Destroy Congress! But Elect Me First!

In politics, sadly, logic can often only get you so far. In the case of Curtis Harris, he hasn’t yet bothered with it.

This is the logo that Harris is using to campaign as a Libertarian running for — yes, Congress — in CD-2. Here’s the explanation on his website:

I am ‘Against Congress’ because, as an institution of government, it is a failure.

The issue of its failure is fundamental to my campaign.  In poll after poll, the public’s opinion of the Congress is negative…

…With my logo and my campaign, I am trying to create a paradigm shift in the thinking and behavior of American voters.  We must elect people to Congress who will return the institution to its Constitutional purposes.

Um, yeah.

Harris reminds us of an Independent candidate named Gary Swing who ran for U.S. Senate in 2004. Swing’s major campaign tenet was that if elected, he promised to abolish the U.S. Senate altogether. Which makes sense.

Harris has absolutely no chance of beating Rep. Jared Polis in 2010, but that’s okay, because he hates Congress anyway.

37 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. BlueCat says:

    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.  

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

      • BlueCat says:

        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.

    • GOPwarrior says:

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

      • DavidThi808 says:

        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.

      • CurtisHarris says:

        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.

  2. BICora says:

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

  3. Thorntondem says:

    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.

  4. One Queer Dude says:

       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.  

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

    • Thorntondem says:

      Harris takes more votes from R side.

    • DavidThi808 says:

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

    • indipol says:

      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.

      • One Queer Dude says:

           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.

  5. allyncooper says:

    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.  

    • Ralphie says:

      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.

    • gertie97 says:

      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.

    • allyncooper says:

      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).  

  6. CurtisHarris says:

    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.

  7. sarahindenver says:

    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.  

    • “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…

      • sarahindenver says:

        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?

        • 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…

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.