I don't know much about Booker's politics, but at least he's not boring.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/14/16964641-nj-sen-lautenberg-wont-seek-re-election-easing-bookers-path?lite
QuoteBy Michael O'Brien, Political Reporter, NBC News
Updated 3:40 p.m. ET: New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D, won't seek re-election next November, a Democratic source confirmed to NBC News.
Lautenberg, the 89-year-old senator who served for almost two decades in the Senate from 1982 through 2001 before returning for a second term in the upper chamber in 2003, will not seek another six-year term.
"I will be traveling to my hometown of Paterson tomorrow to announce that I will not seek re-election in 2014. This is not the end of anything, but rather the beginning of a two-year mission to pass new gun safety laws, protect children from toxic chemicals, and create more opportunities for working families in New Jersey," Lautenberg said in a statement. "While I may not be seeking re-election, there is plenty of work to do before the end of this term and I'm going to keep fighting as hard as ever for the people of New Jersey in the U.S. Senate."
The decision clears the path for Newark Mayor Cory Booker to pursue the Democratic nomination for Senate. Booker, who's built a high national profile with his work as mayor, had provoked some public sniping from Lautenberg for seeming too quick to assume that the longtime senator would necessarily retire when his term is up in 2015.
Another Democrat thought to be eyeing the seat, Rep. Frank Pallone, effusively praised Lauternberg in a statement.
"I have peen proud to serve with Senator Lautenberg and even prouder to call him a friend," he said. "I look forward to continuing to work together in the coming months to continue to address the issues that are important to him and New Jersey. Like all New Jerseyans, I am grateful for his service to our state and our nation."
Let's have term limits for Senators.
I would like a 6 term limit for representatives and a 3 term limit for senators, giving them at best a 30 year congressional career.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 15, 2013, 01:46:57 AM
Let's have term limits for Senators.
Yes, because the new ones that have been elected are the cream of the crop.
Cory Booker sounds like a little kid's name. I can't take anybody seriously as a US Senate candidate with a name that sounds so childish.
Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2013, 09:52:08 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 15, 2013, 01:46:57 AM
Let's have term limits for Senators.
Yes, because the new ones that have been elected are the cream of the crop.
Let's only have them for 12 years at the most.
He's a handsome black man, and very well spoken.
I like him, but a lot of the credit for his accomplishments as mayor have to go to the corporations that generously donated money.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 15, 2013, 10:29:50 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2013, 09:52:08 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 15, 2013, 01:46:57 AM
Let's have term limits for Senators.
Yes, because the new ones that have been elected are the cream of the crop.
Let's only have them for 12 years at the most.
So we then have a new wave of idiots? The crusty old politicians are the ones who are most likely to resist turning a political opposition into an insurgency aiming to obliterate the government. That's also why a lot of them have been purged by the Republicans.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2013, 10:32:42 AM
He's a handsome black man, and very well spoken.
I like him, but a lot of the credit for his accomplishments as mayor have to go to the corporations that generously donated money.
He's a likable guy, for sure.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 15, 2013, 10:29:50 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2013, 09:52:08 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 15, 2013, 01:46:57 AM
Let's have term limits for Senators.
Yes, because the new ones that have been elected are the cream of the crop.
Let's only have them for 12 years at the most.
Repeal the 17th Amendment. Cory Booker is quite an impressive figure, he is considered somewhat of an action hero for saving someone from a burning house last year.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 15, 2013, 11:06:59 AM
Repeal the 17th Amendment. Cory Booker is quite an impressive figure, he is considered somewhat of an action hero for saving someone from a burning house last year.
And the freezing dog last month. That locks up the Crazy Cat Lady demo.
Plus he brought Hot Pockets to that dazzling urbanite during Sandy.
Sad to say it, but the Senate seems like a waste of his talent.
EDIT: my initial reaction was suprise at realizing Lautenberg was still alive. They named a rail station after him in Secaucus recently and I just assumed he must have died. Can't think of anything he's done in the last 5 years.
Dude, it's Jersey. The request to name it after him was probably submitted in 1988.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 15, 2013, 02:39:03 PM
Sad to say it, but the Senate seems like a waste of his talent.
EDIT: my initial reaction was suprise at realizing Lautenberg was still alive. They named a rail station after him in Secaucus recently and I just assumed he must have died. Can't think of anything he's done in the last 5 years.
It wasn't that recent. I remember seeing it as far back as 2006.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 15, 2013, 11:06:59 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 15, 2013, 10:29:50 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2013, 09:52:08 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 15, 2013, 01:46:57 AM
Let's have term limits for Senators.
Yes, because the new ones that have been elected are the cream of the crop.
Let's only have them for 12 years at the most.
Repeal the 17th Amendment. Cory Booker is quite an impressive figure, he is considered somewhat of an action hero for saving someone from a burning house last year.
That would make it easier to rig.
Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2013, 10:43:58 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 15, 2013, 10:29:50 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2013, 09:52:08 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 15, 2013, 01:46:57 AM
Let's have term limits for Senators.
Yes, because the new ones that have been elected are the cream of the crop.
