Fifty-three percent of Americans call themselves "anti-incumbent," while 29 percent say they are inclined to re-elect members of Congress, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. These are almost the same poll numbers as 12 years ago, when Republicans gained control of the House and Senate.
Meanwhile, David Broder says on today’s Opinion pages that he was struck by his conversations with governors of both parties at a conference last weekend in South Carolina. "The common theme in interviews and informal comments was one of utter disdain for Congress," Broder said.
So does this mean that many more incumbents than Sen. Joe Leiberman, D-Conn., will lose, and that Democrats will regain control of Congress? Some think so. But I doubt it, given that most members of Congress are from safe, gerrymandered districts.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
79 Comments
When is Teihrt, Roberts and Brownback up for re-election? Oh wait a minute never mind I have the date circled on the calendar!
Does that give you any idea as to what my thoughts are?
No need to vote Tiahrt out since he ran on the promise of term limits. Sure that was many terms ago but, hey wait, are those two gay people burning a flag!
A wrecking-ball would be kinder to the United States than the Republicans/Neocons are.
Good one Doug. HA!!We need more like you.
THE STATUS QUO MUST GO!!!!
And, Doug, I think that was pastor fred burning the flag.They took it from decent Americans who happen to be gay.
If the status quo got to go, does that include Sebelius, Hillary Clinton in NY, and other promenant Democrats in office that are up for re-election this year or just Republicans and the insightful Democrats?
Joe–
The Republicans ARE the status-quo.
The poll numbers are misleading and used in a misleading way. You can’t look at national numbers for district races.
You have to look at how candidates are polling in their districts.
A lot of hard-right candidates are seeing their chances circle the drain these days–Rick Santorum, Chris Chocola as well as more “moderate” incumbents like Mike DeWine.
When the Republicans took the house in 1992, they beat incumbents from “nice safe gerrymandered” districts too . . .
The Status Quo is just that – where we are and the path we are on. Therefore, it is time for those who do not want to correct our direction who need to go.
So, if I have a lonely incumbent who has been tilting at windmills” he/she might stay.
Doug,
Todd Tiahrt ran on voting to enact term limits for everyone in Congress. He did not say that he would impose them on himself.
If you look at his voting record you will see that he did vote to have term limits.
What you liberals/democrats/left wing people fail to look at is that it was all the democrats in Congress who blocked it and voted against it.
Don’t let the truth stand in you way though.
Tiahrt is one of those “the rules don’t apply to me”. If he ran on term limits then he needs to abide by his own campaign promise.
Let’s face it – our Congress is full of greedy, power-hungry, my party is better than yours, small-minded people. While they have everyone in the country fighting about “social issues” – our country is in need of real leadership. It’s time we the people take back this country and if the way is to vote the incumbents out – then so be it!
Fedup,
He ran on enacting term limits, not imposing them on himself.
What part of that do you not understand?
Do I need to make an instrcutional video with a big purple dino?
Nathan -”He ran on enacting term limits, not imposing them on himself.”So if I’m reading what you meant correctly – term limits are good, except for him. I would think that what was good for the goose is good for the gander but maybe I’m just off my rocker again.Just a question here – why doesn’t Tiahrt want to impose term limits on himself if he wants to enact it for others?
Julie–I’m back.Hooo-raaay!
Well he voted for term limits and that was his out.”I can’t help it if Im staying,I tried to vote myself out!”
Julie and everyone else:
BIG PURPLE DINO STYLE:
1. Tiahrt supported and ran on a platform with many other Republicans to enact a constitutional amendment to have term limits for congress.
2. Tiahrt did not say, mean, or even imply that he supported or would limit himself on how long he would stay in congress beyond what the constitutional amendment would have provided for if it had passed.
3. The amendment was voted on and failed because all the democrats in Congress voted against it.
4. Tiahrt did what he said he would do: supported a constitutional amendment to enact term limits.
The only reason this is an issue is because you don’t like Tiahrt and want him gone. So the most childish and easy thing for you to do is say he lied about term limits and to come up with the most lame way to say he is a liar and should be gone.
Do I need to create a cartoon instructional video for you guys?
Nathan -Thank you for using big grown up words.2. Tiahrt did not say, mean, or even imply that he supported or would limit himself on how long he would stay in congress beyond what the constitutional amendment would have provided for if it had passsed.3. The amendment was voted on and failed because all the democrats in Congress voted against it.
