Jump to content

Arlen Specter: Convenient Fool


JDaveG
 Share

Recommended Posts

White House distances Obama from Pa.'s Specter

AP

Gov: Specter 'Lightning Rod' for Anti-incumbency Play Video ABC News – Gov: Specter 'Lightning Rod' for Anti-incumbency

Arlen Specter, Joan Specter AP – Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., stands with his wife Joan Specter, behind him at left, as he speaks at the …

By JULIE PACE, Associated Press Writer Julie Pace, Associated Press Writer – 38 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The White House is seeking to distance President Barack Obama from longtime Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter as the Democrat faces shaky election prospects in Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary.

On the eve of the election, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that while the president was following the Pennsylvania race — as well as primaries in Arkansas and Kentucky — he wasn't watching that closely.

That's a far cry from a year ago, when Obama said Specter would have his "full support" after the Republican lawmaker switched to the Democratic party. The president appeared with Specter at a rally in Pennsylvania in September, telling the crowd that Specter came to Washington "to fight for the working men and women of Pennsylvania."

That rally would be the last time Obama would make a personal appearance for Specter's campaign. Though there were reports that Specter aides asked Obama to make an 11th-hour trip to Pennsylvania, the White House made it clear last week that wouldn't be happening.

Obama aides had been hoping to avoid a repeat of the Massachusetts Senate race earlier this year, when Obama made a last minute trip to campaign for Democrat Martha Coakley, who would go on to lose the seat by Sen. Edward Kennedy. Obama also stumped on behalf of losing candidates in Virginia and New Jersey.

Specter switched parties after GOP anger over his February 2009 vote for the stimulus bill led him to the conclusion that he was unlikely to win a Republican Party primary. Specter was the only Republican in Congress facing a 2010 re-election to support the stimulus.

His challenger, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, bills himself as the real Democrat in the race, saying Specter left the GOP to preserve his Senate job and can't be trusted to support Obama.

While Obama has avoided stumping for Specter, Vice President Joe Biden, who was instrumental in getting Specter to switch to the Democratic party, did headline a campaign rally for his longtime Senate colleague in April. But he didn't appear with Specter on Monday, the day before the primary, despite being in Philadelphia to deliver a commencement address.

When asked Monday why Obama and Biden weren't making another appearance for him, Specter said "They've done everything we've asked them to do."

Obama did appear in a TV ad for Specter that started running in Pennsylvania last week. The 30-second spot shows footage from the September rally, where Obama touts Specter's "deciding vote in favor of a recovery act that has helped pull us back from the brink." He also taped a radio ad and recorded an automated phone call which went out Monday.

Obama spokesman Gibbs said Monday that the president's involvement had not become an issue in the primaries.

"We have supported incumbent Democratic senators and we've done a lot on behalf of each campaign," he added, referring to Specter and Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln, who also faces a primary challenge Tuesday.

On the eve of the Pennsylvania primary a poll shows the race too close to call, with Sestak claiming 42 percent of support among Democrats likely to vote and Specter with 41 percent, according to the Quinnipiac University survey released Monday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not taking issue with the core argument of the article (that Spector is a convenient fool), but I do have a pet peave about this supposed "anti-incumbency" wave people are talking about. The media narrative is that in 2010 voter anger has translated into a "vote the bums out" mentality among the electorate. It's a compelling narrative backed up by several anecdotes. It is also wrong.

What we've seen, first in Florida and Utah and now in other states' primary elections today, it neither unique to this election cycle nor is it driven by anti-incumbency sentiment among the electorate.

The first clue to knocking down this myth involves the elections in which these incumbents are losing. They are all primary elections and the electoral composition of primary elections are fundamentally different from the electorate as a whole (e.g., general election voters). Primaries are overwhelmingly decided by strong activist partisans who are much more ideologically extreme than general election voters of the same partisan persuasion. Thus, Republican primary voters are much more conservative than Republican general election voters.

The second clue is to look at which incumbents have been in trouble so far. Cristi in Florida--a Republican who hugged Obama and supported the stimulus, things that are not popular with hard-core conservatives. Bennett in Utah--beaten in the primary by a candidate backed by the Tea Party; Bennett was attacked as too moderate (laughable for people who know his record) and who supported the TARP bill.

