Category: incumbents

Categories
ballot access incumbents political challengers Voting

You Have Entered the Incumbent Zone

gerrymandering, Louisiana, incumbents

“Would you agree that incumbent protection is one of those?” Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito asked Janai Nelson, president and director-​counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, arguing in the congressional redistricting case Louisiana v. Callais.

One of what, you ask? 

Alito was referring to the High Court’s 2023 ruling in Allen v. Milligan, where it declared: “A district will be considered reasonably configured if it comports with traditional districting criteria.”

Yes, Ms. Nelson acknowledged: “Incumbent protection has been considered a traditional districting criteria.”

That whopper stood out from the rest of the debate. While it certainly wasn’t the focus of this redistricting case heard by the Supremes on Wednesday, in this political Twilight Zone in which we reside — this crepuscular nightmare — let me submit for your consideration that we have just identified a rather large thumb placed on our electoral scales.

The aim of elections is not to guarantee any particular outcome. Yet, protecting incumbents means seeking a very, very particular outcome.

Elections should make sure that — above all else — the voting public shapes the government.

Definitely not that the government shapes the public. 

By drawing fancy lines for districts.

The founders worried most about monarchy and anarchy, kings and chaos. But they realized that three classes were especially dangerous in republics: secure government workers (“job holders”; bureaucrats), factions (partisans; special interests) and protected politicians (incumbents). To hear, from the highest court in the land, that the regular practice of creating and revising legislative districts routinely “and of course” protects incumbents can only lead to one conclusion:

Redistricting needs a full-​scale, fundamental change.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents term limits

Go Ask Gary

North Dakota, term limits

A mystery confounds the minds of North Dakota’s legislators.

It has a fake part and a real part. 

The fake part itself has two parts: 1) how to learn whether voters support term limits, and 2) how to learn how a legislative body can function unless incumbents, whose advantages over challengers enable them to return to office sporting reelection rates exceeding 90 percent, may remain in place until ousted by death or scandal?

The answer to the first everyone knows. The answer to the second is to write down procedures and give tutorials and guidebooks on how the legislature works to newcomers in legislative halls.

The real mystery, though, is how to overthrow term limits given voters’ massive continuing support?

The answer? 

This is where they get “clever”! Their plan appears to be: concoct the fake mystery and set up investigations premised on it.

And maybe sacrifice lambs and the first-​born to the gods, hoping and praying and hoping some more that something turns up … anything to enable downtrodden entrenched legislators to cling to power for all eternity.

Regardless of popular support for term limits — support, after all, that has been confirmed in polls on the question conducted over the past four decades as well as in election after election.

This all explains why North Dakota legislators are paying $220,000 to Gary Consulting to find out how voters — who in 2022 passed term limits of eight years on the state house and eight years on the state senate — feel about term limits and how lawmakers feel about term limits.

I’ll tell you for free: voters love them; incumbents hate them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Fireflly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents term limits

The Mad-​Libs Incumbency

term limits

In late April, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s delegate to the U.S. House for these last 35 years, “stumbled through a short speech in which she appeared to struggle with both reading and comprehension, unable to deliver more than a garbled, Mad Libs-​style version of her intended remarks,” according to a report in Washingtonian magazine and confirmed by an audio recording.

Annie Karni’s story last week in the The New York Times discloses concerns among Norton’s “colleagues and friends” of “a notable decline … that has quieted her voice, leaving her vastly diminished and struggling to fulfill her congressional duties.”

Karni’s other tidbits?

  • “In hearings, she often sits quiet and alone, sometimes relying on staff aides to remind her where she is.”
  • “She sometimes does not seem to recognize people she has known for years.”
  • “Ms. Norton is unable to function independently.”

That means she is unable to function as an effective representative of the people of Washington, D.C. 

“In Ms. Norton’s case, the signs have been evident for years,” explains The Times article. Her activity on the House floor has dwindled precipitously.”

Still, when questioned earlier this week about possible retirement, Norton declared, “I’m going to run. I don’t know why anybody would even ask me.”

The 88-​year-​old non-​voting delegate from our nation’s capital would be 90 if reelected next year and able to complete a 14th term. When of course she might yet run again.

“Ms. Norton’s story is a familiar one in Congress,” acknowledges The Times reporter, “an institution littered with towering figures who have stayed around well past the prime of their lives.”

Yet this is not really about age. It’s about incumbency. Politicians leveraging their positions for unlimited rule … resulting in rule by the old, the doddering, the feeble.

We all know — ’cept for incumbent politicians — that the answer is term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents national politics & policies term limits

Old as the Hills

Congress, term limits, age limit,

“I’ll give up power when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.”

This is the operative principle for today’s politicians.

The examples are so obvious: 

  • Nancy Pelosi, born in 1940, continues to represent California’s 11th District despite having lost the Speakership for the second time, despite having spent nearly four decades in the House of Representatives. 
  • Senator Chuck Schumer, a decade younger than Mrs. Pelosi (and thus not yet an octogenarian), is still serving his fifth term as a senator from New York State.
  • Senator Dianne Feinstein demonstrated extreme mental fragility before dying in office at age 90 — after serving more than three decades.