It seems to me that actions speak louder than words and if Tiahrt truely supported term limits he would impose them upon himself due to personal convictions whether or not the big bad liberal democrats voted for or against it.It appears to me that it was all lip service to get elected.
I prefer dancing and singing in your response if you would be so kind. I’m more of a Doodlebop/Wiggles fan rather than the evil purple dinosaur (who is banned from my house). I appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Thank you.
So, in other words, Tiahrt is not a lead by example sort of guy. If Tiahrt ran on the issue of banning eating puppies for breakfast and passage failed he’d go out and puppy pancakes for breakfast.
The point is, if Tiahrt thinks term limits are the right thing to have then placing a term limit on yourself is the right thing to do. Tiahrt’s actions just prove he’d say anything to get into office.
The Republicans only brought this issue up once since 1994. So for 12 years Tiahrt hasn’t even tried on following through on his campaign pledge. Do you want a politician who follows through on his platform or someone who just pays lip service to a position to get votes from gullible sheep?
At least now we have established that:
1. Tiahrt is not a liar.
Now, you accuse him of not leading by example.
Why…
Becuase you don’t like him and think he should be gone.
If the only qualm you can keep trying to dredge up is that he didn’t lead by example on term limits then good luck to you.
Speaking about Tiahrt, I want the moustache back!
Tiarht ran on his Christian principles – right? You are so proud of George W. for standing by what he says – why is alright for Tiarht to back away from his term limits promise? Just asking – I missed the purple Dino cartoon. And the Democrats were not in power when they took that vote – as I recall alot of Republicans against term limits as well – explain that through your purple Dino
Tiarht has succumbed to the power grabbing and ego-inflated world of Washington. And the only thing that matters is …..now listen…..Republicans are good – Democrats are bad….right?
fedup,
He promised to support an amendment, which he did.
No backing out, not a liar…
Speaking of Tiahrt – how are all those pork-barrel tanker jobs doing?
He supported the amendment.You are correct.Fullfilled his promise.That’s great.
Slate thinks Democrats are in trouble, long term.http://www.slate.com/id/2147395/nav/tap1/
Slate thinks Democrats are in trouble, long term.http://www.slate.com/id/2147395/nav/tap1/
Perhaps Tiahrt knows the politics game all too well? He knew when he ran on term limits that the sleazy Congress would never pass it. Thereby, Tiarht can look good and sound good but still be a part of the sleazy bunch???
One big difference Paul – Democrats are making the distinction between the necessary war on terror and the idiotic invasion of Iraq. In fact, the Iraq invasion has made us LESS secure.
Was that a rhetorical question?
Sigh…..
Nathan does someone have to go get the pledge that Tiahrt signed as to term limits? You know, like we did the last time the subject of YOUR representative came up?
JR,
I would love to see what it is Tiahrt ACTUALLY said as opposed to all the crap that keeps being said about him.
Actually, nathan might have a point. If Tiahrt simply said “we should enact term limits” it might not necessarily follow that he should, in effect, unilaterally disarm. That would put the 4th District at a disadvantage reletive to other districts.
Well, don’t bother writing Tiahrt’s office because every time I do – I get a form letter back about some topic that was not even my question!
The below is a description of item 10 on the contract with America.
********************************************************************
Citizen Legislature ActSummary:This resolution provides for consideration of two jointresolutions which propose amendments to the constitution limitingthe number of terms members of the Senate and the House ofRepresentatives can serve. The first joint resolution(identical to H.J.Res. 38 as introduced in the 103rd Congress)limits the number of Senate terms to two and the number of Houseterms to six. The second joint resolution (identical to H.J.Res.160 as introduced in the 103rd Congress) also limits Senators totwo terms, but it limits members of the House to three terms.Under the terms of this resolution, the joint resolution with thetext of H.J.Res. 38 will be debated first and the first amendmentin order will be a substitute consisting of H.J.Res. 160.Background:The idea of limiting the tenure of elected officials has recurredthrough our history, but it has become more popular in the lastfew years. In 1992, 14 states passed initiatives limiting thetenure of federal legislators. Two of these laws, however, havebeen challenged and found unconstitutional in court. The U.S.Supreme Court will review the ruling by the Arkansas SupremeCourt. Since there is a chance the high court will uphold thestate court’s ruling, a constitutional amendment may be necessaryto limit congressional tenure.
