Posted on 02/21/2010 9:10:28 AM PST by Kaslin
WASHINGTON – It is probably fair to say that U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, D-Pa., started it all. He perceived, long before anyone else, that this will not be the year of the incumbent.
Armed with campaign battle scars, a cantankerous personality and fairly long-in-the-tooth seniority (even by Senate standards), Specter has come to symbolize the end of the incumbent.
A CNN poll last week showed that only one-third of U.S. voters (a record-low number) think their members of Congress deserve to go back next year.
When Specter switched parties last spring, he was brutally honest why: He didn't want to go down in a closed Republican primary. When colleague Evan Bayh, D-Ind., announced last week that he will not run again, he was equally brutal: He’s sick of Washington and Congress.
After a summer of discontent marked by Tea Parties, angry town-hall meetings and plummeting polls, a domino-line of incumbent retirements has hit both chambers and parties.
Democrats have absorbed the heaviest blows. Bayh’s decision followed similar retirement announcements of Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn. The decision by Beau Biden, Delaware’s attorney general and an Iraq War veteran, not to run for his vice-presidential father’s old U.S. Senate seat is considered by many to be equivalent to an incumbent loss.
Those are guys who got out while the getting was good. Some notables, such as Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who trails in the polls, and Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., have not retired but perhaps should.
The saucer that cools public passions, as the Senate is often described, has grown bitterly cold for many of its incumbents.
Of course, party activists are furious with Bayh or Connecticut’s “Independent Democrat,” Joe Lieberman, and they are increasingly dismayed with Obama for not fighting the good fight, in their eyes.
“Lieberman is a matter of convenience,” said Purdue University political scientist Bert Rockman. “Most Democrats don’t like him at all, and his whole strategy is to win Republican and independent votes in 2012.”
Many of the Dem activists, Rockman explained, see their Senate leadership and their president as a bunch of wusses – but they don’t carry the same weight within their party as their Republican counterparts do on the opposing side.
Arlen Specter didn’t get along with his Senate colleagues when he was a Republican, and he probably won’t do any better as a Democrat. He isn’t the future of the Democratic Party – but his May primary opponent, the relentless U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, is.
Sestak is positioning himself effectively to the left of Specter (although once Specter realized he was in for a more vigorous primary race than originally expected, he moved steadily leftward – just as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has moved rightward in his primary battle against former congressman J.D. Hayworth).
American politics has become dysfunctional: The parties have moved much farther to the right or to the left than the average voter wants or expects. Ironically, elections that “throw the bums out” indiscriminately tend to throw out moderates because they are most vulnerable, inasmuch as they tend to come from marginal districts.
“So the irony is that an anti-incumbent election is apt to radicalize the parties even more,” Rockman explains. “That will take us farther from solving problems (rather) than closer.”
Specter demonstrated the ultimate in opportunism with his party switch. Opportunism is always a gamble, and it now looks as if he's rolled craps. Or, to use a poker analogy, his anticipated ace in the hole, President Obama (who pledged his support to the senator's re-election), has turned out to be a Joker card instead.
Voters in general will always be suspicious of a party-switcher. That suspicion, while not inescapable, can fade if the switcher persuasively makes a case that he or she did so out of conviction, not just to hang onto public office.
People just don't warm to people who look as if they are taking advantage.
Right now, they also are cooling to incumbents who, right or wrong, have become symbols of this year of widespread voter discontent.
“Give them a dose of reality and a reminder of our Founders’ principles.”
Our founders wanted one Representative for anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 people. That’s the way the House should be. If a person is doing a FANTASTIC job, why should they be term limited?
Of course, if the House were to be “recreated” in a way that follows the Constitution, you would have to reduce pay, etc. Still, with substantially smaller districts, you would have a lot more candidates running as a campaign wouldn’t cost an obscene amount of money. You’d also have a lot of turnover as I’m quite sure those that would win that just don’t have the “fire in the belly” would quit in 2 to 4 years anyway.
Please understand that I’m not talking about expanding Government ... I’m talking about expanding representation for each citizen in the USA. I guess it is a matter of semantics, but I feel this is the best solution to solve a LOT of problems. It would most certainly end two party dominance in my opinion.
“The only way to achieve political amity in the country is to squash today’s Democrat party like a bug.”
That is very true. Our motto for this election should be this: “That which is not Constitutional must be sterilized.”
“....and there are no exceptions.”
“Suggest they authorize a construction of the apartment complex for the House and Senate Members”
Sounds good! Only thing I would be worried about though is terrorism. With all of our leaders and their families living and sharing the same complex, it would be a prime target.
Not always. Think Philly and the Black Panthers. May need our own night sticks this time...it's ok though, no one will get prosecuted.
Right Holder?
***If a person is doing a FANTASTIC job, why should they be term limited?***
A fantastic job in the private sector leads to promotions.
Following that scenario - movement from City to County to State Rep to State Senate to State Gov. to Fed Rep. to Senate to POTUS. @ 4 years per position would result in a minimum of 32 years in the public service sector.
Now, if they would only VOTE that way, come November!
Hey, wait a minute . . ... is that you P.J. ??
“A fantastic job in the private sector leads to promotions.
Following that scenario - movement from City to County ...”
You forgot local town mayor or school board member at the beginning of your list ;-) .
This isn’t the private sector though. The US House wasn’t modeled after the private sector anyway. It was intended to be the voice of the “rabble rousers” in the country.