Let's only have them for 12 years at the most.
So we then have a new wave of idiots? The crusty old politicians are the ones who are most likely to resist turning a political opposition into an insurgency aiming to obliterate the government. That's also why a lot of them have been purged by the Republicans.
How many "new nes"? Only a fraction of Senate seats are up for election every cycle.
And one could complain about "waves" of old incumbents succumbing to corruption and other scandals with time.
By time, a 6-year term is to "cool down" any new "insurgent" Senator.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2013, 01:51:43 AM
I would like a 6 term limit for representatives and a 3 term limit for senators, giving them at best a 30 year congressional career.
Term limits are undemocratic. They inherently imply that the electorate is stupid and out of control.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 15, 2013, 10:25:43 PM
Term limits are undemocratic. They inherently imply that the electorate is stupid and out of control.
Yeah, well, so does the electoral college. Given genius politicians like Sarah Palin and Kwame Kilpatrick, I think it's actually a pretty fair assumption to make at this point.
Nah, the Electoral College is an attempt to include a "federalist", representation of the states (as opposed to the raw populace) factor into the selection of the head of the Executive branch. Much like the Senate is supposed to be for the Legislative branch.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 15, 2013, 10:25:43 PM
Term limits are undemocratic. They inherently imply that the electorate is stupid and out of control.
Or alternatively that the powers of incumbency are too strong.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 16, 2013, 03:32:15 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 15, 2013, 10:25:43 PM
Term limits are undemocratic. They inherently imply that the electorate is stupid and out of control.
Or alternatively that the powers of incumbency are too strong.
Any one else you would like to prevent from running for office because they are "too strong"?
wut?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 16, 2013, 12:44:42 PM
wut?
I thought you were arguing in favor of term limits by saying that an incumbency made a canidate "too strong". I was wondering if you thought anyone else was "too strong" to run for office.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2013, 01:56:59 PM
I thought you were arguing in favor of term limits by saying that an incumbency made a canidate "too strong".
No.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 16, 2013, 02:47:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2013, 01:56:59 PM
I thought you were arguing in favor of term limits by saying that an incumbency made a canidate "too strong".
No.
Then what was the point of the post?
I think his point was clear: sitting politicians could become overly entrenched due to the power they wield, being sitting politicians. If the power of incumbency is so great, inferior politicians can keep their seats despite the availability of much stronger candidates. This isn't good for democracy, since the logical extreme of such a dynamic is politicians being chosen for life.
Voters don't have to be stupid to let this happen either, since on an individual basis it would be rational to keep voting the old guy back in. For example, you can have seniority rules that give more power to those who've been in the office for longer, so booting the old fart would reduce their voice in the federal government. Of course, that isn't the only factor in this debate, and there are other arguments that counterbalance this concern, but Yi's point was very clear.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2013, 03:09:16 PM
Then what was the point of the post?
I think the fundamental truth that is eluding you is it possible for someone to point out the pros of an idea without necessarily being in favor of it, or to point out the cons without necessarily being opposed.
Quote from: DGuller on February 16, 2013, 03:19:31 PM
I think his point was clear: sitting politicians could become overly entrenched due to the power they wield, being sitting politicians. If the power of incumbency is so great, inferior politicians can keep their seats despite the availability of much stronger candidates. This isn't good for democracy, since the logical extreme of such a dynamic is politicians being chosen for life.
Voters don't have to be stupid to let this happen either, since on an individual basis it would be rational to keep voting the old guy back in. For example, you can have seniority rules that give more power to those who've been in the office for longer, so booting the old fart would reduce their voice in the federal government. Of course, that isn't the only factor in this debate, and there are other arguments that counterbalance this concern, but Yi's point was very clear.
I was asking if this meant he was for term limits.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2013, 03:53:56 PM
I was asking if this meant he was for term limits.
This is a fairly common pattern Raz. You typically ask a loaded question, as in this case a question loaded with the assumption that I'm in favor of term limits, then when called on it, you claim that you were asking a question about the assumption all along.
"Seeing as how you're in favor of term limits, how about X" is not the same asking a person if they're in favor of term limits.
It would make you much more badass person if you asked the clarifying question *first.*
I figured if you defended it, then you supported it.
And then the next post you're going to say you were asking if I support it. C'mon dude.
Had to back up. I don't always understand you Yi.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 15, 2013, 02:39:03 PM
Sad to say it, but the Senate seems like a waste of his talent.
Eh, he was afraid to take on Christie, so what else was he gonna do?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2013, 01:51:43 AM
I would like a 6 term limit for representatives and a 3 term limit for senators, giving them at best a 30 year congressional career.
Two for senators. Six for Reps. Can have no more than 12 years time total on the Hill.
I'm not sure amateur politicians would do a better job than the ones we've got.
Quote from: 11B4V on February 16, 2013, 08:34:50 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2013, 01:51:43 AM
I would like a 6 term limit for representatives and a 3 term limit for senators, giving them at best a 30 year congressional career.
Two for senators. Six for Reps. Can have no more than 12 years time total on the Hill.
Why?