Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Ted Stevens Defeated
I have bittersweet feelings about the defeat of Ted Stevens, the longest serving Republican senator, from Alaska. It means one fewer senate seat for Republicans and one more for Democrats as they try to reach that magical filibuster-proof threshold of 60 seats. Of course, they still could get that without Saxby Chambliss or Norm Coleman losses to Jim Martin and Al Franken, respectively, if Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman side with them. I think the government is better when there is a little gridlock and some compromise is necessary. Just look at the last eight years compared to the last decade (the 90s). (Or the first six years of the Bush administration, as Democrats have controlled congress since the '06 midterm elections.) With so much power and supposed/perceived mandates, one party abuses their power. This concerns me with the Democrats now controlling the executive branch, house, and senate. Obama and the Dems will likely have even more power than Bush, because he will likely have a "liberal" Supreme Court as well. Bush didn't not have a majority in the Supreme Court. And it appears Obama wants the court to be an arm of his administration, as indicated by his voting records and statements. (To be expounded on later.) So, it is hard for me to see a Republican lose a seat. However, it is Ted Stevens, a convicted felon. It is one less corrupt individual. It wouldn't help anyone to have a felon in the senate. I cuts down on corruption, but at what cost? It also eliminates one senator that is simply not qualified to be a government official. Can anyone say, in all seriousness, that the 84-year old Stevens, the 91 year-old Robert Byrd, the 84-year old Daniel Inouye, 84-year-old Frank Lautenberg, or the 84-year old Daniel Akaka should still be senators? (Akaka, at 84, is the junior senator from his state...which I find comical.) Stevens is proof that no one in there mid-80s should be government officials. They deserve the retirement anyway. I'm not saying that they were bad senators (or that they were good) but c'mon, no one should be in the U.S. Senate at that age. They had their time to pursue their agenda and it is time to let some younger people take over. So I am happy and sad that Ted Stevens lost his seat. Someone younger and less corrupt is good but excesive power to either party is bad.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Three things. First, I wondered for a long time which causes more problems in government: the gridlock caused by competing parties in power, or the lack of compromise when one party dominates. (I don't think either can be blamed for all the problems, of course!)
Second, I don't think the current Supreme Court is to the left nor to the right of center. If anything, it moved slightly to the right during the Bush administration, since O'Connor was replaced with Alito. But there are still three reliable leftists (Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter), three centrists (left-leaning Breyer, Kennedy, and right-leaning Roberts), and three conservatives (Alito, Thomas, Scalia).
Third, I don't think there should be a rule against old senators, since you can have an unhealthy 60-year-old and a healthy 80-year-old; plus, age doesn't always mean the same thing, as healthcare improves / medicine advances. I think the electorate should remain responsible for deciding who is "too old," and the parties have an incentive not to run a candidate likely to be seen as too old.
Post a Comment