Befor you pop another bottle of bubbly, allow me to throw a wet blanket (or at least a damp one) on the festivities by calling to your attention two little words: Chuck Schumer.
Good point Salty. Not sure how far down the hierarchy we have to go to get to someone that is tolerable. What a sad state. I better go ahead and drink the bubbly anyway. :-)
Reid stated, “I want to be able to go out at the top of my game.” Of course! He has been playing his "game" for the past 30 years and we have been supplying the tokens! Harry is an iconic liberal hypocrite.
It's a shame that's how he sees it. He also thinks that damaging the Senate and ramming thru unpopular legislation is something to be proud of. Good riddance.
I couldn't agree more, Rich. The only way that creep would walk away from that cash cow of his would be that he knew full well that this time he'd be getting blown out of his shoes...it wouldn't even be close. If nothing else, he's giving up a $950,000+ apartment in Georgetown (taxpayer funded, of course.).
I believe he is a millionaire. I wish the press would stop talking about some of the things he did as "accomplishments". Changing Senate rules to get his own way and forcing the stimulus bill, healthcare bill and amnesty down our throats damages the Senate and the country.
Why is it EVERY damn one of the corrupt crooks ends up a millionaire? Don't real people ever get in the game? Oh , yea, that's part of the problem isn't it.
Pennsylvania is trying to move up the list. We have one of the most expensive State legislators in the country and Senator Casey is about as dumb as a rock.
No comparison to our collection of clowns . Ours are out and out crooks up front. Oh, sorry I keep getting my crooks confused, all ours are at State level....
I know what you mean. PA. has a budget shortfall and the Dumbocrat Governor just elected is pitching all these ideas on how to raise taxes. He could easily cut the budget by billions but that would mean reducing hand outs. Can't have that happen.
The only thing better than his decision not to run (probably knew he would not win) would be to learn that someone actually beat the crap out of him. He made an interesting comment, "I don't want to be remembered for the last six years" or words to that effect. Is there a chance something clicked with him about his leader?
Hey people, can't we be civil to The Honorable Mr Reid? I like Harry & Nancy. Along with jock itch, rope burn, poison ivy & irritable bowel syndrome. Sarcasm folks Sarcasm
When one wonders why the American people have scant respect for Congress, you only have to look at Harry Reid to understand just how low it has gone. He is really the worst of the worst, corrupt, greedy, with little respect for the truth. How did he become a rich man living off of a Senators wages? He is the best reason for term limits.
Why Nevadans continued to elect Harry Reid was a real mystery to me until I realized that cronyism is at the base of his support. People here saw his political power and wanted to use that to get them goodies. But what they got in reality are things like obamacare that hurts everyone. There needs to be a ONE TERM limit for all politicians, and it shouldnt be longer than the existing term length. In the meantime, I vote OUT every incumbent each election- its the only way we will get a single term enforced. One term only actually is efficient in that the last year of a term is spent now just getting re-elected. If there is NO second term, there is no re-election distraction for that last year service.
Falk's Forty-First Law: "The only public servant worth electing is the one who has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into office."
All who actively desire public office should be shot immediately without further consideration. I could picture the late Robert A. Heinlein either making or agreeing with that statement...
"If there is NO second term, there is no re-election distraction for that last year service." Not always a good thing, as it can sometimes free term-limited statist politicians to inflict considerable damage on their way out.
True, that... I used to parrot the one-term-only mantra until an Indian ex-pat, quite successful in business after moving to the US, clued me in...
He pointed out that in India, many/most/all elected offices are "one term only." What he then described is that, knowing that, the office-holders know that they HAVE Only One Term to amass as much power, influence and money they can... so it's not been exactly a panacea for India.
We didn't come up with any better Solution at the time, but I now tend to support some of the points made in this thread that relate to measuring, in a Very Public Way, how elected officials have Performed vis-à-vis their pre-election promises...
Obama and Hillary, imnsho, would not have had any prayer of re-election (or election, as it were.)
