Power and promises
Why the Washington lawmakers will never embrace term limits
Power and promises
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Earlier this week, Senator Jim DeMint and several GOP colleagues unveiled a bill that would require all federal lawmakers to give up their jobs after serving a fixed number of years. This would be a constitutional amendment. Senators would max out at 18 years (three terms); and House members would max out at six years (also three terms). In other words, term limits.
Good luck with that one.
When you cover politics long enough (that would be me), it's amazing how often all the old stuff gets re-branded as something new. When I heard the news about DeMint's bill, I was instantly transported back to 1990, when term limit talk was all the rage in Republican circles. GOP strategists kept telling me how important it was to take America back to the concept of "citizen legislators." They argued that all congressmen should be required to cough up their seats (and their perks) after only a few terms, because, as one strategist told me, by that point "any congressman is no longer committed to any interest except his own."
I kept insisting that they were hot for term limits only because they had been out of power in the House since 1955; that their real aim was to slap term limits on Democrats in order to compel them to retire - thus creating open seats and hiking the odds of Republicans taking back the chamber. And they kept telling me: oh no, that's not it, this is really a matter of principle, this should apply to all members regardless of party.
Indeed, their fervor for term limits was written into Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, the pact of principles that conservatives embraced during their successful campaign to take back the Congress in 1994. During that campaign, in fact, scores of Republican House candidates promised to serve only a few terms, then quit their seats. Seventy-three of those candidates won their elections.
Yet by early in the next decade, 68 of those 73 had broken their promises and opted to stick around indefinitely.
Take George Nethercutt, for instance. He ousted Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley in 1994, winning that seat in part by pledging to serve only three terms and leave office in January 2001; he wound up staying until 2005. Better yet, consider Jeff Flake. The Arizona conservative also promised to serve only three terms and vacate his seat in January 2001; last I heard, Flake was still around, voting against the economic stimulus and health care reform.
As former Republican congressman J.C. Watts (one of the few promise-keepers) wryly remarked in a newspaper column several weeks ago, "Unfortunately, those 68 representatives...concluded that America could not survive without their continued services." In essence, he wrote, "The Contract With America lost its soul at the turn of the century."
It's no mystery what happened: Once the House Republicans got the power, they decided it was better to enjoy its fruits for as long as possible. They also discovered that they would never land the plum committee jobs (and send bushels of federal bucks back to the district) unless they stuck around long enough to get the requisite seniority. Which is why, after a flurry of Republican attempts to pass a term-limits constitutional amendment on the House floor in 1995, the issue was never heard from again.
Until Senator DeMint resurrected it this week. He told The Washington Times that "as long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buy off special interests...and trading favors for pork - in short, amassing their own power." But his pitch won't go anywhere, either; it's noteworthy that he has attracted only two Republican co-sponsors, one of whom is Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who's leaving town anyway to run for governor in Texas.
The vast majority of federal lawmakers - in both parties - have zero interest in truncating their careers. (Nor do the voters seem to care one way or the other; even though polls always show majority support for term limits, congressmen are rarely punished for breaking their promises to leave. Mike McIntyre, a North Carolina Democratic congressmen, was first elected in 1996 after pledging to cap his service at 12 years. He wasn't supposed to run for re-election again in 2008. He did it anyway. He won by 38 percentage points.)
It's human nature, really. Politicians, once they have power, are strongly inclined to keep it. And the impulse is timeless. In fact, there once was a national chamber that required its members to serve limited terms. But when the leaders actually tried to enforce this rule for the first time, the members went ballistic. The incumbents who had overstayed their statutory welcome created bedlam on the floor, and the leaders dropped the rule - prompting one member to lament, "I never saw more indecent conduct in any assembly before."
The date was March 1, 1784, the chamber was the Continental Congress, and the lamenting member was future president James Monroe.
Comments (76)
Comment removed.
