I salute your Pfeiffer analogy.

(The whole post was darn good, actually, but that one had the added bonus of making me laugh.)

most of what you said, but I have to take exception to a couple of points.

Lynn Westmoreland uses his "franking" privileges to tell his constituents what he has or has not done, but all 535 Reps/Sens do that too. I believe Lynn has a nearly 100% voting record, and that is the reason I and most others voted for him, to go to D C and vote. I further believe his voting correctly represents the wishes of his constituents, you can check the record online and verify that. So calling Lynn a do nothinger reflects your subjective view, not fact.

Anyone with only a cursory knowledge of politics on the HILL knows that a junior represenative is not likely to be able to initiate and pass legislation. Usually takes 3 or four 2 year terms to even begin to entertain the idea of passing significant legislation. What the newer reps do is line up with those whose ideology is most similar to their own and work in that venue.

Negatives in campaigns are a fact of life, I don't agree that they are necessary or beneficial, but they are a fact. But what is "negative" is another subjective measurement. Stating facts, such as pointing out a person's voting record, is not negative. If I try to paint a candidate as being something other than what he is, ie, a "developer" as opposed to being a lawyer, that's patently negative.

The term "do-nothinger" was in quotes for a reason; it was his quote. This was not subjective but objective. It was a term that Mr. Westmoreland used to compare his record to a Democrat. He is your choice, telling you how he is not that bad because there is a Democrat who is worse ? The rationale of neo-cons like Lynn Westmoreland is that "everyone does it". He takes the free mailings; he votes the pay raise and after the minimum 6 years of do-nothing service he will grab his six figure pension and run for governor. I just wish Mr. Smith would return to Washington.

I would agree with your assertion regarding the use of pejorative terms.

P.S. Snark--- amazing alliteration and diction. I had to pull out the dictionary. The Citizen staff will be proud.

has been an accepted means of communication for congressmen and senators since 1776(?), I believe, but tell us, how would you communicate with your constituents? Telephone, door to door, etc?

Looks like you're being a little silly, perhaps by design, about the franking issue. It makes perfect sense to me.

In a word---- the internet....Anything you want is there. There are thousands of website; one for each Congressman, one for each agency, etc.

The only purpose of a mail-out is not to give us any real info on the national energy policy but to put a politician's name and face in front of the voters.

If it makes sense to you, Tonto, to waste the postal service resources to share 20 words of platitude with you, you are indeed quite shallow and uninformed.

with the kind of mail you refer to, taxpayer, "20 words of platitude", the mailings I get from my congressman or senators deal with legislation, policies, etc. They are forbidden to use franking privileges for campaign purposes, and I point that out tongue in cheek. Touting anything they have done in office could be viewed as political campaigning, but I believe most of them walk on the safe side of the line.

Only a fraction of households have internet capability, that doesn't solve the problem.

Inform the public through the media? Gimme a break, I wouldn't trust any part of the media, print, radio or TV, to deliver facts to me. Can you spell "SPIN"?

Looks like you have a jaded view of politics and everything connected to politics, taxpayer.

Have you ever written your congressman complaining about anything? The staff form letters, signed by a machine, are intriguing. Of course, this is after your name has been run through the big contributors list on the computer--then you get a different form letter, if you are on it. Anyway, it goes something like this: God and country, and of course family values--my very first goals, and peace be with you, and thanks for your interest in this stupid thing you believe, but I have to vote my principles. I assure you that I am working day and night, 24/7, and other cliches that I won't bore you with, on your stupid problem. The interest of my voters is always on my mind and if you are ever in Washington and I'm here and available and not on a fact finding mission to Tahitia or Venice, or of course voting, I would be glad for you to speak to one of my staff about your stupid problem. Your congressman, and flag lover, Boor Franks

Tonto,

How much more "franking" do you think the taxpayers can take? I would be curious to know just when the taxpayers first started getting franked. You say 1776? I thought the newspapers were where their constituents received their information back then. Today we have the news, newspapers, magazines, internet and so on. Lynn's franking of the taxpayers has amounted to no more than a timely fluff piece designed to come out during an election cycle. There was nothing in his last "frank over piece" that we didn't already know. If someone didn't already know the contents of his franked up frank piece then they would probably care less what goes on in Washington anyways. I don't know about you but I'm tired of being franked by these "do nothinger clowns".

so you may ditch the dictionary.

To solve the seniority thing in congress we must go to one term limit of three years for both house and senate. Gets rid of useless freshman congressman, taking bribes, raising money, negative campaigns, and returns lawmaking to citizen congressmen instead of professional politicians. Give them a big bonus every year, and an even larger one at the end of their term providing they stay clean, vote 90% of the time, and are judged efficient by ann independent panel. That would give those who really can't afford to go and incentive to do so. Also, must be re-confirmed every year by the opposite house--senate or representatives.

We have been in the era of the professional politician for far to long. I agree that short term limits offer a resonable solution. Thank them for their service and allow them to return to their former careers. Let them face the community and defend their actions. This would work well at all levels of government, local, state, and federal. Educated and involved citizens can make things happen, in all of their their communities.

of 12 years, either branch of Congress, would work quite well. Three years isn't enough to accomplish anything. Max of 3 four year terms for congressmen and 2 six year terms for senators. We don't need hanger ons building seniority and power forever. The senile KKK Byrd should have been gone 30 years ago.

Doesn't solve the problems. If all of them were there a short time, then they would get more done quicker. No big 40 year people to stop everything. It is not a lifetime thing--not even a job. It is a temporary service, or should be.