Forty Friggin’’ Years
After 40 years in Congress, Rep. David Obey said Saturday night that he’s just getting started when it comes to making things happen in Washington for the average American.
40 years in office and he’s just getting started? What the hell has he been doing for four decades?
Oh come on. This is just a saying. Like:
“You ain’t seen nothing yet.”
Or “the best is yet to come.”
Or “60 is the new 40.” [I sure hope so!]
And I’ve just gotten started….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2009 at 0550 hrs
purrfect: My fear is that you are correct.
Posted by Steve on May 17, 2009 at 0704 hrs
Obey is a poster child for term limits. The President has one, Congress should too. Term limits would solve a lot of issues with Congress.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2009 at 0716 hrs
Bill is spot on (though I would have used Biden, Kennedy, or our own dearest Kohl as examples). If we’re going to allow a parasitic class to rule us we could at least make the parasites fight each other more often for the opportunity.
Posted by Mike Gallo on May 17, 2009 at 0748 hrs
Term limits would be a disaster on the congressional level. Here in Missouri, it’s only helped lobbyists and special interests, who stick around for the fresh crop of legislators after the old ones term out.
Seriously, the House and Senate often flubs their own procedures because no one around remembers how they work. The legislature works better when we resort to the term limit option we already have - elections.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2009 at 0750 hrs
Term limits are the only solution.
Obey will keep his seat, no one can win against him.
And how about limiting campaing funds so average americans can run instead of wealthy people with power and influence.
How many good, quality people dont run becuase they dont have the millions to run.
just my .02Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2009 at 0827 hrs
The founding fathers envisioned a Congress where ordinary people came to serve for a short time and then went back to their jobs and lives at their homes. Obey has been in the *@&!) Congress since I was an infant - since MLK and RFKs assassinations, since the height of VietNam. Seriously, how can he even pretend to know the issues of the “common” person anymore. Worse yet, how can anyone believe him.
If the legislature is so complicated that only the lobbyists know how its run - then that is a different issue. Perhaps things need to be simplified.
Another way to aleve the issues with an entire crop of newbies every couple of years - stagger the elections like they do in the Senate. Limit Senators to 2 6-year terms with 1/3 staggered for election every two years like they have now. Change the House to 4-year terms with 1/2 up for election every two years and have a 2-term limit there as well.
Same should go for the state houses along with a 2-term limit for Governor.
It won’t completely eliminate the permanent ruling class, but it would help and would get rid of parasites like Obey and the aforementioned Kohl, Feingold, Kennedy, Byrd, et al.
I would also ban all political money from groups and people outside of the district up for election. How would Chris Dodd be doing right now if he was relying on money strictly from CT? Since only 5 people from CT had donated to his campaign as of last month, probably his chance of re-election would be slim. But big money is pouring in from out of his state just to keep the Dems in charge. Something stinks about that. Here in my new district in 2008 we had a corrupt State Senator get re-elected because out-state money poured in for attack ads against her opponent. We also had a new US Senator elected because the DSCC poured about $10MM in the state to support her campaign.
So who do you think these two individuals are beholden to now? Their constituents or those that gave them lots of money to get elected?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2009 at 0908 hrs
Obey will keep his seat, no one can win against him.
That’s not an argument for term limits; it’s an argument for non-partisan redistricting.
Posted by folkbum on May 17, 2009 at 1031 hrs
Dave Obey, the NRA’s best Democrat friend in Congress.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2009 at 1138 hrs
He’s probably right about just getting started. Its the seniority based nature of congress. First term congressmen don’t really get to do much except vote. After all his time he’s finally been able to secure some serious power (chairman of appropriations). I wouldn’t be surprised if he uses that chairmenship to bring home some serious bacon to his district or to “make things happen” for whomever he feels like making them happen for.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2009 at 1227 hrs
Many excellent points here so far. I’d add the following.
- Our Founding Fathers never envisioned the full-time circle of influence peddlers that would envelop government. Term limits can only work if you get the money and special interests out of politics somehow. Good luck with that. Otherwise, Steve-O is exactly right. Anyone who’s ever seen a freshman legislator in action knows how malleable they generally are, both in the hands of a good lobbyist but also in the hands of their caucus leadership.