There are Republican examples, too, but age, as The Wall Street Journal puts it, “is a bigger headache for Democrats than Republicans for one central reason: Democrats have a lot more old members.” While the median ages are nearly identical between the two parties, “of the 20 oldest House members elected in 2024, 16 were Democrats. In the Senate, where tensions over age are more subdued, nearly all of the oldest senators — 11 of the 14 who were older than 75 at the start of this Congress — were Democrats.”

This may strike a sense of dissonance, I know. The old cliché is that Republicans are tired old men and Democrats are wild young (and female) firebrands. But the true nature of the establishment doesn’t quite fit the old saws and preconceptions.

The Journal notes that 70 percent of Americans support an age limit on holding office.

Sure, as the next best thing to term limits! We know the crux of the problem is not age, it is the advantages of incumbency, and the length of time in power.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents term limits

Missing in Congress

Congress, term limits, incumbency, age, power

Her “constituents in Texas Congressional District 12 have asked, ‘Where is Congresswoman Kay Granger?’

“Some Tarrant County residents,” The Dallas Express further reports, “have begun to speculate.”

“I’m hearing she’s in a memory care unit,” one posted on X. 

Express reporter Carlos Turcios explains that “the Congresswoman has been residing at a local memory care and assisted living home for some time after having been found wandering, lost, and confused in her former Cultural District/​West 7th neighborhood.”

Granger, 81, did not seek re-​election last November after 28 years in Congress. Thankfully. She has not voted in Congress since July 24 of this year. Which, given the circumstances, is also a good thing.

Her son told the media she was suffering from dementia and had declined rapidly, but that could be a slight stretch.

Don’t condemn the congresswoman, argues former Texas legislator Jonathan Strickland. “Six years ago (as an elected official who worked regularly with/​around her) it was obvious she had serious memory issues. She has had no idea what was going on for a while,” he explained, blaming “her friends, family, and staff” who “left her in office for their own benefit.”

The last six years in Congress … without … cognition. (Is that about par?)

Utah Senator Mike Lee, a fellow Republican, says Granger makes a “compelling case for term limits.” Yes. Sure. Of course. 

Even if these over-​the-​top instances of incumbency running amok overtime weren’t spilling out so often, however, we would still need term limits. 

The fact that things have gotten this bad is a sign we’ve needed term limits for a very long time.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Flux and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents national politics & policies political challengers

Taking Out The

Joe Biden, Alfred E. Newman, MAD,

At last Sunday’s Trump Rally in Madison Square Garden, Tony Hinchcliffe, a reputed comedian, told a very unfunny joke, referring to Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage.”

The outcry was understandably loud, so noisy in fact that it apparently awakened Sleepy Joe Biden. “The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters,” declared the man who is — remember? — currently still president of the United States.

Mr. Biden has since clarified that he did not mean what he said. That’s good. 

Though, White House press secretary Karine Jean-​Pierre sounded a different note: “So, just to clarify, he was not calling Trump supporters garbage, which is why he put out … a statement that clarified what he meant and what he was trying to say.”

But Mr. Biden did say what he said. That’s not in dispute — it’s on videotape. 

Yet … the reporting seems fuzzier now about whether President Biden uttered what our ears heard. 

On NBC Nightly News, anchor Lester Holt began a segment by referring to Biden’s “apparent reference to Trump supporters as garbage.” 

At Vox, Eric Levitz defends the president, arguing that he “ended up spouting a garbled stream of words,” sure, but those words “may or may not have dehumanized all Trump supporters as ‘garbage.’”

How could Levitz know for certain? He’s not an etymologist, after all.

A Washington Post analysis also found the president’s lack of noticeable cognition to absolve him of any ill intent. “Biden’s increasing tendency to stumble over his words, which marred these very comments,” the paper explains, “makes it entirely plausible that he didn’t intend to tar large numbers of Trump supporters.”

At best, we have a commander-​in-​chief who can no longer communicate coherently. With his finger on the nuclear button. 

What — me worry?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents insider corruption

Involuntary Campaign Contributions

campaign, funding, politicians, elections, democracy, Labyrinth, advertising, propaganda

Incumbent lawmakers should not be looting taxpayer dollars to fund their election campaigns.

Investigative reporter Lee Fang has learned that incumbents of both major parties are ignoring ethics rules in order “to use government money for ads clearly designed to influence voters.” 

Back in the 1990s, I was shocked to discover that the average incumbent congressperson spent more using the franking privilege, government funding of “official” newsletters to constituents, than the average challenger spent in his or her entire campaign. In this video age, they’ve upgraded their bragging to living color.

Here is a bipartisan couple from the many examples Fang discovered:

Democrat: A taxpayer-​funded ad aired by the campaign of New York Representative Tom Suozzi, talks about how “Tom worked across party lines to convince the president” to do something about the border.

Republican: A taxpayer-​funded ad aired by the campaign of Virginia Representative Jen Kiggans, in which she boasts about her track record on issues pertaining to veterans and the military.

Fang has identified at least nine other culprits and put together a YouTube video compiling some of these taxpayer-​funded ads. Everyone sees these as campaign spots — or “campaign-​style ads,” as Fang also puts it.