Also look at Blanche Lincoln--a moderate/conservative Democrat who is being challenged by a Daily Kos-funded liberal. And then there's Spector--a liberal Republican who was challenged from the right and switched parties; he then became a moderate Democrat (unity vote score in the 60% range) until he was challenged on the left by Sestak, after which he started voting with Democrats 97% of the time. The ads against him show him being endorsed by Bush.

The real mechanism behind these troubled incumbents is a purging of moderates from both parties by the most extremist and activist of their core supporters. The primaries allow groups like the TEA Parties and Daily Kos to oust people they perceive (often incorrectly) as loyalists in favor of more ideologically extreme candidates. In some cases--Utah, for instance--their efforts won't have an effect on the general election. In others, such as Florida and perhaps Pennsylvania and definitely Arkansas, their efforts could seriously damage their party's chances in the general election.

So this is a polarization effect, pure and simple. In the general election, you'll see a lot of Democratic incumbents lose and most (if not all) Republican incumbents win reelection. That's the asymmetry in incumbency reelection rates due to the political climate, which disfavors Democrats this year. There is no "anti-incumbency" sentiment among the electorate as a whole. All of this is just a false narrative being put out by the media (and some politicos) who tend to give too much weight to isolated anecdotes and temporary, short-term events that typically have no actual impact on election results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. That piece of crap changed parties just so he could get re-elected. He said so himself. I was in Philly last week and Specter was behind in all the local polls that showed on TV.

Given the circumstances, I actually don't have a problem with that. He was facing a primary challenge from a strong conservative who likely could not get elected in the general election. Spector is a better representative for his state than a Tea Party type candidate, and is probably a better representative than some kind of Daily Kos funded leftwinger. If Republicans are going to tell him he's not conservative enough for their party then why should he stay in that party? Same for the Democrats challenging him from the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not taking issue with the core argument of the article (that Spector is a convenient fool), but I do have a pet peave about this supposed "anti-incumbency" wave people are talking about. The media narrative is that in 2010 voter anger has translated into a "vote the bums out" mentality among the electorate. It's a compelling narrative backed up by several anecdotes. It is also wrong.

What we've seen, first in Florida and Utah and now in other states' primary elections today, it neither unique to this election cycle nor is it driven by anti-incumbency sentiment among the electorate.

The first clue to knocking down this myth involves the elections in which these incumbents are losing. They are all primary elections and the electoral composition of primary elections are fundamentally different from the electorate as a whole (e.g., general election voters). Primaries are overwhelmingly decided by strong activist partisans who are much more ideologically extreme than general election voters of the same partisan persuasion. Thus, Republican primary voters are much more conservative than Republican general election voters.

The second clue is to look at which incumbents have been in trouble so far. Cristi in Florida--a Republican who hugged Obama and supported the stimulus, things that are not popular with hard-core conservatives. Bennett in Utah--beaten in the primary by a candidate backed by the Tea Party; Bennett was attacked as too moderate (laughable for people who know his record) and who supported the TARP bill.

Also look at Blanche Lincoln--a moderate/conservative Democrat who is being challenged by a Daily Kos-funded liberal. And then there's Spector--a liberal Republican who was challenged from the right and switched parties; he then became a moderate Democrat (unity vote score in the 60% range) until he was challenged on the left by Sestak, after which he started voting with Democrats 97% of the time. The ads against him show him being endorsed by Bush.

The real mechanism behind these troubled incumbents is a purging of moderates from both parties by the most extremist and activist of their core supporters. The primaries allow groups like the TEA Parties and Daily Kos to oust people they perceive (often incorrectly) as loyalists in favor of more ideologically extreme candidates. In some cases--Utah, for instance--their efforts won't have an effect on the general election. In others, such as Florida and perhaps Pennsylvania and definitely Arkansas, their efforts could seriously damage their party's chances in the general election.

So this is a polarization effect, pure and simple. In the general election, you'll see a lot of Democratic incumbents lose and most (if not all) Republican incumbents win reelection. That's the asymmetry in incumbency reelection rates due to the political climate, which disfavors Democrats this year. There is no "anti-incumbency" sentiment among the electorate as a whole. All of this is just a false narrative being put out by the media (and some politicos) who tend to give too much weight to isolated anecdotes and temporary, short-term events that typically have no actual impact on election results.