- In the time of our Founding Fathers, the typical politician at the federal level was considerably more erudite than those they were representing. Problem is that if you fall prey to the populist, “one of us” mentality, you get what we have now - a body filled with a good number of people who don’t understand the first thing about most of the complex issues facing the state/federal government. Ironically, these “citizen” legislators are usually the ones who end up becoming most dependent on winning reelection, since they could never find a job that good in real life.
- We already have term limits. They’re called elections. And they don’t matter because most of you, like sheep, go to the ballot box and draw the same line next to the same name over and over and over again. The next time you guys in Sensenbrenner’s district go to vote (or same for the Democrats in Obey’s district), I bet you won’t vote for the other guy because he’s a new face. You care more about your own ideology than you do about ever putting someone new in office. You’re the reason we get tired retreads like Sensenbrenner and Obey. Because you won’t do anything about it. You won’t run for office. You won’t support and outsider running. And you won’t cross party lines to get rid of the old, dead weight.
Don’t blame Obey and Sensenbrenner for staying. Blame their idiot constituents for sending them back every two years.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 17, 2009 at 1232 hrs
Just so we are all clear Owen, at what point does someone draw your ire for spending too much time in congress? I’m sure Sensenbrenner and Petri would like to know.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2009 at 1254 hrs
RS, Well said. As you implied, getting the money out of politics is a pipe dream. All of these faux pious politicians put up roadblocks to hamstring honest politicians and tilt the playing field towards those who know how to game the system.
The congressional system favors those who have seniority. Maybe changing that might be more effective in promoting real reform.
While I personally disagree with you on Sensenbrenner, I could vote for somebody new if he/she were a better candidate. The thing about Sensenbrenner, Herb Kohl, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, et al, is they have plenty of money and could buy a job or start a large company at a moments notice. They love the status of their position, national media attention, and influence on the country.
How could Kennedy get elected term after term? Money sure, but the name is a golden goose in politics. He even killed a young woman by leaving her to die, and still gets re-elected.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2009 at 1312 hrs
Having lived in Obey’s district, I’ve always wondered how he kept on being relected. It’s a fairly conservative district and he is a big time liberal. So, how did he do it? Mainly because of the big paper factories and other unionized companies and their unions supported him to the hilt. Now, the paper and other factories are closing or sharply reducing their work force, so things maybe different in the future.
Posted by Dan on May 17, 2009 at 1312 hrs
That’s exactly what I thought when I read that. Glad you blogged it, so I don’t have to.
Posted by elliot on May 17, 2009 at 1327 hrs
I’ve seen numerous references here to Herb Kohl. He’s old, sure, but he was first elected only in 1998. He’s just 24th in seniority in the Senate. He also held no elected office before that, so he’s hardly what one would call a career politician. Heck, none of you have mentione Feingold, and Feingold has been a politician far longer than Kohl and in the senate 90% as long.
Dis Kohl if you will for his politics—given the nature of the clientele here, no doubt most of you will—but he’s not in the same category as Sensenbrenner (30 yrs), Obey (40 yrs), or Petri (30 yrs).
Posted by folkbum on May 17, 2009 at 1642 hrs
Sorry, Kohl was first elected in 1988. I’m still getting used to my new keyboard.
Posted by folkbum on May 17, 2009 at 1643 hrs
Ok - term limits and get rid of the lobbyists and don’t allow political contributions. Obama is socializing everything else in the country - let’s start with Congress.
I disagree with the feeble brained new legislator notion. It means you are electing people who don’t have the brains to realize what a lobbyist is and does.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2009 at 1658 hrs
I have listened to Obeys opponent for 2010 speak and I know that Dave Obey will again be elected. Dan Mielke is a conspiracy theorist and and finger wagger. He has not presented any new ideas or even shown an understanding of the system. He speaks only of the evils of Dave Obey and it does not come across well. I agree that Dave Obey has been there too long but if that is the best they can find to run against him, he may very well be just getting started.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 18, 2009 at 1647 hrs
I’ve got a better idea than getting rid of lobbyists:
Why don’t we go ahead and start making our government obey it’s stated limits in the Constitution…? With legislators and executives reduced to their Constitutional authority, lobbyists could throw around all the money they wanted to and I wouldn’t care - it just wouldn’t affect me!
Posted by Mike Gallo on May 18, 2009 at 1654 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134035
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 08:52 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 110
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 10:01 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).