When do we vote on Congress next?

orig_long red · August 2008

because this current batch is pissing me the hell off.

yoke · August 2008

Nov 4 2008... I think that there are going to be 35 seats up for grabs..

know1 · August 2008

yoke wrote:

Nov 4 2008... I think that there are going to be 35 seats up for grabs..

Let's vote them all out - no exceptions. I'd like to start a movement to make that happen.

jeffbr · August 2008

know1 wrote:

Let's vote them all out - no exceptions. I'd like to start a movement to make that happen.

I've mentioned this before, too. As a rule I do not vote for incumbants. If everyone did the same we'd have a brand new House every 2 years, we'd have 1/3 of the Senate change every 2 years, and a new president every 4 years. There would be no more lifetime, beltway politicians working with the same lobbiests for decades. No more politicians worrying about getting reelected. Politicians working their entire term instead of spending half it campaigning for their next election. We'd have people from all walks of life running, serving their term, and returning back to their communities.

If any of you vote for an incumbant, you are part of the problem.

chopitdown · August 2008

know1 wrote:

Let's vote them all out - no exceptions. I'd like to start a movement to make that happen.

cafferty said that very thing last night... i hope it catches on

know1 · August 2008

Why don't we do more than hope? Why don't we start a website and start promoting it.

mammasan · August 2008

Well I don't believe in voting all of them out. There are Congressmen/women who do a good job, but the majority of them do need to go. I for one will not be voting for our incumbent senator in Nov.

jeffbr · August 2008

mammasan wrote:

Well I don't believe in voting all of them out. There are Congressmen/women who do a good job, but the majority of them do need to go. I for one will not be voting for our incumbent senator in Nov.

I understand that one or two good ones will get voted out with this plan, but the problem is that everyone thinks their guy is the good one, and the others need to go. One of the biggest pork spenders in the history of the country is Robert Byrd. I would guess that just about everyone in the country would think he should be voted out EXCEPT those who can vote for him. He brings a disproportionate amount of money and federal projects into a relatively insignificant state. Which obviously makes his constituency happy.

mammasan · August 2008

jeffbr wrote:

I understand that one or two good ones will get voted out with this plan, but the problem is that everyone thinks their guy is the good one, and the others need to go. One of the biggest pork spenders in the history of the country is Robert Byrd. I would guess that just about everyone in the country would think he should be voted out EXCEPT those who can vote for him. He brings a disproportionate amount of money and federal projects into a relatively insignificant state. Which obviously makes his constituency happy.

I definitely see your point but I would hate to see good people like Ron Paul be voted out simply because they where an incumbent.

know1 · August 2008

Let him run next time, then.

slightofjeff · August 2008

I understand the "vote them all out" mentality ... but I'm not sure that's the path to effective government, either.

It's hard to get anything done when half of Congress still can't find the lunch room.

know1 · August 2008

slightofjeff wrote:

I understand the "vote them all out" mentality ... but I'm not sure that's the path to effective government, either.

It's hard to get anything done when half of Congress still can't find the lunch room.

If they know they are one and done, they might start paying attention to their constituents and get something done.

Sludge Factory · August 2008

jeffbr wrote:

I've mentioned this before, too. As a rule I do not vote for incumbants. If everyone did the same we'd have a brand new House every 2 years, we'd have 1/3 of the Senate change every 2 years, and a new president every 4 years. There would be no more lifetime, beltway politicians working with the same lobbiests for decades. No more politicians worrying about getting reelected. Politicians working their entire term instead of spending half it campaigning for their next election. We'd have people from all walks of life running, serving their term, and returning back to their communities.

If any of you vote for an incumbant, you are part of the problem.

What would you suggest when the person up for running in my state is even worse than the current incumbents? I mean, I definitely want the people in my state to change over because I feel they have compromised our liberties and freedoms, but what can be done when their only competition is willing to go even further than they have in ruining things?

