The problem with "vote against incumbents", particularly in the era of Citizens United, is that you'll have just greased the revolving door and destroyed any incentive to not sell off everything that isn't nailed down.
The corporate sponsors of our government, the true problems in our system, would love to be able to stand up a new placeholder every cycle, to decry the excesses of the last, run on reform and have absolutely no illusions about gathering power for themselves, or see no benefit in doing right by the people casting the votes.
Reverse that SC decision, you harm speech like Michael Moore's.
To your other point, there would be no corporate sponsors if we didn't concentrate the government's power in Washington by forgetting we can solve local problems using local government, and if Washington actually let businesses compete fairly and not creating artificial barriers to entry, such as license fees, over-burdensome regulation, frivolous patents and high taxes.
The problem isn't just corporations, which BTW, except for monopolies, are a net benefit to society (otherwise they just disappear). The problem is that we vote for corrupt politicians who corrupt our laws and interfere with the market killing off bad corporations.
James Madison said "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." The corollary is that government is not comprised of angels, therefore we can't expect it to be necessarily better than corporations.
I just finished reading Peter Thiel's notes from his Startup class and he suggests almost all businesses are in fact monopolies, yet pretend not to be by competing in other environments. Google has a monopoly on search, FB a monopoly on social networking, etc. I don't know if I agree that either of them are complete monopolies, but the moat is certainly thick. In a perfect business world, shouldn't those be broken up if they are in fact monopolies?
There's nothing wrong with being a monopoly in the sense that you simply won by having the best product. Where monopolies needs tempering is when they use their power in one market to displace competitors in another market - such as Google accused of doing by giving prominence to search results from their own properties over competing ones.
It's a tough line to walk, no question, but I think there are few "normal" people who don't think we have jumped the shark here.
I do agree that not voting in corrupt people (and really punishing those who are shown to be corrupt; not just reading a letter in Congress). More importantly, move the power and influence closer to the people. I have far more sway over my mayor than I do over the President, and I'd trust him with more of my money.
Placing unqualified or dangerous individuals (since we're saying, anyone is better) in charge of the entire country in order to "teach the other side a lesson" seems highly reckless at best and intensely malevolent towards humanity at worst (such as, said president starts another war based on lies, killing millions).
Despite us voting differently then and probably in 2012, I deeply appreciate this sort of sentiment. Despite our differences, we are one Nation. I believe it helps ensure civil debates as well as respect during policy discussion.
It is a political opinion based on facts. I can't think of another President with a less qualified resume. 1 half term as Senator, a few years in the state senate, and "community organizer" isn't exactly the resume most Presidents have.
Going back to Carter:
Carter: Governor of Georgia
Reagon: Governor of California
H.W. Bush: Ambassador, CIA Director, Vice-President
Clinton: Governor of Arkansas
W. Bush: Governor of Texas
Obama: 4 years of 1 Senate term, 2 of which he spent running for president.
Ten years in government (does 10 years of state senate + 3 years of senate add up to one governor term? who cares?) and president of the harvard law review is plenty, and there's no evidence that his performance is hindered by a lack of qualification. Whether or not one agrees with his policies, his performance on the domestic and international stages has been extremely productive (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Majo...), even in the face of a congress that admitted their only goal being to block him at all costs (http://www.examiner.com/article/mitch-mcconnell-r-ky-maintai...). It's plainly obvious that he is extremely adept at executing his role, and is not suffering for any supposed "lack of qualification".
He said when he took office that we absolutely had to pass the stimulus bill, and if we did it would keep unemployment from going over 8%. You might have noticed, that since then unemployment has in fact never been under 8%. We have the weakest recovery in recent history, with a jobs report last Friday that said 400K people were so discouraged they gave up looking for a job.
> He said when he took office that we absolutely had to pass the stimulus bill, and if we did it would keep unemployment from going over 8%. You might have noticed, that since then unemployment has in fact never been under 8%. We have the weakest recovery in recent history, with a jobs report last Friday that said 400K people were so discouraged they gave up looking for a job.
