T Nation

Throw 'Em All Out.....


Charley Reese hits the nail on the head in this one.... I just don't think it will ever happen.

Next year, we should all go to the polls and vote against every single incumbent running for re-election, regardless of his or her party or so-called philosophy.

Can you understand what a shock it would be if all 435 members of the U.S. House and the third of the Senate that will be running were defeated? Washington would never be the same again, and that, on its face, would be a good thing.

I know most folks feel about their congressional representative or senator the way most parents feel about their child's school. The school system is a mess, but my kid's school is pretty good. Congress has a bunch of scoundrels, but my representative is a pretty good person.

Well, he or she might be. That's not the point. The point is that the present House and Senate of these United States have neglected the common good. They are literally making a mess of what was once and could be again a great country. They're bankrupting it. They are allowing the manufacturing base to be stolen by cheap foreign labor. They won't guard the borders. They have, in fact, sold out the American people to all the lobbyists who hover over them like a swarm of locusts. They let us get into wars we shouldn't be in. They refuse to provide the vigorous oversight the Constitution authorizes. They even refuse to act like an independent branch of government. The Republican Party has, in effect, imposed on us the parliamentary system, where the legislature becomes the lap dog of the executive branch.

Throw 'em all out. Doing that would even help solve the federal-debt problem. Tossing out a representative or senator before he or she becomes vested in that pearl-of-the-universe retirement system they voted themselves would save taxpayers millions of dollars.

Six years in the House or Senate is enough for any citizen. Don't get fooled by the so-called value of experience. The experience they gain is the same as whores and thieves. Inexperience can be a virtue, and experience can be a vice.

And, for heaven's sakes, don't worry that you might replace your incumbent with someone less qualified. The probability of finding people who could be more incompetent and neglectful of their duty than the present crop of politicians ranges between zero and minus one.

These nabobs and bloviators can't even write a lucid law. I listened to them debate the other day, and what they were arguing about was an editorial statement they wanted to insert into a bill. A bill should not have any editorial statements in it.

We are a nation of 290 million people. In Washington, 435 members of the House, 100 senators, one vice president (if there is a tie in the Senate), one president and nine Supreme Court justices make all the laws and rules and regulations that govern us.

Are you telling me we can't find 100 good men and women to replace the ones who have failed in their duty? That the present 435 members of the House represent the best people available in the United States? God forbid. We have not sunk that low. You could pick 535 men and women from any small city in America, pick them at random, and you'd have a vastly improved federal legislature.

You can walk down any street in America and find more common sense, good will, competence and concern for the public good than you can find in Washington.

Let's face it, folks: We have allowed our political system to deteriorate to the point where it attracts incompetents, crooks and mountebanks. Public office is the only place where many of these people can hope to make a decent living. Ask yourself if you had ever heard of your representative before he or she got into politics. In most cases, the answer will be no. We no longer attract leaders; we manufacture office-seekers.


Well, what do you think the current system was designed FOR? Its purpose IS to bankrupt and ruin the country, its purpose IS to get us entangled in foreign wars, and on and on. Didn't you know this?

The original purpose of the Constitution was to establish a system of rational selfishness, where your right to pursue your rational happiness was guaranteed. This is at odds with the evil moral code of unselfishness, which forces those who produce to work for those who produce nothing (but chaos). Since immoral loafers outnumber the non-lazy, they vote into power those who will commit their theft for them (implement their morality). This attracts stupid and evil men to Congress who enjoy exercising this power over others.

If we are lucky, the economy will utterly collapse and, rather than taking the easy way out and adopting a police state, people will finally accept that government is not their nanny. Since most people believe that violence and force are more practical than Reason, I doubt this'll happen though. We're probably doomed.

It was good while it lasted.



We should have term limits. Unfortunately, this woul require a Constitutional amendment, which would need to originate in Congress. Anyone care to give odds of that happening?


What's interesting is that everyone wants to replace the other guys representative. But they go in and vote for their own rep over and over again.

I agree we need term limits.

But as BB stated.....


I also would like to see term limits, and I agree that it would be very difficult convincing congress that term limits are a good idea.

