A Waste of Political Capital

[Disir]

2 terms and you're out will change behavior.

They don't read legislation and they aren't writing it. The celebrity status is unwarranted.

No evidence exists to support your statement. In fact all available evidence contradicts your statement.

You're wrong.

I’d love to hear why you think just speeding up the revolving door will change things.

The special interests will just give them inducements that are not campaign related….

Please, the floor is yours…how will changing the players and not changing the rules change how the players play the game?

It is changing the rules. That is what term limits do.

You no longer have to worry about losing your job You are losing your job. So, here is your shot.

We already have term limits – they called elections.

And the people alone are responsible for the conduct of elected representatives.

To do what? You demand nothing and you get nothing in return.

 

[candycorn]

The best that can be expected from you is to change nothing.
As you said, why would they bother to harm themselves in the process. Thanks for nothing, Candy.

Because the change in the rules and getting away from the committee system would help the average member of congress. They would no longer be beholden to someone who did nothing except win more elections than they have; usually because they have a safe seat in their State.

I really am at a loss to figure out why you cannot understand it.

Its disappointing

I suppose that concludes our discussion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oh brother.

How old are you? Has anything measurably changed in Washington during your lifetime? What about that of your parents? Your Grand Parents? The answer is probably no. Why is that? Do you think it is because we’ve had the same congress there for 100+ years? If so, keep your diploma; I want no part of your “graduation” The players have changed over time. And the same atmosphere exists to where politics rule the day.

If you change the rules of the game to make the players behave differently…then you get change.

2 terms and you're out will change behavior.

They don't read legislation and they aren't writing it. The celebrity status is unwarranted.

No evidence exists to support your statement. In fact all available evidence contradicts your statement.

You're wrong.

I’d love to hear why you think just speeding up the revolving door will change things.

The special interests will just give them inducements that are not campaign related….

Please, the floor is yours…how will changing the players and not changing the rules change how the players play the game?

How many currently sitting Congressional Representatives (House and Senate) do you think have been there more than 30 years?
What positions in the House or Senate do they hold?
How do those positions influence policy, rules/rule changes and the games being played?

.​

The people have a fundamental right to elect whomever they wish for as long as they wish.

And the people have the authority to remove from Congress any member they perceive as not serving the interests of the American people or who is otherwise doing a poor job.

The people alone are at fault for not exercising that authority.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

/----/ Bernie Sanders fit that bill as an Indie and look what the democRAT power brokers did to him.

Okay. They let him run in their primaries and stand on the same stage as long standing members of their party... and he didn't get enough votes to win.

Donald Trump is the first private citizen elected president and look what both parties and the media do to him on a daily basis.

Pointed out he was a crazy person who has no business being president? Um, yeah, I'm glad someone is pointing that out.

I'm more worried about the people who KNOW Trump is crazy, but think they are going to get something out of it, so that makes it okay.

If Trump advocated your socialist policies, you'd be sucking him off like you did Hillary, Obama, Kerry and the rest of the dependency pimps. That has zero to do with your issue with him

Ignorant nonsense, a ridiculous lie.

No one advocated for ‘socialist policies,’ whatever that’s supposed to be.

 

[Disir]

The best that can be expected from you is to change nothing.
As you said, why would they bother to harm themselves in the process. Thanks for nothing, Candy.

Because the change in the rules and getting away from the committee system would help the average member of congress. They would no longer be beholden to someone who did nothing except win more elections than they have; usually because they have a safe seat in their State.

I really am at a loss to figure out why you cannot understand it.

Its disappointing

I suppose that concludes our discussion.

It isn't a question of understanding it. I simply do not agree with it. We aren't having a discussion.

 

[flacaltenn]

b

I’d love to hear why you think just speeding up the revolving door will change things.

The special interests will just give them inducements that are not campaign related….

Please, the floor is yours…how will changing the players and not changing the rules change how the players play the game?

