Dicks's seat is generally considered safe for Democrats, though the open seat may make for a more competitive challenge by Republicans.

Perhaps now is a safe time to leave, when Republicans are making such A***s of themselves. Better chance to have a Democrat winning that seat, after the fiasco of Weiner in NY.

Or got tired of trying to promote that taking from those who work and sacrifice to give to those that don't is anything but theft.

I agree. There needs to be a term limit set in place. Environment for better politics... And yes, that goes to both parties.

More bailing ship. Now for the rest of the "Crooks on the hill".

Wait a minute....maybe they should PAY their BACK IRS TAXES, along with the 41 Obama White House staffers and their aides, BEFORE leaving the capital:

In the House of Representatives, the body Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised in 2006 would be the “the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history,” 421 people owe a total $6,524,892 to the IRS. In the Senate, 217 owe $2,774,836. In the IRS’s parent department, Treasury, 1,204 employees owe $7,670,814 and at the Labor Dept., 463 owe $7,481,463. Eighty-one workers for the Federal Reserve System’s board of governors owe $1,076,733. Over at Eric Holder’s Justice Department, 1,971 employees still owe $14,350,152 in back taxes.

http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/41-obama-white-house-aides-owe-the-irs-831000-in-back-taxes/

Note: See link for more info on those Government workers who OWE BACK TAXES.

Irespond - "Perhaps now is a safe time to leave, when Republicans are making such A***s of themselves. Better chance to have a Democrat winning that seat, after the fiasco of Weiner in NY."

Do you not even know that Weiner was a Democrat?

Or do you somehow think a Democrat behaving like an arrogant, elitist, dim-witted, pervert makes Democrats more appealing to those who are unintelligent enough to vote for them?

The difference between scandalous dems and scandalous repubs is that dems resign and repubs won't. So they are still there.

To many terms, this is why we need terms limits in both houses.

Do you not even know that Weiner was a Democrat?

Yes. I know that. The fact that I am a Democrat does not mean that I have to worship every a***e that is a Democrat. Perhaps the Republicans should do the same.

Hey IDO, there are only 100 Senators, not 217. Fail.

They need term limits. You shouldn't be in Congress 4 - 5 different generations. People born in 1940 have no clue what voters born in 1994 want.

If 18 terms are "way too many" what about filling all the vacancies with idiiots such as happened in 2010 with the House races. That brought a bunch of wierdo, hateful and nutso Repubs into the House, responsible for most of the gridlock in Congress. As witness veteran Republican Olympia Snow'e announcing her decision not to run for re-election as a Senator. She blamed the "ideiological" battles getting in the way of reaching across the aisle for a consensus to get things done, and she ius fed up with it as a moderate Repubixan.

Good luck you @!$%#s who want to bring the whole country down and place party politics ahead of patrioitism, and that means Republicans, tea party nutso, whatever you want to call the right woing. I can't wait to vote "against" all Republicans as traitor to the country when November rolls around.

Look. Lets be honest here. The people who have been in congress a while, they haven't screwed the country. The GOP Freshman elected in 2010. They screwed the country, because they are so far to the right of what the country actually wanted and needed. The country generally wants to stay to the middle of the political spectrum, which is why all these congressional veterans are so valuable to maintaining America as the best country in the world. Thanks for your service.

I have always said six year term and no more, the also could serve a six year term as president. But no more, no more life time jobs in congress. They can take their pension with them to their next job. Their pension shouldn't be any better than the average citizen. plain and simple

Should have been gone a long time ago! for obvious reasons.

18 consecutive terms in congress is exactly the problem. I would say 2 consecutive 4 year terms followed by at least 1 term sitting out before you could be considered for that office again. That way if the person is truly effective they could be eligible again if that is who the people want.

A Musical Impulse, yea everything was just perfect prior to 2 years ago. You are anything but honest in your assessment. I have to vehemently disagree, the country was totally hosed up prior to the 2010 elections, and both parties can take the blame or credit, depending on you point of view. To your point, things aren't any better now, but again to lay all the blame on 1 party is to not really understand the problem to begin with.

I doubt it. I bet most of them get re-elected.

It may have been his last trip to a restaurant. He may actually have put salt in his food that was younger than he is.

Congress' approval rating is so low because of the non-stop Boner/Cantor/McTurtle obstructionism, and nothing more.

Bullsh!t dudogger..........their approval rating was dismal before Boehner even took the Speaker of the House from Iran Pants Nancy. They are all fukn crooks.