Term limits will eventually deliver us from Obama. I've always wondered what Barack Obama's or Nancy Pelosi's job histories look like. Have they ever held a real job, or has it always been some kind of government or community organizing kind of thing? I can't picture pulling up to a Burger King drive thru back in the day and having a young Pelosi handing me a Whopper.— jmc
Polman is indirectly responsible for what happened at Fort Hood. How? By spending the last 4 years calling Bush/Cheyney named for violating the Constitution and then calling for CIA prosecutions. Polman (and his ilk) caused confusion and fear in those who protect us. The protectors did not do their job out of fear of being prosecuted (persecuted more like it) by a mob of angry forthy liberals. This lead to the culture in the Army that allowed the Fort Hood guy to never be called out on his conduct. Way to go Polman.— CD75- Polman caused the Fort Hood massacre now? You must be doing a great job, Dick. The crazies are becoming crazier. Term limits aren't the real problem. The Constitution is a poorly written document that doesn't function in modern times. It was written for an agrarian society. A democratic republic is an inefficient form of government in general. Since most American voters are ruled by fear and anger, nothing gets accomplished. Giving a senator of Montana the same power as a senator of New York is not only foolish, it's destructive.— HandNik
- CD75, what the hell are you talking about?— anonymous
- I have long endorsed term limits as a way to 'drain the cesspool' of Wash DC. in Nancy Pelosi's words, 12 years in any one seat is all you get, Senator or House of Reps., also change the House elections to every 4 years while we're at it. I can't believe I have agreed w/Mr. Polman 2 of the last 3 blogs. I still think his conservative grad student is writing some of these :) As for yesterdays blog, Palin and Bachmann (and Dana Perino too) are really good looking conservative women. I love that in a woman :)— NEPhilly
- Yes, term limits for all, including CD75.— RunWrite
- Hey CD, does your arm cramp up when you spend all that time holding up master Rush's poster with one hand?— jrotten
- I can just picture it now. First, the campigns are stocked with candidates nobody knows or likes. Remember that polls show repeatedly that voters want term limits, but they want their hime rep to stay on. Then first Congress after the amendment passes has about 350 freshmen members. All of the chairmanships are turned over. There will be so few members left with leadership material, the infighting for chairmanships will go on until June. That will happen over and over again and the special interests will still find a way to dominate. In other words, nobody left to govern but the special interests.— SteveMG
- Polman is trying with all his might not to write about anything Obama. It is amazing how he writes about term limits on the day it was announced that KSM will be tried in federal court in NYC. It is also uncanny timing that this announcement is made the day after Obama leaves for a nine day trip to Asia, so there will be little chance if any to ask him about this atrocious decision. So KSM will be tried in NYC, judged by a jury of his peers (will they need 12 Muslims in the jury box?), will have free legal representation, it will be a media circus, and I am also suspicious this decision was made to bring out all the Bush torture incidents. Maybe KSM will have the charges thrown out and walk out of court a free man, and Obama can then blame something else on Bush. And Polman writes about term limits.— tom - wilmington, de
- Tommy, you been drinking tea? The reason they can try KSM in NYC is because he ran his mouth and boasted of his role. They won'thave to go there about the torture. He's gonna have representation because in this country defendents are entitled to representation. And since shen do you need 12 muslims in the jury box just because you have a muslim defendant? If KSM somehow succeeded in getting the charges dismissed he still won't walk, he would remain in custody because there will inevitably be other charges pending. Kind of like the DC Sniper, he was only charged and convicted for some of the murders. If he had soehow beat the first trial he would have been charged with other murders later.— SteveMG
- There are consistent enough complaints that I'm beginning to think that we should all do a list of what Polman should write about each day and get him to do what this blog wants. Whatever scores the most votes, I'm sure Polman will assent. This is our blog, not his.— RunWrite
- Note to Longshanks from yesterday's blog. After 10 months, Bush had passed bi-partisanship legislation called No Child Left Behind, which was written with Ted Kennedy. And yes, 9/11 happened on his watch. After 10 months, Obama has no bi-partisan legislation (even though he was the first post-partisan president), and Fort Hood happened on his watch. So what was your point?— tom - wilmington, de