I understand where you're coming from but I disagree.

The Republians suck too.

This wave of fervor is a result of the elected urinating down the backs of the people and telling them it is raining.

Well, it sure is raining now....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand where you're coming from but I disagree.

The Republians suck too.

This wave of fervor is a result of the elected urinating down the backs of the people and telling them it is raining.

Well, it sure is raining now....

First, we're not talking about "the people". We're talking about primary voters, which are different in important ways.

Second, why aren't solidly conservative GOP incumbents (and solidly liberal Democratic incumbents) getting beaten by more moderate challengers? The pattern is nearly universal--the incumbents who are losing are getting beaten from the right or the left in primaries.

Finally, I'll bet you $100 that very few GOP Senate incumbents lose in November while several Democratic Senate incumbents lose. If you're right then there should not be significant asymmetry in incumbency reelection rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, we're not talking about "the people". We're talking about primary voters, which are different in important ways.

Second, why aren't solidly conservative GOP incumbents (and solidly liberal Democratic incumbents) getting beaten by more moderate challengers? The pattern is nearly universal--the incumbents who are losing are getting beaten from the right or the left in primaries.

Finally, I'll bet you $100 that very few GOP Senate incumbents lose in November while several Democratic Senate incumbents lose. If you're right then there should not be significant asymmetry in incumbency reelection rates.

I respect your position here, and I can understand why you would see it that way. However, I still disagree.

The President can do NOTHING without the consent and mechinations of Congress. He can suggest policy, but apart from executive order, he cannot enact it. Since taking office, Obama has presided over a Congress that has blatently spat in the collective faces of "The People" in a mad rush to enact his suggested policies.

One lone group stood against it in the Senate, and even their ranks are weak. I believe you will see several of them replaced as well.

So at the end of the day, the lies, force-feeding and outright vindictiveness off this Congress, led by this President has refined the thinking of "The People" and you can scant find a soul who is neither left nor right of any issue.

We are deeply divided along idealogical lines. Record numbers of voters will react to this and vote their conceince since their words and voices have been so denied over the last year.

This is payback time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real mechanism behind these troubled incumbents is a purging of moderates from both parties by the most extremist and activist of their core supporters.

It occurred to me that this phenomenon is not healthy in considering Specter's case.

Not only is he probably going to lose anyway, but in fact even if he remains, he is FAR less powerful and has FAR less influence as a "moderate" Democrat than he did as a relatively liberal Republican. As the new guy on the block, he's not going to be rocking boats among Democrats, whereas Republicans would cowtow to him to get his vote. That's why I never thought Zell Miller should switch parties (and Miller apparently agreed with me on that). You have more influence as a minority vote that is needed than as one of the herd.

Specter is learning that lesson powerfully. Both he and the Republican party are poorer for his absence (and I'm no fan of Specter as a Republican OR a Democrat).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect your position here, and I can understand why you would see it that way. However, I still disagree.

The President can do NOTHING without the consent and mechinations of Congress. He can suggest policy, but apart from executive order, he cannot enact it. Since taking office, Obama has presided over a Congress that has blatently spat in the collective faces of "The People" in a mad rush to enact his suggested policies.

One lone group stood against it in the Senate, and even their ranks are weak. I believe you will see several of them replaced as well.

So at the end of the day, the lies, force-feeding and outright vindictiveness off this Congress, led by this President has refined the thinking of "The People" and you can scant find a soul who is neither left nor right of any issue.

We are deeply divided along idealogical lines. Record numbers of voters will react to this and vote their conceince since their words and voices have been so denied over the last year.

This is payback time.

Fair enough, but I have evidence and facts to back up my position.

The public as a whole is not deeply divided ideologically, in large part because the overwhelming number of Americans don't have ideologies in the sense that you are using that term. 50 years of public opinion work has shown that people's opinions are not structured by parties, beginning with the seminal "The American Voter" book and supported by other work such as Delli-Carpini and Keeter's "What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matter". I could literally cite dozens of books/articles showing that the American public is not strongly ideological.

