The Presidency and other executive offices may be about leadership. But Congress and legislative positions? What are they expected to lead? They’re supposed to write laws. So being a lawyer is a pretty useful skill to have.
Not that anyone outside Iowa would necessarily know, but Braley isn’t running against Grassley. He’s running for the seat that is currently held by Tom Harkin. Harkin is retiring from the Senate. Grassley’s term runs through 2016.
Braley’s point about the Judiciary Committee was if Harkin’s current D seat is lost to the GOP, and control of the Senate switches to the Republicans, Grassley would move into the chairman’s post due to his being the ranking Republican on the committee.
Well damn, I thought there was at least a distant chance of getting rid of that jerk.
Actually, I’m just urging democrats to support a good Republican over a bad Democrat, rather than rationalizing voting for the bad Democrat.
The Koch Brothers helped elect more regular folks to office in 2010 than we’ve ever seen before. Look at the resumes of the 2010 freshman class. A lot fewer lawyers and career pols than usual.
You’ve got it backwards. The lawyers have an easy time raising money the traditional way. The regular joes, like Allen West and Bobby Schilling, need the outside help more.
In an ideal world, yes. Unfortunately, few great leaders acquire leadership skills in Congress. Congress is where you go to escape accountability.
And you think this leadership capability is something we see a lot of in politicians?
Even assuming that there is such a thing as a good Republican, rational thinging must prevail. That means that, yes, we have to keep the Republicans out of power, even at the cost of having a bad Democrat holding an office here and there.
Sorry if you don’t like it, but the Republican Party has to go. Only when they are gone will it be safe to start working for the annihilation of the Democratic Party.
If they are as rare as you believe(good Republicans), then electing a few Republicans here and there won’t kill you.
Bad Democrats, however, help Republicans. A lot. Take it from someone who has learned that the hard way. We can thank GWB and Tom Delay for Obama and Pelosi. And OBama and Pelosi in turn are about to deliver the Senate to the Republicans after giving them the House on a silver platter.
Does the second half of your post mean you meant that tongue-in-cheek or should this post get quoted to the SLIotD thread?
You would if he was Eddie Murphy.
Can’t speak for him, but I seriously think the death of the GOP would be beneficial. If that happens, then the Dems will split or another party will spring up to replace it. Of course, I’m assuming the replacement party won’t be the tea party. I’m an optimist. I’m assuming a tea party takeover of the GOP is what eventually kills it and that people really want two options that aren’t wacko. You really shouldn’t assume that wishing for the death of of the GOP is wishing for a one party system. Would wishing for the death of the Nazi party* mean wishing for a one party system?
Those of us who wish for the death of the Republicans aren’t wishing for a one party system. We’re wishing for two options who aren’t insane.
*Isn’t it time to repeal Godwin’s Law…or at least understand what it atutally says?
Problem is, with 40% of the country being conservative, there will always be a conservative party. Unless liberals can persuade that 40% that they are wrong.
On the other side, there doesn’t actually have to be a liberal party, given that only 20% identify as liberal.
Regardless of how people identify, most would rather be at a liberal party than a conservative one. It just makes sense.
If this is true, then your OP’s thesis is already demonstrated to be laughable. The 2010 Congress was the most ineffective and useless ever right up until the 2012 class arrived. Clearly sending in the amateurs is and was a stupid idea.
What Yookeroo said.
That depends on how you define ineffective. They spent a lot less than the previous Congress did, which is more than you can say for the professional Republicans.
Now I do agree that the spectacle they made of themselves was amateurish, and sure enough, Allen West and Bobby Schilling are already back in civilian life. But were those two substantially worse than other Republicans? Or was their lack of slipperiness and professional handlers the reason they went down where most others survived?
Clearly you must despise the Koch brothers, then :).
As to the OP: in general, I’m not crazy about the idea of lawyers controlling everything. Congress, however, is kind of in the business of writing laws. It’s not insane to suggest that the part of our government responsible for creating laws be comprised heavily of people who are experts in law.
I agree. However, we also need people who are experts in what those laws are about. Lawyers don’t know how to run their own practices most of the time, much less tell other business owners how to run their much more complex affairs.
I’m less upset that Congress is made up mostly of lawyers than that the lawyers in Congress seem to think that they are smarter and more qualified than anyone else. I’d say a farmer who knows his business is just as qualified to be in the Senate as a lawyer. Probably moreso, since we’d get by without lawyers, but would die without farmers.
Kindly name a few who deserve support, despite the fact that they’d be forced by caucus pressure to go along with an irresponsible agenda, unlike any “bad Democrat”. Party identification, given the *fact *that one of them is run by children, *is *the critical factor at this time. It will continue to be that way as long as one party is run by children. That’s what has to be fixed, but you offer no plan for fixing it, or even for forcing recognition that it’s a problem.
Because bad Democrats, like bad Republicans, hurt the party come election time. Is the one seat really worth all the seats it costs in the next election because your guy went to jail?