Daniel Petry: How Progressives Killed Democracy

» Gordo on 01.07.10 @ 05:49 PM

Interesting idea.  But I don’t know that we in California would be in any better shape by having state legislators electing Senators than the people.  If anything the state legislators are even more corrupt.  Either way we end up with a Barbara Boxer.

» Charles Croninger on 01.07.10 @ 09:33 PM

“The system worked great, but progressives chaffed at the fact that they couldn’t increase their power with this inconvenient situation remaining as it was designed. They wanted all the power.”

Those pesky Progressives what next the Women’s right to vote. 

Interesting to argue that the movement to elect Senators by popular vote was an attack on Democracy.  Definitely not an intuitive idea.

» Great! on 01.07.10 @ 10:05 PM

Mr. Petry, would you please consider running for public office?  Your ideas are concise and to the point.  You could defeat Capps or Boxer.

» Charles Croninger on 01.08.10 @ 12:03 AM

rt:

The Constitution, among other concerns, had in mind safeguarding the interests of the landed class.  The Senate was a firewall between the well off and the remainder.  Popular vote for the election of the Senate was a move to greater democracy.

On a related note you might be interested to know the movie National Treasure is a work of fiction.  There is no message on the back of of The Declaration of Independence.

I thought you might like this clarification given your belief in long term goals of those who want central planning.  The Masons are not too heavily involved in intrigue either.

» local on 01.08.10 @ 08:45 AM

How can anyone take this seriously?? Name one thing in the past 20 years that the conservative right has done for this country. Many people try to beat up on progressives while enjoying the benefits that have legislated such as medicare and social security. For those opposed to the progressive movement, I suggest that when you become eligible for medicare and social security that you simply pass on accepting it. Lincoln,Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt,Kennedy and Eisenhower were strong adovocates of federalism and the benefits of a national agenda and standardization, not to mention security. They understood that the U.S. must be united under one cause. Of course, the conservative right in this country is an advocate of state’s rights only when it fits their agenda. Do you remember the Supreme Court decision on Gore vs Bush and how they interferred with the state of Florida and stopped the vote count? Sounds democratic to me.

Remember Eisenhower was the one who passed legislation that resulted in the federal interstate highway system. Of course, all conservatives never use it . How about the GI Bill, that piece of progressive legislation is well documented to have extremely benefited an entire generation after WW2. Was that a mistake and an invasion of our democracy or did it make us stronger? Please do not get a flu shot because that is another one of these progressive programs that my interfere with your freedom. Do you get the picture Daniel?

» Rob Egenolf on 01.08.10 @ 09:42 AM

How can anyone sane take the absurd position that requiring a popular vote for an elected official somehow undermines democracy?  What utter and complete BS.

» JAX on 01.08.10 @ 09:56 AM

Local:
  Todays so called progressives or liberals bear faint resemblance to the democratic paery that emerged in the 20th century.  That party was gorunded in the rights of working people, small buinsess and individual rights. 

Todays self styled “progressives” or liberals, under the guise of inclusion and the percieved beauty of “diversity” (in actuality a return to, or encouragement of, separatism) have sought to encompass every off the wall screwball and anti-Amercian group existing in this country.  Many, particularly the “intelectual elite” think it is their duty to tear down everything American and empahsize every flaw they can while minimizing the many things that have made this country great.

In the past the dmocratic pary had ideals like the “ends do not justify the means”.  Todays liberals or progressives are quite comfortable with lying, cheating, fabricating, exagerating and distorting anything when they think they have a “just cause!

You are way out of line when you try to compare todays liberals or progressives with the many great Americans who still had ethics and values and understood and respected the views of others who they might philosophicaly disagree with and who refrained from vitriolic name calling and blame slinging of the type seen from todays left wing of the democratic party.

» Duh! on 01.08.10 @ 10:44 AM

Somehow I think that US Senator Boxer will take a phone call from the Governator, who can “tell” her whatever he wants.

» rt on 01.08.10 @ 10:57 AM

Charles Croninger - First off America was designed as a representative democratic republic not a pure democracy.  In this nation the closest thing we have to a pure democracy is the state of California…and how’s that going for ya? 

The states formed the federal government…not the other way around.  They placed themselves in the mix so that the power of your beloved progressives - both republican and democratic - would be restrained.  You people always throw out the progressive tidbits of the good things done by progressives.  That is deflection and does not address the facts.

You state that changing the Constitution is the only way to go…because conditions change…. but then you refuse to look at what your approach has done to California.  I can guarantee you that you voted to strengthen the referendum process so that “the people” would have greater input into the direction of the state.  But it has backfired on you hasn’t it?  How did that Vote No on 8 workout for you?  The underlying aspect here is as was said before.

The original system was not perfect, but far better than what we have since 1913.  You gotta love the Federal Reserve – yes?  Oh wait…Wilson said it was the worst decision he ever made.  The states bitterly fought it but they could not do anything about it since they had lost their input as a result of the 17th Amendment.

Beware of what you are asking for.  As Californians we are used to never having to make a commitment and changing the governing direction on a whim…no wonder our state is lost in the forest running around in circles.  Secondly I trust the Founders over pseudo intellectual dilatants.  As difficult as it is the Framers words were spoken.  Their meaning was clear and concise and they designed a system after reviewing government failures for hundreds of years.

» Claire on 01.08.10 @ 11:10 AM

Many of the states have lobbied Congress to reduce the burden of “unfunded mandates” imposed by the central government.  During President Clinton’s term he signed a law imposing limits on such mandates. But these restrictions didn’t go far enough, and have been routinely eliminated by simple majority votes in Congress. Even worse, the new legislation does nothing at all about Washington’s unlawful seizure of the decision-making powers reserved to the states.

So as our state is beyond broke, and Washinton is mandating further expenditures from us…and we beg our masters in Washington for money…just remember that we used to be protected from these petty dictators.

» JAJ on 01.08.10 @ 11:20 AM

Mr. Petry - I’m on board with you that the focus of power should be brought back to our individual states.  While the State receives less from the Feds than what it supplies, there is little perception of any Federal government assistance in exchange.  But it’s beyond a ‘let’s blame our progressive parents’ argument: let’s blame the incompetence coupled with the power-hungry leading the apathetic.  That reaches across all aisles sustained not by legislation, but by those whispering in legislators’ ears. I agree with DKittleson.  Too much has it been a vote of the people versus the lobbying interests.  Remove the lobby from government completely.  If special interest groups want to change the government, make them come to the people to do it.

» LakerGirl on 01.08.10 @ 11:23 AM

“The framers designed the Constitution to control government power. An example is the people’s right to vote. Yet this is not enough, because politicians tend to take off the sheep’s clothing once they are elected.” The minute they win an election by claiming to support constitutional principles, they immediately forget their oath.” I’ll add, they won’t let the American people know what’s behind this “secret” HC bill that will impact you, me, our children and grandchildren. And God only knows the more sweetheart deals in this bill that we yet know about.  This reeks of a dictatorship. Chavez must be LHAO.

Modern day progressives like Obama, Al Franken and Cynthia McKinely have made the Progressive Party a laughing stock. Modern issues for progressives include electoral reform (including instant runoff voting, proportional representation and fusion candidates), environmental conservation, pollution control and environmentalism, same-sex marriage, universal health care, abolition of the death penalty, affordable housing, a viable Social Security System (ha,ha that’s going bankrupt (my note), renewable energy, smart growth urban development, a living wage and pro-union policies, among many others.  Funny not the majority of those in the center of country.  Progressives are not for democracy, they are for keeping people down, taxing the rich who by the way, are small business owners innovators, and donators of charity.  Progressives are Cloward–Piven in wolves’ clothing. 

FYI, good article, wanted to put in my 25cents.

» Earl Meyers on 01.08.10 @ 11:58 AM

This is all fine and dandy, but the author cites Jefferson for his argument, but many scholars see Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase as an unauthorized, unconstitutional event of the first order—an executive branch power grab.  Other examples of Jefferson’s over-stretching his power as president could also be offered.  In the event, we would not have Oregon, Weshington, Missouri, Montana, etc as states today, except for Jefferson’s power grab. He had a reason for doing what he did, but whether it was constitutional or not is a totally another matter.

» Martin Jones, Greenville, SC on 01.08.10 @ 12:34 PM

Another quick note, a better title for this might have been: “How progressives killed the representative republic”. Pure democracy (which progressives seem to support) is always bad. AKA Mob rule.

» rt on 01.08.10 @ 01:17 PM

@ Bob - the Second Amendment is not in this discussion.  The 17th Amendment is…stick to the discussion.  Maybe Petry will write an article about it soon.  I hope.

That said you are exposing your ignorance of the Constitution and the time frame it was written in.  I quote, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That is one sentence. The sentence is referring to State Militias, not individuals.”

First off a well regulated militia was defined, and recognized, as every individual citizen that could carry a weapon.  Not the National Guard, or the U.S. Army….simply citizens.  That was the definition. It was designed to defend us from an abusive government and those that support one. 

@ Bob “And, you know what? I don’t think we really have state militias, anymore. Maybe the whole thing should be repealed.”  You must be proud because Venezuela’s Chavez could not have said it better.

» Ellie on 01.08.10 @ 01:31 PM

The Framers established election of senators by state legislators, under which system the nation got the Great Triumvirate (Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun) and thrived. In 1913, progressives, believing that more, and more direct, democracy is always wonderful, got the 17th Amendment ratified. It stipulates popular election of senators, under which system Wisconsin has elected, among others, Joe McCarthy, as well as Feingold.

Feingold says that mandating election of replacement senators is necessary to make the Senate as “responsive to the people as possible.” Well. The House, directly elected and with two-year terms, was designed for responsiveness. The Senate, indirectly elected and with six-year terms, was to be more deliberative than responsive.

Furthermore, grounding the Senate in state legislatures served the structure of federalism. Giving the states an important role in determining the composition of the federal government gave the states power to resist what has happened.

Great article Daniel.  Can’t wait for more.

» Lee Moldaver on 01.08.10 @ 02:18 PM

Vibrant, thought-provoking essay.

Unfortunately, state legislatures in the late 19th and early 20th century were corrupt
in ways Mr. Petry can barely imagine.

Most were, privately, “controlled”.

Many were openly, enthusiastically, up “for sale”.

Railroads, growers, shippers, miners, factory owners, monopolists, all “owned” entire state delegations ... and the U.S. Senators who worked for them.

It was pretty ugly. Petry shouldn’t sugar-coat it.

The amendment for direct election of senators had widespread, bi-partisan support.

The idea percolated around since Grover Cleveland’s time.

Nothing in the intervening presidencies of Roosevelt and Taft (Republicans) or Wilson (a moderate Democrat) did anything to slow the momentum.

Petry is right to remind us about the old Law of Unintended Consequences.

But to get a better idea why America amended the Constitution (back in an era
where that was relatively uncommon) he could do worse than re-read the classic
“Congressional Government,” by Princeton’s president ... Woodrow Wilson.

It reminds us how the old system had really worked.

» JAX on 01.08.10 @ 03:13 PM

Bob:  Re: The Second Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights appended to the Constitution to further limit governments powers in relation to the people.

  The right of “—the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.  The framers always chose their words very carefully. If they had intended to limit the right of people to keep and bear arms to use or possession by them only as part of a militia, they would have said so clearly.  The fact is the people (i.e Americans) have a right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their property, to hunt, to target shoot or maybe just as a gun collector, and ALSO to paricipate in any organized militia if called upon to do so. [At the time having “standing armies” was essentially unknown]

In case you didn’t know it, we still have a militia, the national guard and they and the other police or law enforcement agencies still have the power and authority to “deputize” or call up any adult to assist in law enforcement and civil defense.  That principal, which is alive and well TODAY, is called deputization or sometimes referred to as a call to the “posse comitatus”.

In the context of the big picture, which has been pointed out by some of the commentators to this article, the U.S. Constitution is about defining the powers of government and the limitations imposed on government powers including separating different powers amongst the three branches of government and defining their respective roles, and then reserving ALL of those rights and powers NOT DELEGATED to government “ARE TO BE LEFT TO THE PEOPLE”!

