Patriot Act Extension
 

This should be interesting to see where the parties fall out on it. The Obama administration wants to see it extended with few changes. Others want more control and to tighten the restrictions on surveillence. In the midst of the fight for Healthcare reform I wonder if it will slip under the wire un-noticed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/us...j/YF+MDnfe+O1w

Given that Obama voted for the last Patriot Act extension as well as the FISA amendments, as did a significant minority of Democrats in both the House and Senate, I dont expect that there will be much modification to the current law.

There will be proposed amendments by the Feingold/Kucinich wing, but there is no widespread mandate for change here.

did you mean majority?

The vote count:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patri...natevote.shtml

House Votes to Revise, Extend Patriot Act, Angering Senators

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121402051.html

In the House, only a significant minority of Democrats voted for the 06 extension : 66 - for and 124 -against

In the Senate, enough Democrats voted for it to ensure that those Democratis opposed could not fillibuster at the time.

It will get more Democratic votes now because most of the new Democrats elected in 06 and 08 are moderates from Republlican-leaning distrricts and in the Senate, there are easily more than enought Democrats, along with all the Repubilcans to push it through.

I dont see an issue here. It is almost a sure thing to be extended as is, after Feingold on the Senate side and Kuchinich on the Huose side attempt to tinker with it, with little success.

I used to be okay with Obama. Now he's in my douche-bag bin with Bush and his cronies. What a bunch of fucking maroons.

The system is broken. We need Congressional Term Limits.

Ah. Something we agree on.

It's hard to disagree with that... I sure don't anyway.

We need limits on all of them. We need to get rid of career politicians.

It won't help a much as some of us hope as they will all end up being lobbyists or other influential positions in and around the Gov't, but it'd be a damn good start.

I'm with James Madison and those guys in Philly 225 years ago who considered and rejected term limits:

"a few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them."

I would prefer much tougher campaign finance reform and ethics/lobbying reform.

Another downside to term limits is that it would likely make unelected Congressional staff much more powerful, unless you term limit them as well.

LIMIT EVERYONE!

lets see the progression here - 2 term congressman does a good job (4 years), then 2 term senator (12 years) Thats a good 16 years of Gov't service - plenty of time. Then go open a consulting business like you.

Oh and I am all for the strictest shit we can possibly enforce as far as campaign contributions and lobbyists et all.

Step 1: Electrocute all lobbyists
Step 2: Bring on the term limits
Step 3: Electrocute all new lobbyists

You wanna fix THAT broken system, but...:headshake

What you do with term limits is effectively obstruct/prevent citizens' fundamental choices for their elected representative by excluding one person (you cant vote for Congressman X anymore) rather than level the playing field through comprehensive campaign finance reform so that challengers have a real competitive chance against incumbents...providing real choice, not limiting choice.

The other issue for me with term limits is loosing that expertise that takes more than 10-12 years to establish. (Don't you know more about your field of expertise after 20 years as opposed to 10-12 years?)

There is probably not a guy in the Senate who knows as much about foreign affairs as Dick Lugar, Republican from Indiana, who has been around for 30 years, building that expertise. I dont want him replaced with a rookie, even if I dont always agree with Lugar. Same with the Intel Committees or Armed Services Committees, I want at least some members of those Committees who know every nook and cranny of the CIA and the Pentagon. That level of expertise takes time as does establishing credibility with colleagues as well as with the executive branch.

I dont think I would want to work in any large company/organization, public or private, where no one in that institution had more than 10-12 years of experience on the job. I just want better safeguards to make sure those long-timers dont abuse the system.