The ads even say (for example, in Wesley Hunt’s video) that they were “paid for with official funds” from the office of the congressman or with “official funds authorized by the House of Representatives.”

These “official funds” are not voluntary campaign contributions.

Congressmen, you’ve been caught. 

So stop.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and ChatGPT and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents media and media people national politics & policies

Conservatorships Now!

Joe Biden, senile, old

“Libertarians Want Control Over Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell,” the headline read.

That’s odd. Libertarians don’t usually want control over anyone.

But at issue is whether Sleepy Joe and Motionless Mitch have control over themselves.

“The U.S. Libertarian Party has filed for conservatorships for President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, referring to them as ‘geriatric elites’ mentally unfit to properly serve the American populace,” Newsweek reported on Tuesday.

“Both subjects’ ability to receive and evaluate information effectively, make decisions, and to communicate are impaired to such an extent that they lack the capacity to represent themselves or the interests of Americans,” explained a party news release.

“These men, and others like them (like Diane Feinstein and John Fetterman) are not well enough to be left alone in the house all day,” Libertarian National Committee Chair Angela McArdle argued. “How are they well enough to govern our lives and spend our tax dollars?”

She added: “so we’ve compassionately decided to step in and make those important decisions for them.”

At 80 years of age, Mr. Biden is the oldest president ever. If re-​elected in 2024, he would be 86 at the conclusion of his term. Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, 81 years of age, has been in public office in Washington for the last 38 years. 

The problem, of course, is not age as a number, but that both men have exhibited behavior that concerns us for their health and well-​being. Mitch has repeatedly frozen in public, to be led away like a zoned-​out sleepwalker, while the president, on his recent Vietnam trip, closed a press conference with “I don’t know about you, but I’m going to go to bed.”

Still, their string-​pullers persist in milking each to the last drool-​drip of inertial power. Their families should step in. 

Until then, the Libertarian Party will have to do.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder​.ai

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents insider corruption judiciary term limits

Term Limits for Thee

Nancy Pelosi, term limits, gerontocracy

Last Sunday, former White House press secretary Jen Psaki, now with her own MSNBC program, asked Representative Nancy Pelosi (D‑Calif.) about packing the Supreme Court. 

Rep. Pelosi’s response was, shall we say, telling.

“It’s been over 150 years since we’ve had an expansion of the court,” Pelosi said. “It was in the time of Lincoln that it went up to nine. So the subject of whether that should happen is a discussion. It’s not, say, a rallying cry. But it’s a discussion.”

Ms. Psaki also asked about term limits for the justices, and Nancy eagerly endorsed the idea, insisting there “certainly should be term limits. There certainly should be and if nothing else, there should be some ethical rules that would be followed.”

Justices aren’t getting as rich as congressmen … but still.

“I had one justice tell me he thought the other justices were people of integrity, like a Clarence Thomas,” Pelosi went on. “I’m like, get out of here.”

This plays as comedy off the MSNBC channel, of course. Nancy Pelosi, introduced by Psaki as being in Congress for a long, long time (“first elected to the House when Roe v. Wade had been the law of the land for 14 years”) is herself a fit poster ch — er, octogenarian — for establishing legislative term limits. Highlighting the High Court’s dip in popularity, Pelosi scoffed that the 30 percent approval “seemed high.” Of course, congressional approval is ten percentage points lower, and has been consistently. 

Limits to power is something that applies to others, not oneself, I guess.

With permanent leaches at the teat of the State lingering year after year in office, like Pelosi, our attitude should be, like, get out of here.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder​.ai

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents national politics & policies term limits

The Age of Octogenarians

Senator Chuck Grassley

As someone who fervently hopes to some day reach the age of 88 — and still actively contribute — I have only heartfelt well-​wishes for Chuck Grassley, the senior U.S. Senator from Iowa.

Grassley celebrated his birthday earlier this month. Then, last week, after 59 consecutive years in elected office (six in the U.S. House, 41 years thus far in the Senate, along with 12 prior in the state legislature), the Republican incumbent announced he will be seeking re-​election to the U.S. Senate next year.

At 88, Mr. Grassley isn’t the oldest Senator — Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D‑Calif.) is three months his elder, and U.S. Rep. Don Young (R‑Alaska) owns the title of Oldest Octogenarian in Congress, born 13 days before Feinstein back in 1933. 

We all remember Sen. Strom Thurmond (R‑SC) turning 100 while supposedly still “serving” in the Senate. That wasn’t pretty. 

Grassley, on the other hand, appears in great shape, both mentally and physically — doing 22 push-​ups before cameras and a crowd at a recent event.

He would be only 95 years old when completing that full term. And he is very likely to be reelected.

“Grassley has proved to be the most reliable vote-​getter in Iowa for the entirety of his four decades in the Senate,” The Washington Post informed, concluding: “Grassley’s candidacy effectively then takes Iowa off the board as a competitive race.”

I have no problem with Sen. Grassley’s age. I do have a problem with the power of incumbency, a system that allows one man to wield power for decades and leaves our elections so much less competitive.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts