A Waste of Political Capital

[busybee01]

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.

/----/ Bernie Sanders fit that bill as an Indie and look what the democRAT power brokers did to him. Donald Trump is the first private citizen elected president and look what both parties and the media do to him on a daily basis.

They didn't do anything. He won only 42% of the primary vote.

 

[busybee01]

The Democrats cannot go after Bredeson if he refuses to toe the party line. The reason is simple. Bredeson is the only Democrat who could win and hold the seat. If Democrats press him, he walks out and Republicans take the seat.

 

[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

 

[candycorn]

The Senate is so corrupt, and has voted themselves the keys to this country though.

It started under Carter. He vetoed it, and then they overrode him. He did all he could do. Yeah, he had some bad ideas, but IMO, he is a good American.

It continued under Reagan's 2nd term Congress.

Term limits would go far to fix things.

Term limits and kill that revolving door

Your vote ensures your interests are addressed. If they are not responsive, vote for someone else.
When you lose the ability to shape behavior, don’t be surprised when they act in their own best interest exclusively.

That isn't happening. Issues aren't addressed.

And is that the fault of any one Senator or Congressman? Limiting their terms will not solve that issue. Why? If you subscribe to the somewhat true conventional wisdom that in the not-too-distant-past, Congress was more responsive, there was a reason for that. Pork. You could make a deal with a colleague to support a bill that you may otherwise not and, in return, they would support your initiative. You limit their terms and any such deal making is gone because they are going to be out of office in the near future. It would be possible, I suppose to implement 10 year caps or 12 year caps so that would be 5 terms for Congressman and two terms for a Senator. That makes the process just that much more difficult to execute. Which I think is good; it should be hard to pass bills.

Additionally, the costs of doing business are going to really take off. Pensions for these characters are lopsided enough already. Why you would want to create a larger population of ex pols living off of the taxpayers is beyond me.

They don't read the bills. 2 terms and out the door.

ok. I think if you were to consider all the angles of this, you would get behind a more comprehensive approach to the problem.

 

[JoeB131]

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

Which socialist policies are those? Trump used to advocate Single Payer Health Care... I'd be all for that. It's "Crazy Person near the Nukes" that concerns me.

 

[dcbl]

I hope he loses, will be a tight race

 

[flacaltenn]

The Democrats cannot go after Bredeson if he refuses to toe the party line. The reason is simple. Bredeson is the only Democrat who could win and hold the seat. If Democrats press him, he walks out and Republicans take the seat.

They will make deals to "ALLOW" him to vote counter the Party edicts -- but only when it doesn't matter. And there's no way he'll be able to praise any legislation or proffer any legislation that doesn't please the party masters.

If he becomes too much of a nuisance, they'll euthanize him. Just like they purged ALL the Blue Dog Dems from the South out of the party. It's EMBARRASSING to have a "fiscally responsible" Dem mucking up the party message.

 

[dcbl]

It's EMBARRASSING to have a "fiscally responsible" Dem mucking up the party message.

you misspelled "unacceptable"

 

[Disir]

Term limits and kill that revolving door

Your vote ensures your interests are addressed. If they are not responsive, vote for someone else.
When you lose the ability to shape behavior, don’t be surprised when they act in their own best interest exclusively.

That isn't happening. Issues aren't addressed.

And is that the fault of any one Senator or Congressman? Limiting their terms will not solve that issue. Why? If you subscribe to the somewhat true conventional wisdom that in the not-too-distant-past, Congress was more responsive, there was a reason for that. Pork. You could make a deal with a colleague to support a bill that you may otherwise not and, in return, they would support your initiative. You limit their terms and any such deal making is gone because they are going to be out of office in the near future. It would be possible, I suppose to implement 10 year caps or 12 year caps so that would be 5 terms for Congressman and two terms for a Senator. That makes the process just that much more difficult to execute. Which I think is good; it should be hard to pass bills.

Additionally, the costs of doing business are going to really take off. Pensions for these characters are lopsided enough already. Why you would want to create a larger population of ex pols living off of the taxpayers is beyond me.

They don't read the bills. 2 terms and out the door.

ok. I think if you were to consider all the angles of this, you would get behind a more comprehensive approach to the problem.

And if you spent less time trying to flost recycled policy and more time paying attention to what is going on then you might graduate to where the test of us are.

 

[candycorn]

Your vote ensures your interests are addressed. If they are not responsive, vote for someone else.
When you lose the ability to shape behavior, don’t be surprised when they act in their own best interest exclusively.

That isn't happening. Issues aren't addressed.