Given that, it's impossible for people to be divided along ideological lines. What you've seen--as shown by Morris Fiorina in his book "Culture War?" and also Matthew Levendusky in his book "The Partisan Sort"--is that the small portion of Americans who are guided by ideology are better sorting themselves into their respective parties. You see fewer liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. So the parties are ideologically divided, but not the public. There are only small differences between the issue beliefs of Red and Blue state residents (again citing Fiorina here), even on contentious issues like abortion. The large "culture war" divisions are only seen among the minority of strongly active citizens.

Moreover, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of studies showing that primary voters are more activist and ideological than their general election counterparts, to the point that literally nobody disputes this. But if you want citations from professional journals and books by political scientists then I'm happy to provide them.

Finally, while there is a general sense of anger among the whole electorate (not just activists who vote in primaries), that sense of anger and resentment is tied to the economy. James Stimson in his book "Tides of Consent", along with other work by him and colleagues in various political science journals, has shown that approval ratings and "nature of the times" attitudes such as whether the country is heading in the right/wrong direction or consumer confidence indexes all collapse into a single dimension that is explained by the state of the economy. When the economy is booming then everyone--Republican, Democrat, president, governor, senator, and even state legislators--benefit via higher approval ratings. Moreover, when the economy is good, the public has a more optimistic outlook about politics. Strangely enough, they even have more positive opinions abut people who have no connection to the economy. Below is a graph showing this relationship along with a link to an article by political scientist John Sides discussing the implication of Stimson's work. Also, as the economy has improved so far this year, attitudes about the direction of the country have increased as well (check pollingreport.com to confirm this). If your view were correct then those attitudes should remain low or even get lower regardless of the state of the economy.

stimson2.PNG

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/02/the_economy_structures_everyth.html

So again, all of the facts and evidence point toward this being a polarization effect caused by the unique nature of primary elections and the activist/extremist composition of those voters. And I've not seen any evidence of a general anti-incumbency sentiment among the public as a whole. If you have some, then I'd love to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It occurred to me that this phenomenon is not healthy in considering Specter's case.

Not only is he probably going to lose anyway, but in fact even if he remains, he is FAR less powerful and has FAR less influence as a "moderate" Democrat than he did as a relatively liberal Republican. As the new guy on the block, he's not going to be rocking boats among Democrats, whereas Republicans would cowtow to him to get his vote. That's why I never thought Zell Miller should switch parties (and Miller apparently agreed with me on that). You have more influence as a minority vote that is needed than as one of the herd.

Specter is learning that lesson powerfully. Both he and the Republican party are poorer for his absence (and I'm no fan of Specter as a Republican OR a Democrat).

Oh, it's extremely unhealthy for American government and it's why I want to eliminate party primaries entirely (and also reshape campaign financing). In order to win office you have to win a primary election. So you have to first cater to the most extreme fringes of your party because not only are they the ones voting in primaries, but they are also the ones who will provide money and volunteer and other resources to your campaign in the general election. That's the rationale behind the "base only" or "50% + 1" strategy perfected by Karl Rove.

That means that either members of Congress spend the disproportionate amount of their time casting votes designed to rally their core, which means that legislation is more about political grandstanding and scoring points in the next election, or they risk losing resources from their base or even risking losing the primary from someone on their right/left. And when it comes to proposing and voting on legislation, the extreme elements of the parties will have disproportionate influence when it comes to lobbying and influence.

I believe the rapid increase in the use of the filibuster over the past several decades is a direct consequence of this tendency. Democrats can get support from their base by sloganeering about Bush's "war against women" or his "destruction of individual rights". So if the FISA wiretapping policy represents a "destruction" of the Constitution and wholesale "elimination of privacy rights", then where is there room to compromise on legislation? They must defeat the legislation however they can, and if that means they filibuster the bill then that's what they do. Republicans can get lots of money and support casting health care as a "socialist takeover". Consequently, they must "fight" to "kill" the "tyrannical" legislation, which means they filibuster en masse. After all, compromising with evil is simply striking a deal with the devil; negotiating with the enemy is treason, after all, and anyone who would compromise with the enemy (the other party) must not be on our side.

The country was never designed to be governed by 60% supermajority and the use of the filibuster has consistently increased since the elite polarization began in the 1970s and 1980s. We're now at the point where we have nearly 200 filibusters every single year, representing a huge chunk of what was otherwise routine legislation.

