The Democrats are annoying me. First they get mad that Bush is giving away to donors, amongst other pictures, a picture of himself taken on September 11. I cannot for the life of me figure out, from their words or from a careful examination, what is unreasonable or wrong about that. This is how politics works: you show your good side. On September 11 and in the aftermath, he did a good job. So what? Now they are launching an investigation into why Bush didn't release information from August about the possibility of terrorist hijackings. Maybe it is because they had no specific information and they get information like that all the time. Hell, on September 16, five days after the attack, Cheney announced in an interview that they had this information, so it's not like they kept it a secret until now. Attacking Bush for real problems is one thing, but just making stuff up is annoying. They seriously need to get a life.
The senator from our state (John Edwards - (D) NC) is mentioned as a candidate and it personally makes me sick to think he could be President - he was one of those slick trial lawyers that basically smooth-talked the NC folk his way into office. He hasn't even been re-elected (but I'm sure that won't be any problem) and they're pushing him for President?
Every once in a while, I think of running for office myself, just to establish a separate political party not Republican
Social Security in a bind? Rip it down, spit it out and stop the program if we can't do it right. It's just not fair to ask today's employees to pay for today's retirees and not expect any of that money themselves.
Campaign Finance Reform? Let's stop ALL "funny money" or donations to a political campaign and enforce common promotional packages to all candidates (all media must provide candidates with free X-number of 30 second spots or X-number of half-page ads within the proper region [State representative - district-wide, US representative - state-wide/district-wide, and President - national]). All ads should be non-slandering/factual and such. And cap the salary of representatives.
I got more, but I gotta run to work now. These would be ideal solutions in an ideal world, imo
Jason
Purdy for President in 2020!
Re:They need something...
jmm on 2002-05-17T15:06:28
Purdy for President in 2020!
A penguin in every pot, two camels in every garage.
Of course, actually desiring election immediately disqualifies you.
Re:Douglas Adams' idea
Fletch on 2002-05-17T12:44:27
But we have to be careful that the wrong lizard doesn't get elected.
Re:Douglas Adams' idea
quidity on 2002-05-17T13:47:54
I sometimes think that a random lottery (with criminals, Monarchs and MPs excluded) for a six or twelve month period sitting in a lower house would be far better than having two elected houses. The first house would need the sort of supremecy the UK house of commons has at present (ie. being able to force things through eventually). The people in the second house would be paid, so that no one is discouraged from standing. This suffers when you remember that, in the most part, the people chosen won't be accountable and very probably won't agree with what you think.
Re:Douglas Adams' idea
clintp on 2002-05-17T15:55:42
We actually have a system like that now in the judicial branches, called Jury Duty. And you see what an unjoyous fit people have when they're selected for that...Re:Douglas Adams' idea
chaoticset on 2002-05-17T16:54:42
An idea put forth in a book I read some time back was a chaocracy: Small groups, chosen at random from the populace, and replaced randomly and at random intervals. Those selected are paid an exorbitant fee, to remove the possibility of bribery.I think scaling was the problem. I still think my "automatic death penalty for public office" is a workable solution.
:) Re:Douglas Adams' idea
ziggy on 2002-05-17T17:03:25
That sounds so bad, I can't even begin to describe it. It must be one of theose forms of government that make democracy suck just a teeny bit less than "all other choices".
An idea put forth in a book I read some time back was a chaocracy : Small groups, chosen at random from the populace, and replaced randomly and at random intervals. Those selected are paid an exorbitant fee, to remove the possibility of bribery.There's a kinder, gentler way to achive the same result, originally put forward by an SF author (Asimov? Bradbury? I forget...). Upon a candidate's announcement that they are running for public office, they should be put under full-time psychiatric care for a time not less than the term they are seeking as an elected official.I think scaling was the problem. I still think my "automatic death penalty for public office" is a workable solution.:) :-) :-) Re:Douglas Adams' idea
chaoticset on 2002-05-17T19:30:41
Psychiatrists are too easily motivated by money and too prone to prescription solutions. Death is surprisingly final.;) Besides, this wouldn't prevent "The Leaders" from breeding -- it would just prevent them from bleeding pension money and running for office for the wrong reasons.