And is that the fault of any one Senator or Congressman? Limiting their terms will not solve that issue. Why? If you subscribe to the somewhat true conventional wisdom that in the not-too-distant-past, Congress was more responsive, there was a reason for that. Pork. You could make a deal with a colleague to support a bill that you may otherwise not and, in return, they would support your initiative. You limit their terms and any such deal making is gone because they are going to be out of office in the near future. It would be possible, I suppose to implement 10 year caps or 12 year caps so that would be 5 terms for Congressman and two terms for a Senator. That makes the process just that much more difficult to execute. Which I think is good; it should be hard to pass bills.

Additionally, the costs of doing business are going to really take off. Pensions for these characters are lopsided enough already. Why you would want to create a larger population of ex pols living off of the taxpayers is beyond me.

They don't read the bills. 2 terms and out the door.

ok. I think if you were to consider all the angles of this, you would get behind a more comprehensive approach to the problem.

And if you spent less time trying to flost recycled policy and more time paying attention to what is going on then you might graduate to where the test of us are.

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.

 

[Disir]

That isn't happening. Issues aren't addressed.

And is that the fault of any one Senator or Congressman? Limiting their terms will not solve that issue. Why? If you subscribe to the somewhat true conventional wisdom that in the not-too-distant-past, Congress was more responsive, there was a reason for that. Pork. You could make a deal with a colleague to support a bill that you may otherwise not and, in return, they would support your initiative. You limit their terms and any such deal making is gone because they are going to be out of office in the near future. It would be possible, I suppose to implement 10 year caps or 12 year caps so that would be 5 terms for Congressman and two terms for a Senator. That makes the process just that much more difficult to execute. Which I think is good; it should be hard to pass bills.

Additionally, the costs of doing business are going to really take off. Pensions for these characters are lopsided enough already. Why you would want to create a larger population of ex pols living off of the taxpayers is beyond me.

They don't read the bills. 2 terms and out the door.

ok. I think if you were to consider all the angles of this, you would get behind a more comprehensive approach to the problem.

And if you spent less time trying to flost recycled policy and more time paying attention to what is going on then you might graduate to where the test of us are.

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.

 

[BlackSand]

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.

.​

"The legislation I will be voting on in Congress will be sponsored by either Democrats or Republicans ...
And I am running as an Undependable."​

.​

​

 

[candycorn]

And is that the fault of any one Senator or Congressman? Limiting their terms will not solve that issue. Why? If you subscribe to the somewhat true conventional wisdom that in the not-too-distant-past, Congress was more responsive, there was a reason for that. Pork. You could make a deal with a colleague to support a bill that you may otherwise not and, in return, they would support your initiative. You limit their terms and any such deal making is gone because they are going to be out of office in the near future. It would be possible, I suppose to implement 10 year caps or 12 year caps so that would be 5 terms for Congressman and two terms for a Senator. That makes the process just that much more difficult to execute. Which I think is good; it should be hard to pass bills.

Additionally, the costs of doing business are going to really take off. Pensions for these characters are lopsided enough already. Why you would want to create a larger population of ex pols living off of the taxpayers is beyond me.

They don't read the bills. 2 terms and out the door.

ok. I think if you were to consider all the angles of this, you would get behind a more comprehensive approach to the problem.

And if you spent less time trying to flost recycled policy and more time paying attention to what is going on then you might graduate to where the test of us are.

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.

 

[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.

/----/ Bernie Sanders fit that bill as an Indie and look what the democRAT power brokers did to him. Donald Trump is the first private citizen elected president and look what both parties and the media do to him on a daily basis.

I know. He SHOULD have run an Independent race. But it's LESS important for the Presidency than it is to fundamentally change the gridlock and Party Boss control of Congress.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Senate is so corrupt, and has voted themselves the keys to this country though.

It started under Carter. He vetoed it, and then they overrode him. He did all he could do. Yeah, he had some bad ideas, but IMO, he is a good American.

It continued under Reagan's 2nd term Congress.

Term limits would go far to fix things.

Term limits and kill that revolving door

Your vote ensures your interests are addressed. If they are not responsive, vote for someone else.
When you lose the ability to shape behavior, don’t be surprised when they act in their own best interest exclusively.

That isn't happening. Issues aren't addressed.

And is that the fault of any one Senator or Congressman? Limiting their terms will not solve that issue. Why? If you subscribe to the somewhat true conventional wisdom that in the not-too-distant-past, Congress was more responsive, there was a reason for that. Pork. You could make a deal with a colleague to support a bill that you may otherwise not and, in return, they would support your initiative. You limit their terms and any such deal making is gone because they are going to be out of office in the near future. It would be possible, I suppose to implement 10 year caps or 12 year caps so that would be 5 terms for Congressman and two terms for a Senator. That makes the process just that much more difficult to execute. Which I think is good; it should be hard to pass bills.

