Maybe. Too little too late? More than likely. Andrew Malcolm, LA Times:
The new Rasmussen Reports poll says it’s a good thing for House Speaker Nancy “We Will Have a Healthcare Bill” Pelosi that she only needs to win her San Francisco district, not nationally. Her favorable rating fell eight points from April to May, down to only 35%.
Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of CaliforniaFifty-seven percent view her unfavorably, up from 52% in April.
Even among Democrats, her favorables dropped from three-out-of-four to two-out-of-three, not the direction Democrats want to see their numbers going in a first midterm election year when, historically, the White House party loses seats on Capitol Hill, unless they’re Bush Republicans in 2002.
The bad news is Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is worse off, in the opinion of likely voters. Fifty-three percent of Americans view the Nevadan unfavorably, while only a quarter view him favorably, down from 29% in April. Among Democrats, less than half (47%) think of him favorably.
Americans turned to the party of Pelosi and Reid in the 2006 election, returning control of both houses to Democrats after 12 years of GOP rule and six of Bush’s eight White House years.
Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid In 2008, American voters enhanced the Democrat majorities while also turning the presidency over to the same party. With exploding deficits and stubbornly high unemployment rates, voters now appear to be having second thoughts.
And while Republican candidates hold a five-point lead in the generic congressional ballot, the GOP’s helpless leadership isn’t doing well either. The favorable/unfavorables for House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio are 23-42, worse than last month’s 27-37.
Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky’s favorable/unfavorables are 30-38, both about the same as April, Rasmussen said.
The joke of the day, if it wasn’t so serious, is that another recent Rasmussen survey found that nearly half of Americans (41%) believe that a random selection of people from any city telephone book would produce a more effective Congress than the crowd currently ensconced there.
And the new picks probably wouldn’t mind the $174,000 annual salaries either.
[my emphasis]
My. But there sure are a lot of racists out there in the hinterlands of America. Which gives Obama and Calderon every cause to consider joining forces and maybe declaring war on all the bitter-clinging human rights violators who persist in their jingoist disdain for all that is good and right and fair and equal.
— Or if not declare war on them, exactly, at least teach them all a lesson by raising the tax rates on aerosol cheeses and camouflage baseball caps.
And do something about this whole voting system, too, while they’re at it. Because frankly, what good is a democratic republic if the proles are going to keep getting the elections, like, wrong?
Re-elected? Oh yeah. Count on it. The loons in that district are beyond normal human ken. Or abnormal, for that matter.
Re-selected as Speaker? That’s a whole different kettle of fish.
Raising taxes on EZ-Cheez is as far as they can go, and they know it. Self-preservation stops them from escalating things any further.
Nancy Pelosi will NEVER be voted out of her district. All she has to do is go back there once a year for the Gay Pride march, give the occasional glowing testimonial to the founder of NAMBLA, and make vague noises about someday maybe somehow legalizing gay marriage and they will turn out the bathhouses to vote for her…
I am seriously considering the merit of replacing House elections with random drawing of registered voters (not unlike jury selection in many jurisdictions). I think there would be a few wackos in the group, but statistically, it would probably be a reasonable sample of the electorate. Combine with returning selection of the Senate to the state legislatures, and you no longer have members of Congress needing to raise money for re-election campaigns (as the only campaigning Senate candidates would do is to go to the state capital and tell the legislators why they should be elected, which doesn’t require TV, radio, and print advertising). That takes lobbyists’ power away too.
I’ve long thought that we should eliminate elections for the congressional seats and instead have a lottery, like jury duty, only you can’t get out of it unless you’re sick or disabled.
Couldn’t be worse. There will still be thieves in the Halls, but they won’t be as clever.
Easier to catch that way.
I should have read Monster first.
DITTOS
That takes lobbyists’ power away too.
Only partly. Their real power comes in slipping a few pages of legislation that they’ve written into those enormous bills, snug as a bug in a rug and no one the wiser.
The loons in that district are beyond normal human ken.
Heh. Half the people I’m working with right now are from her district. We only talk shop, though, or it would be very, very uncomfortable.
That’s a dreadful idea. No better than playing russian roulette really.
Okay, instead – how about nuking DC from orbit and then shooting anyone who volunteers to take their place? (I think Jeff suggested this many months past, in jest, of course.)
That’s a dreadful idea. No better than playing russian roulette really.
I’d say it’s more like moving to a game of Russian roulette with one full cylinder, as opposed to the version we’re playing right now, which has four or five.
This story reminds me of the Allied debates over getting rid of Hitler back in World War II. In the end, they decided to just leave him alone since Der Fuehrer was so incompetent that he actually helped the Allies more than he hindered them.
Ditto for Pelosi and Reid. Probably the most horrible fate we could wish upon them would be that they get reelected. In Pelosi’s case, another two years of her nuttery would likely result in lots of “Log Cabin Republicans” in the Castro district. ;)
Lobbyists can’t slip anything into legislation; they have to hand it to a congressman’s staffer to get the dirty deed done.