- Yes, Polman is responsible, indirectly. The attacks by the Left on our Intelligence Agencies and the Left's calling anyone who is agressive on counter-terrorism as criminals and torturers, has created a culture of timidness and a culture of "I am not sticking my neck out on the line" in our Intelligence Agencies. The Angry Left has caused our protectors to not do their job out of fear of being hung out to dry by the Left (see Holder).— CD75
- It does seem that term limits seem to come up when the GOP is in the minority. They could have done it between 2003-2007...when they controlled both houses of Congress. But they were too caught up in scandals. That being said...Mr. Polman talks an awful lot about the GOP, even though they are in the minority. I think he is a closet republican. Did anyone hear about the about Democratic Strategy for the 2010 midterms. They want to nationalize the elections and make it a referendum on Obama. With poll numbers in the low 50's (and high 40's if you count likely voters)...good luck with that one.— TommyF
- Tom, children's education is an easy issue for Democrats to cross party lines. It's seems for this Congress there is no issue that Republicans will cross party lines. They voted for the economic package last fall with a Republican president, yet the stimulus package under Obama is anathema. Granted, Obama has sunk much of his political capital into health care, an issue Republicans as a vast marjority have no desire to pass. Not only that they continue to demonize the plan with otherwise laughable mistruths. Yet, a bill did pass the house for the first time in history.— RunWrite
- We have the ability now to set term limits, just vote the current herd of weasels out of office in the next election. Here is one better, why not change the layout in the polling booth? Scramble the names so the candidates are interspersed among each other. That way 90% of the electorate will leave the booth in frustration not knowing what party they voted.— junethe4th
- Comment removed.
- Term limits are just laws that do what people ought to do anyway - vote 'em all out! Why wait for a third term? Eighteen years in the senate is waaaaaay too long.— Mark Glaeser
- Now, if we had mandatory insurance without regard to pre-existing conditions, CD would be able to get the care he needs.— JimR
- Conservatives don't believe that legislation is the solution to all of our problems. Right wingers, however, want not just legislation, but they want to change the Constitution instead of allowing the voters to do what they've had the power to do all along. You can't be held much more accountable than to have to face re-election every two years. There are probably more conservative blue dog democrats than there are real conservative republicans.— SteveMG
- Comment removed.
- NEPhilly: without reapportionment, term limits are useless. Most districts are so gerrymandered that whichever party holds them will hold them indefinitely.— still_independent
- Unrelated irony alert - "A chagrined GOP Chairman Michael Steele has told Republican National Committee staff to immediately stop providing RNC employees with insurance for elective abortions ... Steele instructed staff to inform the insurance carrier that the RNC wanted to opt out of elective abortion coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said. She said the policy has been in effect since 1991." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/12/rnc-health-insurance-plan-covers-abortions/— still_independent
- I'll take a media circus over torturing people in some secret prison somewhere. One study showed that 80 percent of the people originally held at Gitmo had nothing to do with terrorism. What would Repubs be without scare tactics?— Djoko Pritza
- still, how do districts change hands now then? Term limits are a good starting point. Companies would then have to buy off a new politician, at least:) djoko, I guess you don't want to post the link to that study? Have a nice weekend everyone!— NEPhilly
- The study was by a team of law students and attorneys at Seton Hall University Law School. After reviewing 517 Guantanamo detainees' cases, the team concluded that only 8 percent were alleged to have associated with Al Qaeda, and 55 percent had not engaged in any hostile action against the U.S. at all, and the remainder were charged with dubious wrongdoing, including having tried to flee U.S. bombs. The overwhelming majority, 95 percent, were captured by non-U.S. players, many of whom were bounty hunters. In addition, a senior CIA intelligence analyst, fluent in Arabic and expert in Islamic extremism (he declined to be identified), was dispatched by the agency in late 2002 to sort through the chaos at Gitmo. He concluded that more than 200 of the 600 captives had no connection with terrorism whatsoever. The general in charge then at Gitmo, Major General Michael Dunlavey, lamented that fully half the population were mistakes. Later, in 2003, a FBI counterterrorism expert (not named) said no more than 50 detainees were worth holding at Gitmo.— Djoko Pritza
- "The study was by a team of law students and attorneys at Seton Hall University Law School." In other words flaming indoctrinated liberals. I think the study lost all credibility in the first sentence.