It is changing the rules. That is what term limits do.

You no longer have to worry about losing your job You are losing your job. So, here is your shot.

Where is the evidence that speeding up the revolving door will change anything? You have none.

Do you not think that special interest will simply take the money they were going to spend on funding Senator X's campaign and find another way to give it to her or him in the form of jobs, positions, endowments to their foundations?

I don't need to.

Thats a new gambit in trying to convince us that you're right; providing no evidence what so ever.

There is a greater chance of getting term limits than waiting for you and yours to come around and take care of business. The Congress thinks it's entitled.

The states tried it already; the US Supreme court overturned it in 1995. So the only alternative is to change the constitution. Asking prospective US Senators currently at the state legislature level to vote against their best interest is a fools errand. Changing the rules to actually benefit your representative is a much easier trek.

They don't write or bother to read legislation. Most of them are attorneys. They know how. The 50s, 60s, 60s and 80s so more people raising independent voices. Then it shifted to voting along party lines. Because they want their jobs and accumulating power.

Because Senate and House rules are set up to do just that.

Can I explain something to you that you seem to be missing? As long as we have the committee system in place, there will always be members of congress with more power than others and one party or the other will determine what goes on in Congress. Whether they have been there for 4 years or 40 is irrelevant. The old proverb goes, "In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is the king." Someone is going to be in power and special interests will entice them one way or the other. And special interests will be there with a bucket full of money to entice them one way or the other.

Someone is going to be in power and special interests will entice them one way or the other.
Term limits say you're already going to lose your job. So, if you ran on addressing this, this and this policy.......then this is how long you have to address it. If you choose not to then not so sure how you are going to manage to deal with the jobs afterwards.

All of that can change, if these clowns read the legislation. But, they can't be bothered to do that.

So all of the problems that the nation has have to be addressed in 4 years? A comical notion to say the least considering the House is only in session for 162 days a year, and at least a quarter of that time is spent either overtly campaigning or raising moeny for you or your party.

Someone is going to be in power and special interests will entice them one way or the other.
Shit, you rehash outdated policy either because you don't know the history or you do know but you don't give a damn and you're going to push it anyway.

You are the one ignoring history.

The names and faces have changed over time. The corruption and party patronage remains. Speeding up the revolving door will do nothing. You cite no evidence that it will because there is no evidence. Meanwhile, in other organizations, most visibly in sports, changing the rules changes how the players behave. Look at stolen bases in baseball. Teams used to use that as their bread and butter. Today, it's a losing proposition? Why? New ballparks have made home runs and extra base hits a higher percentage than the attempt to steal a base even though players are faster than ever. The rules changed so the players behavior changed.[/QUOTE]

The best that can be expected from you is to change nothing.
As you said, why would they bother to harm themselves in the process. Thanks for nothing, Candy.[/QUOTE]

********************* some kind of blown quote above. ^^ editing error?

Don't want to get in the middle of this. I think CandyCorn is just trying to telling to tell you that WITHOUT breaking up the duopoly control that the Dems/Reps have engineered to HIJACK the process for everything that goes on in Congress -- term limits wouldn't fix the problem of MOST members of Congress being just droids of the Party Bosses and the rules that they have created to concentrate the power in just FOUR of the Congressional members.

MAYBE --- you'd force out the Majority/Minority leadership SOONER (that would be great for everyone) with term limits but the parties would just appoint new masters. Then you get raw inexperienced tacticians that don't LEAD the other 531 almost irrelevant members of Congress.

 

[candycorn]

********************* some kind of blown quote above. ^^ editing error?

Don't want to get in the middle of this. I think CandyCorn is just trying to telling to tell you that WITHOUT breaking up the duopoly control that the Dems/Reps have engineered to HIJACK the process for everything that goes on in Congress -- term limits wouldn't fix the problem of MOST members of Congress being just droids of the Party Bosses and the rules that they have created to concentrate the power in just FOUR of the Congressional members.