Those who believe strongly will do it even with the specter of death; those who don't believe strongly shouldn't be in office, IMHO.
Re:You're right, but ...
pudge on 2002-05-17T12:59:40
Well, Clinton was partially to blame. Just as Bush, Sr. was, of course.
And I don't see how you can call the nomination complaints hypocritical. Sure, Clinton claimed there was a "vacancy crisis" when there were 64 vacancies on the federal bench, but while the Democrats controlled the Senate in 1992, there were 63 vacancies -- only one fewer -- and Clinton said that was equivalent to "full employment in the federal judiciary".
The fact is that recent new Presidents have had 90 percent or better confirmation rates. Carter had 93, Reagan had 97, Bush had 93, Clinton had 90. I don't know the count thus far for Bush, but it is far less, probably still under 50 percent. I don't see how complaining about this obvious disparity in treatment is hypocritical in any way.
Re:You're right, but ...
jmm on 2002-05-17T13:54:57
The fact is that recent new Presidents have had 90 percent or better confirmation rates. Carter had 93, Reagan had 97, Bush had 93, Clinton had 90. I don't know the count thus far for Bush, but it is far less, probably still under 50 percent. I don't see how complaining about this obvious disparity in treatment is hypocritical in any way.
(I am totally ignorant of the issues here, but who lets a little thing like that stop them?:-)
How do you determine that this is "disparity in treatment" (i.e. laying the blame on Congress), rather than a "disparity in judgement" laying the blame on Bush? Perhaps those earlier presidents had a better feel for who would be acceptable and avoided the candidates that would be rejected.Re:You're right, but ...
pudge on 2002-05-17T14:16:58
I'll just say that certainly isn't the case. It's not even really being alleged by the Democrats that this isn't the case. They might say that of one or two candidates, but they don't say it of the slate as a whole, lest their previous nominees get looked at too closely.
Re:You're right, but ...
vsergu on 2002-05-17T14:10:07
Chief Justice Rehnquist said there was a vacancy crisis during the Clinton years. Was he just a puppet of the Democrats?
Whether there's a disparity in treatment, and which direction the disparity goes in, depends entirely on who's tweaking the statistics. And the complaints about treatment of Clinton's nominees had more to do with unprecedented delays than with rejections. In any case, Bush hasn't yet had the pleasure of having any of his nominees kept waiting for years to have even a hearing. That's probably only because he hasn't been in office for years yet.
I don't see why the complaints aren't hypocritical. The situation seems symmetrical to me. The Republicans are doing and saying exactly what the Democrats were doing and saying a few years ago, and vice versa. A few months back I remember bursting out laughing at the words I heard coming out of Orrin Hatch's mouth, because they were so wildly inconsistent with what he had been saying a year or two earlier. If the treatment was outrageous then, it should be outrageous now, and if it was normal then, it should be normal now.Re:You're right, but ...
pudge on 2002-05-17T14:43:34
You misunderstand either my statements, or Rehnquist's. Clinton said when the Democrats controlled Congress that there was no crisis, and when the Republicans did that there was. Rehnquist said at both times that there was a vacancy problem, in 1993 first, and then again in 1997. I did not say there was no vacancy problem, I said that the Democrats are clearly selective in when they think there is one.
And no, the statistics aren't up for grabs. They are quite clear. On any measurement, Bush is getting far fewer nominees through. It's true that there's still six months left to confirm nominations before this Congress is forever ended, and they end up with by far the worst new-President confirmation record in recent history. They still have time left, but not much.
You can attack Hatch for his previous statements about there not being a vacancy problem all you like, but the bottom line is that under Hatch's judiciary committee, far more confirmations went through for Clinton than now are going through for Bush. That may change, there's still time left.
But I see little evidence of it changing. Actions speak louder than words. If Leahy comes through in the end, then I'll say I was wrong. But Leahy doesn't have much time left, not just because this Congress is coming to an end, but because his chairmanship most likely is, too. OTOH, this may be a force that pushes the Democrats to confirm nominees now, because they may have more moderate nominees now than the Senate will get next year when the Republicans will, most likely, regain control of the Senate.
One does reap what one sows. And it does go back and forth. But it is worse now, significantly so, than it's been before in recent history, in regard to the Senate stonewalling judicial nominees. And that is sufficient to say that complaining about it isn't hypocritical.