********************************************************************
So, if I get this right, since this legislation got voted down, Todd doesn’t have to subject himself to the “citizen legislature act”. Interesting. Convolutions in logic like this, would almost make me think we’re debating with attorneys here.
Here is the Republican Contract with America.
http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html
It does contain some good ideas, but since the Dems voted it down (and how did they do that since they were the minority party???) it can be abandoned by Republicans.
The above is Breathtaking in its silliness, I would say. The Repubs have become the Dems they defeated in 1994.
Power corrupts, but incumbency corrupts absolutely…
Steven,
A simple majority is not enough to pass a constitutional amendment.
Even thought the Republicans “controlled” Congress they did not have the needed number of votes to enact the change.
Tiahrt said he supported term limits, not just an Amendment on term limits.
How many times have Tiahrt brought this issue back up? Zero. He’s brought back up plenty of other defeated bills like the late term abortion ban, the gay marriage ban and the flag burning ban. Not a peep about his term limits. Since the other Amendments didn’t pass the Tiahrt supporters would see no problem with Tiahrt marrying a man who on their wedding day burn a flag and spend a romantic evening watching a late term abortion.
Afterall, he did support the Amendments so Republicans really don’t have a problem with the actual actions.
It’s what people in the real world call hypocrisy, you might try looking it up.
Doug,
If we could get past simple things like reading comprehension, what someone actually said and did, and things like the truth, perhaps then we can talk about hypocrisy.
Since you did bring it up though, I fail to see how Tiahrt is a hypocrite.
Perhaps you could explain why you say that?
Nathan if soemone says they are in favor of something like oh say term limits I call it a necessity of honesty that he hold himself to his own standard. Lacking that I call hypocrisy.
JRYou CANT beat Tiahrt. Todd Tiahrt has his Congressional seat as long as he wants it.The public disagrees with your childish complaints about term limits.Tiahrt voted for term limits, the measure failed.Tiahrt should not limit the power and prestige of the Kansas delegation by imposing rules on himself that other members don’t have to follow.In sports, rules change from time to time.What team ever starts enforcing rules on itself before the Commission in charge of that sport enforces the rules on everyone?Supporting a rule change but not unilaterally following that rule BEFORE it is a rule is perfectly valid.JR, for all your “wisdom,” for all of your complaints, for all of your hot air, Tiahrt is here to stay and you look silly going off about this dead issue.
“SIGNATORIES TO THE 1994 REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA
The following Republican candidates for the House of Representativessigned the “Contract with America” in 1994. The list is arranged by Stateand Congressional District.
IOWA – LOUISIANA
Jim Leach, Iowa, 1 (elected)Jim Nussle, Iowa, 2 (elected)Jim Lightfoot, Iowa, 3 (elected)Greg Ganske, Iowa, 4 (elected)Tom Latham, Iowa, 5 (elected)Pat Roberts, Kansas, 1 (elected)Jan Meyers, Kansas, 3 (elected)
*Todd Tiahrt, Kansas, 4 (elected)*
Edward Whitfield, Kentucky, 1 (elected)Ron Lewis, Kentucky, 2 (elected)Susan Stokes, Kentucky, 3Jim Bunning, Kentucky, 4 (elected)Harold Rogers, Kentucky, 5 (elected)Matthew Wills, Kentucky, 6Bob Livingston, Louisiana, 1 (elected)Jim McCrery, Louisiana, 5 (elected)Richard Baker, Louisiana, 6 (elected)
Read the whole list here:
http://www.d4md.org/civicspace/?q=node/819
Your point XXX?
This isn’t just about term limits. It’s about Republicans breaking promises because they’re not trustworthy. It’s about Republicans failing to stand up for what they claim to believe in because they’re weak.
XXX,
What sense does it make to go to Congress and try to pass term limits which the democrats blocked and then leave so you can show your support for term limits?
It is assinine.
It accomplishes nothing.
I suppose of you are a member of the democratic party or don’t want Republicans in office it make perfect sense for them to just quit while all the Democrats who blocked the term limits stay.
You are either an ignorant moron for actually believing that or just a biased goofball for making it a big deal.
So which are you?
There was only one person that honored the term limit pledge.
That being said! Democrats don’t have a pledge. LOL
Contract with America
“The Contract with America was a document released by the Republican Party of the United States during the 1994 Congressional election campaign. Largely written by Representative Richard Armey, and in part using text from former President Ronald Reagan’s 1985 State of the Union Address, the Contract detailed the actions that the Republicans promised to take if they became the majority party in the United States House of Representatives for the first time in forty years.
