The First Seven Days of Health Care Reform

As we all know, HRC was signed into law on the 23rd of March. The aftermath has seen protesters targeting Democrats with mild violence and verbal threats. Then actions against Republicans were similar by similar protesters.

A raid over the weekend threatened to spark the revolution, or at least peeked a curiosity of what is going on in some people. The raid was quite the massive force for only nine targeted for arrest. There were even rumors that the Indiana Militia activated 100 men to check it out to see if an organized response with numbers was warranted.

So was it just the signing into law that had set all these people off? Were they already on shaky ground and this law was the tipping point?

For me, no. What has fired me up is the disregard of the People. Sure, we need reform and this wasn't it, but that in itself was not the issue. After sending my Congressman (John Boehner) a detailed email (at the request of his office) of who exactly I am, our relationship in the past, and the returning of an old favor by explaining how to constitutionally fix this mess, and my concerns for the urgency in doing so because I have heard the murmurings and rumblings that have become immanent.

Do I get a return of sounds great/sounds like a bad idea? No, I get a form letter email in which each paragraph was (non-bulleted) talking point. Thanks John, obviously since I sent an email I can use the internet to read the exact same things from your webpage as well as others.

How many targeted officials (Dems and GOP) thought so little of public input that they responded with lame form letters? Do they really question why people are upset? Is there any wonder that the less restrained plan attacks with intent to follow them?

Laissez-faire is a model for economics, not representation in government of the governed. We have gone from fighting taxation without representation to misappropriation with cold indifference. This election cycle, we the people need to ask the tough questions:

In your opinion:


• How strong of a law is the Preamble in relation to the rest of the Constitution?
  
• If a constituent were to write an intelligent letter stating their position on a topic, would you respond with a short note regardless of your position or a form letter as a response?
  
• Is it more important to cast a vote on an issue based on your opinion or the general consensus of your constituents?
  
• Is it more important to educate the people back home on the pros and cons of an issue or to rally support on your position, especially when public opinion opposes your own?
  
• What is the best way to involve more people in the political process?
  
• If hostilities broke out domestically, would you come home to pursue peace talks, condemn the violence, or support the group if you believed their cause was just?
  
• Will you vote party lines?
  
• How accessible will you be in office?
  
• Would you support an Order of Recall from another district against a fellow politician or if it were issued to you?
  
  

This election cycle, we need to look out for ourselves with our vote. This Administration and Congress have proven that they are not interested in our interests. Instead of the tired old "Vote the Bums Out", take the time and effort to vote in real leadership and watch the result. Make every effort to encourage your friends and neighbors to do the same.

Let me start by saying my letters written to a relatively unknown GOP congressman warranted the same 'talking point' response, regardless of whether or not it was well thought out or brought up, what I considered, meaningful arguments.

After speaking to various interns at the local and national level I can only assume a letter is typed up for every topic imaginable with the representative/senator's viewpoints laid out. An intern/aide reads a constituent's letter to determine what topic is addressed and the stock form letter is sent out in reply.

Considering each representative has ~400,00 constituents while each senator represents the whole of their state this idea doesn't seem terrible from a their perspective.

Originally posted by Ahabstar

In your opinion:


• How strong of a law is the Preamble in relation to the rest of the Constitution?

I'm going out on a limb and saying I don't understand this question very well. It's a very general law so its strength must lie in its generality, leaving much to the imagination.

If a constituent were to write an intelligent letter stating their position on a topic, would you respond with a short note regardless of your position or a form letter as a response?

If every constituent wrote me a letter, yes. Keep in mind, the president, recieves thousands of letters per day, he only reads five of them a day.

Is it more important to cast a vote on an issue based on your opinion or the general consensus of your constituents?

Based on your opinion. The ones who voted for you were hopefully wise enough to understand your position on topics. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" should not apply. This is coming from a democrat with a GOP congressman.

Is it more important to educate the people back home on the pros and cons of an issue or to rally support on your position, especially when public opinion opposes your own?

Pro's AND Con's, spouting off everything wrong with an issue while ignoring everything right only feeds the divisiveness of constituents and does not promote 'a more perfect union.'

What is the best way to involve more people in the political process?

Educate them on the importance of voting and their role in government. Drop the popular vote=electoral vote system. Nebraska and Maine have a nice idea

If hostilities broke out domestically, would you come home to pursue peace talks, condemn the violence, or support the group if you believed their cause was just?

