Posted on 06/21/2014 11:25:21 PM PDT by lowbridge
On Tuesday, The Daily Caller‘s Mirror blog reported that Alaskan Republican Rep. Don Young was clowning around on the House floor during the naming of a post office. He stuck his fingers in his ears and made funny faces, much like Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble on The Flintstones. Post office namings, as you might imagine, are not terribly exciting legislative moments in Washington.
But this one actually meant something.
Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) sponsored the bill to honor a fallen solder.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
IF he was sitting somewhere else that would be one thing, but he is right next to the podium. How stupid can you be?
Meadows should have reached over and hit Young with a punch to the face. He’s got house floor immunity and there’s no way in hell Boehner would have brought him up on ethics violation.
Well, maybe Boehner would have. But a good punch to the face would have been worth it.
RIP
I wonder how much "yucking up" they would do it some soldiers decided it is time for some congressman to fall?
In other words, pretty much a standard Washington politician.
And then they wonder why their numbers are so low, turnout it so poor and everyone hates them.
I’m trying to remember where in my private sector years I saw an employee pulling this stuff.
And soebarkah praised allah that he had murdered another American.
Must be Rep. Don Young idea of what a statesman is D.C. is nothing more than a clown show that works two days a week.
I despise Young, he is a big money republicant who has been in office way, way too long. His whole premise is : the government is giving money away, so why don’t I try to get all I can for Alaska.
Never, never any talk of restraint. Problem is too many in the state love him,I can halfway understand why, but he is way past his prime.
fieldmarshalj wrote:
“You can’t recall federally elected officials. However, Young has been in the House for 41 years, and it’s way past time to send him packing.”
Before a certain AMENDMENT, the State Governor COULD call back a senator.
Never trust a Congressman or a Senator after their election to office, for they have lost their virginity, and are therefore sullied, and not worth a second term.
Redak wrote:
“Don’s so old and been in the Beltway so long that he’s no longer Alaskan. But everybody understands that his senoirity is critical; although he seems to not understand this himself. I hope a true conservative runs against him the next cycle, I fear it will be an establishment plant!”
It is my belief, that ANY elected official, vying for their 2nd term in office, is either elected at the error of the constituents, or the constituents are so lazy, that all they know of the candidate, is their name.
It is my belief, that there should be, under no circumstances, more than a ‘second chance’ term, for any elected official. Why? Longevity more than one term breeds corruption.
No, that's not true, either (I support the 17th, btw, 100%. Politicians should not be choosing other politicians to represent the people). What you're confusing is that in the very early days, it was impressed upon Senators (elected by the legislature) that they were supposed to serve the will of the legislature. If they could not follow their instructions on how to vote (or if there was a change in the party/ideological makeup of the legislature after the election of said Senator), they would be expected to resign at once and allow the legislature to vote in someone else that could follow their will (with the Governor appointing someone in the interim).
This really didn't last very long, since when a person discovered they could serve out the entirety of their 6-year term and were not LEGALLY required to follow the wishes of a given state legislature, especially if there was a turnover, they'd just ride it out regardless. It's why the arguments of those wanting to overturn the 17th ring hollow. This and many other reasons were why the 17th was enacted in the first place (another big one was open bribery of legislators). Even before the 17th, some states were already allowing the people to vote directly, as they were tiring of the corruption and how out-of-touch the Senators had become.
He needs to be primaried, sadly filing is closed and his only challengers are a trio of penniless nobodies, so he’ll get another 2 years.
When he faced a real opponent in 2008 he very nearly lost. I don’t know why he wasn’t targeted in 2010, 2012, or this year.
Putting someone’s name on a government building is an “honor”?
Unfortunately, there is a downside to this, too. If you allowed a person to serve only one 2-year term, the real power would then be the staffers and employees telling the members what to do and pushing their (usually leftist) agenda (since they would have all the institutional knowledge).
They’d all be vying behind the scenes to work for (or rather simply “work”) the individual members for the brief time they’re there and move on to the next person. That would be even worse than now, because there’d be absolutely no accountability. How do you “vote out” chiefs-of-staff, administrative assistants, interns, et al ?
I think I’d go for a 2 or 3 term limit in the House.
I know right!!!! I sure as hell would not want a POST OFFICE named after me. A post office is place that provides patronage jobs to scumbag democrats, where people have to wait in line, bored to tears.
A landfill would more of an honor.
bump
In theory, 3 terms (6 years) sounds good, although the example of powerful office staffers would still hold true — there’d have to be limits placed on their service as well. Of course, if we limited them, the power would then pass almost exclusively to the lobbyists (and then they’d have to be “term limited”).
You often make this point, you are 100% correct, you’d have to limit staffers tenure to avoid that.
Term limits, I don’t know, I wish Mike Madigan would have to retire from the IL legislature. But I’m not convinced they are such a cure all. What have they done for Cali? Not much.
Certainly limiting House members to one or two term is ridiculous.
Hopefully Cochran goes down tonight, beating these old entrenched geezers is possible, you just need a good challenger with some resources. Alaska conservatives have no excuse for letting Young off the hook.
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.