If you did live in California, you’d know that term limits don’t work worth a damn. We have it for state offices, and it has been a disaster, with the lobbyists the only ones who know how things work.
Many people feel, quite rightly, that long experience in a job makes them more effective workers. For some reason, this does not apply to politicians, despite the fact that politicians have to get re-elected every so often. I wonder how the typical term limit supporter would feel if their boss declared term limits and booted them out after ten years or so to get fresh blood. Scream bloody murder, no doubt.
This, exactly. The San Jose Mercury News did an incredibly eye-opening piece on how laws get passed in our state legislature, and found exactly this: lobbyists now have obscene amounts of influence over the relatively inexperienced legislators. Before this, I’d always been a fan of term limits. Now, I’m not so sure.
Term limits were designed to shift the burden from lazy-ass voters who couldn’t be bothered to do their homework. If you don’t like a candidate, vote them out of office. All term limits accomplish is giving said lazy-ass voters an unearned feeling of “a job well done”.
He’s not ignoring it. He’s just researching it very, very thoroughly. However, he’s also busily researching answers for “So, what do you think the FBI should do after it gets the names of members of every mosque in the US” from several months ago and “Just what harm do you think will occur if we call a same-sex union a marriage” from a few years ago, so it may be a while before he can get to your question.
Actually, I get this. My main goal in voting for governor is that Carl paladino lose. I am fortunate that I can also vote for Andrew Cuomo, but even if Patterson had been renominated, I would vote in the way most likely to prevent Paladino from becoming governor. That means not voting Greenn, Libertarian, Rent Is Too Damn High
Can you perhaps tell me just how such a conservative might possibly suggest caution or prudence when it comes to any liberal sacred cow without being called every name in the book by every liberal within hearing distance?
I recall a time when things like forced busing and affirmative action were being suggested in an effort to end segregation and promote equal opportunity, and I remember non-racist conservatives and fence sitters of the time who had legitimate questions and doubts about the efficacy of each of these two approaches. But boy! Let someone voice one of those legitimate doubts or questions and epithets like “Racist!” and “Bigot” and “Asshole” would explode from every liberal within earshot. And they’ve been the same way when it came to feminism, or the trees, or the oil, or the ozone, and they’re that way now with regard to the war in Iraq, global warming, gay rights and health care.
It’s simply impossible to disagree with liberals about anything and get anywhere at all because liberals are so utterly convinced of the intellectual and moral superiority of their own positions. They think that the only reason anyone could possibly object to question what they want or question their solutions is if that person were either stupid or evil (or both) in the first place. Thus they simply refuse to tolerate dissent.
And so we come to where we are today, where the populace is divided and everyone is talking past each other and the right is so fed up with having been shouted down for so long that many of these formerly sensible and reasonable conservatives, having failed ever to gain a voice, are being supplanted by the likes of the Tea Party and its candidates and supporters who no longer give a shit about trying to talk things out for the simple reason that it’s a losing proposition. So now it’s become an all out war of ideologies, with the right finally starting to gain some momentum thanks to the coalescing effect of cable television and the internet, and may the best side win.
It’s so true. I can’t even remember the last time the right had any political clout to speak of. All I know is that if they had had it, they would have used it to open a dialogue and try to reach consensus on important political issues, instead of the jerk liberals who only want to be divisive.
We’re talking about different contexts here. I’m talking about conservatives in society…you know, the ones who have to discuss these issues and form opinions about them in order to decide how to vote? And I’m talking about the way liberals in society have typically responded to conservates or anyone else in society who disagrees with or even just questions them. And I’m talking about the nature of public discourse and the refusal - or perhaps even inability - of liberals to countenance any opinion but their own. And I’m not talking about the liberal desire to be divisive, I’m talking about its utter inability to see that the other side may have any valid point in disagreeing with them.
I would have thought my comments would have made this clear, but perhaps not.
I’m sure we are all grateful to Starving for pointing out, yet again, the intransigence, hostility, and hypocrisy of liberals. Its a point that cannot be stressed too often.
I’ve been bringing my rifle to all the Workers’ Party rallies and carrying a sign of John Boehner as an Oompa-Loompa with a gunsight on his forehead, but the liberal media just doesn’t seem interested in reporting it.
I don’t think the media should take a side. But for many decades it has and the side it’s been taking is the liberal side. Now the conservative side has a voice and a point around which to coalesce, and IMO that’s a good thing. Evens the playing field somewhat, although you guys still have the major newspapers and entertainment magazines, Hollywood and the bulk of television news and talking head shows. So, yeah, in a perfect world I would favor a media that was totally impartial. But given that we don’t live in a perfect world and that you guys have had the playing field pretty much to yourselves all these years, I am pleased to see how much the right has been coalescing thanks to the rallying points provided what is by comparison a very small right wing media.
So, in your delusion that the mainstream media has a mostly liberal bias (which influence should have resulted in an overwhelming and non-stop wielding of power by liberals since at least the 70s), you offer that as an excuse for abandoning your moral high ground that no media should be biased, or at least give a position from which to point a finger? Shouldn’t your belief, if sincerely held, make you be more exacting in demanding a move away from partisanship instead of caving in and applauding such?
Kind of seems like the excuse you give when you’re caught engaging in insults and namecalling – it’s always “the libruls made me do it.”
There is no playing field. The Right built its own separate field, and spends every day tossing the ball back and forth to one another and gloating over their undefeated record.
I’m sure we are all grateful that **Starving **points out, yet again, the bad faith and dishonesty of liberals. This is a point that cannot be stressed too often.
