Will U.S. Senator Jon Tester be re-elected? (home, living)

[Panjuerallo]

Despite the 2012 U.S. senatorial elctions being more than a year away, do any of you think that Jon Tester will be re-elected?

He has supported some of Obama's policies including Obamacare and the stimulus package but he's also voted against some including the DREAM Act.

I'm also certain that Obama has low approval ratings in Montana.

What are your guys's thoughts on Tester's re-election chances?

[Rickers]

These politicians seem to start off clean and once in power turn rotten.
I doubt many are thinking about who will win and who will lose at this point but for a few politicos and supporters.

Retired folks are mad as heck, these leaders get automatic huge raises every year and the folks in our country are struggling with everything. I say fire the whole bunch.

[grizzfan]

Tester makes my hindend fester.

[Rickers]

Tester the jester, mind in a fester.
Likes to spend dough and make us all owe.
Toss the bums out, and I have not a doubt.
We will soon be forking over more dough.

[nature's cathedral]

Originally Posted by grizzfan

Tester makes my hindend fester.

Great pun.

[nature's cathedral]

I am getting to the point that I would love to see a constitutional amendment that would allow for a one time taking of all the personal and family property of any person who has served in federal elected office since Reagan left office. What the heck, lets go back to all politicians who are still living and one generational set of heirs. Including the luxurious pensions and benefits they have given themselves.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by nature's cathedral

I am getting to the point that I would love to see a constitutional amendment that would allow for a one time taking of all the personal and family property of any person who has served in federal elected office since Reagan left office. What the heck, lets go back to all politicians who are still living and one generational set of heirs. Including the luxurious pensions and benefits they have given themselves.

Well, that might be a little extreme but remember that the Founders figured you should hold office mainly on your own nickel, and it was supposed to be at most a part-time temporary job, not a career with a pension and benefits. It was designed with "you gotta go back and live next to the folks you just screwed over in D.C." in mind, precisely so local pressure would prevent 'em from becoming beholden to D.C. politics instead of local needs.

Montana's own legislature still functions "the old fashioned way" where it's not a career, it's a part-time job that won't exactly let you retire on its benefits. (Or at least I hope it's still that way!) And the less time they have to work, the fewer stupid ideas can get hoisted into law. I have noticed that wherever there's a fulltime legislature (like in CA), they pretty much do nothing but spend taxpayer money, since they've no incentive to do otherwise -- no need to ever go home and feel the censure of their real neighbours.

So I think the solution is... downsize D.C. until it's at the same level as Montana's legislature, relatively speaking. Everyone gets one staffer and one secretary and just enough of a sinecure to support a basic lifestyle for the duration of the -- oh, say 90 days every two years (or 30 days twice a year, might be more practical at the national level). No pension or benefits -- meaning for the rest of the year you have to earn a living just like your constituents, and you have to rely on your normal earnings for your pension and benefits, just like your constituents.

This full-time politician thing, where it's a career from end to end, totally divorces the office holder from the people he's supposed to represent. Didn't we used to call such people "kings" and "lords", not "presidents" and "senators"??

[nature's cathedral]

Originally Posted by Reziac

This full-time politician thing, where it's a career from end to end, totally divorces the office holder from the people he's supposed to represent. Didn't we used to call such people "kings" and "lords", not "presidents" and "senators"??

Many great points! This one is my favorite.

I also agree it is important to live next to their constituents.

I would take it one step further and make teleconferencing a requirement and that they are prohibited from ever meeting in quorum in the same location for passing legislation. It would be a nightmare for the lobbyists, and revival for us.

We need the ability to throw them all out at once with a national vote that can be brought up at anytime and all legislation passed in the current congress is null and void.

[T-310]

Oh God I hope not.

[ElkHunter]

Has anybody noticed that the OP has never returned? Must have collected all the data he needed for his paper.