Quote of the Day

“We don’t believe Gov. Rell spends all her time chatting with radio personalities and cutting ribbons, but it is also apparent this is the most hands-off governor in recent state history. In interviews with The Day editorial staff, Gov. Rell often struggles with details and has difficulty articulating policy.”

–From an editorial in The Day.

Advertisements

38 responses to “Quote of the Day

  1. AndersonScooper

    That is just entirely unfair, when we all know Jodi Rell is smart, hard-working, and an expert on policy.

    I mean take a look at her Charter Oak Health Plan success, add in her proposals for property tax reform, her ideas on education, and her plans to fix the state’s worst transportation problems… lol

  2. Same tired Poopy Scoopy meme … to which I’ll offer the same response:

    And still she’s kicking your ass, every day.

    Still the most popular governor in modern memory. Still able to run rings around the brain trust the Dems have running the legislature.

    Oh, and Charter Oak? There’s 4,000-some people with health coverage who didn’t have it before and more getting it every day. How many are covered under your universal health care pipe dream, Poopy?

    Rave on. But spare a thought for what the Accidental Governor — you know, Governor Granny, the college dropout — would be doing if she worked the 40 hour work week you think she’s loafing through.

  3. AndersonScooper

    Rell is a show pony at a time when Connecticut desperately needs a work horse.

    When “Governor Drop-out” is forced to go first with her proposals to fix the $6 Billion budget gap, (yep the governor has to lead off),– we will all see how much Rell is like that other smart and hard-working Republican, George Bush.

    Rell’s popularity will not survive this economic crisis because she’s in over her head.

  4. Oh sure, Poopy … After their bravura performance last week, all of Connecticut now looks to the Democrat-led legislature to deal with our $6 billion budget problem.

    Confidence is high — no doubt about it. Confidence IS high.

    And you think RELL is in over her head — ROTFLFAO

  5. AndersonScooper

    RedFive —

    I don’t think you are clued-in to the real drama.

    Rell is obligated to submit her budget first, and then Dems get to respond.

    You are right that Connecticut won’t look to Donovan and Williams to solve the budget problem. (75% of Connecticut voters don’t even know their names.) But they are going to look to Grandma Rell for answers instead. After all she’s our Governor.

    But what the hell is Jodi going to do, (except raise taxes), when she doesn’t even have the trust and support of her own Republican legislators?

  6. This is one time I have to agree with AS. Rell is in over her head. But so are Donovan, Williams, and the rest of the General Assembly. If 75% of the voters in this state don’t know their names now, they will know them shortly.

    Frankly the fact that even Comptroller Wyman is suddenly being more specific in her press releases about things like “structural budget deficits”, suggests to me they are all seeing the hand writing on the wall. Business as usual has to stop.

    We have a $6 billion dollar budget problem just by itself, that they all have irresponsibly created. That is before we even consider how to pay for many billions more in state retire benefits we obviously never could afford to pay for even in good times.

    We have already bonded far more than we should have trying to postpone this day of reckoning. Now without question some taxes will have to be raised. The rainy day fund will be emptied to deal with a tiny fraction of the problem. But also without question just like the private sector, our state public sector will need share in the pain, and be greatly downsized.

    The bad news for all these guys not just Rell, is none of them will be getting a free past out of this mess. The good news is the guys who created this mess over the years will have to be the ones to come up with the distasteful ways to deal with it now. Not our kids fixing it for these “leaders” tomorrow.

    They obviously didn’t count on a bad economy to ruin their wasteful spending party this soon. Just like Custer didn’t count on so many indians at the Little Big Horn. It really matters little who goes first here, they all like Custer will be taking their well deserved lumps.

  7. There are some (4) states with budget surpluses this year and not doing so horrible:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=5473725&page=2

    Texas and Alaska (ahem, Sarah Palin) both have nearly $10 billion surpluses.

