Posted on 03/20/2020 11:46:41 AM PDT by usconservative
Hearing from a friend who's a State Rep. on the southwest side of Chicago that Governor Prickster (that's what we call him here) is expected to "lockdown" Illinois tomorrow (Saturday.)
Once again, the fat POS is going to follow the "lead" of California.
The direct election of Senators gave us Feinstein, Durbin, Obama, Murray, Collins, and Graham.
You lose.
L
Chicago picks the Senators anyway -- proven NOT TRUE when Illinoisans elected decent non-machine conservatives like Everett Dirksen and Peter Fitzgerald.
Jefferson, Adams, and Madison were smarter -- apparently YOU disagree, since they gave us the ability to AMEND the constitution, which greatly offends YOU. If you're so upset people exercised that option and amended it, why aren't you out demanding the repeal of the 12th amendment so Hillary Clinton can be Vice President instead of Mike Pence? I mean, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison's system for government was soooo superior than the one we CURRENTLY use, right?
The direct election of Senators gave us Feinstein, Durbin, Obama, Murray, Collins, and Graham -- and the appointment of Senators by corrupt state legislatures gave us scores of crooked politicians who BRIBED their way into holding that office for life, thus resulting in national shame, necessitating their removal and the amending of the constitution. It also gave us DOZENS of machine-RAT politicians in "conservative" southern states for DECADES after the civil war, which was considerably WORSE than the six Senators you're so upset about currently. Ask anyone currently living in a country where their "upper house" is chosen by political elites for life and they have no say in the matter. Let me know what their think of their "superior" system. Perhaps you can convince them how "good" things are, if you use the liberal socialist argument that big government knows whats best for us and we should shut up and not question their decisions.
Once again, YOU lose, and your latest "talking point" has once again been shot down.
So what argument are you going to switch to next?
State legislatures choosing Senators was a fiasco, especially once it was realized the Senators were under no legal obligation to vote as the legislatures directed them to. If the 17th were repealed, a large number of states would never have to worry about Republicans contesting them and the remainder could see RINOs teaming up with Demonrats to get rid of every non-RINO in the body.
In fact, individuals such as Feinstein, Durbin, Zero, Osama bin Murray and Graham would be handily elected by the state legislatures. Collins probably would not have because a majority of the ME legislature would elect a Stalinist rodent.
Once again, you are not smarter than the Founding Fathers.
Idiots like you who “fixed” the Constitution are what got us into this mess.
L
I think we're argued enough about something that IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE ON THE TABLE (abolishing the 17th amendment).
BTW I just noticed your tagline DJ, lol.
You just noticed my tagline now ? It’s gotten so old I was thinking of changing it. :-P
Most of the Founding Fathers didn’t live long enough to see that the Senate election process didn’t work. The public themselves knew it wasn’t working by the end of the 19th century. If as a state legislator you didn’t support the change, you would’ve been defeated by someone who would’ve.
Fun fact regarding Illinois.
Had the 17th never been implemented, the last time a Republican MIGHT have won a Senate seat would’ve been in January 1997 where the combined total of the legislature equaled a one-vote GOP majority. That would’ve been RINO Bob Kustra over Dick Durbin. However, you know that Durbin could’ve easily bribed a single Combiner RINO squish to have given him the seat.
Prior to that, not since 1981... and back then with the “Big House” and scores of fake Republicans occupying heavy Dem 3-member seats, the Dems would’ve prevailed then, too, with Alan Dixon. Before that, 1972 with the worthless left-wing RINO Chuck Percy (though as with 1981, he’d have had to keep fake Republicans from voting for Dem Roman Pucinski).
The last time that the GOP would’ve DEFINITELY gotten their nominee (barring chicanery) would’ve been in 1966 (Percy’s first term, although Paul Douglas, the incumbent, could’ve bribed members) and 1968 for Everett Dirksen’s last term, which would be barely a year. Senate appointee Ralph Tyler Smith might’ve been able to eke out a win for the remainder of the term in 1970, but again, just 3 GOP votes could’ve been enough to install Adlai Stevenson the 3rd in the seat with fake Chicago “Republicans.”
So, yeah, after the 1960s in Illinois, it’s pretty much a given (even with fleeting GOP legislative majorities on a rare occasion), the likelihood is that the last Republican Senator would’ve been out by 1972 or 1978 at the latest.
I am well known for my powers of observation.
Thank you for the analysis.
Politicians are scum, this is known, I really don’t get the bizarre augments “um they will act in the STATE’s interest because um...it’s 1822 where I live and uh WOODROW WILSON”.
You know what we should do, projected the entire Senate, what it would be today without direct elections, each Senate race (like pretend they abolished it starting with the 2014 elections).
It’s rather difficult to conclude exactly who might’ve won those races. My conclusions, however, would take into account that if a Conservative were nominated, enough RINOs would split off to either elect a Demonrat or a dissident RINO. The prime example would be the infamous TX DewCRIST-Cruz 2012 battle. You know the Dems and RINOs would’ve delivered the race to DewCRIST.
There wouldn’t be a single, solitary fiscal Conservative member of the Senate. Just scores of spendthrifts looking to loot the treasury for their state and a competition as to see who could steal more.
