Bob McConnell: Candidate answer

Advertisement

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Stuart Handloff’s letter (“Can they be trusted”) in the May 30 Steamboat Pilot & Today. It was a little confusing, segueing somehow from Cal Thomas on abortion, to me on taxes, to Sarah Palin with atomic bombs. Let me try to respond.

Since 1913, Congress has used the existing tax code to get itself re-elected and to manipulate our behavior. Eliminating the Internal Revenue Code and moving to a Fair Tax on consumption would end both these problems and raise more revenue.

As for financial regulation, since 1913 a cartel of New York banks, aka The Federal Reserve, has manipulated the system for its own benefit. Again and again it has taken the upside profits while taxpayers cover its losses with bailouts. Read your history on this one. The cartel pretends to protect the people. Nothing could be further from the truth. It takes the gravy while local banks and the farmers, ranchers and business people who depend on operational loans to survive get the scraps. 

I want to fundamentally reform a financial system that protects fat cats in Congress and on Wall Street. We need to refocus on the free market solutions that have worked better than any other system on earth. I propose:

■ A Fair Tax on consumption.

■ No more bailouts.

■ No more “banks too big to fail”

■ Free market interests rates

■ An asset-based currency

■ End fractional reserve banking 

As for environmental regulation, when the regulators are in bed with the regulated, and we manage our precious resources by lawsuit, the system is broken. Whether it’s the oil spill in the Gulf, 3 million acres of dead trees north of Interstate 70, or smelts trumping the folks who raise our food in California, we need to be goal-oriented and outcome-driven. The goal is twofold: keep Colorado beautiful, and get people back to work. Let’s look at outcomes rather than be happy with platitudes.

I have been in combat and worked in the Pentagon. My reorganized Department of Defense would cut the fat and inter-service rivalries that Truman was so frustrated with in 1947, while keeping our warriors the most well trained, best-equipped fighting force on Earth. 

I want to represent you in Congress so that we can start solving problems rather than just trade sound bites. Greece is our future if we don’t get serious about what is happening to our country.

Bob McConnell

Republican candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd Congressional District

Steamboat Springs

Comments

Scott Ford 4 years, 2 months ago

Hi Bob - I have had the opportunity to chat with you on a couple of occasions. You are sincere in your desire to serve the folks from Colorado's third congressional district and I respect that. However, if you have the good fortune to be elected - I am not too sure you are going to make much of a difference.

In reading your response to Stuart I come away with the feeling it will be just more of the frustrating "same" only now offered from a different polarized position. It seems to me that political parties and those running for political office are far more interested in accentuating the differences rather than agreeing on solutions.

I appreciate and understand you righteous indignation. We both know you are not going to get 100% your way on some issues that you value dearly and think would be good for this country. That is political reality. When this happens, and it will, are you going to blame the system and/or those that opposed you with now all too familiar rhetoric or will you compromise?

Speaking only for myself - I would welcome discussions that were "salted" with less rhetoric and more with pragmatism. I do not expect my elected representatives to be super heroes responsible for fixing everything. I do expect them to be diplomats representing Colorado committed to civility and skilled in the art of compromise.

0

Jason Krueger 4 years, 2 months ago

Mr McConnell, I must agree with Scott Ford. You have chosen to present another extremist view point without truly offering any substantive plan of action. You're opening paragraph alone seems to indicate a condescending approach to those who may not be in total agreement with your philosophies. Rhetoric such as, "cartel of New York banks, aka The Federal Reserve, has manipulated the system for its own benefit. " does little to promote your solutions but does indicate your interest in appealing to the frothing extremists within your party.
Your statement regarding local banks, farmers and (small) business owners also reeks of the simplistic rhetoric that ignores the modern realities of the global economy, global food production and multi-national corporations. Whether these international enterprises are a good or bad thing is a debate unto itself but don't cloud it by conjuring fanciful images of family farming or little mom and pop drug stores.
Much as you complain of Mr. Handloff's meandering letter against you, I too find it hard to draw any sort of comparison between 3 million acres of dead trees caused by a native species and a man made disaster in the Gulf. I agree, lawsuits are a poor way to protect the environment but your pompous simplification of "smelts vs. "poor" farmers" shows you have little knowledge of biology or farming thereby questioning what useful skills you could even bring to the table. Please remember Mr. McConnell, there are few Democrats, Republicans, Independents or others who would not insist that our fighting men and women be the most highly trained and well protected military. Do not confuse disagreements in choices of military engagements with a lack of support for those fighting the battles. This has been your Parties single biggest insult to the half of the country who don't check "R" on their voter registration cards but whose sons and daughters bravely defend its borders. In conclusion Mr. McConnell, the Pilot allowed you over 400 words worth of free campaigning and you chose to squander it on sound bites and rhetoric. From my point of view, you're not offering much new from the status quo.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Well the minority has spoken out and I guess by their rhetoric against you Mr. McConnell, they WILL be voting for more of the same come November, namely John Pelosi Salazar. No compromises Bob, we want true change and the silent majority is awakened to the failures of years of Liberal policies and the Big Government connections to Wall Street and the Oil Companies which had an effect on policy making and led the way to these catastrophes. We need someone like you to hold the Government accountable when necessary and business when they are failing on their promises. If BP hadn't been coddled by Bush, Obama and the rest of Government then the inspections and standards would have been met and the safety awards that were issued to BP for THAT rig just days before the explosion would have not been given. We have first hand accounts by the survivors and it is clear that standards were ignored. I won't harp on the fact that Obama was the largest receiver of BP campaign donations over the last 4 years or so. No, there is no mistake Mr. McConnell, you are the candidate for change, change back towards a Constitutionally minded Congress that actually reads the bills they vote for. And I believe you have the right to state your claim and make your case, you earned it honorably Sir, no matter what some here feel about the wars. Even though you posted your desires for policy achievements they still say you represent the status quo or more of the same, well I think you're on the right track with all that froth. Good luck Bob.

