Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

Opinion: Pledge fuels cynicism about Congress

December 9, 2012

Advertisement

A few words to ponder as we sail toward the fiscal cliff. Those words would be: “That was then, this is now.”

Strip away the false piety and legalistic hair splitting offered by Republican lawmakers rationalizing their decision to abandon a pledge that they will never ever, ever, ever vote to raise taxes, and that’s pretty much what the explanation boils down to.

Rep. Peter King says he understood the pledge, propounded by the almighty Grover Norquist and his group Americans for Tax Reform, to obligate him for only one term. Apparently, he thought it had to be renewed, like a driver’s license.

Sen. Lindsey Graham says that if Democrats agree to entitlement reform, “I will violate the pledge for the good of the country” — a stirring statement of patriotism and sacrifice that warms your heart like a midnight snack of jalapeno chili fries.

In other words: bull Twinkies. If you want the truth of why a trickle of GOP lawmakers is suddenly willing to blaspheme the holy scripture of their faith, it’s simple. The pledge used to be politically expedient. Now it is not.

This is not, by the way, a column in defense of the Norquist pledge. The only thing dumber than his offering such a pledge was scores of politicians signing it, an opinion that has nothing to do with the wisdom or lack thereof of raising taxes and everything to do with the fact that one ought not, as a matter of simple common sense, make hard, inflexible promises on changeable matters of national import. It is all well and good to stand on whatever one’s principles are, but as a politician — a job that, by definition, requires the ability to compromise — you don’t needlessly box yourself in. Never say never.

Much less, never ever, ever, ever.

So this revolution against “he who must be obeyed,” however modest, is nonetheless welcome. It suggests reason seeping like sunlight into places too long cloistered in the damp and dark of ideological rigidity.

But it leaves an observer in the oddly weightless position of applauding a thing and being, simultaneously, disgusted by it. Has politics ever seemed more ignoble than in these clumsy, self-serving attempts to justify a deviation from orthodoxy? They have to do this, of course, because the truth — “I signed the pledge because I knew it would help me get elected, but with economic ruin looming and Obama re-elected on a promise to raise taxes on the rich and most voters supporting him on that, it’s not doing me as much good as it once did” — is unpretty and unflattering.

In this awkward about-face, these lawmakers leave us wondering once again whether the vast majority of them — right and left, red and blue, Republican and Democrat — really believe in anything, beyond being re-elected.

There is a reason Congress’ approval ratings flirted with single digits this year. There is a reason a new Gallup Poll finds only 10 percent of Americans ranking Congress “high or very high” in honesty and ethics.

Lawyers rank higher. Advertisers rank higher. Even journalists rank higher.

This is the sad pass to which years of congressional grandstanding, fact spinning, cookie jar pilfering and assorted harrumphing and pontificating have brought us. And while a certain cynicism toward its leaders functions as a healthy antigen in the body politic, it cannot be good for either the nation or its leaders that so many of them are held in plain contempt.

The moral malleability exemplified by the likes of King and Graham will not help. Perhaps we should ask them to sign a new pledge: “I will always tell you what I think and what I plan to do in plain English, regardless of whether you like it or it benefits me politically.”

But no lawmaker would make that pledge. And who would believe them if they did?

— Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald. He chats with readers from noon to 1 p.m. CST each Wednesday on www.MiamiHerald.com.

Comments

Abdu Omar 2 years, 1 month ago

I am appalled by the actions of this congress. We Americans are completely untrusting of any politician who thinks of his party, his pocketbook, his own self before considering what a tax increase on the common man would do to this economy. Those who signed this Norquist pledge were totally foolish as if to say "I will not represent my constituents, I will only represent what will benefit me and my party."

Come on Congress, do your jobs. I don't see why this is so difficult. And, YES, those of us who paid into Soc Sec and Medicare are owed the coveraged that it should have bought. Don't play around with those of us who are retired, disabled and cannot work any longer. Let us have what we paid for. I know the younger ones pay into it for our benefits but we paid for others too. Leave us alone.

Abdu Omar 2 years, 1 month ago

No, I do not take anything from the government that I didn't pay in and I worked for 57 years. How long do you plan on working?

notaubermime 2 years, 1 month ago

LOL. The average American will receive more in Social Security and Medicare benefits than they paid in. It isn't a retirement account, it is living off of the people currently paying taxes. I, for one, don't plan on leaving my retirement income to the government. That is a recipe for disappointment.