We already have term limits you morons. It's known as "elections." If people are so ignorant to repeatedly vote for lousy members of Congress, so be it. If they are smart enough to reelect good members of Congress, so be it.

Adding and imposing more artificial constraints such as "term limits' would have disrupted America's ability to win World War II (i.e. FDR had three terms, currently not even possible for a President).

Republicans seem to like to pass all kinds of unenforceable "laws" that do nothing but prevent people from thionking and making their own informed chooices about anything, including birth controil. Maybe the Repugs are handicapped when it comes to IQ (I suspect so) and education and wiliingness if not the ability to think for themselves, but the founding fathers expected American voters to make their own decisions as a real democracy should operate. The ditto h eads have been in chage in the Greedy Old Party for too long.

Maybe he was tired of watching his party supporting foreign criminals more than the citizens of the nation they were elected to serve.

Norm Dicks would have won any contest in his district by a landslide. His district holds two large military bases and he spent his career defending them. His district appreciated that. And his district, believe me, would never accuse him of supportin foreign criminals. You, pjam, do not have a clue about what you are talking about.

I'll bet he's leaving for the very same reasons as Olympia Snow.

You just might be right dudogger. They are both Liberals ! I know, I know Snowe has an 'R' behind her name, she's still a Liberal. It was her vote that allowed PPACA to get out of committee, where it should have forever remained!

She knew that we would remember and that she was finished in any case!

tedcrawford.

Image that! Finally got a little something accomplished. Guess that just burns your party to no end. If you are not going to do anything constructive, why be there. What, just vote NO to everything but what you want. And you guys wonder why so many independents are leaning towards the Democrats. Whatever happened to doing the job they were elected for instead of just saying NO all the time?

We have term limits. It's called the ballot box.

While I can see why some will call for term limits I hesitate to. Why should we throw out those reps who actually do their jobs just because they have reached a specific time limit. Kind of like forced retirement.

What really needs to happen is that voters need to actually do their civic duty and really inform themselves about the candidates and issues. And by that I DO NOT mean getting all their information from one source, whether that source is Fox or MSNBC. Unfortuantely we are a population of lazy voters.

DSB: "Why should we throw out those reps who actually do their jobs just because they have reached a specific time limit." Can you name one? You are correct that the ballot box is a version of term limits, but when the republicrats use the people's money to buy votes and receive bribes- er, uh, "contributions" wink wink, they have an almost impossible to overcome edge.

Considering that between them the two parties have either held or shared control of our goverment since the nation's founding it is pointless to blame one side or the other; each is complicit in the failure and massive, unpayable debt. It would be wonderful to vote them all out and start over but as noted above, they have an inexhaustable supply of our money to make promises they don't have to pay for to get reelected, so term limits seem like a reasonable answer.

Vote against all incumbents in 2012.

norm: to avoid any hint of partisanship, I'll name one from each party who has done a good job and deserves to stay despite having served long terms in Congress already: Richard Lugar (R) and Tom Harkin (D).

dslsca: And what about the other 533? Can we term limit them?

The problem with your argument is that it is a broken system, not broken individuals.

Norm, when you ask dsb if he (or she) can name one representative who's done his job -- do you realize how silly that sounds?

You're following what's called "the law of the excluded middle." Either all reps do their jobs or none of them do their jobs. Period.

The likelihood is that some are more or less industrious and responsible than others. Most of them probably take their jobs seriously. If there's a problem, it's that too many of them take their jobs TOO seriously and have become as inflexible as your question suggests that you are.

A good guess is that John Boehner is working very hard to advance some sorts of legislation and hold the party together at the same time. Another good guess is that Eric Cantor is working very hard at trying to unseat Boehner by edging him out on the right.

Overall, it's hard for any organization to "do their jobs" if they interpret their jobs as just saying "no" all the time.

norm: I wholly agree that it's a broken system not broken individuals but you asked me to name individuals who were doing a good job and I answered your question.

And having good individuals in Congress is, sadly, the best we can hope for. Anything that would fix the system (a new Constitutional convention? public funding for all campaigns? banning television ads for candidates/issues?) simply won't happen in your lifetime or mine (I'm assuming I'm older than you) and we both know it.

Robert: We're in the soup because of "parties" and the corruption that serving too long in office brings.

The system is broken and until those in office are out of office, and short limits are in place to make sure those who enter pure do not leave tainted or at least without spending money that "taint" theirs, it will never be "the right time" to fix this broken system and do the right thing for the citizenry.