0

Jason Krueger 4 years, 2 months ago

...ironic when one speaks of honor but hides behind anonymity.

0

Scott Ford 4 years, 2 months ago

Before this blog degrades into discussions of limited relevance with the risk of not yielding anything constructive I suggest we use this forum to ask Bob some thoughtful questions. I believe he would welcome the opportunity to respond to questions asked in the context civility from folks willing to learn.

Bob - First and foremost I want to thank you for your military service to this country. Also for your willingness to run for political office. I have a huge respect for sacrifice both of these likely involved for you personally and your family.

I think you and I would agree that the third congressional district in Colorado is a hodgepodge of folks with wide ranging beliefs about what needs to be done and how. A wonderful campaign from my perspective in this hodgepodge environment would be candidates that: • Freely admit that the problems our nation is facing are very complex and few if any of them lend themselves to simplistic solutions. It is OK to say, "I do not know - but I am willing to do my best to learn from anyone that has a good idea - regardless of their political affiliation." • A commitment not to approach representing the population of the 3rd district with pre-conceived ideas of what needs to be done. It is OK to say honestly, "I do not know" 2X more often than "I know." • A commitment to work toward compromise and join with others with a similar belief in compromise no matter how difficult. I think all of us would admit that It is really hard work to do this. • A commitment to stop using the word "THEY". It is a fundamental understanding that there is no THEY - THEY is all of us.
• A commitment not to participate in the "theater" that seems to characterizes many political discussions. We need - worker/statesmen; not defenders of ideologies. • A commitment to complement political revivals on things that have gone well. Not everything is broken.

If the good people of the third congressional district (speaking metaphorically) want a rough and tumble individual to get Washington in line by doing things one right way, trust me you do not want the job because it cannot be done effectively. The job only becomes frustrating.

However, I do not think that there are great possibilities for the candidate that approaches the job with a statesmen sense of stewardship. Which is characterized by their intelligence and willingness and a commitment to always find middle ground.

Do you see the possibilities of this type of campaign?

0

Scott Ford 4 years, 2 months ago

Hi Seeuski - I am not sure you know me and it is impossible for me to know you - who is "seeuski"? In reality, it likely matters little - except I typically like to know whom I am talking to. Otherwise, from my perspective it just seems a wee-bit rude.

I have an appreciation for your passion. I want to ask you a question - not in an effort to be critical but to honestly understand and learn more. From my perspective both the House of Representatives and the Senate have become characterized more often than not as a zero-sum game. I define a zero-sum game as any situation in which one's gains result only from another's equivalent loss.

Essentially, there are no winners in a zero-sum game. The best that can be hoped for is a draw with the real possibility of everyone loosing. That seems to be the current status-quo. I think you and I would both agree it is not working very well and it is a wee-bit frustrating.

Here is my question. Help me understand what you mean by, "Bob, no compromises…"

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

No Compromises on Bob's stated positions. Why should he compromise with the left? We are now under the jurisdiction of the left and the world is collapsing. We have a POTUS who admits his associations with Socialists and Marxists along with those he has in his Cabinet who are avowed socialists and we won't survive this "fundamental change". Bob is a tough, honest Constitutional Conservative who is committed to fighting for this Country. We cannot allow the move to Marxism that is in progress. It is failing in Europe and we will fail too. And what does it mean when the President says he wants to know who's a$$ to kick when he is the one where the buck stops? Do you think Bob would say something idiotic like that? I personally met John Salazar and posed him very specific questions about the health care bill and he fibbed to my face. We are sinking in debt and we need true hard nosed leaders who will say NO to the Liberal agenda of nanny state spending. When does everyone wake up and see the future? 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities and we are bailing out other countries now? Wake up!!!!! But who am I? Maybe I am just a wee bit rude because I love my country and I see nothing good coming down the road. Maybe we should ask some immigrants who came here from Socialist countries and see if they want to go down that road. I have, and they are freaking out. Whats up with that? I have no questions for you Scott but I do respect your opinions.

