""brain-ossified co-discussant"? I must have been feeling dignified toward you"
-
So on one hand you resent the ad hominem remarks when made in your direction but justify similar remarks you make toward others...? I never will understand the crazy mind of others.

RAF:
Thanks for your response, and, as I said, am trying to avoid insulting things now.
*
But: You got off with "brain-ossified co-discussant"? I must have been feeling dignified toward you. And when I image up "brain-ossified co-discussant," the Tyrranasaurus Rex comes up - not a bad image: there are much much worse invectives and even more creative I (we all) am capable of. I don't see much harm in the "co-discussant" part, or in the "brain" part, but the "ossified" part may be offensive to some. Tho, alas it probably describes, to some of us in the aging process, a fairly accurate and frequent phenomenon. I believe growth is change, and a fluid open mind is necessary thereto. But some will never change their ways, even if you show them ten thousand shades of blue they will call it "red (socialist)" everytime. Gotta run
*
Pakistani dinner and Swiss plane.

MB, let us further discuss our disagreement on representation vs outside control. Using the previous mentioned Rep Obey’s 7th district; what benefit do “outsiders” have with who represents the people from that district. Why would people from California want to contribute more individual dollars to his re-election than people from Wisconsin (I don’t have the break down from donors in his districts vs out of his district, yet still in Wis)?

This comes down to power, based solely on a committee chairmanship position not on ability to represent a district. This same power, via campaign donations, makes it extremely difficult for a challenger to compete for the position without the same external resources.

Do I think these donations are illegal or should be stopped? No. The reason they are in place and working is the current rules of the respective parties; both opposed to term limits. What benefit has district 7 received by donations from individuals from California and others in over 25 states; not to mention PAC money? How does an outside donation benefit local business or issues?

Term limits would limit influence now in place. Decades long funding from outside political boundaries to support party chairmanship positions would shrink and local competition for elected representatives would increase. What we have now is stagnated representation playing within the system the parties created; the focus of longevity in office equaling power; not (always) benefiting the represented or national tax payer.

"ACTUALLY THERE IS VERY LITTLE MONEY AVAILABLE UP IN OBEY’S DISTRICT TO DRAW INTERNALLY FROM - PROBABLY THE POOREST IN THE STATE; AND THO EACH HAD A VERY EASY RACE, ESPECIALLY RYAN, THE TWO SPENT ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNTS, AND RYAN'S WAS HEAVILY STEEPED IN BANKING, INSURANCE AND HEALTH INDUSTRY"
-
Yes his district is smaller. Yet the insistence you make the Ryan's was "heavily" steeped in banking, insurance, and health industry (PAC funds) is deeply misguided. In this area Ryan collected 42,000 more dollars than Obey...but, Obey collected over 300,000 more dollars in PAC funds than Ryan.

"PASSING OF AN ESOTERIC WORD INTO FADDISH, COMMON PARLANCE."
-
A single utterance is hardly common. But with a common language in the medium this will continue to happen...conspiracies of devote follow-ship aside.

"BOTH WERE TENDERED RE YOUR AD HOMINEM ATTACKS. AND I WISH, IN THE INTEREST OF FURTHERING DEBATE, IF NOT COMMON COURTESY, YOU WOULD STOP IT."
-
Is your memory that thin. As I recall less than four weeks ago your very first comments directed to me were "brain-ossified co-discussant"

I am all for polite banter. But I tend to "treat" people the way they do. If you want to raise to a new level fine, but don't now pretend you are not the one that sunk to this level first.