The following need to be done A.S.A.P.

It is the will of "WE THE PEOPLE"

1) Term limits

2) Campaign Finance Reform (Citizen United NEEDS to be OVERTURNED)

3) Investigation into all Insider Trading done in Washington

* FINES for any politician who lies

Norm, we've had political parties since the 18th century and the terms of office were established hundreds of years ago.

I don't understand how these two things (constants) can explain the craziness in Washington, which began only a decade or two ago. We can't use constants to explain change.

It seems to me that money, which has always had an impact on governance, has become more important than ever before in our history. Lobbying, for instance, involves a paid corporate spokesman wining and dining a legislator, feeding him propaganda, and asking for favors. (In other venues that's known as bribery.) And the number of lobbyists in Washington has grown exponentially over the last 30 years. Spending on lobbyists has MORE than doubled between 2000 and 2008. (Easily Googled.) Now THAT is a change.

Last year's Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court was a move in precisely the wrong direction if we intend to fix this situation.

I suspect also that there's been a change in American character. We seem to have turned into a terribly angry people who seem bent on damaging ourselves and destroying those who disagree with us. A study by Poole and Rosenthal, two political scientists, showed that polarization in Congress goes up and down with prosperity. The richer most Americans become, the less tolerant they are, probably because they resent freeloaders and "government handouts" that they welcomed when they were poor.

At least we have the Constitution which allows us to have civil discourse such as we're having tonight. They can't take that away from us to serve their self-interest...can they?

The biggest problem I have with term limits is what I would call the "lame duck syndrome". Near the end of a congressman's final term what is to stop him/her from pushing for total B.S legislation, or doing nothing at all. There would be no fear of repercussions because, hey, "I'm outta here soon anyways". The competition and challenge of re-election is the only thing that keeps these guys in line. Now, if only the public would realize this and become involved and informed voters.

I think you must mean Speaker Pelosi, as you'll be calling her in January 2013.

Horse face pelosi as speaker again...... LOL.... yeah sure.

No you mean peLOUSEY.

I see the problem with Congress being polar opposites, as they have been able to divide our country along party lines. Pelosi is no worse nor better than Michelle Bachman.

We let them do it, it is our own damn fault. If anyone ever wonders why the youth backs Ron Paul, it is because the youth will be expected to pay for all the mistakes that everyone that voted before them have made at the ballot box.

pelosi is busy with flunt under the desk, do not disturb!!!!

RAS can't understand, why you would be collapsed for speaking the truth???????

Nancy Pelosi has a hairy ball sack.

Nancy Pelosi has a hairy ball sack.

Seriously...Do you need to be that crass? Grow up!

18 terms and even he couldn't stand to be identified as a Democrat anymore after this administration.

And eliminate all public unions and make all states Right to Work!!!

So let's say we end "all benefits to illegal aliens now" and a Mexican agricultural worker contracts bubonic plague (endemic in the rodent population in parts of far southeastern CA, in AZ, and NM and shows up at the emergency room with no insurance, etc. and we refuse him/her treatment so we're not giving a "benefit" to an illegal alien and then THOUSANDS of US citizens die from a highly contagious disease that could have been treated successfully at the ER. Is that what you want?

Or do you want to deny the US born children of illegal aliens an education (despite the fact that their parents pay tax every time they buy something, every time they pump gas, every time they make a telephone call, every time they drink a beer, etc.) just so you can have a permanent underclass without enough education to challenge your views and poor enough that they'll have to work for whatever pennies you'll pay then?

Stop all benefits to all ILLEGAL aliens, now, no anchor babies!!!

Not complicated????

Spin it any way you want!!

If you can't create a pet rock in America don't cry to me that you are poor!!!!

If the liberal education system you wanted AIN'T working get out of the way and turn it over to the states???

I've lived all my life, in a Right to Work state that gets huge amounts of people from Union states retiring in it.

My states employers pay peanuts in wages and benefits compared to say the NE , if they don't hire a illegal.

Pass right to work legislation and join the working poor, living on the hinterlands of the super rich. .

Who said you were poor, the union???

Actually Gary: I'm retired, but going back to work in IT. My IT instructor says my right to work state pays peanuts. Many Unions in IT Gary?? Yea , don't think so......

When I received my 1st degree, my states biologists were making 13 k a year, Hwy Patrol 9.3k a year. NY, MA, were doubling that.

Fine, if you choose to join the union that's fine, not everyone chooses to join.

