Posted on 07/05/2010 4:27:19 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
If we'd simply backed up Germany we'd have avoided the downstream costs of WWII as well as the Cold War.
Mistakes were made eh!
--a lot of folks didn't approve of their senator being elected by the railroads either , thus the 17th amendment-----
The President and members of Congress swear to support and defend the Constitution. When they pass unconstitutional legislation we have only ourselves to blame for electing the dirtbags.
You can’t be serious.
BTTT
The Eastern European community in Chicago cut a deal with Wilson ~ if they pacified their constituencies here to accept the WWI draft then Wilson would make sure their language compatriots back in the old country would get their own nationstates, to wit, Hungary, Austria, Serbia, Slovenia, Poland, etc.
In retrospect when it comes to the Middle East we were certainly ahead with the Ottomans running things ~ and they were quite willing to sell land to the Jews (starting with the Golan Heights themselves).
I try to take as an objective view of WWI as possible ~ and the British argument for our entry on their side still doesn't add up.
“a lot of folks didn’t approve of their senator being elected by the railroads either”
By the railroads? What does that mean?
Makes sense to me. Civil unrest in post WWI was largely due to economic distress that was a result of the war.
—the railroads purchased the state legislators, who then sent the railroad candidate to the senate-—
They hadn't built roads at the time so there really wasn't any alternative to them.
If you didn't pick the railroad guy to go to the Senate you would have ended up with another guy, different name, who had remarkably similar views.
Increasing the size of the electorate (from the legislators to the public at large) didn't do a whole lot ~ in many states it simply handed over the selection of the senators from the legislature to the Ku Klux Klan!
“—the railroads purchased the state legislators, who then sent the railroad candidate to the senate-—”
Is that significantly different from what we have today? The special interests give lots of money to certain candidates, regardless of whether they are in their state or not. Even Scott Brown got money from conservatives in other states.
-it isn’t much different—and is why I feel that this “repeal the 17th amendment” stuff is so much silliness—does anyone seriously think that the present California state legislature, for example, would elect anyone different than Boxer or Feinstein?
The irony is that while the legislature of a state has little to say about the US Senate, it can influence its congressional delegation by redrawing district lines.
—yep—and many of them have certainly done that—in a manner intended to protect incumbents, always-—
it means that senate seats were being bought by big industry especially in the small states, In Montana they were bought by the copper industry.
Over the past 60 years, Republicans have controlled the U.S. Senate a lot more than the U.S. House.
The reason? It's a lot harder to gerrymander a state.
The reason? It's a lot harder to gerrymander a state.
. . . and if anything, the state borders as they exist tend to favor the Republicans.And even at that, Republicans can't consistently win. The reason being, that conservatives are people who have principles other than political convenience - and Democrats' principles, if such they be, align perfectly with political convenience.
Political convenience, as I define it, is nothing other than "tending to reinforce the inherent biases of wire service journalism."
The inherent biases of wire service journalism include the bias that it has in rejecting the very possibility of its own bias, and the bias against individuals getting credit for the efficacy of work apart from criticism, condmenation and complaint which is the forte of journalism.
The sovereign remedy for that would be to have a single election for governor and senator - if you get elected as senator, you should serve there for four years and then serve as governor for four years. Then see how easy it is to get bills imposing unfunded mandates on the states through the Senate!
--Sharon was an interesting character, who probably deserves the overall title of "worst" senator ever, from the standpoint of constituent service--he was only present in D. C. for something like six weeks of his term, spending most of his time in San Francisco and precious little in Nevada.
--in later life he was embroiled in one of the leading sex scandals of the time, which indirectly lead to the death of another scoundrel named David Terry---.
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.