Politics never meant to be a career option
I couldn't agree more with letter writer Ed Saltzman regarding the sad state of
politics in our country ("What a sorry bunch of politicians," Oct. 23). While my
55 years pales in comparison to his 71 years, my conviction is just as strong.
Once a politician views an elected office as a career, the goal becomes
re-election rather than putting the needs of the country first. Since
politicians seem incapable of self-governing, it falls on our shoulders as
voters to give them a clear and decisive message: Do what's right for the
country, not your career.
Politics was never intended to be a career. It was intended to give citizens a
chance to honor their country through public service. Once their public service
has ended, they need to go back wherever they came with accolades from a
grateful public. If we remove the second-term option from politicians, we might
actually get candidates that care enough about this country to do the right
thing rather than the convenient thing that will extend their career.
Like Saltzman, I will never again vote for an incumbent. New candidates running
for office will be looked at very closely to see how their views fit my views
and I will vote accordingly. They will certainly have a leg up on the incumbent.
Scott Moen, Larkspur
Scott,
Ummmm, where you been? Career politicians are as American as apple pie. With ice cream. No self-respecting individual except for the "career politician" would even want the job. Too many daily showers cleansing the dirt off.
But who would employee such people like Kennedy, Byrd, Pelosi, and other long time congressional, carreer oriented people then?
Posted by on November 6, 2007 06:03 AMThe Lobbyists filling their pockets and freezers.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on November 6, 2007 06:44 AMGosh I guess it's only Democrats right 6:03?
Posted by GOP Stooge on November 6, 2007 07:18 AMAnswer to 06:03 am post.The terrorist.
Posted by Keith on November 6, 2007 08:40 AMMr. Moen stated: I will never again vote for an incumbent.
Not even a great one?
Posted by Stan B on November 6, 2007 09:01 AMThe spirit of Scott Moen's post is well-taken, but there is not much we can do about it without an alert and proactive citizenship. There are too many elected officials who view getting re-elected as their primary goal. There likewise are too many voters who view getting someone in their party elected, regardless of how poorly qualified he might be.
Posted by Truth on November 6, 2007 09:15 AMPolitics became a career as government became an industry of regulations and wealth resdistribution. Now private businesses look to the government, instead of exclusively to the market place, to gain an edge. Special interests que up to fight for a larger piece of the pie.
That's why Republicans, or more precisely conservatives, argue for smaller government and lower taxes.
Posted by James Jones on November 6, 2007 09:16 AMIS BILL A CAREER PRESIDENT?
"Hillary’s problem goes beyond discomfort with dynastic succession. It’s deep unease about a shared presidency. Forget about Bill, the bad boy. The problem is William Jefferson Clinton, former president of the United States, commander in chief of the Armed Forces.
We have never had an ex-president move back into the White House. When in 1992 Bill Clinton promised “two for the price of one,” it was taken as a slightly hyperbolic promotion of the role of first lady. This time we would literally be getting two presidents.
The cloud hovering over a Hillary presidency is not Bill padding around the White House in robe and slippers flipping thongs. It’s President Clinton, in suit and tie, simply present in the White House when any decision is made. The degree of his involvement in that decision will inevitably become an issue.
Do Americans really want a historically unique two-headed presidency constantly buffeted by the dynamics of a highly dysfunctional marriage? "
By Charles Krauthammer
TERM LIMIT THAT!
Posted by Hank on November 6, 2007 09:26 AMDid Americana make a mistake when they opted for a two-headed presidency buffeted by the dynamics of a highly disfunctional father/son relationship?
Posted by Stan B on November 6, 2007 09:42 AMKrauthammer is a total douchebag
Posted by on November 6, 2007 10:12 AM"In a late October 2000 Gallup Poll, 57% of the respondents approved of the job Clinton was doing as president. By comparison, in a mid-October 1960 Gallup Poll, Dwight Eisenhower received a 58% positive job approval rating, and in a mid-October 1988 Gallup Poll, 51% gave Ronald Reagan a positive job rating. "
That was after all the negative publicity and after the impeachment trial.
I've forgotten. What are President Bush's poll numbers?
Posted by Truth on November 6, 2007 10:45 AM"Politics became a career as government became an industry of regulations and wealth resdistribution. Now private businesses look to the government, instead of exclusively to the market place, to gain an edge. Special interests que up to fight for a larger piece of the pie.
That's why Republicans, or more precisely conservatives, argue for smaller government and lower taxes.