Why do congressmen accept their contributions to legislation in the first place? Because they need their contributions to their re-election campaigns.
And to those who think random drawing of congressmen would give us insane congressmen, I point in the general direction of Maxine Waters and laugh so hard I pee my pants.
It isn’t that random drawing would give us insane congressmen Monster, it’s that random drawing is a facial admission that self-governance, which requires deliberation and choice, has failed utterly. Which, that’s not an American exceptionalism I’ve known.
The problem isn’t the method by which we choose representatives; it’s the powers which they’ve assumed. Take away the power, and the power-hungry will go elsewhere.
Drafted. Do a good job, get time off for good behavior.
Some SF story way back.
the power-hungry will go elsewhere
Yeah, but where? They’ll do what they’re doing now: gradually change the system to centralize the power and ascend to the throne.
soupy, as usual, misses the point, which is that no matter how bad a group of random strangers might be, they’re still a step up from soupy’s friends who’re doing the job today.
Try to keep up, soupy.
We already do. It’s called a “jury” and they literally have the power of life and death over people charged with capital crimes. The proposal is to convert the House into the grandest of Grand Juries. Why shouldn’t legislation designed to restrict my liberty be judged by a jury of my peers?
It’s answer-a-question-with-a-question time, isn’t it?
Slarti – a jury of meya’s peers consists of Andrew Sullivan, 4 paramecium, 3 amoebas, and a dead cat.
With a beer.
And a joint.
Indeed I have favored various measures collectively described as “tort reform”. One of those measures is called “loser pays”. Another is to restrict the amount of “punitive damages” that can be awarded in a civil action.
The Framers insisted that there be powerful restrictions upon how the power of government can be focused upon a person, as there is a tendency for that power to grow to the point where it becomes destructive.
The main difference between a tort and a criminal case is that in the latter, “the people” are the plaintiff, as well as the judge and jury. Self-restraint imposed upon the government is a clearer need than in the case of a tort, where the government should be an impartial arbiter, but in general, restraints on how the power of government can be (ab)used are a good thing.
Alexis De T saw this one coming then:
Ugh!
How about if we change the name of “President” to “Stupid ‘Never Had a Real Job’ Dickhead”?
Because that’s what we have right now.
Jerks are jerks, and it doesn’t mean shit to me what color they are…
Sure. I don’t like it when a jury convicts someone of violating a law that wasn’t even on the books yet when they committed the alleged violation. That’s why I like that rule in the Constitution that says we can’t have ex post facto laws.
I also don’t like it when someone is acquitted of a crime, and a persecutor keeps bringing them back up on charges until they find a jury that will convict. That’s why I like the rule in the Constitition against double jeopardy.
The fact is that Juror and Voter are government offices with power over us, which the Constitution is designed to circumscribe so that they do not become tools of terror and tyranny.
I favor a total revamping of the legal system. A single payer, socialized system like we are getting with health care. The police and courts are already totally subsidized, why should the quality of your legal representation be based solely on your wealth? All trial lawyers, criminal and civil, should be put in a pool and when every case comes up the prosecution and defense are pulled from the pool and assigned at random. In civil cases, real damages are paid to successful plaintiffs, punitive damages go to the state, and all lawyers are paid a set wage regardless of outcome.
That would certainly bend the cost curve, B Moe.
No. That’s a secondary consideration.
Soupy has it right this time: It’s because they’re incompetent. They have no idea what they’re legislating; the notion that, e.g. Barney Frank has any idea what “Wall Street” does is worth guffaws (or sobs, depending on your ideals).
Staffers? Sure. But let’s face it: the only people who have any idea what (again, for instance) an investment banker does are investment bankers, and the only ones who really know are successful investment bankers. If you’re gonna write a law about investment bankers, who you gonna call?
But there are two severe problems: one, successful investment bankers are busy, and don’t have either the time or the inclination to spend effort dreaming up regulations; and two, what you’re actually going to get due to #1 is advice from somewhat successful investment bankers… who are bound to lard their advice with things that will favor their becoming more successful.
This is why well-intentioned laws always wind up having deleterious side effects, and rarely do what they are advertised to do. Legislators know how to run for office. Once in office they are faced with needing to know about investment banking, and proper construction standards for medical facilities, and what military gear is best, and what drugs should be prohibited, and and and… legislators in an activist Government need to be polymaths, but they won’t be, because polymaths have better things to do with their lives. So they depend on staffers, who depend on lobbyists, who write their proposals in such a way as to advance their own interest groups. Legislation will therefore always fail in its (putative) aims and will always advantage whoever is currently most powerful and/or wealthy over any challengers.
The only solution is the one the Founders and Framers came up with: a Government that doesn’t do much. The simple dynamics of the way it works guarantee that whatever a Government does will be wrong in important ways. It follows that the less it does, the better.