Alyosha 2 years, 1 month ago

A translation implies rendering from one language the same meaning into another language.

Your so-called translation is lacking, because you cannot comprehend or apprehend or respect meaning(s) that you yourself do not agree with.

Yours is less a translation than wholesale replacement of one person's point with your own.

That kind of thinking is exactly what led to Republicans being routed in the popular vote for the presidency and Congress this last election — so, by all means, keep it up. You'll be guaranteeing that those who agree with your point of view will never, ever be in a position of deciding public policy. And that is a very good thing.

fancy80 2 years, 1 month ago

I am appalled by a President that doesn't even give the appearance of wanting to negotiate or compromise. I am appalled by a President that appears to want the entire country to suffer so he can "stick it" to the republicans.

The numbers in increased revenue and spending cuts that he campaigned for, are not the same numbers he is talking about now. And seriously, another stimulus? Come on, does he think we are stupid?

sadly, yes he does.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 1 month ago

Compromise is a two-way street, and the Republicans in Congress have been purely obstructionist for Obama's entire first term, and they clearly haven't had a change of heart.

Obama has governed as a centrist from day one, and all indications are that he'll continue to govern that way. Will Republicans meet him in the middle?

BTW, another stimulus is precisely what we need to solve the real problem in the economy-- extremely high unemployment. And what we need more than anything is some leadership on the one real debt that is going to be passed on to future generations-- delicate climates drastically altered by global warming, and coastal areas made uninhabitable by rising sea levels.

fancy80 2 years, 1 month ago

Centrist? Middle? You are funny!!

I under what the word compromise means, but thanks for explaining it to me. I see the Republicans trying to give Obama what he wants (increased revenue) and Obama and his minions being jack holes. The fiscal cliff is NOT the issue to use to punish the Republicans for what he (and you) perceive as obstruction. This is our lives that they are jacking with. Everyone knows the Republicans are going to have to cave on this. Why must Obama be a complete and total ass about it?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 1 month ago

Why do hardcore rightwingers like you have such difficulty in recognizing committed centrists like Obama? (rhetorical question, as the answer is that doing so would require you to admit that you are incapable of compromise.)

The Republicans are offering essentially nothing in the way of increased revenue, as there aren't enough loopholes and tax breaks available for "reform" to raise any significant amount of revenue. Just more smoke and mirrors.

fancy80 2 years, 1 month ago

Okay, first of all, I am not a hardcore right winger. really, I am not. I am, what I would call a fiscal conservative. I think that a person can be a fiscal conservative and be a democrat or a republican. I don't want the government in anyones bedroom. I don't want the government making decisions about anyones body either. So don't make assumptions please.

I would like to see the Republicans let Obama have his tax increases on families or individuals making a million or more. I would like to see closing some loopholes for families or individuals making over $250k, AND I would like to see some spending cuts. I am fine with some military cuts, as long as it is not pay cuts or benefit cuts for the brave men and women who serve our country. I would like to see Unions pay some taxes (as there are many that don't). See to me, this is compromise. What is not compromise is saying I want 800 billion in increased revenue, spending cuts of $2.50 for every dollar in increased revenue, and then when the republicans agree to 800 billion in increased revenue (but not thru increased tax rates, but rather, thru closing down deductions) Obama comes back with ONE POINT SIX TRILLION in increased revenue (and it can only come from increased tax rates), one dollar in spending cuts for every dollar in increased revenue AND a 500 Billion dollar stimulus. That is not compromise. Republicans are going to have to give in on increasing some tax rates, but someone that was truly wanting to reach across the aisle and work WITH the Republicans for the good of the country would try to give in a little bit too. Obama is not doing that. he wants to punish the Republicans and get them in hot water with their constituents that have mandated to them no tax increases. That is not a good leader, it is not compromise, and it makes it very clear that he is putting politics above the good of the country.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 1 month ago

I'd guess that if Republicans counter-offered increasing taxes at $350,000 rather than $250,000, Obama would likely accept that compromise, especially if Republicans also wanted to follow through with closing loopholes and limiting deductions.