Shouldn't the worker decide whether or not, to take that dues money home or give it to the union bosses that are having such a hard time feeding their families????

I am saying in America should a worker have the right to choose???

We are close to agreement.

However:

I"ve seen coercion used to tell people how to vote by both parties. And there appears to be no control on that factor. Right to work state, means right to fire a employee for a wrong vote. Sure, they'll get unemployment ....but.....

On the other side, some unions act as yet another level of supervision. Grabbing powers that people did not intend for them to yield (a high price). But they do get more pay and benefits for members who tolerate it.

Basically, today, Right to Work , means Right to Fire for no cause.

The Rub is your:"I am saying in America should a worker have the right to choose???" It doesn;t happen , and is not protected.

LMAO, do you really believe the company can't fire you if you belong to a union??? You really need to do a lot of research.

Once your shop is union that's exactly when all stops are off, now you have to please the employer and the union!!!

Upset a union boss and see how long you will last they both will collude to get rid of you or trade you for a nephew.

You need to solve your own problems if you can't do it the union, won't!!!

Goodnight, Scar!!

Actually GaryK : I was referring to the vote you suggested. Re-read my post.

But now that you brought it up. Most Union contracts require a process to discipline a employee. The employer can't just say hit the door.

I goes through a grievance process, fact finding, and resolution step. And IF the Union employee is not represented correctly, by the union, a complaint can be sent to the Department of Labor.

Can you do that in a non-union job?? NO

Non-Union = Your next step is the unemployment line.

It's a matter of plus's & minus's . Unions are left to 10% of the employed people of the country. Why? As the value of labor goes down. The strength of the employer goes up. Add illegal employment and outsourcing you see why they are in decline. Your blaming and fighting a dying factor for the current economic woes.

For 19 years I did my job in a "right to work" state. I got hired to do the EXACT SAME JOB in the northeast where I had to become a member of the union to do the job. GaryK asks whether I should have the right to decide whether I get to keep my union dues or not. Hmmmm. To do the exact same job but in a union, my salary TRIPLED and I got health insurance with no copay ($10 for a doctor's office visit and $50 for going to the hospital), no prior approval to see a doctor/specialist, no lifetime maximum benefit, and generic prescriptions for free ($4 per month for brand name prescriptions). So, I was VERY HAPPY to turn over .9% of my salary in union dues. I came out WAY ahead. If I needed a heart transplant, all it would have cost me was $50 plus prescriptions.

Sounds good but,,who is actually paying for all those benefits..It is NOT the Union...so whose pocket are you picking to afford that $50 heart transplant...Your just another Pa Kettle....

eddie: so the alternative you prefer to offer is that only people who can pay out of pocket for heart transplants should get them? You prefer to ration health care by ability to pay; I prefer to ration it by need for treatment.

I have never worked in a so-called right to work state and any-one that I have ever worked with always claimed that when they left right to work states,to work in union shops they, without exception, improved their working conditions tremendously. I also never,ever met any one of those who were from those right to work states who regretted leaving them to work in union shops,

The vote is the term limit???

Gary K some people want to restrict the limit to two terms or less.

Yes, the vote is the ultimate limit. We agree.

Jefferson felt that the ultimate term limit was the electorate, Madison felt the same way.

Republicanism, the political philosophy which the Founding Fathers based the constitution on requires responsible participation by the citizens. Without it, you will find that your rights are stripped away by the moneyed interests. Yes they stated this over 200 years ago, their prescription was an enraged electorate standing up for the rights as delineated in the constitution. If the citizens do not take up their guaranteed independent civil responsibilities, they have nothing to complain about when they lose their rights to tyrannical interests. Personal Individual Responsibilities, the Founding Fathers built this country on those beliefs, without the willingness on the part of the citizenry to be individually responsible, we have nothing to complain about...

Sadly,most Democrats believe that the founding fathers are on their side.How wrong they are.I don't think our founding fathers would like the new healthcare law Obama has passed.That stands for more government,and our founding fathers HATED more government.

Random PA: and yet the first mandatory government insurance program (for sailors in the newly formed Navy) was passed under the administration of founding father and second president John Adams. Go figure.

dslsca;

" If the people let the Government deciede what foods to eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under Tryanny" Thomas Jefferson

tedc: so you're in favor of eliminating the FDA and trusting the advertising industry to inform you accurately as to which drugs are safe and effective?

My rep spent 18 years in congress. Break that down. six years trying to pass bills and 12 trying to get re-elected.