    If we did have the natural gas terminal offshore, I wonder how much tax money could be garnered…

    Then there are the obvious big-ticket items to cut – Are they STILL building that run-away project at the New Haven train yard?

  8. Oh, Poopy, I understand far better than you think.

    What she’s going to do is cut back on the bulls*t handout-not-a-help-out programs your Dem friends have promoted for years — the 300 percent of FPL eligibility levels, the bonus baby payments, the HUSKY for Mom & Dad when the program was originally intended to cover KIDS.

    Your Dem friends are gonna f*king HATE it. And THEY’RE the ones who will raise taxes instead.

    But you cling to your political wet dreams, Poopy. I just have one question: I know you’re a partisan hack to the end … but don’t you ever, EVER get tired of chasing your own stupid self into blind alleys?

  9. Red 5 who are you kidding.

    The Governor is going to propose raising taxes in 2009 just like 2007. She’ll probably start with the gas tax now that gas prices have finally fallin and after she refused to rule out raising them on Brad Davis last week.

    The “wake up from a deep sleep and find myself the Next Governor” has NO LEGACY!

    With a scheduled Bond Commission pending next Friday to dole out millions of taxpayer dollars the Governor should be embarassed. The Courant had a story on bond money the GOV gave for a Vernon library, you f***ing kidding me! And at the same time getting on her knees begging and hoping Obama bails her out of actually making any tough decisions.

    There is and has been a Leadership void at the Capitol for awhile now. Time for Rell to go!

  10. Roady, you can gnash your teeth to your heart’s content … but the legislative Republicans are roughly as relevant as the Whig Party — and about as able to influence the outcome of legislation.

    Meanwhile, the gov will continue to deal with the situation on the ground in the “real” world. Please feel free to call us in the unlikely event that George Gallo ever actually manages to WIN a legislative race.

  11. … that isn’t a foregone conclusion …

  12. I find this entire dialog by RedFive fascinating and informative…it’s almost like reading Rell’s Press Releases. You MUST be getting paid to dish out this bullshit (If not, you SHOULD!)….how else can one account for your eloquent defense of Rell and Governor Moody.

    And BTW…WHO mentioned the Legislative Republicans or George Gallo?

    Legislative Republicans can only try as they might to put forth a taxpayer-friendly conservative agenda. And they can only get so far because its always Rell who squashes them (not the Democrats — RELL!). And then Rell wonders why local republicans take issue with her?

    As for Gallo….he’s a fraud. He ONLY takes and wins the races which are easily winnable. If Cafero was really smart, he could save the State +100K in wasted salary on this joker. He should hire George Krivda.

    “RedFive”…you need to change your names to “RedTWO”…..as it appears the ONLY Republicans you like in CT is Rell and Governor Moody. Maybe if you show them your postings they will give you a job….lord knows she needs better spinmeisters!

  13. So lemme see if I have this straight: Rell governs by press release but she needs “better spinmeisters”?

    Which is it?

    I mean, if you’re gonna MF a gov from your own party, you could at least get your story straight.

    The problem with you hardcore “party faithful” is that you have no clue how to actually govern.

    Sorry to put it in such bald terms. My bulls*t quotient is pretty low these days.

    But if you think LarCar is the GOP’s 2nd Coming … we need to talk …

  14. No, RedTWO, you don’t have it straight….Rell/Moody don’t govern by press release…they govern by whatever is on the front page of the Hartford Courant today. No conviction, no direction, no foresight….nothing but one simple formula: What do they need to do to either 1) Deal with today’s headline or 2) Get Rell/Moody out of today’s headline.

    Then…Moody calls her press “spinmeisters” in…and TELLS THEM WHAT TO WRITE. The sorry part about it is Rell has good people working for her(a former AP guy, another guy with years of multi-gov’t experience) and she doesn’t LET THEM DO THEIR JOB! I imagine it must really be demoralizing being relegated to the simple menial task of being Moody’s buttboy day in and day out. If Moody let them do their job….Rell would be better off. But which one of them will actually stand up to Moody?

