Would you sustain Harry Reid

[snoscythe]

Ddawg-

While your quotes etc are damning of Harry Reid, and rightfully so, they are also indicative of the underlying problem with our political class. There are few, if any, elected officials in Washington who hold fast to principles regardless of the direction of the tides. Instead, most look only to secure their power base, which requires unflinching allegiance to the "Party," which for almost any Washington politician who has been in office 8 years or more means that they have argued vigorously for one side of an issue and claimed moral high ground, yet today they argue the opposite and again claim moral high ground, pretending not to notice they occupy the same ground their opponents held the last go-around.

While the quotes from Harry Reid and Obama are making the rounds among those who tend right, what is too often forgotten is that the only reason Reid and Obama had occasion to opine on the nuclear option in 2005 is because the Republicans running the show at the time (W, Frist, and McConnell) were at that time threatening to use the nuclear option themselves.....which 8 years later the GOP would unanimously issue hue and cry when Reid did what they had threatened to do themselves.

I'm not try to pick sides in the "nuclear option" debate--I do think Reid blatantly lied about it, most notably when he said that the rule change would not affect judicial nominations. My point instead is that the biggest problem in Washington is that our "representatives" in the Senate and House put Party and power ahead of principles and people.

[Ddawg]

Sno - I agree wholeheartedly with your post. I am familiar with the history of the "Nuclear Option" and the Repub's Bill Frist's threatening to use it during George Bush's administration.

The reason I focused on Harry Reid, is, the thread is about Harry Reid. Yes, a good percentage of politicians are dishonest - on both sides of the aisle. And yes, very few politicians are grounded in the principles that moved the Founding Fathers to establish this nation. Just the same, I stand by my sentiments that Harry Reid is a duplicitous man that lacks integrity. He cannot be trusted. The same can be said about some Republicans. Corruption and scandal rock both sides of the aisle. The longer politicians are in Office, the more self serving they become. The incredible amount of money, power, and privilege that flows through Washington DC is intoxicating. It takes a highly principled person to keep their integrity and principles intact in the heady presence of such power, perks, prestige, and money.

Regarding this stated objective/tenet of Obama, Reid, new NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, and the Dem's to make everything more "fair" and equal. I found this quote interesting.

Aristotle: "It is the greatest inequality to try to make unequal things equal."

That's some "ponder" material.

[imuakahuku]

imuakahuku:

It is extraordinary difficult to prove dishonesty. You have to prove knowledge to the contrary and intent to deceive. The quotes you have listed do not meet this standard. They seem more like standard politician speech, the type of thing all politicians say. From Harry's perspective, his conclusions naturally flow from his assumptions and his analysis. You might disagree with his assumptions - and the assumptions we make are unprovable, liberal or conservative - and there might be flaws in his logic or analysis, but this doesn't mean some is guilty of dishonesty.

Just a point in fact. many of the quotes I included have been proven to be false when he made them. e.g. How did HR not know that he himself was shutting down the government when he refused to pick up any CR's? How can he claim everyone but repubs. want to pay more in taxes?

After all is said and done, HR is dispicable in his behavior as well as many others from both sides of the aisle. I wish we could institute term limits for the Congress. Lets get new blood in every 8 to 12 years.

[SpiffCoug]

One problem that must accompany term limit is similar limits on Congressional staffs. Otherwise, the seat holder becomes an empty suit to the bureaucrats behind the scenes.

Some changes I'd like to see.

12 years of elected service to be split up however you want between the House, Senate and Presidency.

100% change over of congressional staffs with each newly elected person.

Move election to the first Tuesday in December. No new laws can be passed after election day except by 3/4 majority. December is for outgoing and incoming members to move in/out of Washington offices. Inaguration day is the first week of January.

Members will read aloud the Constitution annually in their chambers. Every piece of legislation must cite the Article and Section of the Constitution authorizing the legislation.