» Bill Clausen on 01.08.10 @ 04:36 PM

One must also mention that the catalyst for the civil rights movement (back before the movement was hijacked by the forces of Political Correctness) was the racists’ invocation of “States Rights”.  This stubborness to confront the racism they supported not only was morally wrong, but gave the Feds an excuse to expand to the point where they have today.

As the saying goes “With rights come responsibility” and I hope that those running the individual states realize that they have a moral and fiscal responsibility to run their states correctly.

Balance of power is better than power in the hands of the few.

» Claire on 01.08.10 @ 05:51 PM

Though EXTREMELY dangerous, the states do have the nuclear option - a constitutional convention.  That threat alone should make Congress shiver. 

The Constitution provides for this action by states as a check on the federal government, to force progress when Congress refuses to act.  But…and that is a big BUT, the first constitutional convention was brutal enough…a second one, in this hyper-vindictive environment could be harsh beyond belief.  It would have to be tightly controlled.  Otherwise you would see such things as; 

1. Term Limits: 12 years only.  Two six-year Senate terms and six two-year House terms

2.  No Tenure / No Pension:  A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office. 

3.  Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:  All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately.  All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.  Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress looses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void.  The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

9.  The national language - English.

10. Muzzling of the legal profession along the lines of the British system.  He who brings the suit pays if they lose.

Regardless of this fact, there are a number of states that are moving in this direction.  The problem is that those in Congress have continually shown a contempt and ignorance of the constitution and would, most likely, think they could ignore this effort…all to their well deserved peril.  There is a safer approach.

Repeal the 17th Amendment.

» Charles Croninger on 01.08.10 @ 08:24 PM

Sorry I missed the memo but Glen Beck has Judge Napolitano explain it all to us at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFUctrLsuFM

Repeal the 17th has a fan club.  Gold members: George Will, Bruce Bartlett, Glen Reynolds, Mike Huckabee. 

Thanks Daniel for bringing us up to speed on the latest Right Wing Craze.

» McKenec on 01.08.10 @ 09:40 PM

I believe repealing this amendment, establishing a fair/flat tax system and adding term limits would be a great stride back in the direction of government by the people.

What we have now is a process whereby masses of people are advertised and sold on the idea of a candidate who then goes to Washinton and is manipulated by the existing powers that be into basically voting as a bloc. That said, I do believe representatives are swayed by constituents’ letters and calls. It’s important to stay engaged. Repealing the 17th would bring that engagement closer to home.  Good article.

» Sha-ka on 01.08.10 @ 09:46 PM

The states would be strengthened under a “no-17th” because senators would answer directly to the states, as in the beginning of our country. As it now stands, they are elected by the same electorate that votes for the House. So it’s redundant. The intention of the founders was that laws would be enacted by the representatives of the people AND the states.

I see the wisdom of removing politics from the judiciary and but I also have a for their mental competence. This is a problem that our founders didn’t face. Modern medicine is a double edged blessing.

» Bill Clausen on 01.08.10 @ 11:34 PM

On a serious note:  Whether or not one posts under different screen names, (as I just did) is not relevant.  What is relevent is whether or not the person or persons posting can present a logical argument to counter or bolster the claim of another.

» hankers on 01.09.10 @ 01:01 AM

the 17th amendment was intended to protect state’s rights by popular election of individuals called senators to represent the state of their residency; sadly, men, because most senators in the early stages were men, were seduced by the power vested in them by the people. women senators who followed were no less able to resist the seduction of the same.
forget the moniker of progressives and use the more appropriate term regressives because if the people reclaim their rights (ie.,separation of church and state/the right of states to express the unique needs and concerns of vastly different cultures in each state)where will this leave those elected officials who have feed at the trough of taxes and bribes; they very well might be required to get a real job and real health care insurance like the rest of voters in the state of california. thanks dan for your fearless attempt to increase awareness for a city which is hopelessly locked in a progressive regression. oops, this just means stuck; wonder what uncle tom jefferson thinks of this?