When it comes to the US House, it’s basically up to the people to decide who represents them. There are no qualifications, past experience, etc. required...much like Obama, only with far less power.
We are talking about what was supposed to be a Democratic madhouse. A substantially larger sample of the mood of the people would filter the more obscene picks out of the 5K to 10K Reps. we would have. More importantly any legislation that would be passed with a much larger sample of the public’s wishes has more chance to satisfy a heck of a lot more people. As an added bonus, getting a majority vote from a substantially larger body of people will be a heck of a lot more difficult.
Seriously, I cannot see how people are comfortable with a body of people the size of a large high school graduating class that creates legislation that is supposed to represent the wishes of 300M+ people!
***Seriously, I cannot see how people are comfortable with a body of people the size of a large high school graduating class that creates legislation that is supposed to represent the wishes of 300M+ people!***
Which speaks to the importance of States’ Rights.
State Governors need to re-assert themselves and perhaps the disaster that is our Federal Government may bring it about.
Spector will probably never figure this out, but all he really had to do was what McCain is now doing and give the Republicans a few key votes. (although it probably won’t work for McCain, due to being in AZ, and having a lot more baggage as a Republican). The idea of going to the other side and expecting help from those guys was nuts.
“Which speaks to the importance of States’ Rights.
State Governors need to re-assert themselves and perhaps the disaster that is our Federal Government may bring it about.”
Yep. The problem is that when a state elects a moron for a governor, they typically view themselves as an extension of the federal government. That gives them someone to blame in the event of failure, and someone to go crawling towards begging for handouts when they foul up their state’s economy. I’m in total agreement with State’s Rights. However, I’m still focusing on the size of the US House (what this has to do with the original article is beyond me, sorry :-) ).
Again, I have to emphasize that I am talking about an expansion of representation, not an expansion of government in the entitlement sense. Moreover, I don’t expect a House of 5K or 10K members to have these extravagant salaries and retirement benefits ... that would have to change.
Even the location of the House may have to change ... you could keep part of it in DC, but the “physical” House itself would have to be split into, say, 6 or 8 buildings in various cities across the country in an effort to minimize travel expenses, etc. With our modern communications infrastructure, it is no problem at all to link these places together.
Just some thoughts ... I never see this idea discussed, so I suspect I am on the fringe or flat out wrong about something. I just have this gut feeling that the small size of the House is the top problem with OUR Federal Government. The Federal Government has been getting worse and worse in terms of size and control of our lives since the Civil War.
Also, think about the wealth out there ... buying off a majority of 435 people isn’t really that hard anymore! Buying off a majority of 5K to 10K Reps. would be a heck of a lot more difficult and much harder to keep a secret :-)! As the population of the USA grows, so does the House ... therefore, anyone thinking that corruption is a solution to their problems will be shooting at a moving target that changes substantially every 10 years.
Better yet -- let the congress critters work from home, over the Internet.
Hey, throwing out all, all of the Dem incumbants would be a great start to cleaning up DC. Then nominating people like Marlin St. in Indiana would be the next step.
You raise some very enlightened arguments.
I expect the Founders did not anticipate the huge changes in store from agricultural science, the industrial age, population explosion, medical advances, extended life expectancy, immigration etc., (In 1750 the world’s population was 700 million - today it is 7 billion).
Next up?
Constitutional Amendment:
A person’s combined length of service in any, or any combination, of the following three capacities shall not exceed 12 years’ time: as an elected government offical, as an appointed government official, or as an employee of any government body or agency. This amendment applies to all federal and non-federal levels and branches of government. In exchange for all or any portion of this 12 years of service, no person shall receive any government funded compensation of any kind other than salary and health benefits received during this same 12 years of service.
There shall be no pension or retirement benefits funded or administered by any government unless expressly permitted in this amendment.
Time spent serving in the following capacities shall be exempted from the restrictions in this amendment, and compensation related thereto may include pension and retirement benefits: as a uniformed member of any component of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard; as a federal judge and federal supreme court justice.
Regardless of any other service, in exchange for serving in the following capacities, a person shall receive government funded salary and health benefits during the period of service, but no person shall receive any government funded compensation of any kind other than salary and health benefits received during this same period of service: any time spent serving as President and Vice-President of the United States; 6 years of the total time spent serving as a top level ambassador; 6 years of the total time spent as a top level cabinet secretary.
An exemption pertaining to federal law enforcement personnel shall only be valid if passed by an 80% majority of both houses of Congress and signed by the President, all occuring during the same session of Congress. Such an exmption shall not do anything but: increase the number of years of service allowable and permit pension and retirement benefits. No amendment shall be introduced in either house earlier than 6 months after this amendment becomes law.
An exemption pertaining to non-federal law enforcement personnel shall only be valid if passed by an 80% majority of all state-wide legislative bodies and signed by the state Governor of the state employing these personnel, all occuring during the same legislative session of that state. Such an exmption shall not do anything but: increase the number of years of service allowable and permit pension and retirement benefits. No amendment shall be introduced in either house earlier than 6 months after this amendment becomes law.
It could be worse. You could be Arlen Specter.
Oh, wait. You are Arlen Specter."
I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!
I like it;)
Should I have known this?
Did you write it? If not, where did you find it?
((((((((((pre-emptive blush))))))))))
Will the people of PA ever learn???
I guess Specter was truly a “democrat” who has faith in “democracy.”
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.