- Djoko- Into which category would the Setan Hall students put this Gitmo detainee?...............After being captured fighting with Taliban forces against Americans in 2001, Abdullah Massoud was sent to Guantanamo, where the one-legged terrorist was fitted with a special prosthetic leg, at a cost of $50,000-$75,000 to the U.S. taxpayer. Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, Massoud would now be able to park his car bomb in a handicapped parking space! No, you didn't read that wrong, because the VA won't pay for your new glasses. I said $75,000. I would have gone with hanging at sunrise, but what do I know? Upon his release in March 2004, Massoud hippity-hopped back to Afghanistan and quickly resumed his war against the U.S. Aided by his new artificial leg, just months later, in October 2004, Massoud masterminded the kidnapping of two Chinese engineers in Pakistan working on the Gomal Zam Dam project.
- djoko...like NEPhilly stated, you do not want to post the link to that study, do you? I would be interested in reading it.— tom - wilmington, de
- NEPhilly, I found that report online. Its author was Mark Denbeaux Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law and Counsel to two Guantanamo detainees. So Djoko cited a study by one of the attorney's for two of the detainees at Guantanamo. No wonder he didn't mention that in his post or post the link. What else would one of the detainees lawyers be expected to find in his analysis of the detainees. Pure liberal spin.— tom - wilmington, de
- ***Guantanamo detainees by the numbers. A look at numbers for detainees past and present at the detention center that opened in 2002 at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: — Currently held at Guantanamo: 215. — Released or transferred out of Guantanamo: About 565. — Transferred to the United States so far: One, Ahmed Ghailani, who is awaiting trial in New York. — Convicted by military commissions at Guantanamo: Three, including two who have completed their sentences, with one now free in Australia and another in Yemen. — Cases considered viable for prosecution in federal courts or by military commissions: About 65. — Cleared for release by a government task force as of late September: 78.*** http://blog.taragana.com/n/a-look-at-statistics-on-guantanamo-detainees-past-and-present-228903/— NEPhilly
- DJOKO: Don't you know that ALL (no exceptions) are the worst of the worst. One Conse 'Pub indicated the cost factor, as you know we cannot afford the expense of trials, of housing these sub-humans. One detainee = one bullet. No trial, no tribunal. Execute ALL!!! ............ No link = you are wrong. Conse 'Pubs have links to World Net Daily. If you provide a link, it has to be to a Conse 'Pub site or it's biased, no? Conse 'Pubs will dis any other type of link.— Talvenada
- tom, he probably did it 'pro bono' too :) Or better yet taxpayers paid him, priceless:) Off to stimulate the economy @ dinner. Be back later.— NEPhilly
- tal, instead I think I 'll go for a drink at the Conse 'Pub instead :) Take it light.— NEPhilly
- Tal- Again at the Conse Pub? Drink one for me.