YieldInHiding · August 2008

If anyone needs to be voted out, it's Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. That guy is the biggest d-bag of all d-bags. He sponsored the Patriot Act as well as the Real ID act. The voters of that district (I think it's the affluent suburbs of Milwaukee) should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to vote this guy in.

Edit: Here's a good blog that tracks what this guy is doing/not doing in congress- http://sensenbrennerwatch.blogspot.com/

He's also the guy that interrupted a witness in a congressional hearing, turned off the guy's microphone and ended the hearing because he did not like what was being said. He then walked out of the hearing like a big baby.

mdg164 · August 2008

long red wrote:

because this current batch is pissing me the hell off.

I heard yesterday, that Democrats wanted to leave for 5 weeks of vacation, so Nancy Pelosi turned the lights out and the Dems left. The Republicans wanted to stay and work on important energy issues. No wonder the price of gas has doubled since the Dems took control in 2006! All they want to do is go on vacation!

McCain said it best, "You can HOPE for cheaper gas, or you can vote for it". Not bad for a RINO!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,396322,00.html

YieldInHiding · August 2008

mdg164 wrote:

I heard yesterday, that Democrats wanted to leave for 5 weeks of vacation, so Nancy Pelosi turned the lights out and the Dems left. The Republicans wanted to stay and work on important energy issues. No wonder the price of gas has doubled since the Dems took control in 2006! All they want to do is go on vacation!

McCain said it best, "You can HOPE for cheaper gas, or you can vote for it". Not bad for a RINO!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,396322,00.html

In order to make any bill a law, the President needs to sign it or Veto it. It's pretty tough to do when he's on vacation as well. He has been on vacation more than any other president in history.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/mason/5042364.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/03/04/BL2008030401392.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/11/politics/uwire/main3927378.shtml

beachdweller · August 2008

long red wrote:

because this current batch is pissing me the hell off.

all of the House of Reps every 2 yrs
1/3rd of Senate every two years (6 yr terms)

Dem's are in a bad place in the Senate, they have the majority, but no real power. Still doing better than the Republicans did '02 - '06

chopitdown · August 2008

YieldInHiding wrote:

In order to make any bill a law, the President needs to sign it or Veto it. It's pretty tough to do when he's on vacation as well. He has been on vacation more than any other president in history.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/mason/5042364.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/03/04/BL2008030401392.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/11/politics/uwire/main3927378.shtml

is he on vacation now? It's pretty easy to act on a bill...and they define vacation as not being at the white house...is it possible (bear with me) that with the technology we have today that he could actually be available to work or (gasp) working while he's at camp david or in texas?

jeffbr · August 2008

beachdweller wrote:

Still doing better than the Republicans did '02 - '06

By what measure? We're still fuding the war, and we've extended the Patriot Act. Well done, dems.

beachdweller · August 2008

jeffbr wrote:

By what measure? We're still fuding the war, and we've extended the Patriot Act. Well done, dems.

funding the war is going to happen regardless, it's political suicide to do anything but while 150k plus troops are there, and the president has not exit plan.

congress can't pull the troops out, and since it'll costs 10 billion to pull out, they are in a lose lose situation.

American voters are responsible for not paying attention and re-electing bush.

Dem's have no power in the senate, and the dem house advantage is useless without a powerful senate advantage.

as for the patriot act, nothing wrong with it as a whole, it's the parts that need addressing, and well it would be nice to rename it. dem leadership was on board for most things Americans have issue with in that bill, so they can't really take action without incriminating themselves. That why Bush will never be impeached, I'd bet close to have or more of the current congress is culpable.

Of course the Dem's still have no balls, and that's one reason, though they don't have much power, if they stood up for what's right, and held congress hostage on many important bills, nothing done, til this is, then the next, etc...they may surprised at what they could do.

know1 · August 2008

Funny how Bush can be blamed for everything under the sun, yet plenty of excuses are offered up when you point out that Congress has been on a several-year paid vacation.

When do we vote on Congress next?

Comments

Categories