NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the things I liked about the US system was that elected Congresspeople and Senators had the ability to vote their conscience. That while being elected as a party member, they still had a fair latitude of voting independance. This contrasts sharply with the partisan voting nature of our government where the party whip ensured that voting along party lines was maintained.

The downside, of course, has been the overt vote buying and trading that fuels the pork-barrel politics which bloat the US budgetary requirements, but still it provides for representatives to truly be the voice of their constituency.


In the Senate, the Republican's are looking to change their rules to curb this independance though. Effective immediately, Republican Senate appointments to head committees will be at the pleasure of the leader of the senate rather than based on seniority. (http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/insight/jansen/041121bartcolumn.shtml)

Trent Lott was very specific on how this rule change would be used.



"In fact, that's the way you get a moderate to vote with you. You reward them. It's not punishment," said Lott, R-Miss. "You give them something they want, you help their region. Then when you need them when you need them, you say, 'I've got to have you.' "


Frankly, by putting the power to withhold appointments into the hands of the Senate leader - the VP - this provides the party with a new tool to ensure that healthy debate on issues is curtailed. It allows the party to reward blind alleigence over actually doing the job that they were elected to do by their constituents.

This is part of the internal battle shaping up between the right- and moderate wings of the Republican party. The Right holds the power now and is consolidating their position. Between this rule, the change to allow Delay to keep his position in the face of a pending indictment, and the upcoming rule change being considered to remove the ability to filibuster, the entire tone of the US Senate is looking to change to a purely partisan house with loyalty rewarded with high-profile appointments.

That is NOT what this body was intended to be, nor do I think that it is one that the voters want it to be.

that's the rub now isn't it? We, in the U.S. elect officials based on their promises (a lot of voters fail to do their research on background history and plitical tendancies of the candidates) and how well they defend themselves. Unfortunately, it's become almost routine for ALL candidates (even presidential) after elected, to achieve only small percentages of their promises or fractions of promises.
Today, it's about electing the better liar/cheater. Which of course promotes more of the same. the remedy:

Any official having not achieved a set percentage of pre-elected proposals/promises shall either be impeached or automatically barred from re-election (some exceptions might be acceptable - like when there's a majority rule against said suggested proposals).

One of the things I liked about the US system was that elected Congresspeople and Senators had the ability to vote their conscience. That while being elected as a party member, they still had a fair latitude of voting independance. This contrasts sharply with the partisan voting nature of our government where the party whip ensured that voting along party lines was maintained.

The downside, of course, has been the overt vote buying and trading that fuels the pork-barrel politics which bloat the US budgetary requirements, but still it provides for representatives to truly be the voice of their constituency.


In the Senate, the Republican's are looking to change their rules to curb this independance though. Effective immediately, Republican Senate appointments to head committees will be at the pleasure of the leader of the senate rather than based on seniority. (http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/insight/jansen/041121bartcolumn.shtml)

Trent Lott was very specific on how this rule change would be used.




Frankly, by putting the power to withhold appointments into the hands of the Senate leader - the VP - this provides the party with a new tool to ensure that healthy debate on issues is curtailed. It allows the party to reward blind alleigence over actually doing the job that they were elected to do by their constituents.

This is part of the internal battle shaping up between the right- and moderate wings of the Republican party. The Right holds the power now and is consolidating their position. Between this rule, the change to allow Delay to keep his position in the face of a pending indictment, and the upcoming rule change being considered to remove the ability to filibuster, the entire tone of the US Senate is looking to change to a purely partisan house with loyalty rewarded with high-profile appointments.

That is NOT what this body was intended to be, nor do I think that it is one that the voters want it to be.

That is exactly the way the DUMOCRATS ran things for 30 years. You lost. Move to Canada. They think they have better Medicare (unless you are sick).

That is exactly the way the DUMOCRATS ran things for 30 years. You lost. Move to Canada. They think they have better Medicare (unless you are sick).

Oh boy, that was one hell of a post.

DUMOCRATS, how clever.

anything needing to quote trent lott is inherently already fucked up

anything needing to quote trent lott is inherently already fucked up

You still need that second brain cell.

You still need that second brain cell.
You, sir, need the first.

Oh boy, that was one hell of a post.

DUMOCRATS, how clever.

You forgot to respond to the part about: "How did the Dumocrats run congress when they were in the majority?"

You, sir, need the first.

You got me Madam.

You got me Madam.
im going to just start reporting you for flaming, you arnt even worth the ignore

Point to Chess Squares! (I have to give credit where credit is due.)

You forgot to respond to the part about: "How did the Dumocrats run congress when they were in the majority?"

Sorry, I was too dumbfounded by your blinding wit.

My answer to that question would be "Poorly."

Politicians will always be politicians and will always play the backscratching game.

This discussion will remain civil. Understood?

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

...

...and when last I checked, Zeppistan was Canadian.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

That is exactly the way the DUMOCRATS ran things for 30 years. You lost. Move to Canada. They think they have better Medicare (unless you are sick).


I should move to Canada? What a novel concept...


LMFAO.


But yes, this is indeed the standard Republican rhetoric. If you don't like something in the good ole US of A - move.

Call me crazy, but I would think that the more rational answer would be to work towards political change in your own country to make things better than just to abandon it. Whatever happened to that American spirit? To fight for what you believe in?

Perhaps YOU think that it's dead. I don't. If it were, all the Republican's would have fled during the Clinton years.


Or perhaps rational answers just aren't your forte.