The question is this, how do we as a nation force congress to make this happen? Any ideas?

I like the idea of voting them all out, but I don't think even the new batch of pols would institute them. I wonder about the viability of demanding term limits, and then everyone not pay their damn federal taxes until they make it happen? I wouldn't pay my landscaper if he suddenly decided to do everything the way he wants it, disregarding my wishes. Hitting congress in the pocketbook somehow could be the only way to force change from them IMHO.

Getting a majority of the nation to do anything in sync would be well neigh impossible however.


I hope you don't fail so see the irony as Republicans were shouting 'term limits' from the roof tops when the Democrats were in power for decades and now that the roles are reversed you hear nothing about.

That was the best idea that never materialized.

An incumbent is more likely to die in office that to lose a re-election.


I would happily throw mine out.

Unfortunately with a 2 party system it is tough to vote against a bum that shares some of your values when the only other choice is a bum that shares none.


I think apathy (and blind allegiance) is making the situation worse by the minute.




This is the bigger issue. The two party system has had its day. It is in dire need of revamping. In fact the entire electoral process needs to be rewritten. I know I've griped about this in previous threads.


Apathy is a huge problem.

"American Idol" had some 30 million votes being cast each week for a freaking singing contest!

And in America less than half the people vote for President.


Slight digression: That's not a good comparison, mostly because people can vote multiple times on American Karaoke...

Anyway, part of the cause of apathy is the fact that people know their votes don't count for a lot due to gerrymandering. That would be another amendment...

Finally, while I agree apathy is a problem, I actually prefer that people who are uninformed and don't care don't vote - better than having them cast ballots randomly.


Good point. Maybe an exam is necessary to obtain a voters license. Just a few simple questions in regard to the process and offices.


that's not the point!

I know that you can vote multiple times for heaven sakes!

The point it that millions of people CARE enough to pay attention to that crap and we have less than half the country voting for President.


Agreed, but I wish more cared and paid attention.


That would be shot down by Ted Kennedy and the other wacko ultra libs faster than you could say "illiterate."



Its all about POWER. All this reminds me of the final days of the Roman Republic.



Sorry Zeb, but it's not a good analogy (and it was a worse movie). "Millions" of people in a country of close to 300 million doesn't tell you much -- particularly when you don't even know how many cast votes (or how many of those who cast American Karaoke votes were eligible to cast votes in US elections). Apples and oranges man.

How many votes were cast in the 2004 election? 122,293,332.

To quote wikipedia:

At least 12 million more votes were cast than in the 2000 election. Based upon 2000 census figures, 42.45% of the U.S. population voted in the 2004 election. Note that this is a percentage of the entire population, not of just eligible voters. The record turnout?the highest since 1968?was attributed partly to the intensity of the division between the candidates and partly to intensive voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts by both major parties and their allies.

Note that wikipedia doesn't say so, but I'm pretty sure that brings us above 50% of registered voters, given the illegal, underage and unregistered components of the population.

Of course, even the record turnout could not bring RSU's dreams to fruition, but that was a good thing...

Could we do better? Sure. But again, I'll count myself as lucky that burnouts and others who don't actually care enough to vote don't vote.


I've voted GOP in the past simply because I thought a greater opportunity might be available to lessen tax burdens and business regulations down the road and get the damn government out of our lives!

"W" is NOT a fiscal conservative. The last election came down to voting for emty suit number 1 or emty suit number 2. How could you watch the debates from that election (or the previous one) and not wonder about the path this country is on.

Even if you are in tune with the process and issues, our options have become laughable.


Is anybody going to say something about this, or are you, as usual, going to ignore it and continue the one-sided bashing?


I've been saying this for years that we need to clean house and start over again. In addition, we need to have all the corporate money and influence in politics removed as well. All that available corporate money is a huge problem with our current government. Instead of "Of the people, for the people and by the people" we have "Of the people (that have the money and the right connections), for the people (that have the money and the right connections) and by the people (that have the money and the right connections)". The remaining 90+% of the American population gets the scraps that the money and connected powerful don't want, need or they feel they can give away without hurting themselves.