“An example being that some of the laws/rules passed by congress explicitly exempts them from the same rules they imposes on society.”
*
YOU'RE KINDA BEATING A DEAD HORSE HERE, MANY ON "MY SIDE" ARE CALLING FOR HEALTH COVERAGE FOR ALL SIMILAR TO THEIRS - PERHAPS THE BIGGEST ISSUE. THE MAIN POINT, ANYHOW, WAS NOT ON DISSING THOSE WHO ARE LIFETIME SERVANTS, BUT RE THE LIABILITIES OF THE QUICK-FLIP ACTION YOUR PROPOSAL WOULD ENGENDER AND, AGAIN, THE RELATIVELY STRONGER ADVANTAGE THE LIFETIME INSIDERS IMMUNE TO THE REACH OF OUR VOTE WOULD REAP FROM YOUR CYCLIC PURGES.
*
“No, I don’t think term limits will cause the erosion of all lobbyists, however,"
*
“ALL”?? HOW ABOUT “ANY”? IN FACT TLS WOULD MOST LIKELY STRENGTHEN THEM.
*
"I do subscribe to the belief that individuals from California should have less influence over who represents individuals in Wisconsin; not that term limits will keep this from happening. Term limits will cause those from individual districts to worry more about who they decide represents them then to worry about backing a life long politician [from another state] who has for decades had more influence in their area [via committee chairmanships] than their own district/local representative."
*
ACTUALLY THERE IS VERY LITTLE MONEY AVAILABLE UP IN OBEY’S DISTRICT TO DRAW INTERNALLY FROM - PROBABLY THE POOREST IN THE STATE; AND THO EACH HAD A VERY EASY RACE, ESPECIALLY RYAN, THE TWO SPENT ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNTS, AND RYAN'S WAS HEAVILY STEEPED IN BANKING, INSURANCE AND HEALTH INDUSTRY - WHICH I WOULD WORRY MORE ABOUT THAN ATTACKING A DONOR'S STATEHOOD. LAST I HEARD DONATING ACROSS STATE LINES WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL. AT ANY, RATE EACH HAD TO FACE THE VOTERS’ DECISION, AGAIN, AND EVERY TWO YEARS, AN OPTION YOUR TLS WOULD BANISH.
*
"If you listen more closely to political radio commentary I am sure you can find many other words that match…this will happen in a medium that utilizes a common language. For the record I heard Ed Schultz mention “Republican” countless times last week, and so did you…conclusion?"
*
RAF, THIS IS GETTING TEDIOUS: AS USUAL, YOU MISS THE POINT COMPLETELY, HERE BEING THE INCIPIENT PASSING OF AN ESOTERIC WORD INTO FADDISH, COMMON PARLANCE.

RAF-1:
*
"Your claim of dealing in brevity was lost in the fact you still could not refrain from talking of yourself…says something about you based on your previous Whitman quotes."
*
BOTH WERE TENDERED RE YOUR AD HOMINEM ATTACKS. AND I WISH, IN THE INTEREST OF FURTHERING DEBATE, IF NOT COMMON COURTESY, YOU WOULD STOP IT. BELIEVE ME, THERE IS NO REWARD FOR SPREADING ONE’S FEATHERS IN THIS VENUE.
*
"I don’t subscribe to the theory that politics is better because someone has devoted their lives to public service; does not correlate to the best representation for the voter or democracy. What basis do you have that a life long public servant is better for our political system than leadership provided from a common man/women?"
*
EXPERIENCE, FOR ONE. YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN, BUT FOR A TINY DISAGREEMENT WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT SEASONED POLITICIANS BY DEFINITION ARE NOT COMMON FOLKS. MOST OF THE GOOD ONES NORTH OF MASON-DIXON ARE, OR ARE AT LEAST DEEPLY SYMPATHETIC WITH AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE "COMMONER'S" (OUR) INTERESTS. BY THE WAY, IT WAS THE POST 2000 REPUBLICAN CONGRESS UNDER WHICH EXTREME, ANTI-TURNOVER GERRYMANDERING – DELAY’S CRIMINALITY IN TEXAS THE MOST EXTREME CASE – WAS EFFECTED, TO ASSURE THAT THE HOUSE WOULD BE REPUBLICAN, IMPERVIOUS TO THE POLITY, FOR DECADES INTO THE FUTURE.

Your claim of dealing in brevity was lost in the fact you still could not refrain from talking of yourself…says something about you based on your previous Whitman quotes.

I don’t subscribe to the theory that politics is better because someone has devoted their lives to public service; does not correlate to the best representation for the voter or democracy. What basis do you have that a life long public servant is better for our political system than leadership provided from a common man/women? An example being that some of the laws/rules passed by congress explicitly exempts them from the same rules they imposes on society.