- SPIN BORO MIKE: You think we can afford to give the worst of the worst trials or free housing?— Talvenada
- Sarah Palin was a Hai.l-Mary pass, and we've been praying for her to leave ever since.— Talvenada
- Tal, is what was posted from World Net Daily wrong? Did you disprove it? Referencing a "study of 517 detainees" and labeling it as being produced by "lawyers and law students at Seton Hall University" without indicating that the lawyer whose name is on the report as being the lead author represents two of the detainees is being totalldy disingenuous. At least most conservatives include the link to what they reference and do not try and hide it. Lots of people here that are not conservatives (like Nigel) provide links that are not wrong and have been complimented. It is easy to see you have tipped one too many pints at your Conse Pub, and the next coherent, articulate post you make will be the first clear, articulate post you make.— tom - wilmington, de
- TOM: Conse 'Pubs have a disturbing pattern, which is what I was saying. I was referencing no study. Conse 'Pubs reference Conse stories in Conse publications, provide a link, and label it as FACT! If you say something different, provide a link, and Conse 'Pubs will disprove it based on one word with a definition they provide. It is a no-win situation, and a waste of time. ...........You want proof? Here 'tis. There is zero proof that Obama is an American that all Conse 'Pubs will find acceptable, except on an individual basis if PUSHED hard. The bottom line is that Obama is an American is ONLY my opinion. Do you want a link to prove Obama is an American, and if I don't provide a link that proves he is NOT an American, right? Then, he should be arrested for being in the country illegally, no? Arrested and imprisoned, tried and convicted.— Talvenada
- Talvenada, see the last line of my previous post. Still waiting. As per your belief, I am a Conse Pub, yet I, as well as several other Conse Pubs on this site, have acknowledged Obama is an American citizen and the birthers as the Conse Pub version of the Truthers. No link provided. Yet, when one posts opinion as fact, and uses a source such as a defense attorney representing some of the subjects of that opinion, that is dubious. Want an example? Okay, here's one. Liberals believe Bush knew about 9/11 before hand and did nothing to stop it. Liberals believe our own government imploded the WTC towers. Liberals believe our government blew up the levees in New Orleans to destroy Democrat voting territory. There are numerous links to each of these opinions, but no facts. Contrary, most Conse pubs on this site post links to the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, MSNBC.com, Fox News, Politico, and I could go on. However, you will only, as usual, read every other word. Have at it.— tom - wilmington, de
- How about, since this is a census year, make the districts with some kind of geographical and population designed borders that make sense. No term limits needed then.
- TOM: Liberals believe? I have yet to see one poster spouting those beliefs on this site or elsewhere. I've heard those obscure rantings, but only ran into 1 person 5 years ago who even spouted something similar to 1 of them. Yet, I've seen many birthers, and members of congress who dare not disagree with them. ........Liberals? All? Half? 2? .............YOU are the first Conse 'Pub to admit Obama is American without the it's-only-my-opinion part.— Talvenada
- Trying KSM in NYC is dangerous and and illogical political stunt without a legal basis. Hypocrisy rules Obama. For example, the Obama Team has decided that the USS Cole terrorists get tried in a military commission, but KSM gets a civil courtroom. This is nothing but a stunt, and the American court system and the people of NYC are pawns in this game by Holder.— CD75
- CD75: what about the terrorist plots that have been broken up? How did the "timid" FBI manage to stop that one?— EchoesoftheEnlightenment
- Talvenada, if you had been reading back when Polman wrote a piece about the birthers, you would have found numerous conservatives on this site stating that Obama was a citizen. Also, just a couple of days ago a liberal posted about "having a real investigation into 9/11" and how "the only way to collapse steel". But I guess you either missed those days or those words. Echoes, recall when "The Fort Dix Six" were arrested and the media wrote how they were incompetent and not a danger? Funny how that same media views ANY stopped plot as a massive threat to our society and great work by our intelligence agencies. I am sure there are plots stopped a lot about which we never hear. While the Cole trial is a military commission because it struck a military target, I believe trying KSM being tried in NYC opens us up to intelligence secrets being revealed, covert operatives being identified, chances of a possible attack intensified, and what Holder called "alleged acts" actually being viewed in terms of just due to the jihad being waged against us. The Zaccarias trial took 4 years. How long do you think a trial will take for KSM? First motion filed? No Miranda rights given, so all material, statements, etc. inadmissable. Second motion? Dismissal for lack of a speedy trial. This is a liberal lawyers dream, a chance to put Bush, Cheney and the CIA on trial.— tom - wilmington, de
- Who cares that Republicans are proposing this when they aren't in power? We should jump on these rare opportunities and call our representatives and ask them to sign on. It's about trying to get politicians to do what's best for the people they represent versus what's best for their careers. Combine this with campaign finance reform and we'll set the stage to reduce corruption.— MikeP
- Talvenada- How is it that you were asked to post of link to the Seton Hall Study that you cited but you changed the argument to the " birthers ".. What does one have to do with the other?