Political parties; whether you have 2, 4, 6, 8 or 80 are antithetical to the needs of most Americans. If you were to inject truth serum into the members here, you'd find nobody who agrees 100% with the party platform or, more importantly I suppose, the nominee of the party. At best, you find a gal or guy you agree with on major topics and vote for them/or vote against someone whom you disagree with them on the major topics. The governing that actually matters in your life is usually handled several degrees removed from the political party apparatuses in city council offices and the county seats of government. The paramount issue is the rules they operate under.

I think they are droids to a degree. The parties are largely tickets to Washington. Currently, a green or a yellow has to wear a red or blue overcoat to get the ticket. I think if you were to, again, break out the truth serum syringes and jab each member of Congress, you'd find a lot of purple under wear. One thing getting rid of the committee system and stripping the parties of power does is allow more purple to show through because the only thing the party bosses can hold over the heads of their junior constituents is national money for campaigns. And such will also reduce the need for the money in the first place. If Jane Doe from Idaho wants to be heard on a farm bill, she doesn't have to wait to get appointed to the house committee on farming, or whatever it's called; she can serve her constituents that are interested by giving testimony, questioning witnesses, attaching amendments, etc... That is just one example of how the committee system thwarts creativity. And, the theory goes, the constituency rewards Jane Doe from Idaho who cares about the potato with another term.

MAYBE --- you'd force out the Majority/Minority leadership SOONER (that would be great for everyone) with term limits but the parties would just appoint new masters. Then you get raw inexperienced tacticians that don't LEAD the other 531 almost irrelevant members of Congress.

Correct.

 

[candycorn]

The best that can be expected from you is to change nothing.
As you said, why would they bother to harm themselves in the process. Thanks for nothing, Candy.

Because the change in the rules and getting away from the committee system would help the average member of congress. They would no longer be beholden to someone who did nothing except win more elections than they have; usually because they have a safe seat in their State.

I really am at a loss to figure out why you cannot understand it.

Its disappointing

I suppose that concludes our discussion.

It isn't a question of understanding it. I simply do not agree with it. We aren't having a discussion.

ok

 

[kaz]

/----/ Bernie Sanders fit that bill as an Indie and look what the democRAT power brokers did to him.

Okay. They let him run in their primaries and stand on the same stage as long standing members of their party... and he didn't get enough votes to win.

Donald Trump is the first private citizen elected president and look what both parties and the media do to him on a daily basis.

Pointed out he was a crazy person who has no business being president? Um, yeah, I'm glad someone is pointing that out.

I'm more worried about the people who KNOW Trump is crazy, but think they are going to get something out of it, so that makes it okay.

If Trump advocated your socialist policies, you'd be sucking him off like you did Hillary, Obama, Kerry and the rest of the dependency pimps. That has zero to do with your issue with him

Ignorant nonsense, a ridiculous lie.

No one advocated for ‘socialist policies,’ whatever that’s supposed to be.

Do you seriously not know that you're a socialist, Clayton?

 

[BlackSand]

The people have a fundamental right to elect whomever they wish for as long as they wish.

And the people have the authority to remove from Congress any member they perceive as not serving the interests of the American people or who is otherwise doing a poor job.

The people alone are at fault for not exercising that authority.

Unless of course the People decide term limits are what they want ... And manage to get them passed into legislation.
Then they can only vote for whomever they want as long as they comply with the term limits.

Of course that doesn't mean I suspect Congress will jump on the idea of limiting themselves.
There's nothing that really indicates they are that interested in being responsible.

I guess it's just a good thing I am not counting on your vote or their garbage for anything ...

.​

 

[Disir]

Don't want to get in the middle of this. I think CandyCorn is just trying to telling to tell you that WITHOUT breaking up the duopoly control that the Dems/Reps have engineered to HIJACK the process for everything that goes on in Congress -- term limits wouldn't fix the problem of MOST members of Congress being just droids of the Party Bosses and the rules that they have created to concentrate the power in just FOUR of the Congressional members.