There are other negative consequences of the purging being done by both parties--citizens become disengaged from politics, they don't feel like they have a choice, and they stop voting as often. The electorate itself becomes more polarized because moderates opt out of participation while the activists become more engaged, but that doesn't mean the country as a whole is becoming more ideological or active (Markus Prior's book "Post-Broadcast Democracy" does a good job illustrating this point). It simply means that the crazies really are beginning to run the asylum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but I have evidence and facts to back up my position.

The public as a whole is not deeply divided ideologically, in large part because the overwhelming number of Americans don't have ideologies in the sense that you are using that term. 50 years of public opinion work has shown that people's opinions are not structured by parties, beginning with the seminal "The American Voter" book and supported by other work such as Delli-Carpini and Keeter's "What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matter". I could literally cite dozens of books/articles showing that the American public is not strongly ideological.

Given that, it's impossible for people to be divided along ideological lines. What you've seen--as shown by Morris Fiorina in his book "Culture War?" and also Matthew Levendusky in his book "The Partisan Sort"--is that the small portion of Americans who are guided by ideology are better sorting themselves into their respective parties. You see fewer liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. So the parties are ideologically divided, but not the public. There are only small differences between the issue beliefs of Red and Blue state residents (again citing Fiorina here), even on contentious issues like abortion. The large "culture war" divisions are only seen among the minority of strongly active citizens.

Moreover, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of studies showing that primary voters are more activist and ideological than their general election counterparts, to the point that literally nobody disputes this. But if you want citations from professional journals and books by political scientists then I'm happy to provide them.

Finally, while there is a general sense of anger among the whole electorate (not just activists who vote in primaries), that sense of anger and resentment is tied to the economy. James Stimson in his book "Tides of Consent", along with other work by him and colleagues in various political science journals, has shown that approval ratings and "nature of the times" attitudes such as whether the country is heading in the right/wrong direction or consumer confidence indexes all collapse into a single dimension that is explained by the state of the economy. When the economy is booming then everyone--Republican, Democrat, president, governor, senator, and even state legislators--benefit via higher approval ratings. Moreover, when the economy is good, the public has a more optimistic outlook about politics. Strangely enough, they even have more positive opinions abut people who have no connection to the economy. Below is a graph showing this relationship along with a link to an article by political scientist John Sides discussing the implication of Stimson's work. Also, as the economy has improved so far this year, attitudes about the direction of the country have increased as well (check pollingreport.com to confirm this). If your view were correct then those attitudes should remain low or even get lower regardless of the state of the economy.

stimson2.PNG

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/02/the_economy_structures_everyth.html

So again, all of the facts and evidence point toward this being a polarization effect caused by the unique nature of primary elections and the activist/extremist composition of those voters. And I've not seen any evidence of a general anti-incumbency sentiment among the public as a whole. If you have some, then I'd love to see it.

Watch your television tonight.

And Again in November.

That's my evidence.

You can cite any book or study you like, your entire point of view hinges on knowing what people think and I submit that your "evidence" is more "arrogance" that any of these authors know what people think any more than I know what the next lottery numbers will be.

I have attended meetings since last summer with people who have NEVER been active in politics and have NEVER voted in their adult lives. THEY DO NOT LIKE BEING TOLD TO EAT A TURD.

Yes, the economy is a HUGE issue, but it PALES next to "The People's" sense that the "Servents" they sent to act on their behalves think that they know better than those to which they would be wise to answer.

The condecending nature of it all coupled with the sense of powerlessness to stop it creates this groundswell and you and those that think like you rest on your graphs and tomes and educated guesses and wrap it up in a neat little bow and call it "evidence".

It's cow manure

Edited by Boston T. Party
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch your television tonight.

And Again in November.

That's my evidence.

You can cite any book or study you like, your entire point of view hinges on knowing what people think and I submit that your "evidence" is more "arrogance" that any of these authors know what people think any more than I know what the next lottery numbers will be.

I have attended meeting since last summer with people who have NEVER been active in politics and have NEVER voted in their adult lives. THEY DO NOT LIKE BEING TOLD TO EAT A TURD.

Yes, the economy is a HUGE issue, but it PALES next to "The People's" sense that the "Servents" they sent to act on their behalves think that they know better than those to which they would be wise to answer.