- Geez, what a couple of losers,cd and tom. Polman caused Ft.Hood and it happened on Obama's watch. No, bush caused Ft. Hood. The military and others knew about this guy last year, you know, when bush was still president. They did nothing, so that goes to the top. As usual, the bush administration did nothing with the intelligence it was given. And the wussies like tom, so afraid to have our legal system, the one they call the best on earth, try KSM and other in the city they helped attack. What is wrong with these conservatives? They claim we are the toughest country with the best laws, yet want to hide under the bed rather than let our country show its light to the world by trying these fools in open court. It's obvious that these conservatives would be happier living in Russia or Iran or N. Korea where they can hide trials where they won't have to afraid anymore. Why do conservatives hate America?— mike l
- cd, a little intelligence,please. ksm and the others are being tried in NYC because that's where the crime was committed. It was a civil target, in actuality. The Cole bombers will be tried in a military court because they attacked a US warship. But I guess that's too hard for scaredy cats to understand. The conservative mantra: "we're the strongest toughest country on earth, but please, don't bring those nasty terrorists here. They scare us!"— mike l
- SPIN BORO MIKE: This is how................Posted 05:15 PM, 11/13/2009....Djoko Pritza: The study was by a team of law students and attorneys at Seton Hall University Law School.— Talvenada
- TOM: The only president to face a trial was Clinton, and it was Conse 'Pubs like Starr who openly demanded that. Obama is far worse than Clinton and FDR to Conse 'Pubs, and Beck wanted him out after 1 month with his new American revolution to reverse an illegal election. Bush, of course, could do no wrong in your eyes. Obama makes big mistakes every single day, and Bush ran the country as you would have. Bush regrets doing something regarding the economic collapse, and wants no regulations on the rich and powerful. Those are free market principals that allow those with money and power to do as they please to increase their wealth and power at the expense of losers. ......................... Why take any chances with the Gitmos? One bullet to the head would save money from any trial, because they are all the worst of the worst. No housing costs and no trial costs would let the terrorists and the world know we're the greatest country ever. You disagree and we'll nuke you. You need us, we don't need you. You are inferior to us. The terrorists don't deserve a trial of any kind, free food and housing, and they don't deserve to live.— Talvenada
- Talvenada- You sound like a disgruntled meat packer. Tough night at the plant, eh?
- Talvenada, obviously you either do not know how to read, your you have the comprehension skills and retention ability of a fruit fly. Posted on this site many times by me were criticisms of Bush, of his spending, of one of his supreme court nominees, of his immigration bill, of dubai ports, etc. The list goes on. For you to write "Bush, of course, could do no wrong in your eyes. Obama makes big mistakes every single day, and Bush ran the country as you would have." shows me you have no idea about what you are speaking. So have a great day, watch the Eagles today at 4:00, and go back to get your GED.— tom - wilmington, de
- Mike1 wrote "No, bush caused Ft. Hood. The military and others knew about this guy last year, you know, when bush was still president. They did nothing, so that goes to the top." So, using this logic, we can assume Mike believe Bill Clinton was responsible for 9/11, since the hijackers were in the country for years, it was known they were taking flying lessons, they had the intelligence data, and chose to do nothing. Thank you Mike1 for clearing that up for us. As to the legal system, we shall see what happens with KSM et al. It is interesting though the holer referred to them as "alleged" and that to date, no formal charges have been filed. As noted in the WSJ on Saturday "Will KSM be formally charged with the 9/11 murders, or merely with "material support" for terrorism or some lesser offense?" They do not even know what evidence will be admissable. Recall these guys were not mirandized, so what if anything can be used against them? Sure, we have a great legal system. However, war criminals do not belong in the civiliam system. That is why Congress developed the commission process in 2006, and that is what should be used.— tom - wilmington, de
- Meanwhile, the President of the United States bows before the Emperor of Japan.— tom - wilmington, de