0

Scott Ford 4 years, 2 months ago

Seeuski - Thanks for your response. I do not disagree with you regarding the magnitude of the problems that are facing our country. Approaches to address these problems are going to be very difficult to work through and implement. Recognizing this I am convinced what is not going to work is dogmatism regardless of the source liberal or conservative.

The Constitution itself is a document whose very beginnings are rooted in compromise. If the 56 delegates to the Constitutional Convention that began in February 1787 had not been willing to compromise on countless issues we would not have the Constitution we have today and more likely the United States would not exist.

I think you and I would agree that the Constitution provides a broad framework, i.e. boundaries that define the arena for government to function. From my perspective, one honors this broad framework by demonstrating a willingness to compromise whilst in the arena.

I hope Bob sees the value of compromise. Otherwise there is a risk he will just become a shrill frustrated politician in an already crowded chorus at a time we desperately need individuals who are commitment statesmen skilled in the art of compromise.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

scott, What area should Bob compromise on in order to address the failures we are experiencing from the ineptness of this Congress? For example, how should Bob have compromised with the health care package? Or the stimulus, or the upcoming Cap and trade bill? How should Bob address the continuing fleecing of America within Freddie/Fannie and then finally, what role should the FED continue to play in world monetary manipulation and how would you have Bob compromise on that? My opinion is we can continue to compromise on these issues or we can finally deal with them honestly. 1. The health care takeover should not have happened and the Dems did NOT compromise with the GOP. 2. The stimulus did not work as promised, Obama's promise of no more than 8% unemployment was a lie, and the Dems did not compromise with the GOP. 3. Cap and Trade will give certain entities carte blanche to fleece big money from every American and spread the wealth as those Elitists see fit around the World and there should be no compromise by ANY Representative against that. 4.Freddie/Fannie is the central culprit in the housing bubble and yet there is no mention of those entities in the new financial regulation bill, I expect Bob to be a voice on that subject in the House and there should be no compromise in the need to stop the bleeding of OUR tax dollars and liability that those two GSE's create. 5. Many have called for an audit of the FED and many call for dissolving it, either way we need to reign in the power of this central bank and stop it's manipulation of the markets so we can have a solid economy based on true asset and value not smoke and mirrors, and I believe Bob won't compromise with the powers in place in that effort. 6. As far as the Pentagon, Bob has the experience and the knowledge of his history of service to see the things that we lay people can't, and I trust that he won't compromise in his beliefs that we can run our military much more efficiently than we now do. This has been a problem for decades and we should all be behind this effort. So in summary, the new word is compromise replacing the over used word sustainable. As Obama now says the Israeli blockade of Gaza is not sustainable, like this POTUS has the Israelis best interests at heart. I love the way Abbas was treated like royalty and Netenyahu was snubbed. Fundamental change has come for sure.

0

trump_suit 4 years, 2 months ago

We can always trust seeuski to represent the partisan divide and ignore the truth.

  1. Heathcare. Dems didn't compromise? They tried but John Boehner and the Reps became the party of NO and refused to talk. (Examples - Medicare buy in = Rep idea. Mandated coverage = rep idea. No public option = dem compromise No single payer = dem compromise. Spin it how you will, the republicans tried to take the ball and go home) Health insurance reform was necessary.

  2. Deppresion deeper and wider than anticipated. Stimulus was actually quite effective Google it see.

  3. Cap and trade was a bipartisan effort until the Republicans once again took the ball and refused to talk anymore.

  4. Fannie/Freddie - yes something needs to be done, but blaming obama and the dems for a 20 year problem seems self serving at best. What are the options/choices? Lets talk. Why did the Rep's try so hard to kill any financial reform? Notice Kill, not change or compromise.

  5. Why did we not hear disband the fed until Obama was pres? when greenspan was running it and times were good, we did not seem to hear many complaints. Why is that? Probably a bad idea that would seriously limit our ability to grow. Would you vote for Ron Paul?

6 As senator, Mr. McConnell would find a very limited influence over the pentagon. That organization has survived larger challenges than Mr OcConnell and he would find his ideas challenged/dilluted and rejected.

Compromise = talking/disussing problems and coming to mutually agreeable solutions. We face some hard choices in the coming years and the current partisanship and rhetoric are not going to accomplish that. We need honest discussion and a serious lookat cutting the three largest gov't expenses. 1. Social Security 2. Medicare 3. Military
4. Interest

Without major changes to these three programs, all else is simply whistling in the wind and the interest load will doom us. What say you Mr. OcConnell??? How would you approach this stark reality?