MAYBE --- you'd force out the Majority/Minority leadership SOONER (that would be great for everyone) with term limits but the parties would just appoint new masters. Then you get raw inexperienced tacticians that don't LEAD the other 531 almost irrelevant members of Congress.

I understand what Candy is saying. Candy thinks that term limits will not impact the money/benefits in campaigns/legislation etc. More importantly, there is no incentive to change what benefits them. Candy wants the rules changed from the inside. Some committees are coveted and getting rid of them would change everything. Except..........there is no incentive here either. Why would the same four people change that lil' pecking order/reward system? Bottom line is maintain the status quo and a paternalistic leadership because fear of not having a paternalistic leadership via maintaining the status quo.

We should just kick rocks and say shucks a lot.

Don't hold any of them accountable for not reading legislation and continue to peddle outdated policy because it would be helpful in garnering support for the money behind legislation.

 

[BlackSand]

...

We should just kick rocks and say shucks a lot.

Don't hold any of them accountable for not reading legislation and continue to peddle outdated policy because it would be helpful in garnering support for the money behind legislation.

When failure can be excused with intent ... Then accountability and consequences are non-existent.
DC Politics, Congress and the beltway are a swamp ... Not worth investing in.

.​

 

[whitehall]

Politicians are politicians but there is something very wrong with a system where the chief law enforcement officials of the federal government plan to overthrow the will of the people with a soft coup.

 

[Disir]

...

We should just kick rocks and say shucks a lot.

Don't hold any of them accountable for not reading legislation and continue to peddle outdated policy because it would be helpful in garnering support for the money behind legislation.

When failure can be excused with intent ... Then accountability and consequences are non-existent.
DC Politics, Congress and the beltway are a swamp ... Not worth investing in.

.​

At this point, failure is just excused. No intent necessary.

 

[BlackSand]

Politicians are politicians but there is something very wrong with a system where the chief law enforcement officials of the federal government plan to overthrow the will of the people with a soft coup.

That's what happens when you make the Federal government more powerful than the states, and local governments ...
Less accountable to the people ... And grant them authority over every aspect of life.

You might be able to tell your Police Jury member that if they don't straighten up they will be selling used cars at the local dealership ...
But that's probably not going to work on your Representatives in Congress and the FBI damn sure doesn't care what you think.

.​

 

[Foxfyre]

I wrote this as the beginning of an journal article. So many popular political figures that want to go Congress CLAIM they are going to be Independent voices. That they will support opposing party legislation when it's the right thing to do. But then --- they run as either Democrat or Republican. That's a huge missed opportunity for a new kind of leader that is not beholding to the Party machinery that runs our Congress.

Phil Bredesen is a popular two term Democrat Governor of the very Red State of Tennessee who now wants to serve the people in the US Senate. He has a full account of good will and political capital to spend and a reputation for working issues from a very accommodating bi-partisan prospective. He wants to go to Washington to be an Independent voice. This is the leading selling point in his Senate Campaign statements to the people of Tennessee.


He will be in very different environment at the Federal Capitol. It’s a place that is closely controlled by the two party elite. The Hill is a place where only four people – the Party leadership - control virtually every action, every assignment, and the terms of every debate. The other 531 members of this body are tightly leashed and muzzled – or at least discouraged from independent speech and their actions subject to loyalty fees that the parties extract in terms of votes and partisan solidarity.


Cross the party leadership, and you will be working out of a service closet and be faced with the prospect of “primaried out” at your next re-election. You are not free to speak clearly or vote your conscience. All of those ideals you rode in with become “part of the deal”. This frustrating situation has likely been a reason for the recent large wave of resignations and retirements of a large number of members of Congress.