Actually, I'd be perfectly OK with leaving taxes just as they are, and having a large stimulus package that increases employment rates, since high unemployment a much greater problem for the economy than the deficit is.

Getting crazy with austerity will have us looking just like Europe within a couple of years.

fancy80 2 years, 1 month ago

I'm not a big fan of stimulus packages because normally a bunch of crap gets thrown in with it. What are the specifics to this particular stimulus package that deal directly with employment rates? I have not read any specifics, only that Obama wants another large stimulus package. How is it written so that we can guarantee it directly increases employment? I might be more supportive of such a stim package if I knew the details. At this point in time, I'm not good with trust us with 500 billion, we are the govt. And we are here to help.

fancy80 2 years, 1 month ago

I detailed some compromises that I would like to see the Republicans come with, in terms of increasing the revenue. I would like to see them at least hold President Obama to the spending cuts that he campaigned on and hold firm on no large stimulus package. And no one is even talking about the debt ceiling. Obama has said he doesn't want a limit. That should be a deal breaker. And, shouldn't President Obama at least pretend to be working on a budget?

tomatogrower 2 years, 1 month ago

Why aren't all you rich people creating jobs? You've had huge tax cuts for a long time now? Could it be that you have ruined the middle class with your non trickle down? Who is going to buy your products and services if you don't pay them enough? Or are you one of those working class people who are just certain that your going to be filthy rich some say, and that those 1% will help you get there. If you are wake up and smell the coffee. They are doing everything to stop upward mobility; sales tax, instead of income tax, eliminate deductions for mortgage interest, make education more expensive, union busting. They don't want the 99% to get anywhere near them.

Bob Forer 2 years, 1 month ago

Yeah, right, Obama hates America and wants to destroy it. Where do you come up with this utter nonsense? .... No let me guess.....by watching Faux news.

You, my friend, are both a knave and a fool if you believe that crap.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 1 month ago

"I am appalled by a Congress that doesn't even give the appearance of wanting to negotiate or compromise. I am appalled by a Congress that appears to want the entire country to suffer so they can "stick it" to the President."

There. Fixed it for you.

fancy80 2 years, 1 month ago

Don't "fix" my posts Cait. I don't need or want your help.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 1 month ago

Making that kind of statement begs to be "fixed" when you have a party that openly stated they would do anything up to and including taking the entire country down just to make the current President a "one termer". More filibusters have been done in the last Congressional term than in all other terms combined since this country's inception. They failed at that and are STILL doing it to the point where, this past week, Mitch McConnell filibustered HIMSELF. And YOU want to point fingers at Obama for being an obstructionist. The irony. It burns.

fancy80 2 years, 1 month ago

No Cait, my statement didn't beg to be fixed. It was you, trying to be cute. It isn't cute, it isn't intelligent, and it doesn't add anything to the conversation. I'd much rather you just state your opinion, like you did above.

I don't expect that you will agree with my comments. I know many won't agree with it, which is fine with me, but I guess I was expecting a little more mature response than the flippant "there. I fixed it for you." My bad.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 1 month ago

Cait was stating her opinion, even if you don't like the form in which she stated it.

fancy80 2 years, 1 month ago

I can appreciate someone stating their opinion, but I don't need anyone fixing mine.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 1 month ago

"fancy80 18 hours, 52 minutes ago

See what I mean. That is just adorable!"

This isn't "cute" or "intelligent" either. In fact, it seems pretty flippant and immature, don't you think? So I guess we're even which puts us BOTH back to square one. But then I'm a liberal and lot more willing to be egalitarian about things.

fancy80 2 years, 1 month ago

But then I'm a liberal and lot more willing to be ignorant about things.

There. Fixed that for you.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 1 month ago

"Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X. Person B makes an attack on person A. Therefore A's claim is false."

fancy80 2 years, 1 month ago

I have never been kicked off, so not sure what you are talking about.

progressive_thinker 2 years, 1 month ago

"I am appalled by a President that doesn't even give the appearance of wanting to negotiate or compromise."

Actually, our President is finally beginning to negotiate, and in good faith representing the wishes of the electorate that returned him for another term instead of continually kowtowing to the demands of right wing extremists.

