Whoa, Big Daddy!

David Weigel | November 1, 2006

Behold the confidence of a Robert Byrd who's up 30 points in the polls. This Club for Growth video is one of the more depressing examples of big government-as-campaign steroids you'll see all year.

Comments

|11.1.06 @ 11:14AM|#

Dude's about two years away from having a nurse follow him around, wiping his chin.

Let's call it a career, eh Senator? Sit on the porch, tell stories about the time you drank Daniel Webster under the table...

|11.1.06 @ 11:25AM|#

That was frightening. Mos def one of my five least favorite senators.

|11.1.06 @ 11:33AM|#

And what's with the guy behind him in the green tie? He's either faking it or hasn't heard a joke that's actually funny since 1977.

|11.1.06 @ 11:36AM|#

He was just giddy with power, is all.

|11.1.06 @ 11:41AM|#

Can someone explain again why public financing of elections -- i.e., skipping the special interest middleman and going straight to the people to buy their votes directly with government largesse -- is better than the alternative?

Yeah, man.

|11.1.06 @ 11:41AM|#

Joseph: I think Mos Def would make a great senator!


Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond's rotting corpse (which, if given the chance, I'm sure would get elected) are the poster children for CONGRESSIONAL MOTHERFUCKING TERM MOTHERFUCKING LIMITS.

Why this is not even an issue is just...astounding.

|11.1.06 @ 11:45AM|#

Why won't Congressional term limits get approved?

They have to vote for it themselves.

|11.1.06 @ 11:45AM|#

What the hell! Robert Byrd is high as a kite. Revolting.

|11.1.06 @ 12:25PM|#

We need a national referendum on term limits, if that's even possible. Also, Mos Def would be cool. He could hardly be worse.

Scott|11.1.06 @ 12:39PM|#

I do not know which is worse to watch, Byrd's arrogance or the audience's fawning approval?

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|11.1.06 @ 12:41PM|#

Does Talib Kweli come in a package deal with Mos Def?

|11.1.06 @ 1:00PM|#

There's always the convention alternative to amending the Constitution, which, I believe, allows the states to initiate the amendment(s).

However, as Spock said when asked for the formula for a controlled matter-antimatter implosion: "It's never been done!"

|11.1.06 @ 1:36PM|#

I had a little different take on it. I kept thinking, "this would be a fun guy to have for my grandpa." I can see why he's been in the Senate so damn long. He seemed like an amusing old dude having fun.

Obvious caveats about how he's part of the problem, yadda yadda.

ChrisO|11.1.06 @ 1:36PM|#

However, as Spock said when asked for the formula for a controlled matter-antimatter implosion: "It's never been done!"

Ok, buddy, I think you need to ease up on the Trek. Limit yourself to 3 or 4 hours a day.

Franklin Harris|11.1.06 @ 1:52PM|#

I do not know which is worse to watch, Byrd's arrogance or the audience's fawning approval?

The latter is the cause of the former.

|11.1.06 @ 1:58PM|#

"Yeah, man"


WTF?!?!

|11.1.06 @ 2:02PM|#

ChrisO,

Try once a quarter. I just remember my youth very, very well. Would you have preferred a Simpsons' reference? Are you denying your inner geek? This is a bad, bad place for doing that, let me tell you.

|11.1.06 @ 2:17PM|#

I was talking to a guy this weekend about term limits. He had a interesting thing to say.
He said all that would do is keep experienced people out. The real problem is seniority. He said the congress suffers from the same disease as Unions. That merit or ability plays less of a roll than how long you have been there. I really have to mull this over. Any thoughts from people here.

|11.1.06 @ 2:42PM|#

He's long-winded, egoistic, and self-congratulatory, but he wrote a heck of a good book on the need for a strong Congress to check the Executive branch.

|11.1.06 @ 2:46PM|#

Paul Davis,

The seniority nonsense is the bane of Congress. Getting rid of that would be lovely. However, I'd also like to have term limits. "Experience" is a nice word, but it begs the question, "Experience at what?" I think I know the answer.

|11.1.06 @ 2:49PM|#

He said all that would do is keep experienced people out.

Experienced at what? Keeping (or kicking, rather) "experienced" people out is a distinct benefit of term limits.

|11.1.06 @ 2:52PM|#

Ahhhh... I see PL beat me to the obvious question. :)

|11.1.06 @ 3:09PM|#

Better to be rolled by an inexperienced thief than a seasoned one.

