Could explain a lot, that.

I think there is a subtle double-standard at work lately that has rather wide-ranging effects. In the centrists portion of the blogosphere, it seems to have become the attitude that the Democratic party was made up of children while the Republicans had the grownups. Now, there are times and places and individuals where I’d agree with that assessment. As such, it provides a useful shorthand.

OTOH, when that idea hardens into an attitude, it becomes perverse. “We know the Democrats are spoiled brats. So we discount their behavior. But I thought Republicans were supposed to know better. We need to send them a message!”

That effectively says that you have already made as many excuses for the Dems as you are prepared to make. So they can keep on doing the same old thing, and it will not matter. OTOH, the Republicans are expected to summon a majority to do the right thing with very little help from the opposition. This is hard! After awhile, some of them start to think those lowered standards look fairly appealing. Sure, it’s petty. But you try being nice to Ted Kennedy for a decade, then get called on the carpet for harmless comments (e.g. Trent Lott). It takes an *immense* amount of personal integrity to be above reproach in that environment. You can’t vote for muddlers and expect to get the integrity as well.

“OK. which State is going to volunteer to have just one or no Seanators representing their state? Having an open seat does not stop the legislative process, it just makes the majority that is needed on any vote smaller…”

Sure. However, the purpose of a, “none of the Above” option is not to, “throw the bums out!” Oh sure, if a guy gets really, really bad, it might happen occasionally. Mostly, though, it provides a way to register dissatisfaction with the incumbent in a way that actually means something–in polls or even in later races. If a guy is doing that badly versus, “none of the above,” then he is likely to attract a challenger.

Besides, I’m mainly in agreement with you. You want a poster-child for this kind of Congress-critter nonsense? Try “my” representative, Bud Cramer. What a non-entity. Guess how he keeps getting elected? He shifts with the wind, and stays as close to the “center” as a southern Democrat can–but always manages to slickly preserve congressional prerogatives. When I was first voting, Tom Bevill made Robert Byrd look like a piker when it came to “get money for my district and name the whole freaking place after me.” The so-called “center” is a much to blame (if not more) for this kind of thing as left and right wingers.

Cramer hasn’t had a real challenger in years. Let’s pretend that someone that roughly shared my beliefs and principles (but was telegenic and capable of pretending to like the campaign circuit) ran against him. Actually in Congress, such a person would vote more with the general desires of the commenters here, than Cramer. Sure, on a few things, there would be complete opposition. OTOH, you’d know where this person stood. You could take the good with the bad. And at the end of the day, the bad would be pretty niche, and mostly cancelled by equally princpled congress-critters from other districts.

Yet, should such come to pass, and you hear a platform from such a person, most of you wouldn’t vote for him. Even without a media pile-on, there would be some issue or three that would be disqualifying–perhaps even justifying a “kook” label. (There goes that guy talking about school vouchers again. Must be some kind of religious fanatic.) It would make the slurs against Tom Coburn look tame.

If people frequently find standing on principle disqualifying, and calls for candidates with character to merely be thinly veiled Clinton/Monica code words, then why are we surprised when we get what we voted for? If we make “men without chests”, we can hardly expect anything else.

It seems to me the better way is to run candidates in the primaries to replace those corrupted by their time in Washington.

Third parties don’t necessarily fail –the Republicans were once a “third party”– but they usually have a short, pathetic life (Reform Party, anyone?) and wind up giving the election to the party from which they stole the fewest votes.

How do you think we got Bill Clinton in 1992?

no thank you. down that road lies madness.

Everybody would be fighting about it anyway. same old same old.

I think this is turf war between branches of government. At least we know they can do something in a bipartisan way.

Show me a viable third party and the plan that you intend to carry out,(and that includes the politicians that are going to lead this party, and I will give anyone an honest listen. But all I ever hear is “we need a third party”. OK, give me some details, don’t just take the easy route and say “look at those dummies”. I already knows that. Ask the politicians that you admire why they don’t form a third party. Many of them are just as disgusted as you are.

Both parties are depressing but yelling 3rd party and not presenting a plan is too easy. Create a party platform and a slate of candidates. “we are for good government and we are against bad government” is not going to cut it. If it is going to be a centrist party explain what ideas you are going to take from the Dems and the Repubs, or create your new ideas.”Throw the bums out!’ Great! Who are you replacing the bums with? Someone takes office. One party is going to set the rules in each branch, President, Senate, House. If the third party doesn’t win, guess what, it’s either going to be the Republicans or the Dems. And which party is going to be cut out? When the Republicans won before the civil war it was the Whigs who died out. Are you replacing the R’s or the D’s? We have a two party system. If you can organize a new party to replace one of the two we have now go ahead.I have little love for the either side these days. But you better get a move on.

A personal friend of mine – now retired – was a private first class, Capital Police, on 9-11. With the twin towers hit, and the Pentagon burning, flight 93 was still in the air. My friend was at his post, at the Capital, guarding a door. While everyone else was evacuating, my friend stood his post. As he was required.

He knew if there was another attack, he could die, at his post. He could have run, and did not.

His duty means something to that man.

While there are some dunces on the Capital Police, the vast majority of them are sound. And their duty means something to them.

Your explanation is understandable but the position of Gingrich/Hastert is silly.

Republicans can be so blind and stupid sometimes.