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Different knowledge and realities create different perceptions trump. You obviously are unaware of what is in the bills you cite especially health care and the now updated CBO reports which paint the Dems as lying snakes. What the Repubs were saying all along turns out to be true and now Obama is back on the campaign circuit telling Seniors more of the same lies. Financial reform that you mention has provisions in it that are unconstitutional and gives the POTUS overwhelming centralized power over all business in the US along with UN controls and power. If you don't think Obama has a reason for ignoring Fannie then you my friend are uninformed. You need to see what the connections with Fannie and the Cap and Trade legislation are and how it will control our home lives in the future. Check out the patents that Franklyn Raines purchased with Fannie dollars while he was in power and his connections to Emerald Cities and the Chicago Climate Exchange which was recently purchased by a Global Group that includes players like Al Gore, Raines, Vann Jones, Soros, Goldman Sachs, GE, and many others previously mentioned. Check out Shore Bank in Chicago while your at it.

And here you are talking about cutting Medicare on one hand and on the other endorsing the health care legislation that dwarfs it. We are going down the tubes as a viable Country with that type of public confusion. This is precisely why the Constitution needs to be applied to all the Federal Government programs. We then can discuss what fits and what doesn't by those long held standards of law.

0

Scott Ford 4 years, 2 months ago

Good Morning George - I think it is a wee-bit unfair to characterize Bob as, "Angry Mob Bob." I think all of us owe him a level heartfelt respect because of his willingness to run for political office. Agree or disagree with him I want to be sure I show a genuine level of respect . This is a personal decision I have made. I am not so naive to expect everyone to share my perspective. It is my hope, however, enough of us can hold firm to a level of civility and graciousness so we can model it for our elected representatives. This commitment to grace and civility may sound silly to some - but I think this is an overarching philosophical approach that has promise.

I understand why "labels" are often attached to people and/or institutions. It is simply a practice that helps our brains classify faster. The challenge is to suspend, even for a few moments, our nature to quickly classify. Hopefully this can be done long enough for us to make a judgment based on reason and not emotion.

To be clear to all who are participating in this blog or following it with interest all I am trying to do is understand how Bob is going to approach the legislative challenges facing this country. I am not looking for specific "solutions" I am trying to understand Bob's philosophical approach to problems. This goes way beyond discussions about specific solutions - my focuses is trying to understand his core leadership qualities. To put this simply, "What kind of leader will Bob be if elected?" This is a fair question for all of us to ask anyone seeking public office.

Good Morning Seeuski - I am a bit swamped this morning - I will likely not be able to get back to you until Friday. / I hope you get to enjoy this good looking day.

0

JLM 4 years, 2 months ago

As one Abn Rgr (winter Ranger mind you) to another --- Rangers lead the way!

You know you are saying the right things when the left is so vociferous in their reponses.

You are doing just fine. And you will prevail. Keep up the great work. Make 'em eat ....!

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

How does one accomplish anything in Congress if not willing to compromise? Without being able to compromise, each party will only push thru their own agendas because they can. Personally, I'm more for wasting taxes on needed social issues than spending taxpayer money to send someone to represent us by only saying "No" and accomplishing anything. Sounds like what has been happening for as long as most of us can remember. How is voting in another who won't compromise going to change things?

Maybe "We the People" should implement an amendment that all elected officials only get paid for performance. Everytime one party shuts down Congress because they can't get their way- all Congress should be docked pay during that time.

0

Jason Krueger 4 years, 2 months ago

Dear Mr. McConnell,

One closing thought if you are following these posts- Notice how the vast majority (apart from JLM and Seeuski who are, if nothing else, consistent in their rhetoric) are wanting Congress to work things out. Just because the rabid fringe crowds get plenty of media air play doesn't mean the majority of this country believes an "all or nothing" approach is an intelligent solution to anything. As stated before, if you're not willing to intelligently discuss the issues and find workable solutions, you're no different than what we have in place already.

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 2 months ago

Bob seems to be the male version of Palin. With candidates like this, there will be no choice but to vote for Salazar.

0

sledneck 4 years, 2 months ago

I don't think it will be an angry mob of one. Angry? Yes. One?... Hardly.

What is the problem with "angry mobs"? I thought you leftists were into that kind of thing? Angry mobs were all the rage (pardon the pun) when they were shouting crap like "Bush is a terrorist", "capitalism is theft", "give peace a chance", "save the whales", etc.

Now that the anger is comming from a different mob the old mobs solution is to "give COMPROMISE a chance". Please.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 2 months ago

Scott Ford, You did a miserable job of describing a zero sum game: "Essentially, there are no winners in a zero-sum game. The best that can be hoped for is a draw with the real possibility of everyone loosing."

That is exactly wrong. Anyone that watches hold 'em poker knows that there can be winners in a zero sum game. A poker game is a perfect example of a zero sum game because the same number of chips leave the table as are brought to the table, the game is in how the chips are moved from one player to another.