And what is with all the "yeah, man!"? Was Byrd the inspiration for the main character in "Springtime for Hitler"?

|11.1.06 @ 3:21PM|#

Well I agree with term limits. Because in theory we already could throw all the bums out each election we already have term limits. But I also know in reality this is not the case. What is needed is reform of the party systems in the states. Good luck in getting that to happen. How about not allowing party affiliation just names on the ballot? Instead of a primary have a election that is completely open to anyone willing to throw there hat in to ring to see who can then be in the general election? If there part of party so be it. They just can't have the affiliation of their party on the ballet.

|11.1.06 @ 3:31PM|#

I've previously advocated in this forum the abolition of any official recognition of political parties in our government before. To forestall the inevitable comments, I'm not talking about restricting the right of people to associate. The GOP and Democrats could function as before, even as voting blocs, but no official entrenchment of their power would be allowed.

Doing this wouldn't eliminate the power or abuses of the major parties, but I do think it would reduce their strangleholds a bit. The topic is a worthy paper for anyone with some gumption and some research dollars :) Just identifying how the parties are ingrained into the system in the first place is a worthwhile endeavor.

|11.1.06 @ 3:42PM|#

CATO seems to have lots of money. Wonder if some budding Political Scientist over there would research what your advocating?

|11.1.06 @ 9:02PM|#

Anybody else get the strange sensation of Byrd sounding a lot like Mitch Hedberg?

RIP Mitch.

|11.1.06 @ 10:54PM|#

I didn't really get a Mitch Hedberg vibe, I see the seemingly free association thing, but none of the, uh, humor. I was just wondering how someone goes from being a Klansman to sounding like such a dirty hippie?

The problem with Congressional term limits would be that it just allows another group (read: lobbyists) to become even more entrenched. Combine term limits and gerrymandering and you get talentless, experienceless partisan hacks getting led around by lobbyists who have been there longer and will outlast them. Wait a minute, that doesn't sound ALL that much different from how it is now...

|11.2.06 @ 10:40AM|#

I have been screaming term limits for years. It is the only way to rid our federal colon of the feces we call professional politicians.

The problem is that with pork etc everyone seems to think that their Senator/pols are the best thing since sliced bread and its every other states politicians that are screwing things up. The politicians play off that very effect to be re-elected time after time as they tout their achievements of pork and blame all the others for their collective failure on real issues.

I hear the argument that if we have term limits we will be forced to out people that are doing a good job. While that is true I hardly think that is a problem anyone can claim we are having right now with the current crop of politicians.

I compare it with tenured professors. What incentive is there for them to do a good job when then know they can't be fired?

Don't give anything other than what the rest of us get IE Social Security and healthcare and limit them to 2 terms with a 3rd optional term if elected by say 75% or more. Besides that you have 2 terms if elected to make the country a better place for you and your family and you go home. If you never go home because you are a 30 year professional politician what do you care what home ends up becoming in the end? They always claim to be with the little people and for the common folk etc. lets give them the chance to get back to their roots shall we.

|11.2.06 @ 11:28AM|#

"I have been screaming term limits for years."

How about this. Every six years, the senators have to convince the voters of the state that they represent that they are doing a good job representing them. We could make a similar rule for the House, but make it a shorter time frame, let's say two years. Then we could put together some sort of elaborate way to tally up the opinions of the voters (we could call it "voting"), offer them a choice of individuals interested in the job, and let the one that convinces the most voters represents their interests.

We could write these rules down in some sort of document. A document that we could say "constitutes" the rules of the government and defines the powers that each branch has.

|11.2.06 @ 12:27PM|#

We could write these rules down in some sort of document. A document that we could say "constitutes" the rules of the government and defines the powers that each branch has.

That's a nice idea in theory, but I doubt it will work in practice.

The United States tried something like this in 1787. Within 150 years the document was all but ignored by Congress and those charged with limiting the powers of government. The United States is still around. I think that its present government imagines that it abides by this "Constitution". It is, of course, wrong.

|11.2.06 @ 12:35PM|#

Anybody else think Byrd is Senator Palpatine without the British accent?

|11.2.06 @ 12:46PM|#

MikeP your right on.

That is the other argument I hear against term limits is that we already have them they are called elections. While I realize this is the case the way in which these people go about getting re-elected is the issue. It is hard for a challenger to buy people's votes when they don't have access to everyone else's money like the incumbant.

MainstreamMan simply glossed over the whole point I made about it always being someone else's politicians and not their own that suck. Seeing how I am not allowed to vote in other states elections this presents a problem for me to remove them myself by voting. I can only try to remove my local jackass with my vote. If no one can ever see their politician for the jackass they are we end up with exactly what we have now. Professional politicians that are self serving and bought and paid for by special interests.

Can anyone honestly say we have an over abundance of competent, honest politicians who are only serving the publics best interests?

Look no further then William Jefferson in New Orleans to show what the power of buying votes with other peoples money can do to ensure your re-elected time and again regardless of the fact that you had 90K in cash in your freezer. When you can still potentially win an election after that it pretty much says it all.

How about this approach.. TERM LIMITS.. Do it for the Children.. oh and the Old People..