Phil Bredesen WANTS us to believe he will somehow re-chart and navigate the partisan blockade that is the norm for Democrat – Republican process in the halls of Congress. He is missing a spectacular opportunity to be a true reformer and hero to the growing segment of the “Big Middle” in America. The Big Middle is the large fraction of folks who have sworn off allegiance to either party. This group now outnumbers the declared affiliations of EITHER major party. They largely vote for honesty, humility, issues and not just for the “party win”.


Bredesen COULD have been one of the FIRST truly independent voices in Congress. All he had to do was RUN as Independent. A TRUE independent not aligned with either of the parties that have hijacked the process and the power in Congress. . It’s hard for folks paying attention to the dysfunction and stand-off in Congress to believe Phil when he claims he will support either side when they are correct and right.


Imagine the attention that an Independent would get from the people and media and the other members at every key vote. They would be the “go-to” interview on virtually every piece of work that comes forward. Their vote and voice would the focus of every debate. As an example, just remember how much increased media attention Bob Corker or Jeff Flake received after their announcement to retire. Their “lame duck” ability to criticize their own party and speak clearly increased. An Independent is just a lame duck with the fight still in them.


But Phil didn’t capture that opportunity. The numbers are there. I could do the math for him. He would lose a percentage of the Democrat party vote but GAIN more than that loss from the Big Middle. This is an opportunity for OTHER popular candidates with lots of political capital to spend. And hopefully, with a half dozen independent or 3rd party voices in Congress – the people will see that you don’t NEED a majority to change the process and tone in Congress. You only need a handful to be the swing votes and the honest, humble brokers of all the deals.

Given the ultra-leftist, vague progressive, anti-American mindset and agenda of the Democratic Party these days, I can't imagine any politician with any kind of intellectual honesty wanting to be part of that. But maybe Bredesen is afflicted with a kind of blinders that comes into play in which the negative consequences are so pushed back as to be pretty much invisible and therefore are ignored?

One thing that helped make the Clinton presidency so successful was Hillary's failed--make that disastrous as even the Democrats hated it--healthcare reform proposal. That cost the Democrats control of the House and Senate in the very next election in 1994, and that is when Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America reformers in the GOP took control. And they were aided and abetted by 30+ conservative Democrats headed by Tim Penny of Minnesota.

Those group of Democrats along with the majority of the GOP were strong enough to get through some tax reform and welfare reform that Clinton vetoed several times but eventually gave in and signed. It turned what looked to be a failed Presidency into a successful one.

If forward thinking Democrats like Bredeson, Joe Mancha of W Va, et al could put together a similar sizable coalition of like minded people, they could break most of Pelosi and Schumer's iron fisted hold on the Democratic Party. And they would work with the GOP to accomplish those things that both could support. The GOP 'freedom caucus' is making a difference in the GOP despite Speaker Ryan's instincts to defend the permanent political class and status quo.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Politicians are politicians but there is something very wrong with a system where the chief law enforcement officials of the federal government plan to overthrow the will of the people with a soft coup.

/——/ Yeah good thing we stopped Obozo’s soft coup by kicking Hildabeast to the curb.

 

[flacaltenn]

I wrote this as the beginning of an journal article. So many popular political figures that want to go Congress CLAIM they are going to be Independent voices. That they will support opposing party legislation when it's the right thing to do. But then --- they run as either Democrat or Republican. That's a huge missed opportunity for a new kind of leader that is not beholding to the Party machinery that runs our Congress.

Phil Bredesen is a popular two term Democrat Governor of the very Red State of Tennessee who now wants to serve the people in the US Senate. He has a full account of good will and political capital to spend and a reputation for working issues from a very accommodating bi-partisan prospective. He wants to go to Washington to be an Independent voice. This is the leading selling point in his Senate Campaign statements to the people of Tennessee.