» AN50 on 01.09.10 @ 03:53 PM

Thanks Dan for knocking yet another one out of the park. Many folks have a vague understanding of our founding fathers intentions. They were wealthy elites with a bad taste in their mouths concerning government. They were not only interested in limiting concentration of power within government but were also interested in protecting the wealthy classes. It was not a bad thing back then as the “landed” classes were also the better educated and more altruistic at the time and understood the ramifications of allowing unfettered democracy to flourish.
I did not think many so called “progressives” would understand the message you were trying to convey. I just don’t believe they are as open minded as they would like to think they. Some of their comments about extending voting rights to the “people” are at best naïve. Democracy as practiced now just means giving the masses the keys to the treasury. What poor uneducated schmuck wouldn’t vote to tax those that do so he would not have to? Voting is a very important civic duty and we just let any idiot do it.
Anyway thanks Dan and keep them coming.

» Great Article on 01.09.10 @ 05:47 PM

The Founding Father’s absolutely knew what they were doing they had a lot of experience that we do not and to assume otherwise and that the Constitution is a “living breathing document” that needs to be modified with the times or for whatever other purpose is to deny the greatness of this country and those who began it.

» JAX on 01.10.10 @ 09:55 AM

Senators Feinstein and especially Boxer are examples of the total lack of representation the people of California have in Washington. Barbara Boxer hasn’t done a thing the whole time she has been in Washington except march along in lock step with the lobbyists, special interests and Democratic party hacks. She was elected by popular vote for reasons that have escaped most of us.

Even under the post 17th amendment system California deserves far better in Washington than the likes of Barbara Boxer. BARBARA WHO ???  I don’t remember the last time she was even in California let alone doing something for California citizens and the people who reside here!

» Realist on 01.10.10 @ 01:15 PM

JAX - The answer to the phenomenon of Boxer and Frankenfienstein (include Capps and Princess Pelosi in this) is simple if you consider the context. They were elected to high office during the height of the Political Correctness/ affirmative action etc. period.

Voters felt they deserved high office not because of merit or anything they said or political philosophy or experience or ability or any of their ideologies -  but because we needed more women in higher offices, and they were the ones running and they were eloquent and handled themselves well, it didn’t matter what they said only how they said it.. That’s it - end of story.

Kind of like how we needed a half black President - we look the other way on the issues they bring with them (issues of both meanings). For some reason they all have narcissistic ego and arrogance issues and a taste for power. Next time let’s have a closer look at the person under the gender or race. Vote by the content of their character, not the gender or color of their skin.

The days of electing people to high office simply because they are the first “this” (female speaker of the house - black president, Latina judge) or the first “that” hopefully are over, because the ceiling has been broken and next time it will be the second this or that. . I hope we have learned our lesson because apparently we have gotten what we deserved by overlooking character flaws.

» Realist on 01.10.10 @ 01:34 PM

Local - as proven over and over again you are a hate filled ignorant bigot if you think everyone in Texas is George Bush or an Oil Baron or a dumb redneck.

If you are a local (born and raised her)have you ever gone or lived anywhere in the world other than Santa Barbara? If you are the envy-filled, wealth hating person that you appear to be, you must be too poor to travel. - I suggest taking a trip to Texas, - I am sure you will find many more white, guilt-ridden, class envious “progressive” liberals of your ilk than you could ever imagine.

» Realist on 01.11.10 @ 12:51 AM

Sure local and if I accused you of being rich you would claim to be poor. I’ve endured your posts long enough to know that you are whatever you need to be for expediency and you post anonymously so you can make any claim about yourself that you want. You’re the one with not one, but TWO M.S. degrees right ? Most people move on to a doctorate after the first one. Actually you sound so defensive that you seem a little insecure. You lost credibility with me long ago, not by who you are, but by what you write…nothing personal though.

» Local on 01.11.10 @ 08:13 AM

Hey Realist. You have really drank the koolaid now. What is good for big business is good for the country. That pretty much sums it up. There are people that are beyond hope in terms of changing their understanding of the world. If you had your way everyone would work at Walmart and shop their as well. I know you may find it hard to believe but their are very successful people out there that are not greedy and try to do the right thing for everyone, not just themselves. I donate many hours a week to charity organizations and donate substantial funds as well. I believe in the free market, but I also believe that unfortunately their are too many who want to take advantage of it and step outside the legal, ethical amd moral boundries.