Thus, in a zero sum game it is just as impossible for everyone to be winners as it is for everyone to be losers. By definition, the sum of winners and losers balances to ZERO. For instance, in a poker game, all the chips won by the winners are matched by the chips lost by the losers. If you play until there is only one player left then there is only one winner and the rest are losers, but the winner wins real big. If you play until first person is eliminated then it is possible for all but one to be winners, but winning only a small amount while the one player lost all.

The economy is generally considered to not be a zero sum game because value can be added. A few people around a table can take some parts and build something much more valuable than the cost of the individual parts. So that would not be a zero sum game.

As for Bob McConnell's views: they seem clear enough. He is certainly not being quoted out of context or lacking the opportunity to express nuance. We should expect that these are his views until he chooses to express different views. And we should vote accordingly.

0

Scott Ford 4 years, 2 months ago

Hi Sledneck - This is not a lefty or righty issue. Congress and specifically the US Senate is not working. I know that Bob is running for the House of Representative and not the Senate - but they act on bills passed by the House of Representatives.

Congress has become a zero-sum game in which there is a growing likelihood we all could lose. Allow me to explain which by necessity involves a bit of a civics discussion. There are folks that follow this blog that are far more familiar with US Senate rules than I am, so I invite them to correct my understanding if I go astray.

The rules of the US Senate allow any Senator to Filibuster any piece of legislation, judicial appointment, or Presidential appointment requiring confirmation by the Senate. A Senator can stall any legislative vote by simply not yielding the floor. This would require that they talk without a break. Think of the movie Mr. Smith goes to Washington.

The rules change not all that long ago - so the requirement to hold the floor by non-stop talking has been changed. There is now some procedure in place where the filibustering Senator is able to hold the floor or have a tag team strategy.

During the filibuster process, any Senator can file a motion called a cloture motion to end the filibuster. According to Senate rules, it takes the vote of 60 to invoke a cloture and end the filibuster. Thus allowing whatever legislative to go to the floor for a vote of the full Senate. If the cloture vote fails to get the necessary 60 votes - the filibuster can continue indefinitely.

Since the 110th Congress, which was, seated in January of 2007 the number of filibusters and corresponding cloture votes reached an all time high of 139 cloture motions of which 61 passed. The Democrats used it in the 110th Congress and the Republicans are using it in the current 111th congress. At the halfway point in this Congresses, it is on track to surpass the record set by the previous Congress.

One solution is for the majority party to get a 60 plus majority in the Senate. Thus we engage in a zero-sum game. Doing everything possible to be sure the majority party has this critical 60-vote majority in order to push their agenda through.

Not an easy task. Neither party has had the 60 vote majority since 1978. Yet the Senate has got things done without either party having a 60 vote majority because there was a willingness to compromise amoungst enough of its members.

From my perspective what is currently taking place is a terrible why to run the people's business. I am all for a healthy political tension between the parties that fosters debate. However, dogmatism is happening at the expense of legislation. It has become a political game where scoring points is far more important than working on the problems that need working on.

0

Scott Ford 4 years, 2 months ago

Hi Scott W - Although I miss the mark on occasion I always try to do my best. Thanks for keeping me honest - I always appreciate the education.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 2 months ago

Scott F. Now you are driving me to consternation. I describe a zero sum game and then you say the Senate is a zero sum game, but your explanation describes an impasse where a very difficult 60 votes are required or nothing happens.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

The chance that people like Jason and Duke-bets would vote for a Conservative is laughable, they will vote for whomever the Dem is no matter what Mr. McConnell does or how much he "compromises". So guys please spare us the threat of voting for Salazar, it's a foregone conclusion. The Tea Party candidates are for real and this blog shows the level of fear it is causing those soon to loose power. Better days are ahead for America and they will start with the elections in November. And one last thing, there is an Hawaiian elections worker from the 2008 campaigns who is now coming forward and speaking out about the Birth Certificate issue, he is a Democrat. Have we elected a US citizen as the POTUS? Yes or no let the truth be told. Maybe Blago, Romanoff or or Sestak knows. Sorry people, have to have a little fun with these posts.

0

Scott Ford 4 years, 2 months ago

Hi Seeuski - I think you and I would both agree that the clock is ticking on a number of problems the nation is facing. I will use the social insurance programs of Medicare and social security as an example. This is a complex problem involving demographic, benefit levels and funding. I think there is general agreement amongst both parties that there is a problem - but reluctance to address it. Why? Simply put there is more than enough pre-conceived ideas how to fix it but a seemingly unwillingness to set-aside those pre-conceived ideas and more importantly the ownership of those idea and just work the problem.

Would Bob ever consider an idea that would involve raising the payroll taxes as a part of the solution to this mess? I do not know for sure - but I doubt it even if that is one of the solutions needed.