- Tom, I must say, that attitude by many conservatives here (i.e., why should the U.S. apologize for anything, why should we show deference for other rulers, etc.) bothers me. There's nothing wrong in admitting you're wrong, when you are. There's nothing wrong in honoring someone else's culture (bowing to Japan's emperor). When I lived in the Philadelphia area, I worked with a very young girl from South Philly. She came from an Italian family. And one of her favorite expressions, which she uttered while her hands were on her hips and her head was cocked to the side, "Get over yourself." I think we Americans sometimes need to get over ourselves. It's arrogant in the extreme to believe that we should never apologize for policies that have hurt others or that we should never humble ourselves. I frankly admire others who can do both of these things. But then, aggression and arrogance have always turned me off.— NigeltheMastiff
- Term limits, taxation of foreign campaign contributions, execution of Americans that work for ghost companies that hide foreign campaign contributions and taxation of all campaign spending. Then on to tort reform.— Joe Funk
- For goddsakes don't blame the writer, your blame is totally misguided-sounds like some of y'all have had one too many. Agreed that terms limits are needed-but unfortunately it's pretty hard to put the horses back into the barn once we've left the doors wide open and they've run about 30,000 miles down the road. The STUPID people of this country keep electing these morons, and the idea that government should be the bastion of citizen legislators once again is a nice thought, but as long as one has to be a millionaire to run for public office the average citizen will never be able to do so. Major MAJOR changes are needed on BOTH sides of the aisle....and no I'm not GOP whining about term limits, I'm a GWF, 30-year Democrat who just doesn't toe the party line. I want a fair, decent government for ALL the people.— KimThL
- TOM: I haven't read posts during baseball season, but to question my intelligence based on one sentence with attached insults proves your what? Superiority? Do you get that Conse 'Pub look of intellectual superiority on your face I've seen? The look that says only Conse 'Pubs know the issues, and how to make them into righteous correctness? How to be right every time, every issue without regard to any and all facts? That look I've seen many times. How to be wrong and still be right? How to argue with an empty quiver? How to slime over the smallest detail to discredit any who disagree with you?— Talvenada
- SPIN BORO MIKE: You cannot even bother to insult me with a new insult, but recycle on you've used on me and others before. I guess your insulting me proves you right in all you say, because you say it, no?— Talvenada
- NIGEL: Conse 'Pubs act that way because they are superior. The best country ever, the smartest, the best of everything ever. They should be running the country, if not the universe. When Bolten went to The UN, I thought we'd get the takeover of Earth by The Bushys. I'm sure they see themselves as not arrogant like Obama, not aggressive like dictators.— Talvenada
- Talvenda- Dude! Your posts make no sense. The only reason I indulge with you is for comic relief.
- SPIN BORO MIKE: Thank you for your response. Answer me one question, please. Are Conse 'Pubs equal to the rest of us? No link needed, no proof required. Just an answer or an evasion.— Talvenada
- Talvenada, conservatives are just like liberals. Some are intelligent, some are over the top partisan where their elected leaders can do no wrong, some are ignorant of any views other than their own, and some are your normal, average everyday Joe who likes to sit and gulp down a pint or two while devouring extra hot wings at your local sports bar. Except, of course, for you. You my dear fellow are in a league of your own, all unto yourself. Enjoy.— tom - wilmington, de
- Talvenada, right. The only time anyone criticized Bush for his spending, immigration bill, Harriett Maiers, Dubai Ports was this past summer during baseball season. If my memory is correct, they all appeared on the same date. Guess you missed all those posts.— tom - wilmington, de