That is only an irrational argument invented by statists to prevent the people from limiting terms. Include some real penalties for an office holder not fulfilling promises and easy recall in the last year in the term limit laws. The pols need to become public "servants" again. They give up rights and power to be elected, not gain rights and power.
"That is only an irrational argument invented by statists to prevent the people from limiting terms." Wow, certainly can't argue with that ironclad, airtight logic.
Rather have Obama for 4 years or eight years? Now that is a tough one. How about Harry Reid? Six years enough or do you want 36 years? Can't defend freedom if you are hiding from Obama in fear.
Right, Romney or Hillary would have been a *big* improvement. Or Kerry, or Gore, or Dole, or Dukakis, or Mondale . . . Term limits would have gotten us some or all of those clowns, which is strong evidence that term limits are useless as a means of advancing liberty.
There is no such evidence. Term limits are one part that will help, but you are right, it is not the only thing needed. The DemRep party has had a monopoly for too long. Its a lot more difficult to continue a monopoly if you have to constantly change the players. Loyalty becomes a problem for the party. Term limits have to prevent existance of career politicians and that will help prevent Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, et al from being able to take and maintain control. These guys have to meddle constantly. If there is no career in it they will have to find another way. That will be another problem.
That's the idea but unfortunately for most not the fact.
If we do have a constitutional convention I hope that the citizenship puts enough pressure on the incumbents to amend the constitution to include term limits for all federal elected positions.
Those are not mutually exclusive categories. Many personal statements are also judgments. For example, if I "blow my nose at dimwits" I am usually rendering a judgment. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
The other night Megyn Kelly on the Fox News Channel gave ole Harry a really "fond" (and richly deserved) farewell -- which he should have gotten long, long ago..
Whose the front runner as his replacement? To gauge his effectiveness what was he worth prior to and afterwards. Which may not mean material wealth. Summed up. What was the purpose Alfie?
Didn't Reason Mag do an article on Schumer some years back? Something about forcing his local airport to maintain a nonstop to DC for him, even though his butt was nearly the only one warming seats on that flight?
Yeah... real libertarian/conservative/non-power-seeking guy, there, eh?
There now, Harry wasn't so bad, was he.
Waste not, want not!
He made an interesting comment, "I don't want to be remembered for the last six years" or words to that effect. Is there a chance something clicked with him about his leader?
Sarcasm folks Sarcasm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLuDAlZ6...
Falk's Forty-First Law:
"The only public servant worth electing is the one who has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into office."
All who actively desire public office should be shot immediately without further consideration.
I could picture the late Robert A. Heinlein either making or agreeing with that statement...
:)
He pointed out that in India, many/most/all elected offices are "one term only." What he then described is that, knowing that, the office-holders know that they HAVE Only One Term to amass as much power, influence and money they can... so it's not been exactly a panacea for India.
We didn't come up with any better Solution at the time, but I now tend to support some of the points made in this thread that relate to measuring, in a Very Public Way, how elected officials have Performed vis-à-vis their pre-election promises...
Obama and Hillary, imnsho, would not have had any prayer of re-election (or election, as it were.)
Still hoping...
Oh, wait . . . . Obama.
Now that is a tough one.
How about Harry Reid? Six years enough or do you want 36 years?
Can't defend freedom if you are hiding from Obama in fear.
Or Kerry, or Gore, or Dole, or Dukakis, or Mondale . . .
Term limits would have gotten us some or all of those clowns, which is strong evidence that term limits are useless as a means of advancing liberty.
If we do have a constitutional convention I hope that the citizenship puts enough pressure on the incumbents to amend the constitution to include term limits for all federal elected positions.
I'm Christian.
You believe what you want.
But I won't shut up.
IMO, Jesus is the door to God.
I do have a right to blow my nose at dimwits who govern me, though.
I'm easy.
:)
.... and I am an atheist.
Come again when you can't stay so long.
Yeah... real libertarian/conservative/non-power-seeking guy, there, eh?
Feh!
Harry might be just one of the first rats leaving the sinking ship...
check this: http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/26/ge...
Load more comments...