He will be in very different environment at the Federal Capitol. It’s a place that is closely controlled by the two party elite. The Hill is a place where only four people – the Party leadership - control virtually every action, every assignment, and the terms of every debate. The other 531 members of this body are tightly leashed and muzzled – or at least discouraged from independent speech and their actions subject to loyalty fees that the parties extract in terms of votes and partisan solidarity.


Cross the party leadership, and you will be working out of a service closet and be faced with the prospect of “primaried out” at your next re-election. You are not free to speak clearly or vote your conscience. All of those ideals you rode in with become “part of the deal”. This frustrating situation has likely been a reason for the recent large wave of resignations and retirements of a large number of members of Congress.


Phil Bredesen WANTS us to believe he will somehow re-chart and navigate the partisan blockade that is the norm for Democrat – Republican process in the halls of Congress. He is missing a spectacular opportunity to be a true reformer and hero to the growing segment of the “Big Middle” in America. The Big Middle is the large fraction of folks who have sworn off allegiance to either party. This group now outnumbers the declared affiliations of EITHER major party. They largely vote for honesty, humility, issues and not just for the “party win”.


Bredesen COULD have been one of the FIRST truly independent voices in Congress. All he had to do was RUN as Independent. A TRUE independent not aligned with either of the parties that have hijacked the process and the power in Congress. . It’s hard for folks paying attention to the dysfunction and stand-off in Congress to believe Phil when he claims he will support either side when they are correct and right.


Imagine the attention that an Independent would get from the people and media and the other members at every key vote. They would be the “go-to” interview on virtually every piece of work that comes forward. Their vote and voice would the focus of every debate. As an example, just remember how much increased media attention Bob Corker or Jeff Flake received after their announcement to retire. Their “lame duck” ability to criticize their own party and speak clearly increased. An Independent is just a lame duck with the fight still in them.


But Phil didn’t capture that opportunity. The numbers are there. I could do the math for him. He would lose a percentage of the Democrat party vote but GAIN more than that loss from the Big Middle. This is an opportunity for OTHER popular candidates with lots of political capital to spend. And hopefully, with a half dozen independent or 3rd party voices in Congress – the people will see that you don’t NEED a majority to change the process and tone in Congress. You only need a handful to be the swing votes and the honest, humble brokers of all the deals.

Given the ultra-leftist, vague progressive, anti-American mindset and agenda of the Democratic Party these days, I can't imagine any politician with any kind of intellectual honesty wanting to be part of that. But maybe Bredesen is afflicted with a kind of blinders that comes into play in which the negative consequences are so pushed back as to be pretty much invisible and therefore are ignored?

One thing that helped make the Clinton presidency so successful was Hillary's failed--make that disastrous as even the Democrats hated it--healthcare reform proposal. That cost the Democrats control of the House and Senate in the very next election in 1994, and that is when Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America reformers in the GOP took control. And they were aided and abetted by 30+ conservative Democrats headed by Tim Penny of Minnesota.

Those group of Democrats along with the majority of the GOP were strong enough to get through some tax reform and welfare reform that Clinton vetoed several times but eventually gave in and signed. It turned what looked to be a failed Presidency into a successful one.

If forward thinking Democrats like Bredeson, Joe Mancha of W Va, et al could put together a similar sizable coalition of like minded people, they could break most of Pelosi and Schumer's iron fisted hold on the Democratic Party. And they would work with the GOP to accomplish those things that both could support. The GOP 'freedom caucus' is making a difference in the GOP despite Speaker Ryan's instincts to defend the permanent political class and status quo.

You totally get this. But you don't have to pull JUST from the privileged political the heroes that will be able to speak and vote and problem solve FREELY without being leashed and muzzled by the Party bosses. Also it not only works for drafts of TRUE Independents from the left. An Independent Bredesen would have an effect on the process and dialogue from BOTH sides of the aisle. Similar drafts could happen from disaffected, annoyed, and frustrated Repubs. Or industry leaders. Or think tank giants.