Member of Congress will convene the first week of January to set up committees and other administrative responsibilities. They will then return to their home districts. They will return to Washington for the last week of January and first week of February. Then back home until the last week of March and first week of April and so on.

Each home district/state office will have access to secure communications so that any meetings, hearings, etc. that need to take place when members of Congress are not in Washington can still take place.

There will be a minimum of three months from the time a bill is proposed until it can be voted on. Any amendments to the bill reset the clock. This can be superseded by a 3/4s vote of the body.

[BYULV]

One problem that must accompany term limit is similar limits on Congressional staffs. Otherwise, the seat holder becomes an empty suit to the bureaucrats behind the scenes.

Some changes I'd like to see.

12 years of elected service to be split up however you want between the House, Senate and Presidency.

100% change over of congressional staffs with each newly elected person.

Move election to the first Tuesday in December. No new laws can be passed after election day except by 3/4 majority. December is for outgoing and incoming members to move in/out of Washington offices. Inaguration day is the first week of January.

Members will read aloud the Constitution annually in their chambers. Every piece of legislation must cite the Article and Section of the Constitution authorizing the legislation.

Member of Congress will convene the first week of January to set up committees and other administrative responsibilities. They will then return to their home districts. They will return to Washington for the last week of January and first week of February. Then back home until the last week of March and first week of April and so on.

Each home district/state office will have access to secure communications so that any meetings, hearings, etc. that need to take place when members of Congress are not in Washington can still take place.

There will be a minimum of three months from the time a bill is proposed until it can be voted on. Any amendments to the bill reset the clock. This can be superseded by a 3/4s vote of the body.

I'd support these changes. Unfortunately those with the power will never let these types of changes occur and there are too many Americans that don't follow politics/current events closely enough to be bothered by a grass roots battle for change. Too much power, money and influence for the current powers that be to give it up without a prolonged battle.

[snoscythe]

Every piece of legislation must cite the Article and Section of the Constitution authorizing the legislation.

I believe the House Rules already require this, and it's a complete farce. When in doubt, everyone just cites to the General Welfare Clause and moves on, Dems and GOPers alike.

[BYULV]

Back to the op. I'm in a quandary now; I'd have a difficult time sustaining HR as my bishop, but if I didn't, how do I get my temple recommend? I need to answer affirmatively that I support my local leaders of the church. How do you reconcile that?

On a different note, maybe I'd support him as bishop because it would keep him away from Washington.

[SpiffCoug]

Every piece of legislation must cite the Article and Section of the Constitution authorizing the legislation.

I believe the House Rules already require this, and it's a complete farce. When in doubt, everyone just cites to the General Welfare Clause and moves on, Dems and GOPers alike.

Isn't the General Welfare clause in the preamble? I want a specific Article and Section. I know it's quibbling. But the preamble says what the intent of the document is. The articles spell out what the federal government is authorized to do to accomplish those ends.

[scott715]

I want an amendment that Congress has to live under the same laws as we do and eliminate all of the exceptions that have been enacted. Of course Congress will not do this, so it has to come from the states. More likely it will come about only from a grass roots effort. Make it so guys.

[snoscythe]

Every piece of legislation must cite the Article and Section of the Constitution authorizing the legislation.

I believe the House Rules already require this, and it's a complete farce. When in doubt, everyone just cites to the General Welfare Clause and moves on, Dems and GOPers alike.

Isn't the General Welfare clause in the preamble? I want a specific Article and Section. I know it's quibbling. But the preamble says what the intent of the document is. The articles spell out what the federal government is authorized to do to accomplish those ends.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Also known as the "Taxing and Spending Clause," but no legislator is going to use the words 'tax' and 'spend' if he can avoid it, so it's referred to as the General Welfare Clause. Jason Chaffetz loves citing to the GW Clause for all his pork bills, so even the "Tea Party" guys are in on the act.

The other "catch-all" cite for authority is the all-encompassing (thanks to SCOTUS) Commerce Clause.