No, I don’t think term limits will cause the erosion of all lobbyists, however, I do subscribe to the belief that individuals from California should have less influence over who represents individuals in Wisconsin; not that term limits will keep this from happening. Term limits will cause those from individual districts to worry more about who they decide represents them then to worry about backing a life long politician [from another state] who has for decades had more influence in their area [via committee chairmanships] than their own district/local representative.

If you listen more closely to political radio commentary I am sure you can find many other words that match…this will happen in a medium that utilizes a common language. For the record I heard Ed Schultz mention “Republican” countless times last week, and so did you…conclusion?

Proof Mr. O is going to be a one term president. Sorry Democrats

RAF: Since you claim to value brevity I will ignore the insults and deal in brief with an observation and two particular responses pertinent to your points:
*
My general observation is that you address virtually none of the historical or analytical points I made, most centrally the fact that the parties representing financial might, the real de facto power in the nation, are always the driving force behind term limits. Your figures on in-state vs out-of-state are interesting, thank you. But do you think committee chairs would not be just as dollar-magnetic under your own proposal? In fact, I would fear that their short time in Washington, instead of attracting people whose lives are dedicated to public service, would only opportunistically provide a brief stepping stone to the very lobbyist activity you (we) wish to diminish. And don’t know if you‘ve ever been involved there, but national govt is a very complex venue.
*
The two particular points: I think we agree on the goal here, it’s the means about which we spar.
** 1) My main contention, that entrenched interests within and without govt would only be strengthened by weakening our representation, is not addressed.
** 2) The idea that term limits will mean local funding (assuming that is a good thing, another point for debate): I have no idea how this follows. You think that that national money would just go away?
*
Finally, two personal observations:
** 1) American history is one of my passions; both I and my son were near majors at the top universities in the field. Thank you for refraining from uninformed, ridiculing advice re same in the future. When I survey the massive amount of ignorant insulting in all these blogs, it becomes rather dreary, ergo have personally resolved to try to reduce my own such: I had hoped you were capable of same.
** 2) “Exacerbate” – a word I heard on the political talks 3-4 times this wkend. Seems to be the trend-cliché of the day.

Well, you did provide a good laugh. Not only did your babble barely brush the reality of why term limits are important you couldn’t do it without talking about yourself [handle].

The reality behind the idea of term limits is far less sinister than your retort; ref to your comment of self-serving republicans and the 22nd amendment of the US constitution…you now, the same democracy you now “vitiate”. Perhaps you could brush up on more US history and less about the handle you use on a website. The very thought a neophyte arriving in Washington is a bad thing by you further exacerbates my conclusion, as does the thought lobbyists now don’t control much of what goes on.

Under the current two-party system, with rules guided and placed by the parties, inclusion of a third party (opposing voices) are difficult. Why does the position of committee chairmanship often result in the most campaign donations? Lobbyists and campaign donations are the driving force behind what is now politics. David Obey raised only 11% of his latest individual campaign dollars from people in the state of Wisconsin, Paul Ryan 78%, Tammy Baldwin 53%, Russ Feingold 66%. Why does Obey have more donations from people in California than in Wisconsin and contributions from individuals from 5 other states within 3% of Wisconsin donations?

A member elected into office under a set period of years from the outset has a better chance to accomplish their job (what they were elected upon—they are elected local not by people outside their district) than a “populist” choice that is beholden to party level politics and lobbyists and interests from other states. If they are elected by you or your neighbors vote should that be the driving force behind their actions and not outside interests?

Instead of relying on Whitman as a reason to drivel endlessly perhaps you should follow the words of Shakespeare; “Brevity is the sole of wit”.

