|
No great losses |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
|
Question is: how do we get better representatives? |
| |
Written By:
Rick
URL:
http://
|
|
Answer: Elect the good ones |
| |
Written By:
Joel C.
URL:
http://
|
Question is: how do we get better representatives? Up the ban from lobbying to 10 years.
Block campaign contributions from anyone or organization outside that representative’s district. |
| |
Written By:
jpm100
URL:
http://
|
I understand your perspective. I don’t share it. My family has lived in northern Illinois for nearly 60 years. I myself have lived here in DeKalb for 25.
Congressman Hastert has been a good Congressman for my district. He has fought a good fight against significant odds, taken on a leadership position in a highly fractious Republican Congress, and been a fine example of what good a politician can do for his people.
It’s not surprising that those who call for bold vision and an allegiance to more than constituency rarely do so for their own Congressman. I do not claim that you are doing this, but I very clearly see it as a common reaction.
All politics—in the end—is _inescapably_ local. Denny Hastert is a good American, a good Christian, and a good Representative. May God continue to bless and enrich him in what he chooses to do in the future.
|
| |
Written By:
Paula Harper
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
Denny Hastert is a good American, a good Christian, and a good Representative. While these may be true, he was a god awful Speaker of the House. Glad to hear he was a good congressman for your district, but I’m curious. What does that mean? Does it mean he was able to direct pork back home?
|
| |
Written By:
meagain
URL:
http://
|
I’m also curious about what made Hastert a great representative for his district. If it’s bringing in the pork, then it fits my overall criticism quite well, though I don’t see how he could have been as "productive" in that sense as Lott.
But when he became Speaker, that raised the bar, and Denny didn’t seem to care. He plodded along, with no guiding priniciples I could see. His party’s excesses during that period have been well documented, and as best as I can tell, he did nothing to curb those excesses; in fact, he seemed to encourage them. More spending? Limit freedom of speech with McCain Feingold? All just fine with Denny Hastert.
He exemplifies the reason those who worked hard to get the GOP control of Congress felt betrayed. Control of the Congress was merely a means to ... more control. The only goal seemed to be to maintain control, by doing what seemed expedient and polled well. I expect this of Democrats; Bill Clinton was the best practitioner of such politics in the modern era. But Republicans claim they’re better than that. The fact that they elected Hastert and left him as Speaker so many years is strong evidence that they’re not. |
| |
Written By:
Billy Hollis
URL:
http://
|
|
Could it be as simple as these ’old stuffed shirts’ expect a Hillary win and do not want to go thru the grievance of being stuck out of both houses and the executive? Not to mention, the character assasination that would happen the first time they crossed her. |
| |
Written By:
SkyWatch
URL:
http://
|
I’m not feeling real bad about either one of these leaving.
Lott especially.
Hastert, a blob.
|
| |
Written By:
looker
URL:
http://
|
Gee, this post almost backhandedly acknowledges that the Democrats passed meaningful lobbying reform.
|
| |
Written By:
glasnost
URL:
http://
|
See, illustration of a point we keep trying to make with you, we’re not a bunch of mindless ’rah rah republican!’ cheer leaders.
As for the Dems, Yeah, all by themselves. They were the only ones there that day. And they’ve done such a swell job of making government transparent, what with all their unfullfilled and meaningless promises.
|
| |
Written By:
looker
URL:
http://
|
Gee, this post almost backhandedly acknowledges that the Democrats passed meaningful lobbying reform. I’ll make it explicit if you like, though "meaningful" might be a bit stronger term than I would use. Ceratinly anything that helps jam the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms in Washington, whereby all the players have incentives to please each other by spending other peoples money, is fine with me. Both parties voted heavily in favor of the bill, though to their credit, the Democratic leadership did drive the process.
The reason I would question the use of the term "meaningful" is that the law doesn’t go nearly far enough. In particular, the parts about earmark reform are mostly weasel words that I don’t think really accomplish anything. And it only increased the "time out" for Senators, not Representatives. But I’ll take what I can get.
|
| |
Written By:
Billy Hollis
URL:
http://
|
In particular, the parts about earmark reform are mostly weasel words that I don’t think really accomplish anything.
Our interests overlap in the area of preventing legal political bribery, but diverge in earmarks. As far as I can tell, they’re just one procedural method of spending government revenue among many, made into a pet project by limited government types for no clear reason beyond the neat sounding name.
It’s bad when politicians are bribed by others, but politicians bribing their constituents, in one form or another is the essential function of government. Even if the bribe in question is simply the effective delivery of national defense and judicial services.
|
| |
Written By:
glasnost
URL:
http://
|
Our interests overlap in the area of preventing legal political bribery, but diverge in earmarks. To me, many earmarks look like they can be precisely described as legal political bribery. |
| |
Written By:
Billy Hollis
URL:
http://
|
