Destroy Congress! But Elect Me First!

I don't know if this hilarious, just sad, or both. N/T

"If someone just sticks to shutting the fuck up, can they still go outside and play a game of hide and go fuck yourself?" -- Fidel's Dirt Nap

---

by: Raphael @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 15:57:45 PM CST

I vote both. n/t

"The only way you could be worse is if you were Wade Norris." Ralphie

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 16:21:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

During the Bush years we all saw what a great idea it is

to hand over government to those who hate government and promise that it's always the problem, never the solution, always incompetent. They do everything they can to prove themselves right. What's the demise of a great American city here and there as long as it proves their point?

Destroying institutions from within as an entire governing philosophy makes as much sense as destroying governments from without via invasion as a complete foreign policy plan.  

---

by: BlueCat @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 16:27:15 PM CST

Perpetuating a Myth

 The Bushies hated government so much they increased its size, scope and power in almost every instance.  

---

by: Walter in Denver @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 16:55:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

True they expanded it

but they also made damn sure that it was never competent. The expansion was to make it a cornucopia for the corporate wealth and power elite and their lackey hacks qand trust the base not to notice as long as they fed them the right sound bites.

They don't believe that there is any such thing as good government but it's terrific for sucking tons of money out of the populace. See Halliburton and Blackwater just for example. They get to pile up tax payer provided cash while demonstrating, at the same time, that government sucks, a message for distracting the masses.  

Of course that's Republicans.  Libertarians really do have an agenda of shrinking government to a size that can be drowned in a bath tub.  Rs just like to use that line to attract the votes of the grumpy  and ignorant while making government as fat and profitable to themselves as possible.

The bigger the better as long as it funnels all the money to the elite.  Billions on war profiteering and socialism for the rich and powerful; good.  Anything for health care for the masses; bad.  And so on.

What they seek to destroy from within is government as a vehicle for the common good.  We've got ours. Screw the common good is their philosophy.

---

by: BlueCat @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:18:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

that actually started in 1980 with the election of Reagan

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 20:26:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I dig it

Great message - great logo

TABOR4LIFE

---

by: Muhammad Ali Hasan @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 17:46:06 PM CST

I love it too

Republicans need to understand how deep anti-incumbency is and exploit it

"The Democratic Party is going to experience a bloodbath in November." -- Colorado Pols editor MotR

---

by: GOPwarrior @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 18:00:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's fundamentally anti-America

Not anti-American but anti-America. And for that reason it will appeal to people on the fringe and fail miserably with the great majority of Americans.

Yes we all complain about Congress - but the same way we complain about parental rules as a kid. That doesn't mean we hate the people doing it, it doesn't mean we want them to go away, it just means we dislike the compromises and inefficiency that comes with Democracy.

Don't confuse bitching with wanting to eliminate something.

Tom Tancredo Interview

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 21:52:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i agree

This sounds more to me like a desire for anarchy than a libertarian fantasy government.  

In fact, I just registered
www.veryliberalagitatedpissedoffpeoplewithnoorganization.com
-Laughing Boy

---

by: indipol @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 16:30:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Complaining

Does the behavior of most of the people in Congress remind you of adults or children?  They remind me of spoiled children.

Curtis Harris

---

by: CurtisHarris @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 22:36:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

1994

As I recall, the Republicans exploited an anti-incumbent mood in 1994.  How did that work out?

I have no problem with Republican voters.  I just hope they recognize how far their party has strayed from basic principles - freedom and limited government.

Curtis Harris

---

by: CurtisHarris @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 22:40:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It would be better if he ran for Senate.

More press, more attention, and once elected, more influence over  the more corrupt and harder to influence house.


"Why do Republicans get to be stupid and win while whenever we're stupid, we're just stupid?"  sufimarie Feb 2010

---

by: BICora @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 18:10:51 PM CST

Harris

will get a few votes (maybe 5%)in 2010. GOPwarrior is right in regards to the current sentiment of voters being anti incumbent. Most of those 5% will probably come from unf's who lean R anyway and repubs though. The Dems and progressive leaning Unf's will vote for Jared.

The economy is showing some small signs of recovery, but, folks are still very angry over the middle class losing their jobs, homes and ass in the stock market in Sept/Oct 2008. And rightly so. It will take many families many years to recover. Unfortunately, whoever is in office will take the brunt of the dissatisfaction when actually the folks who were in power 2001 thru 2007 were the ones asleep at the wheel and in some cases (Bush Administration) blatantly incompetent.

I think we even saw a bit of this anti incumbency during the Nov 2009 municipal elections here in Colorado. There were two sitting councilmembers running in Thornton this year and both lost.