    As for the “party faithful” having no clue on how to govern…HOW can they….Rell and Moody HOG it all! It appears they (and you) have neither the desire nor inclination to help actually BUILD a Party. In your world it all doesn’t matter…as long as Rell’s approval #’s are high, right? Well…here’s a newsflash….Rell’s numbers have been on a steady decline and will sink further as this economic crisis continues its downward thrust. And there is nothing Rell/Moody or even your eloquent prose can do to stop this fact of political life.

    And no one is touting “LarCar” (I think you mean Cafero??)….as the GOP’s 2nd Coming. If you want the future of the GOP…you need to look to the Senate — McKinney, Fasano, Caliguiri — all 3 are State leaders who lead the fight during the No Tax Increase Budget. If only Rell/Moody would throw them a bone now and then….

    Sorry to hear about your bulls*it quotent being so low….but I will be glad to offer you another shovel for all of it that you are dishing out tonight.

  15. One of the interesting things that occasionally happen when one monitors multiple blogs is seemingly disparate things connect.

    Traveler’s Dilemma: When it’s smart to be dumb
    Some game theory paradoxes can be resolved by assuming that people adopt multiple personae, and aren’t rational.

    Julie Rehmeyer, Science News: Math Trek
    The application is that the Rell bashers irrationally expect the general public to rationally analyze the governing style, whereas theempirical data doesn’t support the analysis:

    Rell’s numbers were high among all groups: Her performance was rated good or excellent by 74 percent of Republicans, 61 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents.

    “In tough fiscal times, governors usually have a tough ride,” Barnes said. “So Rell’s high ratings in the face of the state’s precarious budget situation are impressive.”

  16. gerardw, You said in post #15:

    “The application is that the Rell bashers irrationally expect the general public to rationally analyze the governing style, whereas the empirical data doesn’t support the analysis:”

    Sadly, IMO what you write there applies to far more than just the Rell bashers. IMO the main reason we keep re electing do nothing politicians time and time again is because the general public fails to rationally analyze much of anything most of our elected officials do, including their governing style.

    As CtRoadrunner correctly points out in his post #6 ” There is and has been a Leadership void at the Capitol for awhile now.”……. That comment to me is itself very rational. However to suggest the limit of the leadership void at the Capitol is limited to Rell alone is not. It is a clear example of failing to rationally analyze the depth of the problem at hand, and the roles leadership from parties have played to get us to this messy point.

    I assume your background like mine is based in mathematics, and scientific analysis. There are causes and predicable effects. Very simply put. You run an experiment, you make your observations, and you arrive at some result. If you are interested in honest conclusions you reach them based on those results.

    To me if the general public rationally analyzed the results of the people we rubber stamp back to Hartford and Washington we would see a lot more turn over.

    My conclusion from that observation: I think they provide conclusive data to support your thesis. QED.

  17. [quote comment=”39035″]IMO the main reason we keep re electing do nothing politicians time and time again is because the general public fails to rationally analyze much of anything most of our elected officials do, including their governing style.[/quote]

    I’m only wading in ankle-deep here since I’m not on board with your premise, but have you considered the possibility that the election of “do nothing politicians” might accurately reflect voters’ desire to see nothing done?

    I can’t help but think that if someone were conservative (instead of partisan), that they’d be reasonably satisfied with the work being done by our legislature.

  18. So, just so I understsand this correctly, we have Republicans on this site divided, beating the snot out of each other while the Democrats run roughshod over all of us. Very productive! I salute you all. We’re on our way to VICTORY in 10!

    It’s really refreshing to see the GOP acting as two nasty dogs, fighting over who gets to eat rotten shit in a trash can while Democrats are dining on our Tender Vittles. Are you all too busy to see the poodle-like Democrats squat-humping your legs while you fight?

    It’s time to sniff butts and make up.