Additionally, the costs of doing business are going to really take off. Pensions for these characters are lopsided enough already. Why you would want to create a larger population of ex pols living off of the taxpayers is beyond me.

They don't read the bills. 2 terms and out the door.

Then no one will know how to WRITE a bill. They've already ditched that concept anyways. Congress doesn't write LAW anymore. They write a "fill in the blank" check to the agencies and let them take fucking forever to fill in the details. Because Congress is tackling stuff THEY don't largely understand. That's part of the problem. When Nancy said "We have to PASS the bill to see what's in it", she wasn't directly lying. Because there was literally NOTHING SPECIFIC in the bill. It was all "as shall be determined by" passages...

Same with Dodd Frank. There were hardly ANY details in there. The AGENCIES are to THIS DAY still writing and changing that law. This sucks. It adds too much uncertainty to people's lives and businesses. And it's GOT to be stopped.

So again -- you'll NEVER HEAR party animals stand in Congress and SHOUT about this. Because they'd be whipped for speaking out. But a group of INDIES could EDUCATE the voters on this atrocity as well.

 

[candycorn]

Term limits and kill that revolving door

Your vote ensures your interests are addressed. If they are not responsive, vote for someone else.
When you lose the ability to shape behavior, don’t be surprised when they act in their own best interest exclusively.

That isn't happening. Issues aren't addressed.

And is that the fault of any one Senator or Congressman? Limiting their terms will not solve that issue. Why? If you subscribe to the somewhat true conventional wisdom that in the not-too-distant-past, Congress was more responsive, there was a reason for that. Pork. You could make a deal with a colleague to support a bill that you may otherwise not and, in return, they would support your initiative. You limit their terms and any such deal making is gone because they are going to be out of office in the near future. It would be possible, I suppose to implement 10 year caps or 12 year caps so that would be 5 terms for Congressman and two terms for a Senator. That makes the process just that much more difficult to execute. Which I think is good; it should be hard to pass bills.

Additionally, the costs of doing business are going to really take off. Pensions for these characters are lopsided enough already. Why you would want to create a larger population of ex pols living off of the taxpayers is beyond me.

They don't read the bills. 2 terms and out the door.

Then no one will know how to WRITE a bill. They've already ditched that concept anyways. Congress doesn't write LAW anymore. They write a "fill in the blank" check to the agencies and let them take fucking forever to fill in the details. Because Congress is tackling stuff THEY don't largely understand. That's part of the problem. When Nancy said "We have to PASS the bill to see what's in it", she wasn't directly lying. Because there was literally NOTHING SPECIFIC in the bill. It was all "as shall be determined by" passages...

This is disappointing.

In the first place….she didn’t say what you quote her as saying. Its okay to do that when there is no harm in the mis-quote but you do violence to the minority leader’s words when you mis-quote her.

Here is what she said:

“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. "

She said “you” meaning the public. And as it turns out, states that implemented the program had populations that largely liked the ACA. States that resisted, had less success.

In the second place,

There is plenty of straight forward information out there so the public can inform itself away from MSNBC, Fox, or any media for that matter. The congressional record is a great source as are the media sources of Associated Press, PBS News, NPR, the Economist… Few choose to do it and read the titles of YouTube videos as a a substitute for research. That is on us.

Where Congress comes up short is that we have a group of congressmen who are political operatives and proudly wear those ribbons on their chest as a Marine Corps captain would if they were pinned on by a superior officer. The reason they can ascend to the chambers of power is because the system awards party patronage. Having some independents in Congress would change some things but the campaign finance apparatus of various lobbies will flex their muscles soon enough and they will have to listen; you can’t govern if you don’t win.

So you have to change the game. You do that by getting rid of the rewards for partisanship.

 

[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.

.​

"The legislation I will be voting on in Congress will be sponsored by either Democrats or Republicans ...
And I am running as an Undependable."​

.​

​

Is that a protest slogan or a quote from somewhere. Because there's nothing more dependable in Congress right now than gridlock, and dishonest spin. There's no CLEAR VOICES at all. And no CLEAR LAW being written..

A couple "indie" seats would shine the daylight on the malarkey that goes on there. There's no reason why an Indie couldn't write and submit legislation according to the Constitution. And if they got co-signers on the bill from the parties -- it would start to bust up the Party Boss stranglehold. Or stand on the floor and offer amendments.

If the four or six of them are the SWING VOTES --- they will be the life of the party. LOL...
Center of attention -- ALL EYES on them..

 

[Marion Morrison]

That isn't happening. Issues aren't addressed.