Regards,
Ric
Soupy, in case you really are that dense — what was being suggested was that the lawyers be subjected to the same rules the rest of us are being compelled to follow.
Nevah happen, of course.
Regards,
Ric
Works with state liquor boards and wholesailers, too.
Wonder how those Proggies are going to like losing their wines and micro-brews? I am not real happy about the prospect, my own self.
…along the same line of thought, though on a different subject.
Regards,
Ric
Nor my bourbons. I forgot to thank Mr. Locke for recommending Jim Beam Black, one of my favorite watering holes has a nonexistent Scotch selection so the other week I tried a Beam Black with a splash of branch and I gotta say there ain’t a damn thing wrong with it. It has entered my regular rotation.
flies in my soup are optional
obama because it has authority under the clean water act
I’m not following, newrouter. “Authority”, in the bastard degenerate modern usage, means the power to give orders. What Dale wants to know is: where will Obama (or anyone else in the FedGov) find anybody who knows what orders to give? “Stop the oil and clean it up” is an obvious, top-level order; it is also stupidly redundant — the one thing you can say about oil on a seabird’s feathers is that you can’t sell it at a gas pump. Details. Should we build a mile-high dirt berm around the leaking well? It would stick up above the water around 200 feet or so…
Regards,
Ric
Relax, all right? My old man is a television repairman, he’s got this ultimate set of tools. I can fix it.
the o! has the authority right now to take this problem on. he doesn’t because he can’t. so bp is a good “whipping boy”
#19:
As a law clerk for a judge on the state criminal courts I saw a lot of jury trials.
From what I observed the jurors took their task very seriously. They wanted to do what the law required and what the evidence provided – they were not screwing around.
It’s all about the O!hority.
USCG Adm Thad Allen put that one to bed today. For now, anyway. Everyone’s doing everything they can to plug this thing, by which I mean BP is doing all it can to plug this thing, so let’s not eat them just yet.
My bologna has a first name,
It’s O!
Somewhat related, from the White House: Gibbs: Palin Should Get More Informed About Drilling
You could spend a while running down Palin’s oil and gas credentials, like so, but you could almost put all of that aside and note that she’s married to a guy who’s mostly spent the last couple of decades pulling oil out of the North Slope. Sleeps with him and everything.
Gibbs is starting to make Scott McClellan look like Reagan.
See meya, you’re thinking abouyt filing something while the adults are thinking about staunching the flow and mitigating the impact of a kajillion barrels of oil in the gulf.
Let me know when you serve that leak with a cease and desist.
[…] The Buckleyization of the US electorate? […]
At some point you just have to ask yourself, “How stupid ARE these people?” Frisco is in the financial dumper, taxes are high and rising, but not enough to fund all their programs within their convoluted restrictions on acceptable contractors, suppliers, agents, & etc., based upon their individual “respect for diversity” or other such gobbledygook. That’s local, but using the same philosophy and policy as Pelosi does in DC.
Is there no limit to the extent of utter failure of leftist policies which can be excused away – usually with the lament we didn’t spend enough on it?
How stupid ARE they, really?
Well then,maya, demand, demand! That BP invent the technology to solve this problem. They either discover some way to fix this problem or get their asses sued off. Maybe get their asses sued off anyway. While we’re at it let’s sue the drug companies for not finding a cure for cancer. There’s some incentive.
maya went to law school. The law is maya’s hammer with which to hit everything she comes across.
You tax spray cheese, pretty soon you gotta tax all cheese. Then you’re taxing Fumunda cheese, and that’s when Nancy gets hurt.
*urp*
brb
The punishments will continue until morale improves.
[…] The Buckleyization of the US electorate? […]
I really love to eat lots of different kinds of soup specially vegetable based soups.”`,
i love all sorts of soup but my most favorite soup is none other chicken or beef soup.;;~
what’s the difference between a soup and a stew?
dinty moore beef stew is awsome cuz of the gravy
but it’s sodium level is probably off the charts
but u can put tuff meat in a crockpot for awhile with vegtables and it all comes out groovy but u gotta put it in a bowl
to me/ if u gotta put it in a bowl it’s soup
except ice cream/ which u can also put in a cone
julia child got nothing on me/ i wave the can opener in her face!
clam chowder’s pretty good but im from mass and we got seafood places up the ying yang here/ u can always find a good cup of that
aside/ i went club/barhopping with friends of mine in rhode island and every bar we went into had a chalkboard menu with the fish”catch of the day”
so after five or six pubs i said to my friends/ gee/ everyplace we’ve been in has these awesome seafood specials and
they replied/ we’re called the ocean state
asshole
i alway love the taste of chicken soup as well as oyster soup`.,
chicken soup and beef soup are my favorite, can’t get enough of that tangy taste~*`
chicken soup and beef soup is always the best tasting soup in my honest opinion. i love the taste of both-:.