  19. Soggy Bottom Boy

    [quote comment=”39025″] the legislative Republicans are roughly as relevant as the Whig Party[/quote]

    Um, I’m no expert but it seems this is a goofy approach to defending the Governor. Can’t you come up with something better that explains what she’s done that is being dismissed?

    (or was this just the typical ‘deflect, deflect, deflect’ approach?)

    In her own right, she’s only won one election as CT CEO, against one of the most unappealing candidates the other side could possibly have fielded.

    To many here, it appears she’s just minding the store. Tell how that isn’t true.

  20. [quote comment=”39030″]So lemme see if I have this straight: Rell governs by press release but she needs “better spinmeisters”?

    Which is it?
    …[/quote]

    Both I think. When your spokesman brags that you are at the Capitol “almost every other day” as if it is a point of honor, seems the message needs to be fine-tuned.

  21. matt,

    First of all, no problem at all if you are not on board with my premise in post 16. As a matter of fact you may have noticed I made those comments as a matter of personal opinion, not confirmed fact. I certainly can say I am not on board with many of the premises posted by others at this site myself……However to your comment below:

    ” have you considered the possibility that the election of “do nothing politicians” might accurately reflect voters’ desire to see nothing done?”

    If only it were that simple I would agree. When was the last time any candidate campaigned on a platform of “hey elect me and I’ll do nothing?” They all run on something. Even Larson and DeLauro, who don’t even need to be aware there is an election going on to be re elected in their districts.

    Usually some variant of: I want to make things better, lower your taxes, make government work for you, cut wasteful spending, fix social security, provide universal health care, etc, or one of my favorites…….. I want to bring change to Washington or Hartford. Now with so many of our politicians from both parties telling us these are their goals why, are these goals generally left so unfulfilled?

    I do not buy into the possibility that the voters are satisfied in seeing nothing done. I know we sometimes joke that we are better off if these guys do nothing, but certainly I hope things are not that bleak.

    I more buy into the premise that at the local level generally the voters have lost interest in monitoring the record of accomplishment of the people they vote for ………. Obviously a perfect storm like this past year can at least temporally change that attitude. But generally how often have you heard “why even bother to vote any more they are all the same?”

    Hopefully the excitment of this recent national election will be translated into positive change. If not, hopefully the people who voted for positive change will maintain that excitment, will take effective notice in two years.

    At this point however I sadly conclude that the voters have come accustomed to allowing the bar of accomplishment to be set very low for them.

    Two years ago this state enjoyed a billion dollar budget “surplus”. I use quotes there because I consider a surplus to be a real surplus only if all your true expenses were included in the math in the first place. Now just two years latter we are facing a 6 billion dollar deficit……How many people do you see here asking how could the General Assembly and this Governor take a boat that was sailing in warm tropical waters a short while ago and manage to hit dead center this huge iceberg?

    Maybe we voters instead of engaging in pastisan bashing should be questioning just how warm those waters were in then first place? Or maybe we should all question the competency of the entire crew sailing that boat.

  22. I’m thinking of it this way: if a large (decisive) portion of the public genuinely did simply favor the status quo, how would voting patterns differ from what’s happening right now?

    Over time, I’ve come to think that it’s pretty rare for an election to turn on issues — what would make someone who voted for Al Adinolfi a half-dozen times in the past change their mind this year, for example? Why would 20% of the population vote against Joe Courtney in 2006 and then vote for him this year? Who are the “Bush/Obama” voters?

    If someone votes based on their identity (is this person one of us / a member of our community), on their perceptions of a candidate’s character (work ethic / appearance / intelligence and interest in other peoples’ opinions), or on their network of relationships, then I would suggest that that voter is likely at peace with the political status quo.

    We sort of lose track of the fact that in the global scheme of things, Americans are pretty well-off financially, we have a decent social safety net, our taxes aren’t that bad, and in any case the government is usually closely-enough divided that public programs never really get too far ahead of public opinion. A lot of people don’t care about the top tax rate, but hate waiting in line at the DMV.

