good Senator.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Kick the Bums out of Washington
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/14/2024 at 08:13:55