» JAX on 01.11.10 @ 10:09 AM

Realist;  You are right about the method we (the people collectively) use to elect those who govern us even to the highest office.

The most recent case was Barrack Obama who’s political accomplishments and experiences relevant to the highest office, both in the Illinois assembly and during his short term in the U.S. Senate, could be recorded on the back of a postage stamp.

Ever since his 04 speach at the Democratic convention he became the “rising star” “darling” of the current Democratic/progressive party higharchy. His appearance and public speaking ability and the fact that he could be described as the “first black candidate for president” were all that was needed for success and the backing of the Democratic machine.

A largely left wing media, always trying to atone for the non-existant guilt of many Americans, hyped that “first black president” theme incessantly.  I never, for example, ever heard a single comentator mention that Obama was only “half-black” or the first “half-black” candidate for president. (though I have been told he really wasn’t even the first)

One of the constants in using the “guilt trip” employed by the liberal (progressive) left wing is the belief that the rest of us Americans have to atone for things that occurred a century and a half ago involving blacks, Hispanics, Indians and every other minority that they percieve as having gotten a bad deal from the United States, it’s government and the Americans of those eras.

The difficulty in the minds of most rational modern day Americans, is that we had nothing to do with any of those injustices nor did our fathers or grandfathers. Over 80% of the three hundred million people in America today either migrated here or were born here in the last century or so and never did a thing to any minority and were often highly supportive of human rights laws and equal justice issues.

  The liberally educated (brainwashed) media never the less suffer from this phantom guilt and constantly hyped the “first black to be president” throughout the campaign and even after the election. It has finally now died down when issues are back in the spotlight and ability to solve deep and serious problems must be dealt with.

This media circus was not a new phenomena.  They did the same thing when Tiger Woods emerged as the best golfer in America. You remeber, he was the “first black” to win the U.S. Amatuer Open three times, the U.S. PGA Open, etc. etc.  Never once did I hear anyone describe him as the first Afro-Asian golfer to do so, even though his mother was Asian and not of any African descent. They have done this in the same manner for women. i.e. the “first woman to”——BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!

So “realist” is correct, that we elect politicians, for the most part, for all the wrong reasons and this is often aided and abetted in by a media caught up in the hype of name recognition, popularity for irrelevant reasons or political issues that they fabricate and exagerate. Things that are really not important issues at all but are just what they percieve as unique or the most sensational “newsworthy” items, and which, not coincidently, sell more copy or air time and create better “ratings”.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, we elected the bufoon Schwarzenegger for only three reasons. The first was because of his so called name-recognition from his days as a “B” grade action film star.  The second was that the people were fed up with the corrupted, incompetent career politics of Gray Davis, (a life time and incompetent political hack) and the third was the promises Schwarzenegger made during the campaign, like sweeping corruption out of Sacramento, a promise he immediately forgot about once elected.

Realist is quite right, unless we find a better way to elect competent leadership able to do such an important job, and who’s public popularity is not based on image, glib speachmaking and a biased mass media hype, nothing will ever change, and the qualified but lesser known candidates will never be elected.

» Realist on 01.11.10 @ 11:55 AM

Glad you agree, JAX and It’s true about JFK I just saw this post in the article on Capps webinar. Libs love to rail against Bush and Reagan for tax cuts while ignorant of the fact that their hero JFK is the one with the original idea of tax cuts to spur the economy:

Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iddquwGpXM0

» If you can't attack the message... on 01.11.10 @ 08:05 PM

Attack the messenger. Right GeeWillikersWally? Your tactics are exposed, (those of the left as usual), are getting old, tired and ineffective. When you can’t win the argument on merit, see what lies you can make up or plant in people’s brains to discredit the deliver of the truth. The classic one is calling everyone a racist that disagrees with a person of color, or is against rampant illegal immigration. We’re on to you and we are bold and courageous. The P.C. thug intimidation and bullying days are over.