The economic blackmail engaged in by the teapublicans that has gotten us to where we are at has got to end. The President needs to lead by being a tough, no holds barred negotiator to achieve the goals that he campaigned on. If that means that the republicans elect to inflict great and unnecessary damage to the economy by continued stonewalling, those actions will be regrettable. If that is the outcome, we can only hope that the electorate remembers in 2014.

fancy80 2 years, 1 month ago

This is what always amazes me with liberals is that you guys honestly, actually believe that the democrats had absolutely nothing to do with the problems this country is in. I think even the most hardcore Republican will admit we played a part in it. But, you liberals are adamant that it is entirely the republicans fault. It really is unbelievable, but also kind of cute.

progressive_thinker 2 years, 1 month ago

The fiscal cliff would not have happened if it were not for the unprecedented use of the debt ceiling by the Republicans as leverage to achieve what they could not achieve through the legislative process. The entire debt ceiling crisis was nothing but an unnecessary charade of drama and economic blackmail, at the hands of the Republican party. To deny it is to blindly disregard the facts.

Of course there is blame to go around when talking about our situation as a whole, but this "fiscal cliff" lays at the feet of the Republicans. They gambled and lost. To now try to blame the Democrats on this one is pretty disingenuous.

fancy80 2 years, 1 month ago

I think the blame has to be put on both parties. Everyone keeps saying compromise is a two way street, but then are pissed when the Republicans try to stick to their guns on the tax rate increase, which is one of their core beliefs.

Everyone know the Republicans have to cave on this issue and that it is going to hurt them, given the fact that increasing tax rates goes against everything they believe in. No one seems upset that what the President is asking for now, is not the same as what he campaigned on. And no one seems upset that in this time that they are supposed to be compromising and figuring out a way to get this done, the President also threw in a 500 billion dollar stimulus and no limit on the debt ceiling. All I am saying is that doesn't sound like compromise to me. maybe that is the democrats definition of compromise, but it isn't mine.

progressive_thinker 2 years, 1 month ago

You are welcome to believe whatever you wish, but the facts support that the responsibility for the fiscal cliff rests squarely with the GOP. The fact remains that the fiscal cliff was caused by the Republicans engaging in economic blackmail because they felt that they held a political upper hand. They gambled and lost. The President did not ask them to take the US economy hostage. The GOP did that on their own. They were so convinced that they would unseat the President that they risked being placed in a position where any leverage that they might have would become irrelevant. That has now happened.

I am sure that there will be a compromise. It is just that the definition of compromise that has been used by the Republicans will likely no longer be acceptable. Up to this point, the GOP has blocked virtually every initiative the President has taken and they have vilified, through a steady campaign of misinformation, the accomplishments the President has managed to achieve. From the start of his administration, the GOP set as their primary goal to unseat the President rather than trying to accomplish anything postive. In short, they took a firm "my way or the highway" attitude for the entire first four years of the Obama presidency.

So now the conservatives are upset because Obama is not sitting around the the conference table singing Kumbaya with Boehner.

As it relates to the debt ceiling, Obama would be a fool to leave that on the table again. That issue should be a hard and fast nonnegotiable position. If he leaves that on the table, it is predictable that the Republicans will try to take the economy hostage once again. We are just as well off to go over the cliff as to risk allowing that.

As to the proposal for stimulus dollars, there are people who are upset about it. People that are upset about the proposal are mostly part of a rapidly shrinking minority. It seems that without millions of dollars being spent in the media to vilify and defame the President and his policies, people are actually understanding that another round of stimulus would likely cause a marked increase in growth, ultimately paying for itself. I realize that the GOP is keenly interested in debt reduction [albeit only when the President is a Democrat], but elections have consequences, and this is what they now must deal with. If they elect to go over the cliff, we can only hope that the electorate will remember in 2014.

fancy80 2 years, 1 month ago

I have to say that you really are making my original point in that the President knows he has the upper hand, and is willing to let us go over the cliff to stick it to the Republicans, unless they agree to all of his terms. That is not compromise. Furthermore, I would suggest that he wants us to go over the cliff. he gets way more revenue, and he gets to blame the Republicans for everything. Win Win for him and lose lose for the Republicans...and the country. So, once again it is one side or the other, putting politics over the good of the country.

progressive_thinker 2 years, 1 month ago

I guess that it is a matter of perception. My perception is that a minority of radical far right wing conservatives imposed their agenda on the majority in the country for four years, through misinformation and economic blackmail, and that our duly elected President lacked the political will to make gains on the progressive agenda.

