Do we expect too much from our reps in Senate and House?

[Stinky The Clown]

This isn't a rant. Rather, it is an honest question.

Our elected reps in both houses of Congress are essentially under siege. Out manned and outgunned. Diminishing replenishments. Shrinking manpower. Increasing pressure to perform. Increasingly stiff challenges. Increasingly dirty tactics from their enemies.

Fresh troops are hard to come by, as evidenced by the results of the '00, '02, and '04 elections.

In the meantime, their constituents are demanding more from them. Stop this judge. Stop that bill. Raise the alarm over that allegation or this atrocity. We demand they speak out. We demand they investigate and hold hearings.

The simple fact, it seems to me, is they simply cannot do it all. They don't have the numbers. They don't have the support. They don't have the access. They don't have the authority or the power.

And some don't have the guts. They're in a separate category - 'designated for replacement', if you will.

But for those with the will, how much is too much?

Have we reached that point? Might we do better if we limited severely the breadth of their work in favor of more muscular concentrated efforts on just a few issues?

Concentrate solely on (pre)impeachment matters, for example? Concentrate solely on getting our ass out of Iraq? Concentrate solely on media consolidation? Or BBV issues?

It just seems to me we're scattered. Taking pot shots in every direction, and only hitting our targets by luck.

What if, just as an example, we simply ignore this stupid flag desecration issue? On either side of the issue, it is simply symbolic, with no real meaning. Why not, in these extraordinary times, let that one just go? Don't even mention it. In fact, don't even vote on it, even if that is to vote no? Or just vote no with no fanfare or discussion? When asked about how one voted, the rep should simply spout off about a serious issue. ("You know Tucker, I voted against the flag amendment, but my real concern is the upcoming vote on the convening of a special prosecutor to look into voting aberrations in Ohio in '04.")

Don't shotgun. Concentrate.

Surely any of this would require some designated leadership. Some party discipline.

Am I wrong to think we ask too much? Am I wrong to think there's a serious need for serious discipline?

How much is too much?

I'd like to hear some thoughtful discussion of this concept.

[acmejack]

1. We don't expect enough of them!

And they still fail to meet those low expectations. I expect them to speak for the people who are their constituency, not for corporate fatcats.

I think we need to press them on issues that matter to us, to try to counteract the inexorable pressure from the lobbies. I agree that they have their limits and cannot agree with us on every issue. I can even put up with a legislator that acts in a way that can be defended by the writings of the founders. There is a lot of wisdom to be found in the writings of Madison and Jefferson. I subscribe to those beliefs as set forth in the Federalist Papers.

[dkofos]

2. I would be happy if they would just listen

Listen to the people who they supposedly represent.
If an issue is up for a vote and 75% of the people are against it they should vote the will of the people.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Voting is the easy part

You stand there. You say 'yea' or you say 'nay'.

I'm talking about actually **doing** things. Fighting fights. Concentrating efforts. At the end of the day, the vote is nothing but the culmination of lots of work. Right now the repubs are doing the work and getting their measures on the floor. Our reps do nothing but cast votes. (Actually, they're doing work, too, but what they do is the point of my question.)

We ask that they fight this fight or that.

But are we being reasonable to expect them to fight **every** fight out there that we want fought?

[acmejack]

5. No, but there is very little reason involved in politics

No one can realistically expect the legislator to hold the same values, but as your representative he/she must be lobbied by the constituency and be persuaded to favor your positions and issues. Thats what the K street crowd usurp with their paid access. They are hijacking our ability to make our case, perverting that access with their pay to play politics.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. No argument about K Street

And no argument about us contacting our reps.

My larger question was about how much it is reasonable to epxect them be able to do? And more importantly, how much (in terms of breadth, not volume) is reasonable?

Let's, just for a moment, suspend disbelief and assume K Street became a lobbying wasteland, with nothing left there but empty offices. And lets assume we have fully acess to our reps.

You want Issue A addressed.

I want issue B addressed. He wants C, she wants D.

And in this way, hundreds of issues get put up.

But we know that we can only work on some of them. Others will simply have to wait, not for lack of interest, but rather for lack of resources.

Call it, perhaps, legislative triage.

That's what I'm talking about.

[cornermouse]

4. No.

They wanted the job and they knew before they got it, what comes with it.

[napi21]

6. No I don't think we expect too much.

Think about it this way. Every day on your job, you have to do a lot of different things. Some are extremely important, and others somewhat less. You know you must do what your CEO wants (in politics that's us the voters) but still do what your boss, who recommends raises (in politics that would be the big contributors), wants, all at the same time. Sometimes there's a conflict, and you can't please them both! I always thought carefully about the situation, decided what was in the best interest of the Company (that would be the Country), then go to the person I was going to have to disappoint, explain my decision and why I made it. Are they always happy with your decision? Of course not, but you maintain their respect.

I think we all know every Dem politician isn't going to please all of us all the time, but I think, if they decide to vote a certain way that is different from what we, their constituents want, we deserve to know why. No just a repeat of the leaders words, but THEIR reasons. ie: I would love to hear, from my Sens & Rep WHY he voted FOR the bankruptcy bill? I have know many in the past to really believe they are doing the right thing. I know I won't always agree, but I would respect his honesty and also have a basis to judge if I wanted to vote for him again or not.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. I understand what you're saying, but

in large measure you're talking about politics and policy.

My OP was, at least in my mind, more about resources and strategy. How to make the most of what little we have.

Is it best to try to make all of us happy or is it better to prioritize things, measure against our resources, and then hit the top one or two or ten issues with all our resources, rather than hitting a hundred or a thousand issues with those same resources?

[napi21]

16. I don't think it's possible to have them all concentrate on a few

subjects. They're all on different committees, a diff subject comes up daily, if not hourly. I think they have already told us they are going to have to pick their battles because of being in the minority, so when some things get to the floor, it simply doesn't make sense to fight EVERYTHING! I actually think WE keep them pretty focused on the real important things.

I suspect the BIG fights are yet to come! I guess it could be all speculation about a SCOTUS, but I really do think at least one is in the near future.

[leesa]

8. It's their job and they are well paid.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. What is their job? Winning? Or posturing to get votes?

Winning comes from being strategic. Posturing happens when you try to be all things to all people. You accomplish nothing but you get reelected.

So what is the job they're being well paid to do?

In my case, I'd like to see every Dem get on board with just one issue and work as a team to get it done.

Let's say that issue is BBV. And **just for argument sake**, let's say the agreed solution is open source code voting machines owned by the state and not by a private company.

I would want them all to earn their pay by working toward making that system the law of the land.

But in doing so, they ignore some smaller issues completely, and only pay minor attention to other issues.

Is that what they're paid to do or would you rather see them address every little thing that comes along ineffectively but as responsively as they're humanly able to do?

[greekspeak]

10. No...I expect them to work til they drop when called upon

They get wonderful benefits and pay. They get perks on top of perks. In my perfect world they would get no more than the respect of having the position for filling the position. But I know the pitfalls of this position. If they have to pull all nighters, dig ditches themselves, fly around the world to look at the messes the US is causing, debate til they collapse...then so be it.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. Please see my response #13, below

[catnhatnh]

11. It's called "public service"....

...you get the job by campaigning on your character and accomplishments. There are only 535 slots nationwide and you stand before the electorate and declare yourself deserving of the honor and willing to take on the tasks required.You swear an oath to the Lord Almighty to faithfully undertake the position.You are well paid and honored and offered deference at every turn.....In short if you have normal intelligence you should well understand that you have not been hired as a burger-flipper at McD's-the job you fought for,in fact campaigned ,wheedled, and begged for (I HATE this phrase)is HARD WORK.Presidents with few exceptions are eroded, aged, and damn near killed by 4-8 years in office (think "Lincoln"),when their office is honestly executed....In short no-It's not to much to ask...serve your State nobly.Obey your conscience.Lust after honorable deeds rather than tainted money.Represent American citizens and oppose those who would curtail their rights. Just ONCE ,I'll quote Spike Lee-"Do The Right Thing".

[Stinky The Clown]

13. I'm not talking about hard personal effort

Of course we expect that. And I suspect most reps and sens know we expect that and, in fact, give it.

No, what I am talking about is the actual battles we expect them to undertake. It is about resources. It is about the use of the airtime they get. Just by way of example, if Senator A gets 14 minutes per week of face time on TV, is it better if he hits on 27 separate issues that make all his constituents happy, but the mention of which is largely meaningless to all but those of us paying close attention (so as not miss the 30 seconds devoted to **our** pet issue) ..... OR ..... is it better that same Senator A use all 14 minutes of his air time to address ONE or maybe two issues in a deeper and more meaningful way?

Again, my topic here is strategy and resources.

Not platitudes about hard work.

[catnhatnh]

17. My remarks WERE more about how they should Indeed...

...work till they drop,but more so about democrats obviously violating their oaths by voting AGAINST their constituent's interests-think bankruptcy bill and corporate giveaways and lack of health care and shrinking social services...if you were elected BY a majority AS a democrat...that said they are not THAT outnumbered...we are not talking about Custer at the Greasy Grass here-55 to 45 in the senate and a much lower ratio in the House.They just need to stand on their hind legs and WORK 25% HARDER-AND STOP VOTING CORPORATE INTERESTS...corporation are Not constituents and certainly NOT human beings. And keep their paws OUT OF THE COOKIE JAR...sorry-just my rant...

[Stinky The Clown]

18. I share your rant!

:thumbsup:

Those would be the ones that I said in my OP were "designated for replacement".

[Stirk]

15. They don't have the numbers because they don't DO anything for us.

Do you know why so many of our reps are so easily distracted? Because they WANT to be distracted.

They continually seize on bullshit, like these Karl Rove remarks, or flag burning, or any other wedge issue because most of our reps don't want to improve the lives of regular people any more than the Republicans do. They don't *want* to address issues that affect you, because when they have to choose between you and Corporate America, too many of our reps choose Corporate America. They'd rather keep squacking about meaningless garbage.

They want to coast along playing these bullshit political games, maintain the status quo, and live comfortably.

Where were they on the Bankruptcy Bill? Were we expecting too much from them to simply vote against it? I don't think so.

[seabeyond]

19. i have been listening to cspan last couple days, the house and

senate. i am seeing so many things repugs pushing thru and then i am listening to the dems, amendment after amendment they are pushing thru to try to lessen the damage. i think it would be good for people to watch for a few days what exactly our representitives are doing that are not news worthy

yes i think we are being outrageous in our demands, expecting a superhero to in a flash save our worl. didnt take us over night to get where we are today, things are not going to be fixed with any one move

[Stinky The Clown]

20. That's exactly my point

With no power we're always on defense. We need to be on offense with **something** but clearly it cannot be an agenda that is all things to all people.