Vowing never to increase taxes and/or vowing never to reduce benefits are stringent positions that close off options that should be explored and more likely discovered.

The only solution becomes to ram a solution through by having a majority in the House of Representatives and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Not easy to achieve - and if achieved it does not necessarily result in good legislation.

Let us say for grins that the Republicans win a majority in the Senate of 52 seats. So? Nothing is going to change. The Democrats now in a minority position know how to say NO as well. The problem with this is that the really important problems are not addressed. Most likely, what is happening needs to run itself to exhaustion. There is just going to be a whole lot of heartache and headache before we reach that point.

I am glad that this country's founding fathers were not so committed to dogmatism that it precluded compromise as an option. If the 56 representatives to the Constitutional Convention behaved as Congress is behaving now - and how some candidates running for elected office want to behave, we would not have the country we have today.

I think we have reached the point in this blog exchange that not much more can be said. I am a wee-bit disappointed that Bob did not participate. I can understand way he did not participate - when you think you are 100% right what is the point of having any type of exchange. Agree?

0

sledneck 4 years, 2 months ago

Scott F, Thanks for the enlightenment on legislative proceedure.

Scott W, Is Consternation anywhere near Perplexity?

I agree with See that the smell of fear is in the air and some leftists are scared. It shows and, left or right, I like to see them squirm. I do not, however, agree that "better days are ahead". Quite the contrary. This page gives us a great example of how we, as a nation, can't even agree on what the problem is much less how to fix it.

I think we all agree that the ship is headed for the rocks. The problem is half want to turn the wheel to starboard, the other half to port. The result is going to be a big 'ole mess.

There is not enough whiskey in Tennesee; there is not enough LSD in San Fransisco that someone could ingest and then sit down and write a book of fiction about a government screwing up that could even approach the level of insanity we see with our government.

Scott F. is right. It's not a lefty vs. righty issue. The issue is sanity vs. insanity.

"Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad".

0

trump_suit 4 years, 2 months ago

Scott Ford,

What kind of solutions do you see to the gridlock in Congress that you discuss?

Term Limits? Campaign Finance? Change the numbers required?

Does anyone see anything workable out there that can refocus the politicians on getting results and solutions instead of what currently exists?

0

thalgard 4 years, 2 months ago

Bob stands up. Yells I'm here. Then nothing. No ideas, no answers, just puked up rhetoric.

0

John Fielding 4 years, 2 months ago

.

Actually there is an area of agreement between the polarities that is quite interesting.

Almost no one disagrees with the observation that our government is not functioning well.

Some would sat it will it work better with less to do.

Others will say it needs more resources to improve its effectiveness

The disagreement is about how much, and of what, it should do.

.

0

John Fielding 4 years, 2 months ago

.

We the People of the United States,

in Order to Form a More Perfect Union,

Establish Justice,

Insure Domestic Tranquility,

Provide for the Common Defense,

Promote the General Welfare,

and Secure the Blessings of Liberty

to Ourselves and our Posterity,

do Ordain and Establish

this Constitution for the United States of America.

.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 2 months ago

I can still recite it by heart...thanks to School House Rock!!

0

John Fielding 4 years, 2 months ago

.

When you read the Preamble as a to do list it covers a lot.

To me it is worth every effort to Preserve, Protect, and Defend.

Even, and especially, from our government's deterioration.

.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 2 months ago

Sledneck, It would seem to be insanity to expect that the views of right wing republicans should suddenly be accepted by democrats. Just as left wing democrats should not expect their ideas to be accepted by republicans. But each side has previously expressed ideas that could be acceptable to the other side.

Since the democrats have close to 60 votes then it would be reasonable for them to look at ideas previously stated by various senate republicans and work with them to come up with a bill acceptable to enough democrats and a handful of republicans. Except part of what is happening now is various republicans no longer support ideas they once advocated. An immigration bill based upon McCain's previously supported positions probably could be passed except McCain is now against those ideas. And so on.

This is not entirely the republicans fault because the democrats are quite close to 60 votes and they have hopes of losing just a couple and giving them hope of going above 60 in 2012, a presidential election year. So a few of them see less of a need to compromise.

Meanwhile, the bulk of the lost republican seats were moderates in swing states and so almost all of the remaining republicans are more conservative and have little fear of losing a state election. In fact, in Utah they defeated their republican senator with someone from the right wing.

There used to be more senators like Brown of MA that is driving conservatives crazy by already voting with democrats on issues because to have a chance at being reelected he has to attract some voters from the other party. But currently there are only a few senators from swing states that politically benefit from working with the other party.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 2 months ago

It is actually not at all crazy to suggest that a more evenly split senate will be more able to compromise because then the handful of people in the middle can take their ideas to both parties and suggest that there can either be a republican version of these ideas or a democrat version and so the better organized party that is willing to compromise will get more of what they want.