“actions that the Republicans promised to take”
Conveniently, article 10 of the contract wasn’t passed. Republicans promised to pass ALL of the contract. They were in the majority. Nowhere in the contract is there anything about if the Democrats would let them.
They said they would enact article 10 and they didn’t.
They lied.
Paul is probably right – in this district Tanker Todd is probably safe.
“You are either an ignorant moron for actually believing that or just a biased goofball for making it a big deal.”
Excuse me, young man?
Notice I haven’t stooped to insults in this discussion. I’ll thank you to keep a civil tongue in your head and treat me with the same respect I’ve accorded you.
Is throwing insults how they taught you to win a debate or discussion? Sounds to me like you’ve lost this dialogue.
XXX,
I apologize, I happen to honestly think that if you seriously are going to call Tiahrt a liar because they were unable to pass term limits because of the Democrats and then call him a hypocrite or wrong for not enacting them on himself while the Democrats don’t… I think you are basically doing or saying anything you can to be against Todd. Perhaps not ignorant or a moron, that was a bit much, but if you honestly think that then there is something wrong with you.
I don’t mean to throw in the names, but it is quite assinine.
“but if you honestly think that then there is something wrong with you.”
And now there’s something wrong with me because I dissagree with you? As you’ve been on this planet for about half as long as I have, what great wealth of experience do you draw on to make a judgment like that?
“I don’t mean to throw in the names, but it is quite assinine.”
Nathan, I wish I was half as smart as I thought I was when I was your age.
Calling them liars is a bit much too.
If you father told you when you were a little kid that he would be home early to play catch with you, but then something happened at the office and he didn’t make it, is your dad a liar?
LIE: (dictionary.com)
-A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
-Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression
The Republicans meant to do neither.
Feel free to keep calling them liars though. It seems as if logic and reason are not enough for you.
XXX,
Can you show me that Tiahrt DELIBERATELY presented the Contract with america to deceive the American public?
Nathan, can you show me that he didn’t?
XXX,
For a man who wanted to have a debate, you sure don’t seem to understand how one works…
XXX – maybe Tiahrt was simply self-deluded. You know, like Bush and the BushBots with the WMDs!
XXX – maybe Tiahrt was simply self-deluded. You know, like Bush and the BushBots with the WMDs!
I think the Tiarht lover does protest too much….
Nathan,”For a man who wanted to have a debate, you sure don’t seem to understand how one works…”
Again, based on what? YOUR judgement? YOUR opinions?
The debate has already been had.
Where were you?
Yeah X
Last time the matter of Tiahrt and his forgotten pledge as to term limits came up Nathan and Paul F Rosell defended him savagely……until you waved the pledge in their faces. Then they ran away and were not to be found.
This time Paulie didn’t even show up and Nathan stayed around long enough to call you some names and demand you play in his “box”. That magic place where Nathan makes all the rules and draws all the boundaries.
Ya lost again Nathan.
JR, he gets a little shrill when he’s being beat, huh?
Make sure Garth McGinn gets your vote for U.S. House!!
This will send a message to that GOP mouthpiece Tiahrt.
Do better ourselves and to better our standing in the nation, we need to get rid of Tiahrt plain and simple!!!
Take a look at the guy who can do this.http://www.daretwocare.us/
Garth McGinn should take a page from Tiahrt’s play book and “operate under the radar”. Tiarht was so proud of that one – remember? If McGinn can convince the young people and seniors to vote with him – then he will undoubtedly give Tiahrt a run for his money.
How did I loose?
So far I have proven Tiahrt is not a liar, people have conceded that point too.
All you are left with now is saying he should have done it anyway.
Besides your dislike for him, why?
I have shown how it makes no sense to hold yourself to term limits when the democrats don’t do the same. It is politics and the Congress doesn’t work like that.
If you want to think you won the argument feel free. That is why I call you both morons.
“That is why I call you both morons.”
Nathan, youu’re like a spoiled kid. You don’t get your way so you resort to insults and name-calling.
I won’t call you names or spew insults. One of us needs to demonstrate some maturity.
Uh Nathan?
“So far I have proven Tiahrt is not a liar, people have conceded that point too.”
Huh? I don’t see where you proved anything. And as to conceding, YOU do that when you degenerate to the use of words like “morons” and “goofball”.
