[Imiweevierm]

Lump me in with these left wing activists .. he scares me as well

Why does he scare you?

He is a neocon who disguised himself as a constitutionalist/libertarian to win an election.
He supports the warfare and welfare state, a collectivists best friend.

[QxmFwtlam]

He is a neocon who disguised himself as a constitutionalist/libertarian to win an election.
He supports the warfare and welfare state, a collectivists best friend.

Are you referring to his support of the patriot act or is there more?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Adimonnna]

Right. Basically, the more insane you and your rantings, the more you can get from the base, and the better chance you have of beating your opponent in a primary. Our political system is severely dysfunctional. It often rewards the worst. And the House displays that like no other institution.

Which is why the Senate was originally supposed to be appointed by state legislatures instead of general elections. That way one house of Congress would be comprised of mainstream party members, not whackos. The 17th amendment to the US Constitution has done more to screw up this country than most anything else. It altered the genious compromise of the Virginia plan that was hashed out at the Federal Convention in a fundamental way, completely shifting the balance of power away from states and to the feds. State legislatures used to be the power that controlled who sat at the Senate table. Now, it's special interest groups and private money instead. And because the Senate is now elected instead of being appointed, they are pressured to enact legislation to satisfy their constituents. Prior to the 17th, legislation only originated in the house, and then the seasoned and knowledgeable Senate reviewed those laws to be sure they weren't populist pandering. Now, they just create their own populist pandering.

[posimoka]

I have never heard of Allen West

His claim to fame is basically writing an angry e-mail to Debbie Wasserman Schultz in which he called her names because she wasn't "ladylike" in how she addressed him on the House floor. Colbert had a good run with it last year.

[byncnombmub]

He is a neocon who disguised himself as a constitutionalist/libertarian to win an election.
He supports the warfare and welfare state, a collectivists best friend.

Are you referring to his support of the patriot act or is there more?

Debt ceiling increases and CISPA also come to mind. He's an establishment war mongering big government hack

[FotoCihasWewb]

Which is why the Senate was originally supposed to be appointed by state legislatures instead of general elections. That way one house of Congress would be comprised of mainstream party members, not whackos. The 17th amendment to the US Constitution has done more to screw up this country than most anything else. It altered the genious compromise of the Virginia plan that was hashed out at the Federal Convention in a fundamental way, completely shifting the balance of power away from states and to the feds. State legislatures used to be the power that controlled who sat at the Senate table. Now, it's special interest groups and private money instead. And because the Senate is now elected instead of being appointed, they are pressured to enact legislation to satisfy their constituents. Prior to the 17th, legislation only originated in the house, and then the seasoned and knowledgeable Senate reviewed those laws to be sure they weren't populist pandering. Now, they just create their own populist pandering.

I do have to disagree with this. The problem is the legislatures have the same problem as the House, so who are they going to appoint? And take a look at our legislature. Do you really want our Senators to be accountable to that bunch?

[Nwxffgke]

Lucas is spot on

This 17th has resulted in a centralized government with authority, influence, and control over our lives that is unchecked by any political instrument. This centralized power threatens the exceptional American way of life and the solvency of the country.

[Nigeopire]

Which is why the Senate was originally supposed to be appointed by state legislatures instead of general elections. That way one house of Congress would be comprised of mainstream party members, not whackos. The 17th amendment to the US Constitution has done more to screw up this country than most anything else. It altered the genious compromise of the Virginia plan that was hashed out at the Federal Convention in a fundamental way, completely shifting the balance of power away from states and to the feds. State legislatures used to be the power that controlled who sat at the Senate table. Now, it's special interest groups and private money instead. And because the Senate is now elected instead of being appointed, they are pressured to enact legislation to satisfy their constituents. Prior to the 17th, legislation only originated in the house, and then the seasoned and knowledgeable Senate reviewed those laws to be sure they weren't populist pandering. Now, they just create their own populist pandering.

It's pretty sad that making an institution more democratic pretty much guarantees that it will be filled with demagogues and aßholes. Not coincidentally, American voters consistently give the Supreme Court far higher approval ratings than they do the branches of government whose ranks they choose themselves.

That said, I think the old-school Senate showed remarkable tenacity long after direct election began. It really wasn't until the 1990's, when Trent Lott cut down on debating time and turned Senate Republicans into full-time fundraisers, that the place really started to suck. It didn't help that many of the best Senators of both parties (Heinz, Packwood, Moynihan) all disappeared from the scene around that same time, or that the growing emphasis on constituent service over deliberation had been happening for decades. The 17th Amendment may be ultimately responsible for this, but it can't be the only cause.

[XangadsX]

Right. Basically, the more insane you and your rantings, the more you can get from the base, and the better chance you have of beating your opponent in a primary. Our political system is severely dysfunctional. It often rewards the worst. And the House displays that like no other institution.

The false premise is that the base of a political party is insane.

[chuecafresss]

Right. Basically, the more insane you and your rantings, the more you can get from the base, and the better chance you have of beating your opponent in a primary. Our political system is severely dysfunctional. It often rewards the worst. And the House displays that like no other institution.

The false premise is that the base of a political party is insane.

The false premise is your assertion that that's what I wrote. You need to learn to read more clearly.

[feroiodpiop]

The false premise is your assertion that that's what I wrote. You need to learn to read more clearly.

I'm not sure what you are saying then. You said the more insane the rantings are, the more you appeal to the base, right?

[brilkyPlayday]

The false premise is your assertion that that's what I wrote. You need to learn to read more clearly.

I understood it the same way Adam did. Maybe you need to write more clearly

[MauroDarudo]

I'm not sure what you are saying then. You said the more insane the rantings are, the more you appeal to the base, right?

Sigh...You really shouldn't take every word so literally. So let me strip away the hyperbole.

Replace the word "insane" with "extreme". I know you're smart enough to figure out the rest.

[mynaflzak]

Sigh...You really shouldn't take every word so literally. So let me strip away the hyperbole.

Replace the word "insane" with "extreme". I know you're smart enough to figure out the rest.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time someone called a political party insane on here and meant it.

Still though, the "extreme" position I don't necessarily agree with either as a general rule. For example, the Mayoral primary in 2007 wasn't won by the most extreme Democrat (Nutter). That probably would have fallen to Fattah.

Even on the GOP side, it is a case by case scenario. For every tea party candidate that won a primary, how many have lost a primary?

Are they likely to be more displaced from the center of their region's position during a primary? Sure, but it doesn't necessarily mean that taking the most extreme positions and being insane is going to appeal to the majority of the party.

[Nglvayhp]

Well, it wouldn't be the first time someone called a political party insane on here and meant it.

You're just an apologist lackey for the Ministry of Silly Walks.

[everlastinge]

You're just an apologist lackey for the Ministry of Silly Walks.

/sad_panda

[Tribas4u]

Well, it wouldn't be the first time someone called a political party insane on here and meant it.

Still though, the "extreme" position I don't necessarily agree with either as a general rule. For example, the Mayoral primary in 2007 wasn't won by the most extreme Democrat (Nutter). That probably would have fallen to Fattah.

Even on the GOP side, it is a case by case scenario. For every tea party candidate that won a primary, how many have lost a primary?

Are they likely to be more displaced from the center of their region's position during a primary? Sure, but it doesn't necessarily mean that taking the most extreme positions and being insane is going to appeal to the majority of the party.

It won't appeal to the majority of the party, but it appeals to the most-likely-to-vote-in-the-primary voter.

It's not a hard and fast rule, as your examples above demonstrate. But what I'm getting at I suppose is that this is the general drift of our politics today, and it's picking up steam. Sure, some guys may tack away from the extremes after the primary (like McCain in 2010, and I hope Orrin Hatch after this year) but many may have boxed themselves in. And especially with the House and another election being right around the corner, there's less time to back away from extreme and then re-establish cred with the base in time for the next election.

Plus - and I'm being serious here - don't discount the effect of saying something you don't believe over and over. They may be saying something just to get elected, but after a while they could start believing it, especially when everyone around them is echoing the same thing.