Condemn the violence, especially in our democratic republic. Resorting to violence when others disagree with you is not what we've survived for the past 230+ years to achieve.

Will you vote party lines?

As a voter I'll vote for the candidate who most closely aligns to my own beliefs. As a candidate I'll vote to my own beliefs. If those are the same or very similiar to 'party lines' then so be it.

How accessible will you be in office?

As accessible as possible. Being a congressman is more than a full-time job.

Would you support an Order of Recall from another district against a fellow politician or if it were issued to you?

Voters set term limits with their votes, if they change their mind half-way through that's too bad. In the event a law was broken, yes. (I'm not going to argue to constitutionality of votes because I'm not a federal judge and have no basis in deciding how I interpret the law.)

This election cycle, we need to look out for ourselves with our vote. This Administration and Congress have proven that they are not interested in our interests. Instead of the tired old "Vote the Bums Out", take the time and effort to vote in real leadership and watch the result. Make every effort to encourage your friends and neighbors to do the same.

Sometimes you have to recognize your minority status and can only convince other voters of what you percieve as the 'right' way of doing things.

reply to post by links234


Well, it was a response, which was more than what others had done. But I have to say that if those answers were your true opinion in the matter than you have very low expectations or could care less about world around you.

The political process should never be about this side or that side. Voting for the candidate whose party affiliation as closely matches your own is like answering "The Yankees" when asked who was the best baseball player of all time.

If you ask 20 people on the street what time is it? You will get different answers because watches are not synchronized. You would determine the time based on what most people say. it should not matter if the time comes from a rich man wearing a Rolex or a poor man with a Timex. It is the general consensus that should be the most correct time.

The problem with the system is that far too many people enter the booth and vote by either party lines or name recognition. The public trust should be that the candidate would be a public servant, not an arrogant individual who feels their answer is the only answer.

Far too many politicians think they are above the rabble, but ask for their support in votes at the ballot box. Once the election is over, the nose becomes upturned again. Sadly, too many accept this condition as "that's just the way it is".

I have spoken with several politicians publicly and privately over the years. There is a huge difference in personality between the two settings. At times the difference is very reminiscent of the kayfabe used in professional wrestling or an actor in or out of a role.

Casting your lot and hoping for the best, is not representation. It is the desperate act of a person that is disconnected. The Preamble is the strongest law. It is the ultimate of the checks and balances. Any candidate that does not accept that the government only exists so long as the people allow it to continue has no business holding the office.

Think of how public the raid and aftermath of last weekend has become. It is being turned into a warning from the government that ideas contrary to the status quo are both looney and unacceptable. The distention will be met with force. The government has to take that stance, lest more reasonable people start asking questions in a calm manor. The government realizes that their cushy jobs are on the line.

reply to post by Ahabstar


So, in your opinion, elected officials should be driven by the most popular voice at the time? Isn't that why the house has only two-year terms as opposed to the senate's six years?

You have to progress beyond the 18th century, we're in the age of celebrity now. Have you ever listened to Glenn Beck's radio show? Do you have any clue how many people call in just to say, "My name is So-and-so, I believe in this and I'm running for such-and-such office, do you support me Glenn?"
Why do you think that is? It's because there are sheeple, even ones who don't admit it who honestly believe, "Well, if Glenn Beck likes this guy then I'm gonna vote for him!"
It's minority candidates looking for a plug from one of the most popular radio personalities in the market. Look how well Doug Hoffman did after he shmoozed and drooled all over Beck on the air.

By going with the most letters or phone calls you recieve as an elected official you completely devalue your voters and relinquish your role to that of modern day media puppet. It absolutely sickens me to watch a segment of Fox news one night only to have a US Senator on the floor of the senate the very next day arguing an issue using the exact same arguments that aired the night before on Beck, O'Reilley or Hannity.

So if you're represented by a democrat, don't cry foul when you write a letter and they vote the other way. You're in the minority in your district/state, deal with it.

reply to post by links234


Look back at my posts and notice that I do not focus on either party but call for responsibility in the electorate. Sorry that you feel that it can only be the winning party for direction of policy. That the best celebrity endorsement is the best person for the job. To the victor goes the spoils, is exactly what was fought against in the throughout the 1800's in US politics. Hence the one time popularity of the Know Nothing Party.





[edit on 31-3-2010 by Ahabstar]