I’m a little puzzled you “took the field” as to this fight again after losing it last time. Paul F Rosell had the sense to “stay in the car” on this one.
Ya got beat again Nathan. You don’t have to like it. You can stomp and hurl adjectives and modifiers all ya like.
Listen,
I know tone is hard to get, so consider that last moron comment one in a jestful tone.
If all this discussion has dissolved into is one where you both keep saying you won and nothing else, then good riddance.
I think if you were to look at the postings here you would see that I have provided a wealth of logical points on the subject.
…and once again, nathan is a legend in his own mind…
JRYou are delusional.You claim victory constantly but have no basis to claim many victories on anything at all.You are nutty on the term limits issue.If the voters thought Tiahrt lied they would toss him out, wouldn’t they?The public accepts the answer that has been posted here: Tiahrt promised to vote for term limits, Tiahrt voted for term limits. Promise made, promise kept!Tiahrt is here to stay.Your argument makes you look stupid, stubborn and obnoxious.So keep arguing JR.You are truly a legend in your own mind.
Paul, Tiahrt didn’t just promise to vote for term limits, he and his cohorts promised to ENACT term limits. When you promise to do something you know you can’t deliver on, that’s called lying.
You need to read the Contract again. The ten articles of the Contract with America were things the republicans pledged to do if they took power. They lied.
The thing, to me, that destroys the so-called logic of this argument over Tiahrt and his contract, as well as all the republicans who signed the contract, is they have become the proto-typical “do as I say, not as I do” politicians.
Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument only, Tiahrt meant he would only vote for term limits. Doesn’t that still imply he would act on that promise and then stay only for two terms? Or does it simply mean he is what he is, as I stated in the first paragraph?
Either way, democrat or republican, he is not one I would care to associate with a leadership role.
The Democrat Plan:”We will not let you accomplish your goals, then we will criticize you for not achieving your goals!”
The Democrat Plan:”We will not let you accomplish your goals, then we will criticize you for not achieving your goals!”
Exactly Paul…Exactly!
That is all they are doing here. If you want term limits so bad then you should be upset with all the democrats who voted against it, not the Republicans for trying.
I guess there is a debate about the Republican’s Contract with America. I had to look it up to make sure there wasn’t any spin.
On #10THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.
Summary:This resolution provides for consideration of two jointresolutions which propose amendments to the constitution limitingthe number of terms members of the Senate and the House ofRepresentatives can serve. The first joint resolution(identical to H.J.Res. 38 as introduced in the 103rd Congress)limits the number of Senate terms to two and the number of Houseterms to six. The second joint resolution (identical to H.J.Res.160 as introduced in the 103rd Congress) also limits Senators totwo terms, but it limits members of the House to three terms.Under the terms of this resolution, the joint resolution with thetext of H.J.Res. 38 will be debated first and the first amendmentin order will be a substitute consisting of H.J.Res. 160.Background:The idea of limiting the tenure of elected officials has recurredthrough our history, but it has become more popular in the lastfew years. In 1992, 14 states passed initiatives limiting thetenure of federal legislators. Two of these laws, however, havebeen challenged and found unconstitutional in court. The U.S.Supreme Court will review the ruling by the Arkansas SupremeCourt. Since there is a chance the high court will uphold thestate court’s ruling, a constitutional amendment may be necessaryto limit congressional tenure.
——————————
It looks like the only way they can pass a term limit for members of Congress is to pass a Constitutional Admendment. That won’t fly for Democrats.
Sorry! Democrats will kill it.
Weren’t there more Republicans that voted against the term limits than Democrats? After all, the Democrats were not the marjority at that time….So let’s place the blame on everyone involved – okay?
fedup,
In answer to your question: No, more Democrats voted against it than Republicans.
The vote for the Amendment recieved a majority, just not the required amount for an amendment to pass.
Being in the majority only matters on votes where a simple majorty counts. There are many things in Congress which require a 2/3 vote. I believe in the Senate you need at least 60 to bring it to the floor.
All the garbage about the Republicans having the majority doesn’t mean squat when the Democrats can muster more than 40 votes to block it. (Speaking about now, not back then)
I know how the Congres works – you do not need to talk down to me. My point was did every single Republican for term limits?
correction: single Republican vote for term limits?
Here is the actual vote.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/104/house/1/votes/277/
Tiahrt voted for it.