- Nigel, nobody is saying people should not apologize. However, the ruler of a country must be careful as to what their apology relates, and hot it is perceived. Leaders of nations are watched by enemies of that nation for any sign of weakness, any bit of hesitance or reluctance in making decisions. It may not be arrogance or conceit that makes a nations leader act in a superior manner, but it may be a type of "false bravado" to make other think twice about encountering that nation in a hostile manner. As to bowing before the Emperor or Japan or the King of Saudi Arabia, a nations leader should not do such a thing. These people are supposed to be on equal footing, with neither showing deference to the other. For example, in Muslim faith, bowing shows a sign of helplessness and dependence on someone else, so when Obama bowed before the Saudi King, it could have been perceived as a sign of weakness. As for the emperor, in Japan, bowing is not seen as a sign of submission. However, in Japanese culture, bowing is not to be done as deeply as Obama did, but slightly at a 45-50 degree angle. In Japanese tradition, the human body has three zones, heaven (shoulders up), man waist to shoulders), and earth (waist down). Obama should have bowed slightly at the waist, as noted above to a 45-50 degree angle, as a sign of respect. However, also not that neither the Emperor or his wife are bowing in return. In Japan, you bow before shaking hands, with your own hands on your thighs, then shake hands. Either Obama is being given very bad advice on protocal, or he just isn't listening.— tom - wilmington, de
- From Gallup "More Americans now say it is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%). This is a first since Gallup began tracking this question, and a significant shift from as recently as three years ago, when two-thirds said ensuring healthcare coverage was the government's responsibility."— tom - wilmington, de
- "Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts...And we must be especially careful with any decisions to bring onto American soil any of those prisoners who remain a threat to our country but whose cases have been adjudged as inappropriate for trial at all. They do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons." Is that statement from Rush Limbaugh? Glenn Beck? Newt Gingrich? John McCain? Nope. That statement is from the DEMOCRAT Senator of Virginia, Jim Webb. So it is not just "Conse Pubs" who believe the Holder decision to be flawed.— tom - wilmington, de
- TOM: Conse 'Pubs are very reluctant to criticize Bush, and you know it. You're talking about the few and far between. 1 post out of 200 or so. I know it's not often, but Obama gets it every day. Yeah, Bush got it hard for going to war, Gitmo, torture, wiretapping, and his other gems. That compares to Obama putting KSM on trial in NY.— Talvenada
- TOM: Now, Obama does it wrong again by bowing, right? There is a right way, but I don't recall 1 time he has done it right. Has he apologized or bowed correctly in your opinion once? Once or has he done things wrong 100% of the time. Obama didn't bow correctly is equal to Bush's defense of torture--or should I say enhanced interrogation? Bowing incorrectly is worse, no?— Talvenada
- Obama doesn't care about Conse 'Pubs, as he cares more about the wishes of the terrorists. All Conse 'Pubs are asking is to do things their way, like Bush.— Talvenada
- Conse 'Pubs have real fears that somehow KSM will not be put to death, and we cannot take that chance. This is just like Ronald Reagan who warned us tha— Talvenada
- Conse 'Pubs have real fears that somehow KSM will not be put to death, and we cannot take that chance. This is just like Ronald Reagan who warned us that Medicare would be the end of America, just like health care public choice will do the same. When are people going to listen to Conse 'Pubs and do the right thing? Like Bush.— Talvenada
- tal, you should go to bed earlier. Staying up that late is not good for you:) RR still has a chance to be right about Medicare & I agree w/the public option statement though the sarcasm is noted. GWB only listened to conse 'pubs in the international arena and spent too much domestically, imho. Happy Monday everyone:)— NEPhilly
- ***This means that the broader Democratic agenda is essentially a hostage to the unemployment numbers. And Republicans are hoping that if they win enough seats in 2010, Obama will turn into Bill Clinton redux, pursuing compromises on deficits and entitlement reform in lieu of more liberal legislation. Of course, they haven’t won yet. Even without a second stimulus, there’s still plenty of money from the first one set to wash into the economy before next year’s election (It almost seems as if Nancy Pelosi drew it up that way ...). The Republicans remain broadly unpopular: they're leading the polls more by default than because they inspire any deep affection. And they aren’t exactly overflowing with their own ideas for job creation at the moment. If unemployment stays high enough, though, they may not need them. All they’ll have to do is tally up the job market’s performance since Barack Obama took office, and then draw a third line, in red, on a certain overly optimistic chart.*** http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/opinion/16douthat.html?_r=1&ref=opinion— NEPhilly
1
Popular Posts
About this blog
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: