I'm annoyed

[roguebanshee]

Well, looking at the full quote you were replying to:
It reads to me more like "it's done, it's passed through every step up to and including Bush signing it, it's official now," not "it's Bush's fault for signing it." *shrug*
[right][snapback]99329[/snapback][/right]

Well that was what I inteded to say, mostly as a reply to Jarulf who seemed to think it was only a proposal.

[Walkiry]

Once it is crafted and passed by Congress, and signed by the President it is the law until the same process amends or revokes the law, or the law or parts of it are struck down by the Judiciary.
[right][snapback]99335[/snapback][/right]

Ah, no, that's not what I meant. Let me try again, is it too late for any elected president to start vetoing stuff that Congress sends him with ludicrous or stupid riders attached? And by too late I mean the tradition of passing whatever is sent their way is just too strong to start going against it.

I agree with you on this being not necessarily good and the letter of the law being properly worked before getting to the president signature step, but I think these happenings are a side effect of the way representatives are elected in the US (to get what I mean, the opposite would be Spain, where electoral lists are closed and the congress and senate are filled in the order given in said lists, no matter where the votes to the party come from). In such a system the "internal coherence" inside the parties, so to speak, is smaller, but that's the cost of directly electing your state representatives, which I wish we could do over here.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Ah, no, that's not what I meant. Let me try again, is it too late for any elected president to start vetoing stuff that Congress sends him with ludicrous or stupid riders attached? And by too late I mean the tradition of passing whatever is sent their way is just too strong to start going against it.
[right][snapback]99339[/snapback][/right]

It really depends on the political climate. If the public thinks poorly of the congress, the congress is badly split, and the president has a very high popular (and, most importantly, media) support, then the president could start vetoing legislation because of the riders, spin the story so that he is the 'protector of the people' from congressional misconduct, and probably get away with it. However, a president must always be wary of antagonizing congress. If that should happen, then overriding vetoes will become a matter of course, and the president will be unable to implement any of his programs.

However, since the president is limited to just under two and a half terms (say, 10 years) in office, and congress critters (especially Senators) often serve for years after they've died, the chances of permanently reversing the tradition are slim. As soon as a less popular or powerful president takes office, the line item abuse will start again.

Given that congress would be unwilling or unable to police itself, all other solutions are dismal. Giving the executive line item veto would permit him to, in many cases, negate the very purpose of the bills passed. Giving the judiciary the right to 'pre-approve' legislation is even worse -- although it might lighten their load later on. But the concept of officials appointed for life acting as a filter between the congress and the executive is . . . I really cannot think of a word horrific enough.

So, as bad as the situation is, all means of improving it that I've seen till now would only make it worse.

As to representation, our (USA) way of doing it has both some good points and some bad. Of course the long since fictitious concept of the states being sovereign (that was settled in 1865) is in part what gave us our system: one house (the Senate) to represent the states, the other to represent the people. Since now both houses represent neither, being rather bought entities of special interest groups, just how they get elected is a moot point. But consider the fact that about 10% of the voters are registered (another extra-Constitutional concept) as Libertarians, a 'fair' means of selecting our congress critters would have about 50 of them from that party (or group, whatever). I think there's only one.

But to improve the system, I think that both term limits and publicly funded campaigns need to be established. If the critters work for the people who paid to get them in office, then let those people be the public at large. And let public service be an avocation, not a sinecure.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
So, yeah, it is Shrub's fault.  And Clinton's.  And Bush's.  And Regan's. . . . And, most probably, Washington's.

And ours, if indeed 'we the people' are sovereign, for failing to exercise *our* sovereignty and kicking unscrupulous bastards that fail to do our bidding.  "We have met the enemy, and they is us." -- Kelly.

--Pete
[right][snapback]99326[/snapback][/right]

The Oswald-Boothe protocol is probably not the right path of redress, if you want my opinion on the recall features of our electoral system . . . oh, wait, there isn't one. :blink: That is a process reserved by some of the States. ;)

Occhi

PS, sorry to delurk, couldn't resist.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The Oswald-Boothe protocol is probably not the right path of redress, if you want my opinion on the recall features of our electoral system . . . oh, wait, there isn't one.  :blink:  That is a process reserved by some of the States.  ;)

Occhi

PS, sorry to delurk, couldn't resist.
[right][snapback]99436[/snapback][/right]

Contrary to appearances, I'm a patient man. I can wait two, four, or even six years to kick any run of the mill bastard out. ;) Now the gold plated SOBs might, occasionally, be fit manure for the tree of liberty (Thanks for the image, Tom :) ).

But, seriously, I think many of the problems with our system might be solved if any incumbent is banned from running for election to any office, even one that he holds. After all, modern campaigning is a full time job, and as an incumbent he already has a job. So, campaigning could be viewed as dereliction of duty. If he has to stay out of office for a couple of years, maybe he'll find a 'real' job and leave room for some fresh blood to come in. And since none of the candidates would be incumbents, the voter's predilection to re-elect the devil they know would be negated. Might be worth a try.

--Pete

[Griselda]

But, seriously, I think many of the problems with our system might be solved if any incumbent is banned from running for election to any office, even one that he holds.
[right][snapback]99456[/snapback][/right]

My concern is that this would give even more power to unelected staffers who tend to work behind the scenes and are even less accountable for their actions.

[whyBish]

The population of the Senate and House has increased greatly since colonial times.  The total intelligence, apparently, has stayed the same.

--Pete
[right][snapback]99262[/snapback][/right]

Aren't you being generous by applying conservation of intelligence? :P

[whyBish]

The amendment S.AMDT.2681
[right][snapback]99324[/snapback][/right]

Nice legwork. Pity that the media doesn't always hunt down the facts like you did.

[whyBish]

And ours, if indeed 'we the people' are sovereign, for failing to exercise *our* sovereignty and kicking unscrupulous bastards that fail to do our bidding.
--Pete
[right][snapback]99326[/snapback][/right]

But in the U.S. aren't you forced to vote for one of the two available unscrupulous bastards?

Over here, we are not able to kick them out, but we can force a large number of unscrupulous bastards to get a consensus before passing law, hence gaining three years of legislation free politics. Currently I think we have a coalition of five unscrupulous bastards (and their parties)... there has been no new legislation so far this term :P

[kandrathe]

But in the U.S. aren't you forced to vote for one of the two available unscrupulous bastards?

Over here, we are not able to kick them out, but we can force a large number of unscrupulous bastards to get a consensus before passing law, hence gaining three years of legislation free politics.  Currently I think we have a coalition of five unscrupulous bastards (and their parties)... there has been no new legislation so far this term :P
[right][snapback]99626[/snapback][/right]

When the two parties system only comprises unscrupulous (I'd add; self serving) bastards, then it gives rise to new political parties. George Washington was a Federalist, and Thomas Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican. There have been seven 3-way presidential races in my lifetime; So, who knows? What do our Democrats or Republicans stand for anymore? With global industrialization, how important are farmer/labor unions as a national political force? Who supports a smaller federal government?

[kandrathe]

Nice legwork.  Pity that the media doesn't always hunt down the facts like you did.
[right][snapback]99624[/snapback][/right]

Sensationalism sells newspapers when facts just make things boring? :rolleyes:

[Occhidiangela]

But in the U.S. aren't you forced to vote for one of the two available unscrupulous bastards?

Over here, we are not able to kick them out, but we can force a large number of unscrupulous bastards to get a consensus before passing law, hence gaining three years of legislation free politics.  Currently I think we have a coalition of five unscrupulous bastards (and their parties)... there has been no new legislation so far this term :P
[right][snapback]99626[/snapback][/right]

No, you are not FORCED to vote for only one of two. In some elections, from 3 to 5 choices are available, though many people default to the polemical model due to lack of imagination or crappy platforms chosen.

I've vorted for the odd libertarian here and there, and a few Greens.

Last election here in South Texas, five positions were run for unopposed! That's right, the Republicans didn't waste any money on even mounting an opposition to the Hispanic-Democratic precincts, and counties, currently being run by the entitlement/patronage network.

Myth Busters 'R Us.

Occhi

[whyBish]

In some elections, from 3 to 5 choices are available, though many people default to the polemical model due to lack of imagination or crappy platforms chosen.

Occhi
[right][snapback]99691[/snapback][/right]

In the words of Kang and Kodos (on voting for third party candidates) "go ahead, waste your vote"?

Hmmm, perhaps the Simpsons are not the best place to learn about the American Electoral system :P

On a side note :

Google subpoenaed

[Occhidiangela]

In the words of Kang and Kodos (on voting for third party candidates) "go ahead, waste your vote"?

Hmmm, perhaps the Simpsons are not the best place to learn about the American Electoral system  :P

On a side note :

Google subpoenaed
[right][snapback]99706[/snapback][/right]

Another myth is that there are actually two political parties, between the Dems and the Reps. There is some evidence to suggest that both are now a front to delude Americans into thinking they have a choice in how they are governed. ;) Just who the "puppet masters" are is open to considerable debate, and differing claims are made on who "the powers behind the throne" really are. In most cases of "what's behind all this" a productive path is to "follow the money."

In that spirit, a popular answer is provided by looking at the back of the One Dollar Bill.

Novus Ordo Seclorum

Look it up, and then check out the texts of President Bush's speeches (Bush 41) between 1989 and 1993 on international peace, etcetera, post Cold War. Spooky, if you cotton to some theories. Or was it just a coincidence?

For a bit of a smile and a giggle, ponder: This Little Bit of Whimsy
Some raving, some "That's an interesting tidbit."

Then, watch "Being There" a brilliant Peter Sellers film lampooning the American political process. There are some people in the US who refer to Pres "W" as "President Chaunce."

Mythbusters, LTD, or Rumormongers, LLC, available to you at no extra charge. Yes, we confess, we are just a front for The Sisters of the Sightless Eye, the Distaff Illuminati! :D

Regardless of who is doing what in the smoke filled rooms, the burst of energy in the 1990's that attacked profligate US Government spending has been successfully curbed by so called "neo conservatives." There ain't much conservative about that lot, other than their aim to conserve or perserve power.

The Dems and Reps, like the Guelphs and Ghibellines during the Middle Ages, claim to have the best interestes of "the people at heart," while the detailed examination of their actions reveals a pattern of playing their game of thrones, their game of oneupmanship, irrespective of its impact on "the great unwashed." "The people" are a means to an end.

Tidbit on name origins from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07056c.htm

The names "Guelph" and "Ghibelline" appear to have originated in Germany, in the rivalry between the house of Welf (Dukes of Bavaria) and the house of Hohenstaufen (Dukes of Swabia), whose ancestral castle was Waiblingen in Franconia. Agnes, daughter of Henry IV and sister of Henry V, married Duke Frederick of Swabia. "Welf" and "Waiblingen" were first used as rallying cries at the battle of Weinsberg (1140), where Frederick's son, Emperor Conrad III (1138-1152), defeated Welf, the brother of the rebellious Duke of Bavaria, Henry the Proud. Conrad's nephew and successor, Frederick I "Barbarossa" (1152-1190), attempted to reassert the imperial authority over the Italian cities, and to exercise supremacy over the papacy itself. He recognized an antipope, Victor, in opposition to the legitimate sovereign pontiff, Alexander III (1159), and destroyed Milan (1162), but was signally defeated by the forces of the Lombard League at the battle of Legnano (1176) and compelled to agree to the peace of Constance (1183), by which the liberties of the Italian communes were secured.

Oh nooooo, Commies in the Middle Ages! ;)

Occhi

[kandrathe]

In the words of Kang and Kodos (on voting for third party candidates) "go ahead, waste your vote"?
...
[right][snapback]99706[/snapback][/right]

Another myth. In my state, if any party gets just 5% of the popular vote for a major office the party gets matching funds from the state up to 50% of the (optional) spending limits. That is extra campaign money from taxpayers that the Democrats and the Republicans get all the time (if they agree to abide by the spending limits). At the magical 15% or so mark, candidates can petition the media to give them equal access to televised debates.

By that definition of a wasted vote, any vote not for the winner is a wasted vote. My definition of a wasted vote is one made by an uninformed voter, or the one not made by the voter who never bothered to go to the polls.

[Occhidiangela]

Another myth.  In my state, if any party gets just 5% of the popular vote for a major office the party gets matching funds from the state up to 50% of the (optional) spending limits.  That is extra campaign money from taxpayers that the Democrats and the Republicans get all the time (if they agree to abide by the spending limits).  At the magical 15% or so mark, candidates can petition the media to give them equal access to televised debates. 

By that definition of a wasted vote, any vote not for the winner is a wasted vote.  My definition of a wasted vote is one made by an uninformed voter, or the one not made by the voter who never bothered to go to the polls.
[right][snapback]99769[/snapback][/right]

Some facts on Matching Funds

The third candidate receiving general election funding in 1980 was John Anderson.
(My mom was a volunteer on Anderson's campaign.)

In 1996 Ross Perot received partial general election funding as a minor party candidate.

In 2000 the Reform party received partial convention funding and Patrick Buchanan received partial general election funding.

I am guessing Nader didn't get the numbers he needed for Green matching in 2000?

Occhi

[whyBish]

Occhi
[right][snapback]99734[/snapback][/right]

Hmmm, I just picked up
Stupid white men
and
Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man
so I think those will have enough conspiracy, and anti-conspiracy theories to keep me going for now :P