Now the radical conservative minority is no longer able to impose their will on the majority without incurring further damage on their brand.

It is not a matter of "....[sticking] it to the Republicans." The issue is that we had an election where two very different views of the future were offered, and the voters decided on the future that was articulated by President Obama.

chootspa 2 years, 1 month ago

I'm appalled by your apparent short term memory loss.

fancy80 2 years, 1 month ago

See what I mean. That is just adorable!

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 1 month ago

fancy, the use of genetic fallacy and condescension is an old debate trick. You only make yourself look juvenile using such means and you convince no one of the truth or falsity of your premise. There's no point in doing so unless you're only doing it to make you feel better about yourself and shore up your own faith in what you believe. In that sense, it's actually a red flag for the other side to go in for the kill.

fancy80 2 years, 1 month ago

I'm sorry you feel that way. Kill away.

Alyosha 2 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

FalseFlag 2 years, 1 month ago

Maybe I just don’t understand new math. But I can’t figure out why it is that $250,000 is the political equivalent of $1 million. Obama and his lapdogs – Pelosi, Reid and even Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner – are all running around insisting that America’s wealthy must pay the price for all the giveaways that government has dished up during the last few decades of thoughtless spending. The lapdogs are yapping about raising taxes on American families earning more than $250,000 a year ... and yet it was Obama, during the campaign, who kept insisting, over and over again, that “the millionaires and billionaires” must do more to bail out politicians and their profligacy. See – the numbers just don’t jibe. If the president wants to suck the teats of those with incomes of seven digits or more, why are Democrats so wedded to the seemingly arbitrary $250,000? Blame their spiritual advisor, Bill Clinton, who in 1993 created a new 39.6% tax bracket at $250,000, then the highest bracket in the tax code. That was a moment in our financial history when less than 1% of American households earned that level of income. Two decades later, our world is much different…

Today, about 3% of American households earn at least $250,000 and the great preponderance of them congregate on the east and west coasts, where the cost of living identical lives to those in the middle of the country is sharply higher. Consider: a $250,000 lifestyle in Washington, D.C. costs just $159,000 in Des Moines, Iowa – $157,000 in Houston, Texas – $183,000 in Denver, Colorado – or $163,000 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where I live. Middle-class families struggling in Los Angeles, Seattle, Boston, New York and northern Virginia, with the exact same financial issues you and I have, will be unfairly subsidizing the rest of the country. This is all because Democrats, in their rush to demonize wealth and to resurrect the ghosts of Clinton-era prosperity, screwed up the math, as usual.

Let’s give the Democrats their $250,000 – but, to be fair to the ghost of Clintonomics, let’s apply a little inflation adjusting. After all, 20 years is a long time for the dollar to devalue. To capture the same spirit as Clinton, the Dems should start their “wealth” discussion at an inflation-adjusted $383,000 – which I’ll round down to $375,000 for the sake of argument (since the Dems want to capture as many people as possible to pay the costs of the government’s unfettered spending). At that level, a $375,000 income in D.C. is in the range of $250,000 in Baton Rouge, Houston, Des Moines, Dallas, Tampa, Kansas City, Denver, Knoxville, etc. In short, you begin to capture a $250,000-lifestyle that is equivalent all over the country. To be clear, I remain perturbed that lawmakers think it’s the duty of the supposedly wealthy to pay for the never-ending financial gluttony of Congress. But that’s a different fight for a different day.

Erika Nolan

fancy80 2 years, 1 month ago

Good post and you bring up a good point on inflation adjusting.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 1 month ago

The tax increase will only be on income ABOVE $250,000 (for a couple, $200,000 for an individual.) Income below that level will continue to be taxes at current rates.

Just pointing out a fact that many clearly don't get.

Bob Forer 2 years, 1 month ago

Erika, if the rich want a higher standard of living, I suggest they go out there and work a little harder or move to the midwest.

FalseFlag 2 years, 1 month ago

Living wage or rich? What is the definition of living wage? What is the definition of rich? What is rich yesterday is rich today?