The condecending nature of it all coupled with the sense of powerlessness to stop it creates this groundswell and you and those that think like you rest on your graphs and tomes and educated guesses and wrap it up in a neat little bow and call it "evidence".

It's cow manure

Then put your money where your mouth is. If you are right then you should see a large number of incumbents from BOTH parties losing in the general election. If I'm right, then you should see the bulk of incumbent defeats concentrated among Democrats, with very few GOP incumbents losing in November. Put $100 on it.

You've got a few meetings with people who are in no way representative of the mass electorate. I've got a half century of polling data and election results and social science theories backing me up. If you want me to discount thousands of scientific studies and decades of polling results, then you're going to have to provide more evidence than a few meetings with people at the fringes in terms of their political views.

It's not me guessing what people think; it's me analyzing the responses of a representative sample of the American public across a large number of surveys. Ironically, YOU are the one guessing what people think--anti-incumbency sentiment because they're fed up with the policies coming from Washington--with each post in this thread. And again, you have nothing to base your guesses on other than a few meetings with people at the fringe. Sorry, not good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I guess no one gets converted today.

I'll drain the Baptismal pool.....

Btw, my responses may have come across harsher than I intended. My pet peave with the media narrative--which you believe is true--has to do with the lack of evidence supporting it. Journalists look at isolated, largely meaningless events and create explanations. They see several incumbents losing election and assert an anti-incumbency sentiment, ignoring the more viable explanations that are actually supported with facts and evidence.

I'm perfectly open to being wrong about this, but I would like the media (or others who accept the narrative) to provide some actual evidence supporting the narrative of an anti-incumbency wave. The evidence points to what we're seeing being a continuation of two long-term, well-supported theoretical views--partisan polarization in Congress that has been partly (not completely) caused by primary elections and a normal retrospective/economic-based voting behavior in the general elections. Combined, those two theories explain what we're seeing in the primaries and can predict in a very precise way the balance of incumbency reelection rates.

The anti-incumbency narrative, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, my responses may have come across harsher than I intended. My pet peave with the media narrative--which you believe is true--has to do with the lack of evidence supporting it. Journalists look at isolated, largely meaningless events and create explanations. They see several incumbents losing election and assert an anti-incumbency sentiment, ignoring the more viable explanations that are actually supported with facts and evidence.

I'm perfectly open to being wrong about this, but I would like the media (or others who accept the narrative) to provide some actual evidence supporting the narrative of an anti-incumbency wave. The evidence points to what we're seeing being a continuation of two long-term, well-supported theoretical views--partisan polarization in Congress that has been partly (not completely) caused by primary elections and a normal retrospective/economic-based voting behavior in the general elections. Combined, those two theories explain what we're seeing in the primaries and can predict in a very precise way the balance of incumbency reelection rates.

The anti-incumbency narrative, not so much.

I do not believe a thing the media tells me. In my previous line of work I had access to delicate information and too many times I knew the official version diverted from what was true. The common saying is that most people believe 99% of what they read and hear, except for that 1% of which they have personal knowledge and know that it differs from what is being reported.

You see, they swallow the rest. The human condition, gotta love self denial.

Anyway, perhaps I was too forceful in my rebuttal, for that I apologize. I believe I have been clear that my opinion is that this country is entering into a new body politic that is verging on rebellion due to distrust and a general sense of being screwed over and told what to do.

I do not call that a climate of "anti-incumbency", I call that being fed up with the lying liars that make of themselves Kings on our backs and payoff those that can continue to enrich them.

Republican, Democrat, Independant, etc, et al! If they have a record of abusing the trust of the people, they should be forewarned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Specter was a 5 term incumbent, that alone is one of the things wrong with our current system in the Senate.

I don't disagree with you, but there are advantages to having people in positions for a long enough period that they can collectively work toward progress. It hasn't worked out as well as most of us would hope obviously. But imagine if we had serious turnover every couple of years. It's hard to imagine the newbies coming in and simply picking up the ball and running. Instead they would likely be prone to "begin at the beginning" and start all porcesses over again. Maybe Senators should be allowed no more than 4 terms (24 years) and Reps limited to 8 terms (16 years). I would also support allowing the President to have three terms if he can get re-elected twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...