---

by: Thorntondem @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 19:53:54 PM CST

doesn't this guy present a problem for the GOP in fielding a candidate in CD 2?

   Scott Starin had a relatively unified conservative base in CD 2 in '08 (what there is of a conservative flock in that district, that is).
  But isn't this going to cause a schism in a group that isn't quite big enough to divide.  It would be as though the Dem running in CD 5 had to face the prospect of Green Party candidate making a splashy run as they both tried to take on Lamborn.  

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 20:33:31 PM CST

Starin ran a terrific campaign

I'm sure he'll be active again in the future - overall, Starin represents best the element that unites the GOP: great candidate leadership

TABOR4LIFE

---

by: Muhammad Ali Hasan @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 20:39:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yeah

Harris takes more votes from R side.

---

by: Thorntondem @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 20:52:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's irrelevant

It's CD-2 - Obama could be the Republican nominee and he would still lose to the Democrat.

Tom Tancredo Interview

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 21:53:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

CD-2 is not that liberal

No chance Jared is losing this seat, even it turns out he took a 9-iron to Tiger Woods' face and then blamed it on Elin.  But  at some point in the future, when the Dems totally overreach, get corrupt, etc. and the country slides back to the right, it's possible this seat could go R.  I don't think Starin's losing so big had as much to do with the demographics of the district as it did with the total lack of effort put in.  Everybody knew that the anti-Bush/Cheney/Rove sentiment was so strong that it was going to give the D's an automatic 15 points just for appearing.

In fact, I just registered
www.veryliberalagitatedpissedoffpeoplewithnoorganization.com
-Laughing Boy

---

by: indipol @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 16:35:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

True........

   In fact, old C.D. 2 (before the district was modified in '01), had a competitive race in '98 when Boulder liberal Mark Udall edged out a 51%-49% win over Bob Greenlee, the RINO former mayor of Boulder.
  Of course when wingnut Pat Miller ran against David Skaggs, Skaggs beat her 2 to 1.

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 13:00:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd give abolishing the Senate some consideration

I wouldn't abolish congress of course, we need a national legislature. But the function of the Senate in modern times can be looked at.

Wyoming - 600,000 people and 2 senators
California - 43 million people and 2 senators
Colorado - 4.5 million people and 2 senators

Is this representative democracy? One person, one vote?  I know, I know, senators represent states, not the people.....

Many countries in the world only have a uni-cameral legislature, and more and more are going that way. The UK with its unwritten constitution has evolved into a uni-cameral legislature, the House of Lords today has no power.

I believe Nebraska has a uni-cameral legislature.  

"Religion is for people who don't want to go to hell. Spirituality is for people who've been there, and don't want to go back"

---

by: allyncooper @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:34:09 AM CST

Right. Because the Connecticut Compromise is SOOO 18th Century

And all of us in Colorado are on board with the idea of having little power and letting all Federal laws be made by New York and California.

Best to kill them early instead of letting them possibly need food stamps.
--marilou, 2010

---

by: Ralphie @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:21:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd be more ok with that

than letting Alabama and Alaska make all the federal laws.

"If someone just sticks to shutting the fuck up, can they still go outside and play a game of hide and go fuck yourself?" -- Fidel's Dirt Nap

---

by: Raphael @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 15:20:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just an FYI

Now that we have 7 Reps, our state is actually above average in representation at the Federal level.  Still dwarfed by CA, NY, and TX, but above average.  Scary thought.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 17:31:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Together New York and California

have almost 19% of the House of Representatives. This is because together they have almost 19% of the population. Why shouldn't they have 19% of the power in politics?

Bring back S[redacted]e H[redacted]y!

---

by: sxp151 @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 17:39:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

because I've lived in both places

I want neither of their attitudes (or the types of politicians that run in either state) dominating the process.

In fact, I just registered
www.veryliberalagitatedpissedoffpeoplewithnoorganization.com
-Laughing Boy

---

by: indipol @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 17:50:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why should that matter?

Your personal bigotry is a cross you have to bear, but why shouldn't a fifth of the country have representation in the political process?

And how exactly does 19% dominate the process? A little math lesson for you: that's less than a majority.

Bring back S[redacted]e H[redacted]y!

---

by: sxp151 @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 22:49:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They have 19 percent of the power in the House

And that's enough.

Too much.

Best to kill them early instead of letting them possibly need food stamps.
--marilou, 2010

---

by: Ralphie @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 20:05:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't get

why 19% of the public shouldn't have 19% of the power. Unless you want to forcibly relocate people to Utah and Wyoming, you have to deal with the fact that they have big cities with lots of people. Lots of people want to live together! That's OK.