    In that situation, why not vote for the candidate who takes the time to come knock on your door, or who has the endorsement of someone you respect, etc? What would the difference be in CT if we had elected 10 more Democrats or 10 more Republicans to the General Assembly?

    I have family in T.R. Rowe’s district who think he’s a moderate. Peggy Reeves won in Wilton campaigning as an economic progressive. I don’t think those things are signs that voters in those places are stupid or disconnected from their self interest — I just think it’s evidence that a lot of people define their interests differently than you do.

  23. All that said, I think voters are leaning more towards the Dems because people have come to realize that their self-interest has a lot to do with their neighbor’s well-being.

    IMHO we had a pretty long run where people defined their self-interest very narrowly, made a bunch of money and bought a lot of stuff, and that we’re cycling back to a sense of interconnectedness that has broader implications for our society than just election outcomes. (Just?)

  24. matt,

    Thanks for two thoughtful posts. By now I am sure you know I typically am a somewhat right of center leaning conservative. However not so far right that I do not understand the message so powerfully delivered to Scrooge by the ghost of Christmas present.

    Or even better since my background is in science, mathematics, and engineering let me say nature abhors a vacuum. Washington and Hartford are two examples of a vacuum.

    The root cause of my frustration is exactly what you say:

    “I just think it’s evidence that a lot of people define their interests differently than you do.”

    I am interested in results, not empty promises. Not how many Republicans or Democrats we elect. I want positive progress, not business as usual. IMO you either lead, follow, or get out of the way.

    I simple care about the results. Results that both parties have failed miserably at delivering. We elect career politicians who’s concern first and foremost is their party, and what is best for their career.

    As I said I am typically right of center but that in no way means I have no interest in my neighbor’s well being. But I also have a family, a very old, and terminally ill mother who I find endless joy in caring for. Do you have any idea how much a simple smile from her is worth to me these days? Each smile is an Ipod, a cell phone, a dinner at a great resturant. Do you have any idea how wealthy each smile makes me feel? I also have two kids who will find life a lot harder for themselves and their kids than I did. I worry about them and their future. Do I sound like what you would consider a typical ‘Republican”? We (if in fact I am a republican) all are not the enemy.

    Sorry Matt but I am fed up with lifetime politicians who have failed to deliver, both old ones, and young ones. With one local exception from your question:

    “Why would 20% of the population vote against Joe Courtney in 2006 and then vote for him this year?”

    I must admit if I could vote for him I would as well. IMO he alone from CT has distinguished himself the last two years. I guess we can then say…………It’s a start.

  25. >>He should hire George Krivda.

    Please cite any race going back to 1980 where GK had any sort of postive impact.

  26. Hi, Al-

    I don’t think what you’re saying is unusual at all. I think a lot of people’s experience of government is only glancingly related to the issues or to the government’s financial health, and much more related to how long a line they have to wait in before they can get back to their families.

    I mean, we all come on here and debate bills, which it’s good that someone does, but I guess I was just working towards excusing the large number of people who don’t seem to care about politics on that level as still being rational in how they pick their candidates — even when it’s frustratingly obvious to us who the “smart choice” is.

  27. Then again it is always possible that if I continually choose french toast for breakfast, rather than eggs OR toasted bread, it is because the french toast, depending on my mood, seems to me one day to the eggy and another day to be toasty. That’s politics for you. If the two parties offer no real different choices, why should I feel compelled to choose? If I never reach the point of choosing between either-or, may it not be because there is no either-or? Occassionally an either or an or pops up and you get a choice. But , as a rule, not here so much. The first Rowland/Curry race was a genuine either or, but then Rowland morphed and people went back to sleep. On the national stage, we are now witnessing Obama morphing. It doesn’t take long. After awhile, you figure since everything, over a period of time becomes wearly the same, why should I get excited; why not vote for the same old, same old?

