crickets
crickets's JournalCouldn't agree more.
The moment Claire McCaskill complained that Schumer used that specific word, I looked it up to make sure I knew what perfidy meant. Turns out I had the general idea, but had missed the nuance of the definition. Now I am unlikely to ever forget what it means and will likely think of January 31, 2020 every time I hear it.
Chuck Schumer knew exactly what he wanted to say and what he was doing when he said it.
He picked the right word.
Thank you!
When people talk about term limits they forget that the same machete that lops out the representatives they don't like will also take those they do.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reasons-to-oppose-congressional-term-limits/
Calls for term limits also fail to take into account all the other people in the governmental gears around elected officials who have no such limits. As mentioned - lobbyists.
https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/10/18/13323842/trump-term-limits
Term limits also strengthen the power of lobbyists and interest groups for the same reason. In term-limited states, lawmakers and their staff have less time to build up expertise, since they are there for a limited time. But like the executive agencies of the state government, lobbyists and interest groups are also there year after year. They are the true repeat players building long-term relationships and the true keepers of the institutional knowledge. This gives them power.
It's a nice fantasy that what Washington needs is a bunch of good old-fashioned common sense — common sense that can only come from people who aren't "career politicians." But the machinery of government is now incredibly complex. And the more we cling to the fantasy of electing uncorrupted political neophytes as saviors, the more we empower the lobbyists and bureaucrats who can accumulate a lifetime of experience and knowledge.
And my final argument against term limits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi
As of 2019, Pelosi is in her 17th term as a congresswoman.
And thank all the gods great and small for that.
eta apologies for the wall o' text - apparently I feel pretty strongly about this and kinda got carried away.
I think they've been so myopically focused on getting this over with
and "winning" politically that they have not thought through many of the long term consequences, or about how badly the consequences could come back to bite them... and us.
It's not just the money, it's not just the prestige, it's not even necessarily the kompromat.
It's the POWER. The level of power the representatives in our federal government have over decisions affecting the life and death of the citizenry - for some, it's potent stuff. Unfortunately, not in the "I can do things to help people" kind of way when a sociopath manages to get elected.
That's because you're not a sociopath.
Saw the same thing. The disgust was real.
I agree. Screw John Bolton for holding out for the royalties. He could have testified and people would have bought the book - hell, more people might have bought the book to reward him for coming forward.
If and when he does get to publish, I hope no one wants anything to do with it.
Pelosi has spoken powerful truths.
Repeat it over and over, everywhere.
That wouldn't be bad thing.
Let him make a fool of himself - again. To see him do so in front of both houses of Congress and the world suits me fine. Then Senators have to vote after such a show? It might not change a thing but it will leave the Repubs looking even worse than they do now.
Good.
Agreed, thank you!
The clothes rending "it's over!!" and "there's no point to the election; it's rigged!" posts are way over the top. This is a bad situation - true - and it's going to take a lot of work but it ain't over, and nobody should give up on an election before the voting even starts.
We are not quitters. We're Democrats. 
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: Georgia
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 25,962