Right now with the democrats at nearly 60 there is only one path to getting a bill through which is to find a couple of republicans to go along which creates tension between democrats that think they are giving up too much to get a couple of votes.

In a very real sense, neither right wing or left wing senators have much real power because there vote on any issue is already a given and there is no point to work them on a bill unless they are willing to compromise. Note that Kennedy's greatest legislative triumphs were when he worked with McCain or Hatch to come up with a compromise that broke the impasse on some issue. And because Kennedy was a co author, that meant any democrat could vote for it without fear of being attacked by a left wing democrat.

0

John Fielding 4 years, 2 months ago

.

The most important laws are those which protect us from government, a tradition that dates at least to the Magna Carta in 1215.

We the People authorize government to act as the mechanism of our Union.

Our Union is our assent to our common goals as stated in the Preamble.

We have not given authority to our government to do all the things on that list, We the People will do those things.

We have not given consent for a simple majority of voters, or even 60 out of 100 senators, to deprive any individual or minority of their rights or possessions without due process.

But our government has assumed those powers, as well as those reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, supposedly by the consent of a majority, in fact by manipulation of our system.

How do we get it back? Not by more of the same.

We may need a lot of representatives who have little more to offer than the steadfast determination to change.

Change we can believe in, sounds like a good motto, lets put it into action.

We know it can only really happen when partisanship, and provincial and parochial interests are put aside, and the focus is on reforming the system itself.

That is why comfortable incumbents like Senator Bennett are likely to be replaced with people who may be much less effective at using the system, but have promised to fight the system.

It is also what got Obama elected, but did not come to pass as many had hoped.

Lets try again. www.freestrongamerica.com />

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 2 months ago

seeuski - Talk about laughable. You are just that.......No further explanation needed.

0

NamVet 4 years, 2 months ago

When you look at where the country was in 2000 with not only a balanced budget but a surplus, no Americans soldiers were losing their lives in foreign lands, unemployment was less than 5 % and the economy was doing very well. Then the Conservative Republicans took total control and we are now in the worst recession since the Great Depression, unemployment at 10%, 6 trillion in deficits spending including the bailout of their buddies on Wall St.and the wasting of the lives of over 35,000 of our men and women in uniform. This mess did not happen in the last 15 months it was the fiscally irresponsible Conservative Republican President and Congress that caused the whole problem. Now they want the power back so they can continue to take care of Wall St., the Oil Companies and the top 1% plus start a few more wars to benefit the Defense Industry. It would be laughable if it wasn't for the damage done to our country. We may never totally recover from the worst President in American history. Now their candidates can only repeat the same Limbaugh/Hannity hate talking points over and over again and say nothing.. When they put out concrete plans to address Defense Spending, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Interest on the debt (which is 80% of Federal Spending)then I'll listen but until then it is a waste of time.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

I would also like to blame Bush and the Conservative Republicans for this weather. In 2000 we had nice weather and then those pesky Hannity/Rush lovers took over and presto changeo we have this. Thanks for the laughs NamVet. Most Americans are paying attention to the Government and your little diatribe here is worthy of Comedy Central. When the book is finally written on Obama and we know more of the truth of this faker and from where he came we shall see who was the worst POTUS. Until then he will keep looking for some donkey to kick and how he can plug the dam hole and suck the oil through a straw. At least he has finally decided to speak with a BP official, it's the least he can do since he did receive the largest amount of campaign contributions of any candidate from one of the largest oil firms in the world, BP. And isn't Obama quite cozy with the Goldman Sachs guys? It would take an hour or more to post all of what Obama has done with the Wall Street guys and other biggies like SEIU. It's all being documented for the 2012 campaigns. At least the left is getting their way when it comes to US/Israel relations, Obama has thrown the Israelis under the bus. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/obama-to-back-anti-israel-resolution-at-un-next-week.html

One of the flotilla ships was financed by the William Ayers gang which includes John Podesta and the last time I checked these people were part of Obamas core of influence. Yea, we have "fundamentally changed". Obama just announced another $400 million US Taxpayer dollars to Hamas in Gaza, he gave them $900 mil just after he took office, if need be I can stick a video of what life really looks like in that territory. It is a far cry from what we are being fed by our media here.

0

sledneck 4 years, 2 months ago

Nam,

We were in debt long before 2000. This ship was headed for the rocks before GW. Our constitution was being shreaded long before then.

We most certainly WERE at war in 2000, (why else did Clinton take a "pot shot" at Bin Laden?) we just didn't realize it till 9-11-2001. Instead of soldiers dying in a foreign land it took civillians dying on American soil to wake us up to that FACT. GW Bush did not fly the planes into the WTC. Blaming terrorism and the resulting chaos on him is childish, shallow, opportunistic and wrong.

