Thread: Do the job we elected you to do!!!

Recently our elected politicians have been doin a pretty sour job of well doin their job. It seems like they are all campaigning. Here is the question. Would politicians even need to campaign if they just did their job?

P.S. I'm Listening

As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." It is true. Democracy can be very frustating.

But there are some good people worth a vote. Arnold Schwarzenegger seems to be doing well in California.

Term limits would cut down on incumbants campaigning while they were actively serving in the government. That's a big problem, taking them away from important jobs.

People need to actually take an interest in politics and know where to find relevant information on everyone. I think that's a big problem, not many people are actively trying to learn about the candidates, so they have less of a chance to get their point across. Everyone wants to be spoonfed pre-digested information by their own blow-dried party hacks, taking time to do their own research would interfere with American Idol. And a good amount of people just don't give a shit, they don't realize what an important responsibility we have being in charge of the world's biggest economy and military, and (not so much these years) being the leader of the semi-free world.

That goes into my point, somewhat. If more people were actually interested in seeing an honest to goodness debate or an indepth look at someone, television stations would be more inclined to schedule time for them, thus cutting down on how many appearances and travelling they have to do. As it is if it weren't for those rediculous ads that get run, most people would see very little of the candidates.

I'm fairly certain most candidates don't enjoy having to campaign, I'm sure they would rather be in session pushing their agenda. It is currently a necessary evil exasperated by an inattentive and uncaring population, which makes them have to increase the amount of money and time they invest into it.

However, tools like the internet and satellites allow for information to be available for much less effort and time then at any point in history, and it gets easier all the time. As long as technology can outpace our own laziness
we should be able to cut down on campaigning needlessly, allowing for public interest in the event.

Originally Posted by Luigi

Term limits would cut down on incumbants campaigning while they were actively serving in the government. That's a big problem, taking them away from important jobs.

The Republicans ran on a pro-term limit agenda and won in 1994. When their third terms rolled around in 2000, almost all of those Republicans said that they were just too important to be replaced.

Needless to say, the real fount of term limits are voters who pay attention.

Originally Posted by Luigi

People need to actually take an interest in politics and know where to find relevant information on everyone. I think that's a big problem, not many people are actively trying to learn about the candidates, so they have less of a chance to get their point across.

That's what party labels are for. It's really amazing to watch the people here claim that the Democrats are more fiscally responsible, for example, when the truth is that they only like taxes more.

Originally Posted by Luigi

I'm fairly certain most candidates don't enjoy having to campaign, I'm sure they would rather be in session pushing their agenda.

You're flat wrong, there. They love getting out among the donors and selling their constituents out for money.

Originally Posted by Franz1.0

Arnold Schwarzenegger seems to be doing well in California.

The only thing Schwarzenegger had going for him was that his name wasn't Bustamonte.

He's such a liberal that even the Democrats were voting for him this last election. And that can't possibly be good for anyone.

Schwarzenegger is a centrist, like most normal people. But then, I would not be normal either, because I am more conservative than most Austrians.

Still, who do you prefer: Schwarzenegger or his Democrat opponent?

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

He's such a liberal that even the Democrats were voting for him this last election. And that can't possibly be good for anyone.

Are you saying that Schwarzenegger has broader voter base than any Republican or Democrat? Good for him and his voters.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

The Republicans ran on a pro-term limit agenda and won in 1994. When their third terms rolled around in 2000, almost all of those Republicans said that they were just too important to be replaced.

Needless to say, the real fount of term limits are voters who pay attention.

I never knew the Repubs ran on that platform.

And yes, people need to pay attention, definately.

Originally Posted by Franz1.0

Schwarzenegger is a centrist, like most normal people. But then, I would not be normal either, because I am more conservative than most Austrians.

Still, who do you prefer: Schwarzenegger or his Democrat opponent?

I preferred his opponent.

Originally Posted by Alien Traveler

Are you saying that Schwarzenegger has broader voter base than any Republican or Democrat? Good for him and his voters.

I'm saying that Schwarzenegger is just another run-of-the-mill-married-to-a-Kennedy socialist.

Ain't nothing good about that.