The more people make the more people want to take it away progressively?

Your comment makes no sense.

Abdu Omar 2 years, 1 month ago

Erika, lets say you are right, then why did the East Coast and West Cost vote Obama? It would seem, if you are right, that they would be down on Obama because they didn't want their taxes to be raised. But survey after survey shows that most of the above $250,000 in income are fine with the higher tax bracket. Why is that but the repugs still fight the increase?

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 1 month ago

"...are all running around insisting that America’s wealthy must pay the price for all the giveaways that government has dished up during the last few decades of thoughtless spending."

This is ironic to the point of laughable. Who is responsible for the "thoughtless spending"? GWB started his first term with a SURPLUS from the Clinton administration. From 2000 to 2008 he put us through two unfunded wars and some of the deepest and most reckless tax cuts ever seen. Over two thirds of the deficit is DIRECTLY attributable to those two items. Given that I have no doubt that you fully supported those two items at the time, your scree sounds very much like the squealing of a pig stuck under a gate because now you're being forced to pay the piper. Sorry if I have little sympathy.

FalseFlag 2 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

tomatogrower 2 years, 1 month ago

Exactly, and anyone who signed this pledge should be suspect. There loyalties should be with their constituents and to the US government, not Norquist. And he has threatened them? With what? Bring it on Norquist. You and the Koch's, and all the other tax exempt groups obviously aren't as powerful as you think you are. Millions donated to buy the White House didn't work out too well for you did it?

Mike Ford 2 years, 1 month ago

grover nordquist was with jack abramov and backed a book on the mississippi choctaw tribe as an example of self sufficiency which I own. at the same time all of these gop crooks were ripping off six or seven tribes with fake lobbying and consulting fees a decade ago. slimeballs who want to wreck the us government because of civil rights acts and employer law and insurance laws that were passed. go back to the 1950's with billy clubs, firehoses, dogs, separate facilities, chauvinism excedera......I don't think so.....

tomatogrower 2 years, 1 month ago

I say let all tax cuts since Clinton's term expire. Everyone would end up paying more in taxes, but if the Republicans really think that our bad economy is caused by our deficit spending, and we all bite the bullet and sacrifice to pay off our debts, at least to foreign countries, then the economy should approve, right? Of course, then the light would shine on those people who are really responsible for our poor economy - investment bankers, ceo's, companies like Wal Mart, CEO's who give into companies like WalMart and move jobs out of the country, etc.

Carol Bowen 2 years, 1 month ago

From what I have read, letting the Bush tax cuts expire would fix our economy quicker and more painfully than the ten year fixes being discussed.

Centerville 2 years, 1 month ago

Well, Harry Reid won't allow a vote on Obama's plan. So that fixes that.

progressive_thinker 2 years, 1 month ago

Reid's action was in response to the slightly bizarre stunt on the part of Mitch McConnell, to introduce the fiscal cliff proposal as an amendment to a bill that was in regard to Russian trade status.

Then in an effort to outdo his own silliness, McConnell introduces a bill giving Obama what he asked for regarding the debt ceiling. McConnell then proceeds to filibuster his own bill. In essence, the Republicans even refuse to accept "yes" as an answer.

Abdu Omar 2 years, 1 month ago

In my opinion, McConnell is the biggest obstructionist in the Senate.

Carol Bowen 2 years, 1 month ago

+To hear members of congress speculate on the next election, how to gain power in the senate or house, and discuss what platform would increase voter support is truly insulting. We are treated like widgets, game pieces on their board.

+Funding political campaigns has become a national rather than local effort. If this continues, we will not be represented at all. The game is in Washington. We are the spectators. It doesn't matter which representative you write to, the response is 'Thank you for your input' and 'Here's my position'.

fancy80 2 years, 1 month ago

I can post without calling people name. I looked back at my posts and see that I have used Republicans, Democrats, liberals and Cait (because I thought that was her name). I did see the post where I said jack holes once and a$$ once. So please allow me to apologize for that. it was uncalled for. I am not bitter from the election, and I do not watch Fox.

Thank you for your feedback.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 1 month ago

Methinks the zombies are back. How long before one of them goes too far and gets canned again?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.