Democrats voted for the bailout alongside republicans. Under the last 2 years of the "worst president" DEMOCRATS controlled congress and, thus, THEY participated equally (or one could argue 2-1) in the excessive spending. "caused the whole problem"? Surely you jest! This problem is, was and will continue to be BI-PARTISAN. Yes, republicans spent too much and made other foolish and hurtful decisions but they were NOT Conservative. And it cost them their jobs as it should have. However, they had help screwing up this country and if you can't accept that youre foolish.

Read "The Housing Boom and Bust" by Thomas Sowell if you want to know the truth. You certainly don't seem to know the WHOLE truth now.

Personally, I like to see republicans slapped around; as I said, they deserve it. But if you think the "all republican" problem has a "all democrat" solution you're mad.

0

John Fielding 4 years, 2 months ago

..

Namvet

There is a candidate who addresses those 80% issues, increasing defense and cutting entitlements. Trouble is that approach sounds like old school conservative Republican stuff and won't play well with the present electorate.

But minds are changing as we see more of the reckless spending and social engineering the current administration is engaging in, we may be poised for a pendulum swing to the right by 2012.

www.freestrongamerica.com

You said you would listen, I found it preferable to read his book "No Apologies". (The title refers to Obamas apologies for our nations history.)

.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 2 months ago

Wanna talk about social engineering? Here's a fun one. I guess we're getting a 25 member advisory group that's going to be helping us with "Lifestyle Behavior Modification." Now, doesn't that sound like fun?

http://nannystateliberationfront.net/2010/06/12/obama-issues-executive-order-mandating-lifestyle-behavior-modification/

0

John Fielding 4 years, 2 months ago

.

Thanks for the heads up mmj. That did come along quietly.

Following your link to the ” lifestyle behavior modification” tab I found the actual text of the:

Executive Order-- Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council

Reading the bill itself it all sounds like laudable and worthy objectives. The concern is by what means the powers that be will try to achieve them.

And it all is already happening through everything from county health departments to church charity groups. This is just another layer, and a way of keeping the Feds involved in the lives of the people.

I recommend we keep it local, but there is a large need there. I am giving shelter tonight to a woman I found standing in the rain out by the county airport, and a friend is calling me weeping that his life is out of control and the church group he hopes for help from is moving too slowly.

The hardships these people are enduring are direct results of substance abuse.

Will the feds force them into rehab centers or battered woman's shelters?

They would probably benefit if so, but I cringe at the thought that the government might have the power to do so.

Hard one to call.

.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

This smells of Cass Sunstein. And no, who wants the Federal Government taking control of not only how high you can set your thermostat, which is what Obama will speak about to a National audience tomorrow, but how many beers or tokes of mmj one can have. That is an individual right. Better get your BBQ while your still allowed. And the mental health issue is a red herring with this Administration, if they take charge of the internet as they have been clamoring, and then they don't like what I or mmjpatient22 are saying in these blogs can that advisory council then report to Obama that we should be incarcerated for "mental health" reasons? I already know NamVets answer. Can we survive this Administration until November 2nd? I pray.

Obama did get in another 4 hour round of golf yesterday at Andrews AFB, a nice course by the way, and I am sure he watched the BBall game with his buddies last night all that while the Administration is now comparing the Gulf disaster to 9/11 and blaming who? Bush, well Bush quit playing golf after 9/11, what's good for the goose....

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

If this timeline is any indication I am not too confident with the new Government health care system we were forced into. http://www.ibleedcrimsonred.com/p/deepwater-horizon-incident-timeline.html

This might be newsworthy if it was Bush in the chair, but it was Obama. "Obama cut special deal with BP, exempting its Gulf of Mexico oil rig from environmental impact study" http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2010/05/07/obama-cut-special-deal-with-bp-exempting-its-gulf-of-mexico-oil-rig-from-environmental-impact-study/ Source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html

There is one ex Governor I know of who stood up to the big Oil lobby and made the people of her state the winners. She also set up an oil advisory board that planned for such disasters. We need leadership NOW and we don't have it. But I want to see some a$$ kicked, that would be pretty fun to watch.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Would this be news if a Republican Congressman attacked a student for asking a question in public? You betcha.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

Bob McConnell will stand up against this Liberal "spread the wealth" machine that Congress is using and that played the largest role in the financial collapse we are in.

"The companies’ liabilities stem in large part from loans and mortgage-backed securities issued between 2005 and 2007. Directed by Congress to encourage lending to minorities and low- income borrowers at the same time private companies were gaining market share by pushing into subprime loans, Fannie and Freddie lowered their standards to take on high-risk mortgages."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=an_hcY9YaJas&pos=10

0

pitpoodle 4 years, 2 months ago

I am inclined to support Bob McConnell. I like his values. He may not be able to make the changes he (and many) want but perhaps he will provide balance in congress with his voice. At least he will speak up and stand up to the left and maybe, with more Bob McConnells in office, individuals can keep their income instead of giving it to government programs.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.