  28. There’s that. And then there’s the temptation to see in both people and events the matter I see in my imaginings, which brings us to Orwellian suppositions. It’s always difficult to see the plain thing that lies under your nose, especially when wishes, hopes and dreams are wrapped up in it.

  29. Orwell: “It’s never too late to give up a prejudice.”

  30. “I’m only wading in ankle-deep here since I’m not on board with your premise, but have you considered the possibility that the election of “do nothing politicians” might accurately reflect voters’ desire to see nothing done? ”

    A brilliant perception, I kid you not.

  31. Don and Matt,

    “A brilliant perception, I kid you not.”

    I must admit after sleeping on this last night I can at least say Matt has advanced a fairly reasonable theory here. Certainly it is not inconsistent with the observations. However had Einstein based his theory of special relativity simply on everyday observations he would have come to the wrong conclusions.

    In Matt’s post #26 he says:

    “I was just working towards excusing the large number of people who don’t seem to care about politics on that level as still being rational in how they pick their candidates.”

    To me this is exactly the problem. The vast number of those who vote obviously don’t care about politics. They either blindly vote the party line because they always have. Or for many reasons they don’t take the time to inform themselves about the issues and the positions of those who they are voting for. Or consider the record of accomplishment of the lifetime incumbent.

    I wonder for example in this recent election how many people voted simply for the presidential candidates and never educated themselves beyond that?

    Given the immense direct impact on our lives all those we elect have on us how could any rational voter not care about politics, not inform themselves about the issues, and those they are voting for, and still make a “rational” vote?

    I arrive at a different conclusion: The voters generally want positive change, but do not inform themselves as to why we don’t get the changes promised. They then conclude positive change is really not possible, and each day it is just a bit harder to make all ends meet. They become resigned to this downward spiraling status quo as normal, and as long as no one upsets the apple cart in their own little world they are satisfied. I conclude that is irrational, so by default that means the voters are in fact irrational in the first place.

    Frankly I much prefer Matt’s premise and conclusion to mine.

  32. Offers free talent profiles, as well as business contacts to the acting and modeling industries
    ——————————————–
    akash kumar

    Hollywood North Acting & Modeling – Hollywood North Acting & Modeling

  33. [quote post=”2399″]how could any rational voter not care about politics,[/quote]
    Primarily because, unless you’re going to put a whole lot of energy into it, the return on investment of your time, energy and effort is low.

    Consider a right of center voter living in the 1st CD (e.g. me). Did I dutifully vote? Yes. Was I under any illusion that McCain or Larson’s opponent would win? No.

    At long as incumbents pick their voters (districting) and states are winner take all for the president, many of us are effectively disenfranchised.

    Concurrently, not matter how much the zealots on either side scream and yell, the system tends to self correct. Overreaching by the Bush administration on civil liberties et. al. is pushed back by the courts and Democratics getting elected. Overreaching by legislating judges is pushed back by conservatives getting voted in to appoint judges and ballot initiatives et. al.

    Consider the financial debacle? Which party is innocent of malfeasance on that one? Very few individuals were making any substantial effort to prevent it.

  34. “Consider the financial debacle? Which party is innocent of malfeasance on that one? Very few individuals were making any substantial effort to prevent it.”

    Excellent point. To me this just brings me back to the need for term limits for Congress. I don’t think we elect just dumb people. But I do think after so long in Washington or Hartford they do lose touch with reality. Have you noticed how easily these guys throw around billions these days? Correct me if I am wrong, but a single billion is still a thousand million is it not?

    I don’t know if the word malfeasance even applies here. To me that suggests these guys actually know, understand, and care about the potential downside of what they are doing.

    Although I do wonder if any of this financial crisis could have been avoided if half the senate was not off the job the last year or two running for President. Maybe someone might have made some effort? At least they are now back to work giving away hundreds of bail out billions while accepting no blame for being asleep at the switch. You just can’t make this crap up can you??