George W Bush recklessly spent eight years enacting some of the most irresponsible and cruel policies in decades, and as a result, in combination with a general trend of banking deregulation over the past thirty years, more than tipped the scales to cause the second worst economic disaster in US history.
Obama takes office and within weeks manages to take enough steps to stem the brunt of this disaster, restoring the banking industry and the general health of the economy, pushing back at the damage done by 30 years of decline with a good five or six years of intense irresponsibility at the end. Unemployment stays a point or two higher than what everyone hoped, despite the fact that the opposition party has taken historically unprecedented steps (see http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/breaking...) to unconditionally block any positive action the president might take, an unheard-of development that nobody anticipated.
Overall, if unemployment is your vector, the job creation records of George W Bush ("qualified") vs. Obama ("unqualified") could not be in more stark comparison: http://www.pensitoreview.com/2010/10/11/obama-created-863k-j... (Obama Has Created 863K Jobs in 2010, More Than Double Average Annual Creation under Bush)
This is your evidence that Obama is "unqualified", yet George W. Bush, largely responsible for the whole mess and virtually unopposed during his entire two terms is considered as "qualified".
Well they released a report saying that it would stay under 8% and this is the report they used to promote the bill. He may not have said in a public speech "this will keep it under 8%", but we're intelligent folks here, we can read between the lines.
He did very explicitly and repeatedly say it would save or create 3-4 million jobs. As the unemployment rate shot well above their predictions for even the not passing the bill case, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they were wrong.
FTA- "THE FACTS: True as far as it goes, but the claim inflates Obama's record of private-sector job creation by ignoring huge losses early in his presidency.
By going back 27 months, Obama starts counting at the low point of employment for the private sector in February 2010 and tracks how far it has come. But counting farther back, since the end of the recession in June 2009, private-sector job gains have been much more modest, 3.1 million. That's a more meaningful measurement to economists.
Overall, the economy has lost 1.37 million jobs — 784,000 in the private sector — since Obama was inaugurated."
Right, we gained jobs from the low point, and we still have less jobs than when he became President. Color me unimpressed. The unemployment rate went from 7.2% straight to over 10%. I don't know what BS they come up with for "saved" jobs, but the stimulus was a failure from pretty much any possible viewpoint.
1 half term as Senator, a few years in the state senate, community organizer, lawyer. Hmmm. I wonder what other former Presidents I might find with a similar bio. Hmmm... I might start by looking in... Illinois?
What else would you have me compare the candidates on other than than their past experiences? You hire people for jobs based on their qualifications for that job. Obama hadn't done anything that remotely prepared him for being the President.
I could do without the snark. There is obviously more to it than just titles. If not I guess we'd be forced to vote for the incumbent every time.
As far as time before president, I will take 4 years of governor over 4 years in the senate and any amount of time in the state senate.
Your also conveniently forgetting about all of Romney's time in the private sector running multi-billion dollar businesses and saving the Olympics. I count that experience ever so slightly higher than "community organizer".
Oh that other comment of yours seemed to indicate they were important.
"Going back to Carter: Carter: Governor of Georgia Reagon: Governor of California H.W. Bush: Ambassador, CIA Director, Vice-President Clinton: Governor of Arkansas W. Bush: Governor of Texas Obama: 4 years of 1 Senate term, 2 of which he spent running for president.
How hard is it to figure out that something can be important and yet not the only thing to consider? I think running something would be pretty useful experience to being President. I do not however plan to vote for every incumbent President simply because the job title President is more impressive than anything else someone could do.
Unfortunately he had no experience leading anything. As chief executive, commander in chief, and leader of the free world, I'd like for him to have some experience leading something other than his own campaign for president.
As chief executive, commander in chief, and leader of the free world, I'd like for him to have some experience leading something other than his own campaign for president.
Again, not to defend Obama specifically, but anyone who ends up on the (D) or (R) ballots for POTUS has unquestionably passed a hardcore test of their organizational and leadership skills, and likely their budgetary skills as well.
That's as true for GWB as it is for Obama, of course.
Whether two term or one term, if the party can install a lobbyist-friendly puppet they maintain their ability to sell access to government. That's what modern democracy is all about: leveraging public money/power for special interests.