I imagine the CAREER politicians have lost that ability to think outside of party. Because their entire careers have been a ladder climbing exercise where their "medals" are awarded for being wounded taking fire for the good of the party. And they're being advised by 20th century advisers that don't realize why polls don't work anymore in an enviro where 44% of registered voters have FLED the 2 parties.

I haven't got polled ONCE in the past 10 years where "independent" or libertarian was a choice in the questions. And the polls don't work because "representative samples" are STILL stupidly being weighted by "Democrat or Republican" voters.

No future poll is worth a belch with weighting just the Ds and the Rs.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wrote this as the beginning of an journal article. So many popular political figures that want to go Congress CLAIM they are going to be Independent voices. That they will support opposing party legislation when it's the right thing to do. But then --- they run as either Democrat or Republican. That's a huge missed opportunity for a new kind of leader that is not beholding to the Party machinery that runs our Congress.

Phil Bredesen is a popular two term Democrat Governor of the very Red State of Tennessee who now wants to serve the people in the US Senate. He has a full account of good will and political capital to spend and a reputation for working issues from a very accommodating bi-partisan prospective. He wants to go to Washington to be an Independent voice. This is the leading selling point in his Senate Campaign statements to the people of Tennessee.


He will be in very different environment at the Federal Capitol. It’s a place that is closely controlled by the two party elite. The Hill is a place where only four people – the Party leadership - control virtually every action, every assignment, and the terms of every debate. The other 531 members of this body are tightly leashed and muzzled – or at least discouraged from independent speech and their actions subject to loyalty fees that the parties extract in terms of votes and partisan solidarity.


Cross the party leadership, and you will be working out of a service closet and be faced with the prospect of “primaried out” at your next re-election. You are not free to speak clearly or vote your conscience. All of those ideals you rode in with become “part of the deal”. This frustrating situation has likely been a reason for the recent large wave of resignations and retirements of a large number of members of Congress.


Phil Bredesen WANTS us to believe he will somehow re-chart and navigate the partisan blockade that is the norm for Democrat – Republican process in the halls of Congress. He is missing a spectacular opportunity to be a true reformer and hero to the growing segment of the “Big Middle” in America. The Big Middle is the large fraction of folks who have sworn off allegiance to either party. This group now outnumbers the declared affiliations of EITHER major party. They largely vote for honesty, humility, issues and not just for the “party win”.


Bredesen COULD have been one of the FIRST truly independent voices in Congress. All he had to do was RUN as Independent. A TRUE independent not aligned with either of the parties that have hijacked the process and the power in Congress. . It’s hard for folks paying attention to the dysfunction and stand-off in Congress to believe Phil when he claims he will support either side when they are correct and right.


Imagine the attention that an Independent would get from the people and media and the other members at every key vote. They would be the “go-to” interview on virtually every piece of work that comes forward. Their vote and voice would the focus of every debate. As an example, just remember how much increased media attention Bob Corker or Jeff Flake received after their announcement to retire. Their “lame duck” ability to criticize their own party and speak clearly increased. An Independent is just a lame duck with the fight still in them.


But Phil didn’t capture that opportunity. The numbers are there. I could do the math for him. He would lose a percentage of the Democrat party vote but GAIN more than that loss from the Big Middle. This is an opportunity for OTHER popular candidates with lots of political capital to spend. And hopefully, with a half dozen independent or 3rd party voices in Congress – the people will see that you don’t NEED a majority to change the process and tone in Congress. You only need a handful to be the swing votes and the honest, humble brokers of all the deals.

Given the ultra-leftist, vague progressive, anti-American mindset and agenda of the Democratic Party these days, I can't imagine any politician with any kind of intellectual honesty wanting to be part of that. But maybe Bredesen is afflicted with a kind of blinders that comes into play in which the negative consequences are so pushed back as to be pretty much invisible and therefore are ignored?

