Cancel the Midterms

New York Times ^ | November 3, 2014 | David Schanzer and Jay Sullivan

[BigEdLB]

“Oh oh we are about to get clobbered. Help us O B 1 deBama, you are our only hope!”

[GOPJ]

Black ‘true believers’ talking support for Obama... (this might be a touch racist... but the first part’s funny..)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/11/02/snls_satirical_black_panel_show_what_would_it_take_for_obama_to_lose_black_vote.html

[IFly4Him]

These people are stupid and dangerous. They seem to think that the yardstick measuring Constitutional progress has to do with passing legislation and "getting something done". Our Republic is not based on this alone and it seems that the "system", tomorrow, will work as designed to bring a little more balance back into power.

If you really want consensus, compromise and cooperation then follow and honor the Constitution.

[Billthedrill]

Moreover, Twitter, ubiquitous video cameras, 24-hour cable news and a host of other technologies provide a level of hyper-accountability the framers could not possibly have imagined.

The authors apparently have a definition of "accountability" that is different from mine. Where is their evidence that majority disapproval has changed 0bamacare, for example? The administration's disastrous Middle East policies? Where is the evidence that a country whose electorate considers Global Warming an interest slightly less compelling that toenail fungus will find it taken off the front pages?

This adjustment would also give Congress the breathing space to consider longer-term challenges facing the nation — such as entitlement spending, immigration and climate change — that are either too complex or politically toxic to tackle within a two-year election cycle.

Um...perhaps they're politically toxic for a reason? And what, pray, happens to that "accountability" when elected REPRESENTATIVES have no reason to listen to their constituents? There is a real disconnect here: we do not elect a ruling class. We do not elect "leaders" and one single look at the current occupants of the White House and Capitol building will immediately disabuse the observer of any such quaint notion. We are not sheep in search of a dog, cows safely guided by kind, knowing herdsmen with cattle prods. It is fairly obvious that both of the current establishment parties view the electorate that way, and what does a herd need a vote for, anyway?

The authors are welcome to suggest such a Constitutional amendment to anyone who will promote it and find out what happens when the voters are told they're talking too much by people who cannot be bothered to listen because they know better. King George III had some people around him who believed that sincerely. They're no longer in charge.

[PGR88]

Basically, what these progressive-facsists want is rule by an unencumbered, permanent government bureaucracy.

Long terms of office, combined, wave-style elections, term-limits and changes towards parliamentary style elections all enforce the rule of the party and the rule of the government apparatus.

[abb]

Ping. Note that the professor and student are from Duke University.

[Jim Noble]

Basically, what these progressive-facsists want is rule by an unencumbered, permanent government bureaucracy

And they're getting it, just not fast enough.

[ExCTCitizen]

Liberals love to rewrite the constitution...unfortunately, they want to make it look like a communistic constitution.

[kiryandil]

If there was a slight chance of weakening a Republican president, The New York Times would be pressing for monthly elections...

[50sDad]

A hundred years ago, MEN got into FIGHTS IN BARS over their political beliefs. The Left thinks the only thing that is “fair” is if you give up YOUR beliefs and go along. SCREW THEM.

[Publius]

Lyndon Johnson proposed this in 1965, and it got a standing ovation at the State of the Union address. The constitutional amendment got through the House by the necessary two-thirds, but in 1966 a combination of Republicans and Southern Democrats killed it in the Senate.

This is not new.

[PeteePie]

A hundred years ago, MEN got into FIGHTS IN BARS over their political beliefs.

That was when the US had a considerable population of "men."

[MeshugeMikey]

“The framers included an amendment process in the Constitution so our nation could adjust the system to meet the demands of a changing world.

Surely they would not be pleased with the dysfunction,..... partisan acrimony and public dissatisfaction that plague modern politics.”

THEY WULD HAVE RUN OBUMMER OUT OF TOWN ON A RAIL severla years ago!!!..and Hairy Reed...and Bela Pelosi...and all these modern democrack jerks

[Kid Shelleen]

increase gridlock and render governance of our complex nation even more difficult.

Imagine what the national debt would be without gridlock

[Slings and Arrows]

“The issue is never the issue. The issue is the revolution.”
—David Horowitz, quoting unnamed SDS leader.

[Impy]

Ahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha.

The slimes out does it self, their solution to the rat party suffering during midterms of rat Presidents, abolish midterms, extend House terms to 4 years, make Senate terms 8 or 4 years. Better yet, have a Parliamentary system, better still just crown Obama the ****ing Emperor for life.

The paper is officially not worthy of lining birdcages anymore. Not worthy of being burned in garbage cans to warm the homeless.

[BillyBoy]

>> make Senate terms 8 or 4 years. Better yet, have a Parliamentary system <<

I just hope the Levinites and leftist media elites don't get together someday and unite for that unholy cause.

[Impy]

Well if we had one in 2012 using current House districts, Romney would have won, (he took 226 districts I believe), but what seat would he have run in personally, my money is on NH-1, he would have lost to Che Porter.

So to take office Prime Minister Romney would need someone from a safe seat to resign so he could win the special election, sounds like a job for Jason Chaffetz!

;p

[AmericanExceptionalist]

This sounds like the (rather predictable) whining of those who know that the Democrats are setup to take a shellacking Tuesday--and probably even lose control of the Senate. So they portray this event in the most dire terms possible: It will "create greater partisan divisions"; "increase gridlock"; and "render governance of our complex nation even more difficult." Translation: Harry Reid will no longer be able to set the agenda for the Senate--deciding which bills may even be brought up for a vote--and President Obama will likely be put in the uncomfortable position, rather often, of vetoing popular legislation.

For anyone who believes, sincerely, that the American left is on morally (and intellectually) solid ground; and that those who would attempt to derail its agenda are merely "obstructionist"; the likely results of Tuesday's election is surely a cause for alarm...

[Freedom56v2]

>> make Senate terms 8 or 4 years. Better yet, have a Parliamentary system <<

I just hope the Levinites and leftist media elites don’t get together someday and unite for that unholy cause.

---

I don’t understand what you mean by the Levinites and leftist media elites uniting for Senate terms 8 or 4 years or a parliamentary system. Assuming you are referring to Mark Levin. Are you saying that is what Mark Levin is advocating?