It's worse than that. Begging for campaign $ is a full-time job. He spent the entire 18 years trying to get re-elected.

DaGump:

"Three biggest problems with this countries politics is religion creeping into it, Corporate money and lack of term limits."

Religion: They play religion into politics and don't pay taxes. Religions get into politics, then you should pay taxes like any other corp or org.

Corporate Money: Our corporation owned Supreme Court let that boat sail.

There is a term limit. It's called the ballot box. You can't legislate people too lazy to vote. Some countries require a person to vote. Their however, not called democracies. Please show me where the founding fathers wanted term limits. Do that, and I'll agree with you.

In Norm Dicks district it doesn't matter. He could be a child molesting serial killer on death row and he would get overwhelmingly re-elected. There's a 100% chance that a democrat will hold that seat....just like Pelosi's district..

I live in his district, or at least did for many years, it was a 65% leaning Democrat District for the Representative from Boeing. Since they have gerrymandered even more here in Washington (we gained a seat in Congress) it is even more tilted to the Democrats favor, the last time that district went republican was in '84. Last cycle 2010, Dicks won re-election with 72%

They will easily elect a democrat to replace him

J E / What disasters are you claiming that the president has caused? The largest do nothing political group in our senate is the house and that is caused by the shift in the Republicans moving to the far right,under the commands of the Tea Party.Are these claims of yours because you are racist or are you so brain washed that you deny the obvious? How much power do you think a President has? The right are even blaming him for the gas prices,and even considering the country's cry for gas price unreasonable high prices on him.Next you will probably claim that pollution is his fault. Do you think that that morally loose Gin---h is telling you the truth when he assures us all that he can lower gas price to $2.50. ? I don't think so!

abnd,

First of all the Repukes have been calling for it about 20 years now

yep, and for 40 years prior to that the democraps were calling for it.

I usually don't use derogatory labels like this I try to keep the Debate civil, but sometimes it fits....

Egilman - No offense taken. I can't say I recall that being the case. I'm 63 and cannot remember a Demo ever calling for that. I don't claim to have total recall by any means. Will try to find a record of it. Took a look at your newsvine page of comments, rather slim but your newby, but was surprised at your support for Rep. Paul. Your entitled to your candidate, no argument from me, but you have to know he has no chance at securing the repubs nomination. For my own selfish reasons, I'd love to see him run as a third party candidate. I don't seriously think he would attempt that again. Don't think he would want to cause problems for Rand. Its unusual to come across a civil person here on the vine. Looking forward to future exchanges. I'll try to remember to exclude partisan pot shots with you.

Amused,

Yep I like Dr Paul, one of many, and a few here on the vine also. I would like him to be president but we will have to wait and see on that one. Going to be an interesting cycle this one...

Didn't mean to offer any offense, I took a shot that there are more than just a few that like civil discourse. Me I'm 65 I distinctly remember many crying for term limits back then also, I was one of them, but that was back when I had less of an education. Term limits are not the answer that is why they were specifically left out of the constitution. The Founding Fathers did decry political parties and the corruption they bring, that was because parties bring money into the equation, and money corrupts.

Eliminating the lobbyists and any and all outside contributions would be the only way to really clean it up, full public election financing, no lobbying, no pacs, no soliciting donations. Remove the money, you remove the bought and paid for, in someone's pocket atmosphere. Then the congress people would have to do their jobs instead of pander for money or cash in on their positions. A citizens vote would actually mean something and the representative could actually speak their minds truthfully one would hope. (I know a fanciful dream)

I also am looking forward to meaningful exchanges, we need more of such around here..

GCCAL,

Yes, I remember that study done for Ronald Reagan.

Mr Grace made all those recommendations to bring some efficiency into our government. His final statement was.....(as I recall)...."And I have just scratched the surface, The waste is unbelievable."

Typically, all these years later, and nothing has been done, and it looks like nothing will ever be done until it all comes crashing down.

Thank you Comrade Alinsky. That has nothing at all to do with the topic here. Now please let the adults talk.

tedc: Did you even know who Saul Alinsky was before the hardright started mumbling about him four or so months ago?

Our Founding Fathers would have no problem with multiple terms in office. People are and should be free to elect who they want as their representatives to Congress. Those in the House of Representatives must run for office every two years and explain to voters why they should be voted back in. If you don't like who represents you, vote them out. But you have no business telling the voters of other districts or states what they should do.

Can't agree. I think it was another concentration of power they just didn't see because the country was so young. Still, it has it's affects.