One thing that helped make the Clinton presidency so successful was Hillary's failed--make that disastrous as even the Democrats hated it--healthcare reform proposal. That cost the Democrats control of the House and Senate in the very next election in 1994, and that is when Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America reformers in the GOP took control. And they were aided and abetted by 30+ conservative Democrats headed by Tim Penny of Minnesota.

Those group of Democrats along with the majority of the GOP were strong enough to get through some tax reform and welfare reform that Clinton vetoed several times but eventually gave in and signed. It turned what looked to be a failed Presidency into a successful one.

If forward thinking Democrats like Bredeson, Joe Mancha of W Va, et al could put together a similar sizable coalition of like minded people, they could break most of Pelosi and Schumer's iron fisted hold on the Democratic Party. And they would work with the GOP to accomplish those things that both could support. The GOP 'freedom caucus' is making a difference in the GOP despite Speaker Ryan's instincts to defend the permanent political class and status quo.

You totally get this. But you don't have to pull JUST from the privileged political the heroes that will be able to speak and vote and problem solve FREELY without being leashed and muzzled by the Party bosses. Also it not only works for drafts of TRUE Independents from the left. An Independent Bredesen would have an effect on the process and dialogue from BOTH sides of the aisle. Similar drafts could happen from disaffected, annoyed, and frustrated Repubs. Or industry leaders. Or think tank giants.

I imagine the CAREER politicians have lost that ability to think outside of party. Because their entire careers have been a ladder climbing exercise where their "medals" are awarded for being wounded taking fire for the good of the party. And they're being advised by 20th century advisers that don't realize why polls don't work anymore in an enviro where 44% of registered voters have FLED the 2 parties.

I haven't got polled ONCE in the past 10 years where "independent" or libertarian was a choice in the questions. And the polls don't work because "representative samples" are STILL stupidly being weighted by "Democrat or Republican" voters.

No future poll is worth a belch with weighting just the Ds and the Rs.

I have been polled where Independent, Libertarian, or other were options to self identify. And I don't entirely trust people to answer the polls honestly as many understand that just as the polls have power to sway government decisions, so do the people have power to sway what the polls say.

Until the iron grip of the permanent political class is broken--a status quo that both GOP and Dems religiously protect as it is so beneficial to them personally--no independent will be seen as any kind of threat to that and therefore no independent can be effective. However. . .

Though President Trump realistically understood he had to have a party affiliation in order to be taken seriously and be elected, and also at least have a degree of support from the GOP--it has been marginal at best as he had the unacceptable audacity to beat 16 plausible candidates of their own--he ran as a Republican. He is not a Republican. And he is not a Democrat or anything else. He is the first truly independent President we have ever had.

And he has enjoyed amazing success considering that so many of the butt hurt Republicans have refused to support him and/or have attempted to undercut him in retaliation. And the Democrats and their surrogate leftwing media have kept up a non stop "everybody hate Trump for everything' campaign 24/7 ever since he won the nomination.

If he had not gone nuts about the time of the Democratic convention in 1992, and given the lack of enthusiasm for either Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush, Ross Perot and his rogue "Reform Party" might have won that election. But unless he had allied with the majority Democrats--and it is likely he would have done that--he would likely have had a very difficult time of it. He might have incurred less hate as he was a far more personable and likable public figure than President Trump, but I can't imagine he had the skill set to be as effective and successful to get good things done as President Trump has been.

 

[flacaltenn]

Until the iron grip of the permanent political class is broken--a status quo that both GOP and Dems religiously protect as it is so beneficial to them personally--no independent will be seen as any kind of threat to that and therefore no independent can be effective.

If 2 or 3 were to APPEAR in Congress after the next election, there would a fundamental change in the way that ALL business and process is conducted in those buildings. It's like a miracle vaccine for rigid party discipline and conformity. All eyes and ears would be on these few voices that "tell it like it is". Not having to worry a whit about retribution from their party.