And is that the fault of any one Senator or Congressman? Limiting their terms will not solve that issue. Why? If you subscribe to the somewhat true conventional wisdom that in the not-too-distant-past, Congress was more responsive, there was a reason for that. Pork. You could make a deal with a colleague to support a bill that you may otherwise not and, in return, they would support your initiative. You limit their terms and any such deal making is gone because they are going to be out of office in the near future. It would be possible, I suppose to implement 10 year caps or 12 year caps so that would be 5 terms for Congressman and two terms for a Senator. That makes the process just that much more difficult to execute. Which I think is good; it should be hard to pass bills.

Additionally, the costs of doing business are going to really take off. Pensions for these characters are lopsided enough already. Why you would want to create a larger population of ex pols living off of the taxpayers is beyond me.

They don't read the bills. 2 terms and out the door.

ok. I think if you were to consider all the angles of this, you would get behind a more comprehensive approach to the problem.

And if you spent less time trying to flost recycled policy and more time paying attention to what is going on then you might graduate to where the test of us are.

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.

Wrong! Congress was reasonably responsible up until the 1960s.

The way the Founding Fathers designed it, changes are not not supposed to be made quickly. That's by design.

Legalized bribery was never their intention. That needs to be done away with.

No elected official that is supposed to be representing their constituents should be taking any money from special interests, without going to jail for bribery. Taking money from special interests is a conflict of interest for the citizens. You know, the people that vote to put them in office in the 1st place.

 

[candycorn]

And is that the fault of any one Senator or Congressman? Limiting their terms will not solve that issue. Why? If you subscribe to the somewhat true conventional wisdom that in the not-too-distant-past, Congress was more responsive, there was a reason for that. Pork. You could make a deal with a colleague to support a bill that you may otherwise not and, in return, they would support your initiative. You limit their terms and any such deal making is gone because they are going to be out of office in the near future. It would be possible, I suppose to implement 10 year caps or 12 year caps so that would be 5 terms for Congressman and two terms for a Senator. That makes the process just that much more difficult to execute. Which I think is good; it should be hard to pass bills.

Additionally, the costs of doing business are going to really take off. Pensions for these characters are lopsided enough already. Why you would want to create a larger population of ex pols living off of the taxpayers is beyond me.

They don't read the bills. 2 terms and out the door.

ok. I think if you were to consider all the angles of this, you would get behind a more comprehensive approach to the problem.

And if you spent less time trying to flost recycled policy and more time paying attention to what is going on then you might graduate to where the test of us are.

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.

Wrong! Congress was reasonably responsible up until the 1960s.

The way the founding fathers designed it, changes are not not supposed to be made quickly. That's by design

Legalized bribery was never their intention. That needs to be done away with.

No elected official that is supposed to be representing their constituents should be taking any money from special interests, without going to jail for bribery.

Now you’re getting into semantics. It’s “reasonably responsible” now. Most of the legislation that gets passed does so without fanfare, on a bi-partisan basis. Forty-seven of the new laws had authors from the Democratic Party…

At any rate, your “1960” reference puts the current rate of supposed irresponsibility at 58 years; one lifetime. During that 58 years, how many elected officials have come and went from Congress? A bunch. If term limits were some sort of silver bullet, having as much turnover due to the natural term limits of retirement, loss of seat, death, etc… would have worked in getting the corruption out of government. Instead, the new faces simply learn to play the game and…start playing.

If you want a more responsive Congress, you need to change the rules of the game. Changing the players on the field is no solution.

 

[BlackSand]

Is that a protest slogan or a quote from somewhere. Because there's nothing more dependable in Congress right now than gridlock, and dishonest spin. There's no CLEAR VOICES at all. And no CLEAR LAW being written..

A couple "indie" seats would shine the daylight on the malarkey that goes on there. There's no reason why an Indie couldn't write and submit legislation according to the Constitution. And if they got co-signers on the bill from the parties -- it would start to bust up the Party Boss stranglehold. Or stand on the floor and offer amendments.

If the four or six of them are the SWING VOTES --- they will be the life of the party. LOL...
Center of attention -- ALL EYES on them..

I guarantee it is nothing as sophisticated as an actual campaign slogan nor quoted from anywhere ...
It's just an accurate representation of what you are asking for.

You don't want an Independent candidate as much as you want a candidate neither party can depend on.
You desire is a candidate that simply leverages the existing opposition between two parties for favor and political clout.

You run an Undependable candidate ... I'll look for an Independent candidate that has their own or new ideas.
You may think that is unrealistic and won't work ... There hasn't been a decent conservative since President Coolidge.

I am willing to wait ... It's been a long time ... Probably going to be longer.
I am not interested in an undependable retread that exists off the animosity between the two parties.

John McCain was disgusting enough ... And a camera hog to boot ...

.​