This ludicrous claim there’d be more statesmen in the body is a thoroughly debunked one. For one, WHO are these statesmen, and HOW would they get elected ? Preaching any sort of fiscal austerity would be electoral suicide in ANY state. Spend less = less money for that state, which would simply go to another whose Senators don’t care about limiting spending.
He noted the constitution is silent on how Senators get PAID, so instead of the FEDERAL government guaranteeing them all the SAME cushy lifetime salary, pension, and benefits, simply pass a law devolving salary matters to the state level. If the state of California wants to pay THEIR Senators $2 million per year, they could do so out of their own state government's funds, and if the state of Idaho wants to pay their Senator a $1.00 salary a year, they could likewise make that decision. All U.S. Senators would still have the exact same powers and responsibilities and be elected by We The People, but how they get compensated for their "duties" would be entirely up to state governments.
Sounds like an excellent idea to me, and would likely result in numerous Senator's salaries being slashed once each of the 50 state governments had to pay out of pocket for the "services" of their U.S. Senators.
Thanks for that.
L
Without the 17th Amendment, things would have been even worse than you depict. You mention elections between the GOP and Democrat nominees that won popular primary elections, but if the state legislatures elected U.S. Senators they could elect whomever a majority of legislators wanted and there wouldn’t even be U.S. Senate primaries. For example, it wouldn’t have been Roman Pucinski vs. Chuck Percy in 1972; in fact, it wouldn’t have been anyone against anyone.
The problem with that pay business is that you’d just simply have very wealthy people only. No “average person” could be able to serve (unless they were bought, which they would be). That’s the problem now with the House, too. Even for state legislators and city/town/village councilmembers, it’s costing more and more to be able to run a campaign and win.
You’d have de facto primaries within the party caucii, as they’d tend to choose whom to put up. So, like you said, an election for the Senate held for the 1973-79 term in Illinois immediately after the 1972 November elections might not have featured Percy vs. Pucinski. The Dems might’ve put up then-Lt. Gov. Paul Simon instead (a dozen years before he got the seat). I thought for a moment that the GOP might’ve put up then-Gov. Dick Ogilvie, but if he had won, he’d have had to turn over the Governorship to Combiner Simon, so that would be unlikely.
Percy might still have been the freshman incumbent Senator, however, since his strong showing against Gov. Otto Kerner in 1964 propelled his Senate run (assuming he could’ve deposed Sen. Paul Douglas in a 1966 face-off despite the aforementioned GOP majority, albeit predicated on several fake Republicans controlled by the Dems in the hyper-Dem districts). So, probably the 1984 marquee race between Percy and Simon would’ve occurred in 1972 instead. That would’ve left Reps. Roman Pucinski and Frank Annunzio facing off for the redrawn 11th district in a Dem primary.
>> You’d have de facto primaries within the party caucus, as they’d tend to choose whom to put up. <<
In Illinois and other states where an powerful entrenched politician runs the state legislature unilaterally with an iron fist, there wouldn't BE a virtual "inner party primary" for who gets appointed as U.S. Senator. Probably most states would have some kind of closed door meeting where RAT Party bosses decide who will become U.S. Senator, and then inform the rest of the RAT delegation to vote for that person or else.
Within Illinois, it would basically be whoever Boss Madigan wants. The JB Prizker types who fund the Illinois RATS would make their case to Boss Madigan in one-on-one private meetings. He would select whatever puppet kisses his butt the most, and both state representatives and state senators would then be expected to rubber stamp the choice he announced. Any RAT who balked and opposed Madigan's candidate during the floor vote on selecting a U.S. Senator would likely see themselves promptly removed from a committee assignment on the Ways & Means committee and reassigned to the subcommittee on Slavic Art Appreciation Day, then purged in the next primary and replaced with a Madigan loyalist.
As Impy noted a few years back, Madigan would probably appoint Daddy's little girl Lisa to a lifetime tenure in the U.S. Senate. If she got bored and quit because she got tired of bringing home the bacon for daddy, he's just get another yes-man, based on who gave the most funds to the Illinois Democrat Party and to Madigan's pet causes. Probably one of the stooges (Marty Quinn, Ray Nice, etc.) mentioned in articles like this:
As bad as things are now, we have to remember how the current U.S. Senators got their jobs. DICK Durbin originally won by portraying himself as a "sensible" center-left moderate downstate RAT who will be a level-headed U.S. Senator compared to the "scary, right wing extremist" Al Salvi (Durbin has since gone on to vote far left and does whatever the DNC tells him to 99.99% of the time, but still pretends to "listen to both sides" and claims to be a good Catholic boy and so on, and most IL voters are too dense to notice otherwise). Tammy SUCKWORTH won by being a mainstream media created "war hero" who was specifically selected to cancel out fellow phony "War hero" Mark Kirk's "credentials", and would have had a rough time being elected Senator if she faced any credible Republican besides Kirk, who was a backstabbing thoroughly disliked RINO who was clearly in no condition to run for re-election, let alone serve in the Senate after a severe stroke, and in this case, voters realized that.
So yes, even with our current worthless POS Senators from Illinois, it would get even worse if the 17th amendment were abolished. RATS would no longer have to worry about pulling out of a dog-and-pony show with Illinois voters and finding a candidate who seems likeable or caring. Illinois Senators would no longer PRETEND to "listen to their constituents" or showing up at public events. Madigan's stooge would only be concerned about funding whatever Madigan tells him to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.