The weird thing is that two states with 19% of the population should have 4% of the power in the Senate, and they all have to do what Ben Nelson and Max Baucus say.

Bring back S[redacted]e H[redacted]y!

---

by: sxp151 @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 22:47:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We don't live in a democracy.

We have a republic. Technically, we have a democratic (little d) republic.

Pure democracy is best demonstrated by the unholy mess our state government has become, with the electorate voting in contradictory amendments to the state Constitution, i.e. Gallagher, TABOR and Amendment 23.

Give me the old time republic back in this state, please.

---

by: gertie97 @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 13:22:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A better idea would be to abolish the Colorado Senate

I looked up Nebraska and they only have one body and they call it a Senate. Seems like it works for them because its been that way forever and nobody misses another legislative body. They rather like it that way.

Of course the argument for having the Senate was the Connecticut Compromise, and the legal theory for the US Senate was, and still is, the Senate represents the states, not the people. .

However in Colorado (and I assume in other states as well) state senatorial districts are drawn up on the basis of population, just like representative districts. Unlike at the national level, there is no such legal theory in play - state senatorial districts are not political subdivisions of the State.

The Colorado Senate could be abolished and all its constitutional and other duties simply transferred to the House. My bet is your average citizen could care less, especially since they only have to try to remember the name of one representative instead of two. Since the state is broke, it would save a lot of money too. It would even save the lobbyists money too.

The Senate chamber could be converted to a Starbucks or maybe even a decent restaurant so we wouldn't have to eat that crappy food down in the basement (the lease payments would also help out the State).  

"Religion is for people who don't want to go to hell. Spirituality is for people who've been there, and don't want to go back"

---

by: allyncooper @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 16:19:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Congress

The purpose of the logo is to get attention and cause people to seek more information.

Thanks for the link to my website.

The Congress, as it is presently constituted and as it presently operates, is doing no good for America.  In fact, from an economic perspective, it is destroying America's future.  The House and the Senate, as designed in our Constitution, have in the past served our nation well.  We need people in the Congress that will do so again.

The Democrat / Republican so-called choice we have today is not a choice at all.  What has changed since the last national election?  Nothingt, except the numbers are bigger.

Curtis Harris

---

by: CurtisHarris @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 22:30:20 PM CST

"Um yeah"

Interesting that you have titled this article "Destroy Congress! But Elect Me First".  Nothing in your quote from Curtis Harris alludes to destroying Congress.  After following the link you provide what you find is an intelligent argument against Congress in it's current form.  Curtis in fact argues to change Congress, and the Federal government, for the better, and for the People.  Not "destroy" it.

It isn't wrong to apply for a job when your goal is to change the corporation you will work for.  Only corrupt companies keep out free thinkers.  

---

by: sarahindenver @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 00:00:10 AM CST

Sorry...

"Harris Against Congress", the big slashed-out Capitol dome...

The title of the article doesn't refer to what Harris is actually for - it reflects the message voters seeing his logo are going to get.

As for changing Congress "for the better" - I think just about every Representative ever elected has vowed to improve Congress.  The devil's in the details...

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 00:08:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"Devil's in the details"

Oh I see.  

"The title of the article doesn't refer to what Harris is actually for".  Nothing in the article talks about what he is for or against beyond inaccurate references to destroying Congress.

"It reflects the message voters seeing his logo are going to get"  Thank you for thinking for the rest of us.

"The devil's in the details..."  Does your puntuation mean you don't think Congress can be improved, you're out of rhetoric, or you simply fell asleep on your keyboard?

---

by: sarahindenver @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 00:56:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Go, go gadget cheerleader!

I see you, as an authorized poster, have filled us all in on those missing details.  Oh, wait.

Unfortunately, neither has your candidate.  His website - which Colorado Pols graciously linked for those interested in more than the detrimental logo - proposes policy changes, some of which I agree with and others of which I do not.  But I can't find mention of a single way in which Mr. Harris is proposing to change the way Washington works.  His appearance as our new Representative (current Big Line odds somewhere below 50-1) is not going to magically change Congress any more than electing Democrats last year has magically changed the reality that our economy sucks.

As for "thinking for you", consider this blog a test market.  If a number of us see the obvious (unintended) message in the logo, you can guess that more eyes will yield more laughing and finger-pointing.

Finally - if you don't like ellipses you're beyond my help...

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:23:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I actually love an ellipses

And Mr. Harris isn't my candidate, wrong district.  I'm simply poking for a credible argument why he shouldn't be if I was in his district.  

---

by: sarahindenver @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 02:01:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]