Bruce Bartlett, a former adviser to Reagan and the first President Bush, has made at least three separate appearances with Lawrence O'Donnell. And during these three appearances, the two individuals didn't disagree so much as a single iota. Why, pray tell, is it so easy for them to come to an agreement, and, yet, so difficult for Congress?...I mean, are you trying to tell me here that there aren't ANY reasonable and statesmanlike people left in Washington? That SEEMS to be what you're trying to tell me...............................................................................................P.S. Yes, I know, the Republicans are MORE to blame. You don't have to remind me again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Maybe because neither man is being paid by lobbyists, neither are up for re-election, and neither are lawyers.
yes, yes, and YES!
Controlling lobbyists and lawyers and stopping the flow of corporate money into American politics is a super-duper idea but nothing less than a revolution will be required to make that happen, and I ain't holding my breath on that one.
Will. I gotta tell ya the events of the past two weeks have me so pissed off I can hardly speak...I am back to the point where I loathe politics. I used to fight this but maybe term limits are something to be considered...if these jerks know that there is no re-election bid around the corner, maybe pandering to the base will cease and something will actually get done.
It's so obvious we need to raise taxes that a Republican and a Socialist agree... I think that just highlights the insanity of the current Republican Party.
The Republicans aren't "more" to blame! They are TOTALLY to blame!
btw, I sure there are PLENTY of topics that could be discussed where O'Donnell and Bartlett would strongly disagree.
Also, I oppose term limits. If all the legislators in Washington were inexperienced whom would they turn to for help? They would turn to the lobbyists. If you're opposed to lobbyists having too much power you should be opposed to doing something that would give them EVEN MORE power.
wd,
That is exactly what has happened in CA with our term limits. They give lobbyists more power, not the people.
Gentlemen, the parameters for a compromise (amongst the more practical element, I'm saying) are fairly obvious; a) reform entitlements, b) scale back militarily, and c) raise revenues through the closing loop-holes. Granted, it's only a start but it's a pretty damn good start.
And instead of term limits, I would propose a public financing of all elections. It would be expensive (though probably a lot less than a week in Afghanistan), but it would probably save money in the long run.
I support term limits.... within reason. Without any term limits, representatives build power fiefdoms and become true aristocrats.
So, send them back home some. Give them a break. After ever 2 or 3 House terms, have them sit out two years. Something like that.
dmarks, I just wish that these house seats hadn't been so gerrymandered to the point of such virtually certainty. I mean, the fact that the House changed by over 60 members the last go round was amazing.
And so much of the gerrymandering is racist. Districts should be made without regard to race.
Post a Comment