Posted by James Jones on November 6, 2007 09:16 AM"
In other words, corporations don't need to be regulated because they are above that sort of thing. Everyone knows that the government and not private business is responsible for those Chinese toys, for those unsafe cars, for the unsafe drugs, for the salmonella and e. coli in food, for the consumer fraud, for the corporate fraud, for the environmental fraud, and for such as Enron, WorldCom, etc.
What some people try to ignore are the predatory practices that took place without regulation.
Posted by Truth on November 6, 2007 10:54 AMWhat James Jones seems to be suggesting is like wanting to get rid of the police department because of the corruption that we regularly find in it.
Posted by Truth on November 6, 2007 10:57 AMAnyone interested in helping to implement term limits should email me at DPolhill@aol.com
Posted by Dennis on November 6, 2007 11:31 AMTake away their ridiculous retirements.
Posted by on November 6, 2007 11:58 AMTruth: "In other words, corporations don't need to be regulated because they are above that sort of thing. Everyone knows that the government and not private business is responsible for those Chinese toys, for those unsafe cars, for the unsafe drugs, for the salmonella and e. coli in food, for the consumer fraud, for the corporate fraud, for the environmental fraud, and for such as Enron, WorldCom, etc."
I see government is doing a wonderful job already. Let's have some more incompetence.
Truth: "What James Jones seems to be suggesting is like wanting to get rid of the police department because of the corruption that we regularly find in it."
Hell No! Let's not try to get rid of the incompetence and corruption. Let's just keep the Status Quo because it COULD be worse.
Truth, your love of big government shows that you will put up with corruption, incompetence, and idiocy just so you don't have to take any resposnsibility for yourself. You actually desire to be a slave.
Posted by clyde on November 6, 2007 12:06 PMTerm limits and career politics are not our problem. What is our number 1 problem are people that support a party. They find them selfs supporting incompenate leaders just because they have to stay loyal to their party. When we start electing indepentants that are not tied to a party we may get something done. If we would put a good business man in the White House that knows how to run this country correctly he can stay in there until the day he dies as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by larry on November 6, 2007 12:19 PMThat's why Republicans, or more precisely conservatives, argue for smaller government and lower taxes.
Posted by James Jones
Someone hasn't been paying attention to the current administration.
Posted by LOL on November 6, 2007 12:41 PMI don't know whether to despise Keith or feel sorry for him with his limited vocabulary. He says "get the facts" and then says Bush's approval rating is at 35% where every poll has him at 25% causing me to wonder why it is so high but then I am reminded of Keith’s mentality. I am ready to do to him what Burr did to Hamilton and Keith is thinking: What did he do?
Posted by JVB on November 6, 2007 12:43 PMWasn't term limits the issue that Tom Tancredo ran on about 10 elections ago?
Posted by Curious on November 6, 2007 01:28 PM"That's why Republicans, or more precisely conservatives, argue for smaller government and lower taxes."
My guess James has been living in a cave over the last 7 years to still be spouting this kind of ignorance.
Posted by jay on November 6, 2007 01:43 PMjay:
James said they argue for those things, not that they actually implement them or work toward them.
That's why Jimmy Jay is the king of plausible deny-ability.
Posted by Charles B on November 6, 2007 02:51 PMLOL,,
The fact that the Republicans did not adhere to conservative principles was the primary reason they lost control of the Congress in the last election.
We're paying attention.
Posted by James Jones on November 6, 2007 03:09 PMJames...remember it was gross incompetence and the refusal to enact the will of the people...in addition to abandoning traditional conservative values that caused the Rubs to lose congress.
Posted by jay on November 6, 2007 03:45 PMJJ, are you saying that you and others like you, voted Democrat because the Republicans have failed to be conservative enough?
Back when the railroads were getting land to help us take over all this country from the Indians, there were career politicians. Before regulation in any meaningful way there was income distribution to the robber barons, if I remember American history 101 correctly.
The wealthy and businesses have always used government and career politicians for their gain.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 6, 2007 06:03 PMSharon B,
We don't have to vote for Democrats. All we have to do is stay away from the polls..
That's a sacrilege for the leftist but a blessed relief for the conservative.
The government is more into regulation and, more especially income redistribution, than at any time in our history. That "well it's always been this way" saw is what leftist use to make the expansion the authority of government over the citizenry that the Creator meant to be free seem to be normal.
Posted by James Jones on November 6, 2007 07:27 PMHank-
I read that too. What a nightmare scenario that most people haven't realized.
10:00/10:12 - You should actually read the piece before offering your dazzling analysis.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/the_kirchners_and_the_clintons.html
Try your best to read the whole thing.