Re:You're right, but ...
vsergu on 2002-05-18T13:11:07
If you're saying that the Democrats are selective about when there's a vacancy problem, then we agree about that. I just think the Republicans are similarly selective.
None of this is about justice or reasonable treatment of nominees. It's about each side wanting to get their people in and keep the others out, and if we had a Democrat in the White House the two sides would simply switch scripts.
Tweaking statistics isn't about making up numbers. It's about choosing parameters and deciding exactly what comparisons to make. You've decided that the relevant measure is what percentage of a president's nominees have been approved during the first 16 months of his term. No doubt it's just a coincidence that that measure happens to show a president you like as the victim, and you would be equally outraged if the same thing were happening in a Gore presidency, but I don't think the same is true of the Republicans in Congress.
Even assuming the situation is the worst it's ever been, there was a earlier time when it was the worst it had ever been then. In a deteriorating situation, different people can choose different points as the ones at which things have gone too far, just as they can tweak statistics to support their views. You seem to believe those choices are based on objective standards of some sort. I believe that for most people, and certainly for most politicians, they aren't.Re:You're right, but ...
jordan on 2002-05-18T16:26:01
You seem to be assuming that this situation is symmetrical. That the Democrats put up their nominees and they were blocked and now the Republicans are putting up theirs and are getting the same treatment. And, that Republicans would be doing the exact same thing if the situation were reversed.If you check the history, judicial nominees typically have a more difficult time of it later in the President's term (nearer to elections), easier at first. In fact, Clinton had an easy time of it earlier in his term. Actually, Clinton had rather an easy time of it overall. You might not like the source or the slant, but the statistics on this page are accurate:
“In his 7½ years in the White House, Bill Clinton has had 369 of his judicial nominees approved (46% of the bench), and only one rejected; during 5 1/2 of those years, the Senate has been controlled by Republicans, whose record of suport for Clinton judges is astonishingly overwhelming — 240 federal judges have been approved and only one rejected.”I note you criticize the use of statistics without offering any counter statistics of your own. Is this because the statistics are in fact damning to the Democrat's case?
What's happening now is that the Democrats have refused to even hold hearings on most judicial nominees, at the beginning of the Bush's term.
Our Justice system is suffering, and I don't recall that being a claim during the Clinton administration.
What the Democrats are doing now is pure payback, probably for Ronnie White - who Ashcroft borked when he was in the Senate - without regard to what the affect it's having on the Justice System and the Country, which they are sworn to protect.
I'm sorry, but it just seems like the Democrats are constantly putting political jockeying ahead of the interests of the country. Like this divisive "What did George know and when did he know it" crap going on now. Nobody seriously believes that George W. Bush wanted the WTC disaster to happen, but they can gain some political milage, at the expense of national unity, by positioning Bush as an incompetent idiot who can't put facts together to protect the country.
Re:You're right, but ...
pudge on 2002-05-18T19:55:51
It's about each side wanting to get their people in and keep the others out, and if we had a Democrat in the White House the two sides would simply switch scripts.
Perhaps, but there's no evidence of that. The record of Republican Congresses supporting Clinton nominees is right there.
Tweaking statistics isn't about making up numbers. It's about choosing parameters and deciding exactly what comparisons to make. You've decided that the relevant measure is what percentage of a president's nominees have been approved during the first 16 months of his term.
No. I have decided that the relevant measure of how much support a Congress gives a President in this regard is how many of that President's nominees are confirmed by that Congress, not in the first 16 months, but in total. I already conceded that there is still 1/4 of the 107th Congress remaining in which the 107th Congress can turn around its dismal record, and I expressed doubt that they would. Similarly, the numbers I quoted for previous presidents were for the entire Congress.
It's not so much about who has vs. who needs a life. It's about getting airtime. No more, no less. There isn't a more pressing democratic issue at the moment, so this one was tempest was created to get some attention. If it resonates with the electorate, we'll hear more about it. If it doesn't, it'll be mostly forgotten in two weeks. Except for the people who remember this kind of thing in November...Attacking Bush for real problems is one thing, but just making stuff up is annoying. They seriously need to get a life.
