Looking Grim for Incumbents in 2012

At least according to one Gallup poll.

But there's also this:

Note that last bit. That, my children, is the heart of the problem with American politics. "They're all scum - except for my guy, of course." Well, guess what, America? Your guy is scum too. Throw 'em all out.

Generalizations and failure to recognize decent representatives isn't going to help the problem. There are some decent folks in Congress.

Name some.

Who are they?

Dale Kildee D-MI (Rep 5th Dist), Carl Levin D-MI (Senator), Ron Paul R-TX (Rep 14th Dist), Al Franken D-MN (Senator).

Really? Al freakin' Franken? You were doing good until there . . .

But even if a few of the congresscritters are actually good, it's more than that. It's the mindset of the "permanent" Congress that needs to go. These guys play it so that their asses are in those seats for as long as possible, and they feel like they're entitled to the position. They feel that they can do essentially whatever they want to and rely on the spin machine to make shit look like roses. That's the attitude that needs adjusting, and that means as many of them as possible need to be ejected.

That last one totally destroyed the credibility of your post...

This is becoming clearer and clearer to me. The concept of professional congressmen, who know little but politics, is a major part of what is wrong with our society.

Term limits is the way to go. One term in the Senate, three in the House, two in the White House, two as VP, and no more than a grand total of 12 years in an elected position in the federal government, no matter which way you mix 'em and match 'em. (But then, I would eliminate the post of VP anyway.)

But to make it work, there also needs to be a way of breaking the power of the political parties. I still think the concept of truly proportional representation has a lot going for it. It doesn't work at all well in a parliamentary system, but I'm no fan of parliamentary systems anyway. I like the American system much better.

Years ago, I accepted the arguments against term limits...mainly, that it was a bad idea to limit who you could vote for.

Now I realize that's a false premise. The person I vote for *never* wins in Congress or the Senate. I have *zero* representation.

So, hell yes. I'm for term limits. I think three terms in the House is sufficient, and I suppose I'd allow two for the Senate.

I'd also go back to state legislatures picking Senators so we could restore some of the elements of federalism we lost in the last century.

Yeah, the guy who tried to implement financial reform of securities ratings and the most noted net neutrality advocate in the Congress is sooooo terrible.

While I agree with you, it isn't remotely close to what you originally said. You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Yeah, a mere radio personality has no business holding public office. Next thing you know he'll be making movies with chimps...

The cure is worse than the disease. Florida proves that.

What's wrong with Franken?

Start with Redistricting reform. While due to demographics it won't be possible to get rid of all 'safe' districts you can cut them down a lot.

Then move to a Louisiana Primary.

See how that works, and institute further changes from there.

Yeah, really. Whatever you think of his politics, Franken's very clearly a well meaning guy and one of the brightest people with the best understanding of policy in the whole Congress.

Well, yeah. It's a bad baby

Al Franken has never stopped being a comedy writer.

And he was never a very good comedy writer.

Gabby Giffords can stay, though.

Not grim enough.

I bet that all the people you classify as "decent" in Congress happen to be members of the Democratic Party too.

Unfortunately, the majority of them will probably be re-elected.

Cap it at no more than 24 years in either house. Given that some of the folks who've served have been there for far longer, that'd help break up some of the chokeholds the old timers have on, while keeping the n00bs from completely fucking everything up. Change congressional districts so that they have to resemble something matching a square as possible, instead of the screwball shapes they have now, prohibit anyone from taking office if they don't get at least 51% of the vote, find a constitutionally permitted way of limiting the amount of money which can be spent on a campaign, allow a choice of "None of the Above" to be on election ballots, make anyone wishing to run for office pass the same test as required for citizenship, ban lobbyists, and prevent ex-congresscritters from lobbying or taking a job with someone who benefited from any work they did in congress, and you might have a good start on fixing things.

Paul Ryan leaps immediately to mind...

The House should be seated by party proportion in each state. That way everyone gets their representation and we can do away with Congressional districts altogether.

that bolded bit i can agree with.

These are the qualifications? regardless of politics?

Cool - name a Republican you'd describe thusly.

I strongly disagree. Political parties should not be enshrined in law any more than they already are.

Yeah, Franken's record is an embarrassing example of how quickly anyone can become a whore to campaign finance.

How Franken can be called one of the good ones bears a little research into who's paying the endorser - maybe it's the trial bar?

As is usual, You are incorrect.

Asked by the guy who once said "why can't we just let Roman Polanski be?".