Update: Debate requires the participation of both sides. Not just throwing up your hands when you can’t offer an intelligent retort and resorting name calling, messenger attacking with speculation and conjecture about the author. Your pattern is consistent and predictable Gee Willy. Keep it up. We need more examples of the lame childish tactics and intellectual inferiority of the left.

» Ellie on 01.11.10 @ 08:41 PM

Dan Petry is way off the mark, while as usual, Lee Moldaver has got the big picture. Petry’s pretending to be smart about constitutional history and how our Founding Fathers were thinking, but he belies his ignorance when he claims “the system worked great” before the 17th amendment. It most certainly did not! History is full o’ fine examples of Senatorial candidates bribing state legislators and other corrupt shenanigans. Take a gander at such fine examples of pre-17th amendment corruption as the appointments of Senators William Clark and William Lorimer.

Course, the Tea Partiers who’ve latched on to the repeal bandwagon aren’t the first to do so. Right wingers like the Zell “Volcano” Miller and disgraced house member Tom Delay (remember the Abramhoff scandal?) were supporting repeal during GW’s first term, and before that, Federalists and States Righters.

So yeah, Congress may not be functioning as well as we the American people deserve, but repeal of the 17th amendment ain’t the solution. Campaign finance and lobbying - now that’s something Petry ought to be lookin’ into (and maybe a few history books too).

» GeeWillikersWally on 01.12.10 @ 05:19 AM

Realist has a mean streak that is unmatched and doesnt like it when the venom is returned . A bit of introspect would go a long way toward a more civil debate here .  One example of his history of casting tha first stone can be found here when he tells Local ” you are a hate filled bigot ”  . Mirror time Mr. Realist .

» AN50 on 01.12.10 @ 10:39 AM

Willie, Realist ain’t got nothing on me buster. However Ellie made some points that are begging discussion. Dan has written some fine articles, Ellie, if you have some disagreement with them why not debate the points rather than resort to the liberal left wing character assassination?
The point of the article was how our senate was set up to work by our founding fathers and how the 17th amendment changed that process for the worse. Care to illuminate us all with your superior intellect and tell us why you believe Dan is wrong? Please refrain from using bad characters as a means of besmirching a system. Would you like socialism to be characterized by such abusers as Stalin?
Every society, culture, nation economic system, corporation, religious institution has members who are rotten. Not one institution composed by human beings can escape that. But that does not impugn the system. You people on the left love to impugn capitalism for the greedy that abuse it without ever looking at the same greedy behavior that infects a socialist system. Debate the merits of a system not the flawed human beings who use it.
To that end the way our founding fathers set up the senate was to protect states rights and use that body as a check on centralized power abuse. The 17th amendment ended that and the abuse of federal power is now history. Debate that why don’t you? It would really go a long way in showing you are more intelligent than Willie, Local, Lee or all the other liberal commenters who see an attack on liberalism/progressivism as a personal attack. If you attack capitalism/conservatism I do not take it personal but will debate you. Though I have to admit it is quite fun going on the prowl for thin skinned liberals who devolve into emotional babbling nit wits (who said Local, huh?) All in fun of course! Cheers!

» AN50 on 01.12.10 @ 01:38 PM

You know Realist, we’re gonna be waiting a very long time for that. I am amazed at how many people judge a system by the behavior of a few bad apples. How many are willing to try the next great thing as a band aid for bad behavior yet never ever question the beliefs that drive such bad behavior.

» AHamilton on 01.12.10 @ 06:35 PM

I hope Dan Petry writes another piece soon.  It would be good to get a different stream of invective started; this one is getting boring. (Actually, they all seem remarkably the same, but if repetition helps the posters make sense of their life, who am I to complain?) To that end: Dan - any other constitutional amendments that should/shouldn’t be in place, or once the 17th is out would the constitution then be OK by you?

» Union killing America on 01.14.10 @ 12:45 PM

Democrats are paid off by the unions and trial lawyers, and you now know why we are losing millions of jobs to other country’s.—liberals

K.O