Posted by Get Real on November 6, 2007 08:47 PM
James Jones, I wish you and all the conservatives who think like you, much blessed relief in 2008.
I even think there is a t-shirt slogan in there somewhere.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 6, 2007 09:00 PMSharon B,
If there is a t-shirt slogan, I'm sure you'll find it.
Posted by James Jones on November 7, 2007 06:46 AMThe two party system is very simple.The Republicans appeal to the better educated people in the country and the Democrtas appeal to the less educated stupid citizens.It is much easier to fool Democrat voters because they have no grasp of the Constitution or economics.It would not matter if we had term limits or any other plan to stop career politicans.The Democrats would still vote for "stupid".We must work to inform the Democrats and we will be much better off.
Posted by An American on November 7, 2007 09:26 AMForgive me for going off-topic and reverting to an oft-topic, but after the T-shirt slogan exchange, I couldn't resist: I wonder how long it'll be before a baby who dies in a hot car owing to a negligent parent will be wearing one of those T-shirts reading "Thank you, Mommy, for choosing Life."
Okay, go ahead and shoot.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on November 7, 2007 09:58 AM"The two party system is very simple.The Republicans appeal to the better educated people in the country and the Democrtas appeal to the less educated stupid citizens."
Actually AA, studies have established time and time again that the more education one has, the more likely they are to be non-religious and vote Dem.
And James...Sinclair Lewis once said that when fascism comes to america it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.
Posted by jay on November 7, 2007 10:34 AMhttp://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/005153.html
Posted by on November 7, 2007 11:08 AMjay,
Apparently Lewis didn't see the danger of Nazism, Bolshevism or Maoism coming. But then he was a man of the left.
Posted by James Jones on November 7, 2007 11:09 AMJay's "Phoney" studies show that Democrats are better educated but the postings of Democrats on this page show the real story.Democrats are still stupid no matter how much education they receive.Maybe it is because they go to public schools that just pass them on no matter how bad their grades are.I think Jay is a good example of this being a true statement.
Posted by An American on November 7, 2007 01:02 PMlol...AA...don't pout...data doesn't lie...it's not political...you can choose not to believe...but we all see what it does to your credibility.
James...I think fascism in america is uniquely suited to resemble Sin's remark
Posted by jay on November 7, 2007 01:49 PMAA 1:02
A great example of rightwing thinking. Dems all went to public schools. So, I'm guessing all GOPers went to private schools, right? I'm sure you have proof of that.
I live in a red state, and I would be willing to bet all my money that there are more grads of public high schools than there are of private schools here.
Posted by BO on November 7, 2007 02:14 PMjay,
Of course. What happened all over Europe, Asia, Africa and South America could never happen here in the good old US.
Did Lewis, excuse me Sin, say that too or is that you analysis?
Posted by James Jones on November 7, 2007 02:26 PMI think the grotesque marriage between religion and corporate sensibility...ie, Roberts...et al....coupled with the increasing politicization of the religious right fosters fertile ground for a resurgence of neo-fascism in america
Posted by jay on November 7, 2007 03:02 PMjay,
i didn't think that analysis was Sin's. He was a leftist, yes, but not platitudinous.
Posted by James Jones on November 7, 2007 09:46 PMThere's a marriage (not in quotes, if you notice jay's 3:02 post) between religion and corporate sensibility? Which is the man and which the woman?
Oh, there I go changing the subject again.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on November 8, 2007 07:48 AMNow I know that Jay went to public school.He says "data doesn't lie".I have some swamp land Jay would love to buy at $100,000 acre.Let me give an example,Jay says that the more education someone has the more likely they are to be a Democrat.This does not tell the quality of the education.Many of the public schools will graduate students when they do not know basic math or english.The Democrats that have more education are probably comming from these schools.On the other hand Republicans are probably coming from Catholic and other private schools where a high school diploma would be like a 4 year degree from a public school.Home schooled students learn far more than public school students in the same amount of time.The public schools use a great deal of time brainwashing the students on things that have nothing to do with real education.Now let's review Jays statement one more time.Data doesn't lie !!! This is why Jay is so ill informed on the issues.He has not been taught to think.He has been brainwashed !!! That makes him a Democrat !!!
Posted by An American on November 8, 2007 10:06 AMAA...again man...don't pout. You posted a myth that has been debunked many times over.
If you don't want to go through that process again....don't post myths.
any questions?
Posted by jay on November 8, 2007 10:26 AM