RAF (cont)
*
3) In this particular case, I would suggest that if you really want to empower lobbyists and the big corporates and the secretive powers behind government (that are NOT elected, eg J Edgar Hoover, CIA, etc, etc), term limits are a sure way of doing it. Why do you think the present Honduran oligarchy is so fearful of a second term president? Why do you think the first Repub Congress since the depression, the rt-wing, red-baiting Tail-gunner Joe, wealth-serving Repubs passed it as one of their first acts on being sworn in in 1947? Why do you think the Gingrich rt wingers made so much of it in taking over the Congress, and then dropped the idea as soon as it had served their hypocritical needs? And it is the Tories in Canada currently pushing for the same.
*
4) It strikes me that your continuing attack on all politicians smacks not only of lack of appreciation of how hard it is to be in politics, but also of knowledge of the character of most of those around us over the years - the Feingolds, Proxmires, Gaylord Nelsons, Bob LaFollettes, etc. ( I use the Senate because wherever you live, it is the one national constant to us all in Wisconsin).
*
5) It also seems to me to show lack of faith in democracy. And this is what I tried to address in the previous. You want a bunch of neophytes coming into Washington all the time, being told what to do and procedurally out-manipulated by the seasoned lobbyists and hidden, unelected lifers? GOOD LUCK! You want to prevent me from supporting an incumbent if I believe in him or her with your artificial stipulation? NO THANK YOU! It has been pointed out that we are about the only “true democracy” that imposes this rule on the presidency over and above the primacy of the electorate. I do not know how accurate that is, but I am sure it is, mostly (cf virtually all of Europe, Canada, India), and I would much rather take on the sometimes arduous responsibility of studying the differences between good and evil candidates than trusting our leadership to the iron jaws of a law that only profits those truly ensconced in eternal power, behind the scenes, immune to our voice.

Hi RAF,

1) Good to hear from you again, tho your assessment of my failure at editing somebody’s careless writing (or clumsy meter in an attempt at “poetry”), ie, your ref to “childish use of calling out spelling and grammatical errors again . . . It didn't go so well for you last time.” Well according to whom? Who was the jury? One has to differentiate between adept criticism and the blather of undisciplined rattling. As Whitman said, to have great poets there must be great audiences. One thing I have noticed is that often those most sure of the brilliance in their ditto-heading and name calling, (and increasingly vicious it has become over the last decade), are pretty good at slaughtering the English language and a trifle weak at auto-criticism. And the malapropisms I have noted have mostly been rather egregious, and there IS a parallel between clear thinking and clear expression.
*
2) Incidentally your insistence on “politian” brings to mind Politian, the Renaissance humanist-linguist from Montepulciano, who won the title homericus adulescens. This is not far from my handle, mabusejuvenalis (also of Greco-Roman reference), which one of your buddies recently turned into something pornographic. Also, Montepulciano is a beautiful Tuscan hill town with fine local wines, especially the renowned reds. But one thing I do want to try to do if continuing with this kind of unpaid and essentially unaudienced activity, is to refrain from the name calling, and stick to the issues.
*
To be continued

Mab:
Are you so sure you want to get back to the childish use of calling out spelling and grammatical errors again? It didn't go so well for you last time.

Mab:
They are all in our pockets, for you to ignore that is disingenuous; irrespective if one or all of their acts are perceived good or bad. Your lame attempt to say I have, through my words, reduced democracy shows your inept ability to see the difference between the first amendment and those who actually do harm democracy.

For those unaware, in our pockets has many meanings. Politicians set the rules they “chose” to live by; fundraising, salary, benefits, and terms of office. Politicians also set the rules we “have” to live by: taxes, fees, laws, debt, borrowing, and printing of money to name a few.

Until there are term limits to protect citizens from career Politian’s desire for staying in power at any cost, we will always have the same problems; election cycle after election cycle.

RAF:
Not sure about "politians," but when you fail to discriminate between those politicians who are "in (wealthy interests') pockets" from those who truly work to serve the people, you vitiate democracy and, like our good man Ryan, do the devil's work for him. It is very popular to diss all politicians with the same broad brush, but that not only ignores all the good work so many do achieve, but also undercuts all the rights our constitution and revolution and founding fathers' documents strove so hard to create.

At least it is good to see you noticed the Repub Gazette's giving our hero double publicity. Why do you think the knighted angel has millions of $ perennially in his kitty ?

As are all politians

Maybe not enough people got to let him know how wrong he is. Vote him out, he's in "THEIR" pockets.

This was already posted once...