  35. The vast number of those who vote obviously don’t care about politics. They either blindly vote the party line because they always have. Or for many reasons they don’t take the time to inform themselves about the issues and the positions of those who they are voting for. Or consider the record of accomplishment of the lifetime incumbent.

    I think the main point of political parties are to serve as stand-ins for a whole host of issues that may or may not be discussed during the campaign proper. I’m in favor of expanded civil rights, I’m pro-choice, I want lower-income workers to get a boost, and I’m a Democrat — that assumes other Democrats share those views absent any evidence to the contrary.

    That’s the big hurdle Greens or Libertarians have to clear — having the public broadly understand what they collectively stand for, so they can fill in gaps in their knowledge about a particular candidate with categorical knowledge about the party generally. The one thing people know about Greens (that they care first and foremost about the environment) is wrong.

  36. To me this just brings me back to the need for term limits for Congress. I don’t think we elect just dumb people. But I do think after so long in Washington or Hartford they do lose touch with reality.

    I’ve seen term limits in action (in CA), and to my view, what they do is reinforce the party line — because you’re guaranteed that “your turn” at the next-highest office will come around if you don’t make your party leaders angry.

    Term limits also undermine challenges to ineffective legislators, because why would someone with a promising political career risk it all by challenging an incumbent when it’s bound to be an open seat in 2 or 4 years anyway? It serves as a procedural release valve on public outrage, with the result that voters more peacefully accept their legislators ignoring them, and legislators knowing that they’re not really required to justify themselves until it’s time for the next office up.

    On top of it all, the only people who aren’t term limited in that situation are the lobbyists, who become the institutional memory (no significant bill gets passed in CA in less than 6 years, so *lobbyists* carry the bills session to session) and the kingmakers (when someone is a freshman one term, a committee chair the second, and the Speaker the third before getting termed out, everybody knows they’re a paper tiger — but if you anger the lobbyists, your accomplishments and likelihood of promotion will be slim indeed.)

    There’s always some anger at elected leaders, but term limits make the government worse instead of simply zapping the people you hate. Term limits are a shabby substitute for eternal vigilance.

  37. A theory: term-limiting the Presidency has led to a more docile U.S. Senate.

  38. matt,

    Once again thanks for your posts I have not enjoyed a conversation on this site as much as this in a while.

    You say:

    “I think the main point of political parties are to serve as stand-ins for a whole host of issues that may or may not be discussed during the campaign proper.”

    Yes good point. But there are obvious dangers in letting the cover describe that book. I am sure that there are Democrats in your party who’s views you don’t share. Beyond that I still maintain it is the responsibility of the voter to measure the results of those we elect.

    Look at it this way. Let’s say you have $50,000 to invest for your future, or maybe your retirement, and you are looking for a Investment Specialist to manage your portfolio. Do you turn to the yellow pages ( now I am showing my age) and just pick one out from the adds there, and then turn over your hard earned money to one of them? After all they all call themselves “Investment Specialists”. Or more likely do you actually call a few. Meet them and check their track records. I would assume you would make sure their views on how to invest your money is consistent with your goals before jumping in with one of them.

    But after all that is done do you just pay no attention to the results? Or do you examine them? Are you satisfied if the guy you go with does not produce to your expectation? Do you stay with him year after year figuring at least your working with an Investment Specialist? If someone asks you how is he doing for you do you say “Hey he’s an Investment Specilist I think he’s doing a good job”, but to be honest you never checked your balance?

    In reality isn’t that just exactly what so many of us are doing by simply letting the cover describe the book? The job these politicians we elect have just as much effect on our lives as that Investment Specialist, actually probably even more, but for some reason we don’t understand that. We just can’t be bothered to demand better results. Results so many of them promise us in exchange for our votes.

    Second point:

    “Term limits are a shabby substitute for eternal vigilance.”

    Yes they are. However in the general absence of external vigilance, which basically is the argument here I would suggest they are not a perfect solution but at least an alternative to living with lifetime politicians who know their re election is assured regardless of their preformance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s