Amid Tightening Senate Polls, Georgia Republicans Seek Repeal Of 17th Amendment

Memo Pad

previous | next

Amid Tightening Senate Polls, Georgia Republicans Seek Repeal Of 17th Amendment

February 20th, 2013 5:20 pm Henry Decker

In the latest example of the GOP’s selective reverence for the Constitution, six Georgia Republicans are trying to end the election of U.S. senators by popular vote — just as a new poll shows that the GOP’s footing in the state’s upcoming Senate election is less secure than previously thought.

The Douglas County Sentinel reports that state representatives Dustin Hightower, Mike Dudgeon, Buzz Brockway, Josh Clark, Kevin Cooke, and Delvis Dutton — all Republicans — have introduced a resolution to repeal the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 17th Amendment, which was adopted in 1913, mandated that senators be elected by popular vote; before its passage, senators were selected by state legislatures.

Cooke, who authored the resolution, told the Sentinel “It’s a way we would again have our voice heard in the federal government, a way that doesn’t exist now.”

“This isn’t an idea of mine,” he added. “This was what James Madison was writing. This would be a restoration of the Constitution, about how government is supposed to work.”

Successfully repealing the amendment would require two-thirds approval by both houses of Congress, followed by ratification by at least 38 states — giving the Georgia lawmakers next to no chance of accomplishing their goal. After all, most voters would prefer to keep the power to elect their own representatives — especially considering the pervasive corruption that has characterized the election process within state legislatures.

Still, the timing of the move is interesting. Coincidentally, on the same day that the Sentinel reported on the Republicans’ repeal plans, Public Policy Polling released a new poll showing that the GOP is in real danger of losing another Senate seat in 2014.

Despite the fact that Democrats have not won a major election in Georgia in 13 years, PPP finds that the race for the seat currently held by retiring Republican Saxby Chambliss is a complete toss-up. Democratic congressman John Barrow trails five likely Republican candidates — U.S. Representatives Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey, Tom Price, and Jack Kingston, and right-wing activist Karen Handel — by an average of just 0.4 percent.

If former senator Max Cleland (D) jumped into the race, he’d start out with a lead over all five Republicans.

Republicans should be deeply troubled by their weak numbers in Georgia, ostensibly a deep-red state. If they lose Chambliss’ seat, it would all but end their hopes of capturing a Senate majority in 2014. The six Georgia lawmakers’ solution to the problem appears to be taking the decision out of voters’ hands, which fits a broad pattern of Republican behavior since the 2012 election. Once again, the party’s prevailing strategy appears to be “If you can’t beat them, change the rules.”

Photo by Bruce Tuten/Flickr

Tags: 17th amendment, constitution, Georgia, senate election

Sand_Cat

Once again, the right-wing “conservatives” prove that they hate America.

Rosegirl

@ Sand Cat: I see that you are practicing what you are coached/taught to do which is to “blame the Republicans for what you do.” Tired worn out old trick….

longtail

Why wouldn’t you blame Republicans? They are trying to eliminate the popular vote.
http://www.facebook.com/russell.byrd.14 Russell Byrd

Stupid. Sand Cat is blaming those that are to blame. Didn’t your mother teach you to tell the truth or did she just teach you to make up stories, if they got you what you want from a nation that you hate. A decent person would be ashamed. Sorry, I know I am expecting too much from you!
http://www.facebook.com/Jkirk3279 William Carr

No, Sand_Cat is on to something. Republicans crave POWER, and have forgotten that Power comes from the voters.

Well, their pool of voters is drying up; and the few sensible Republicans left are dismayed and discouraged. They have nobody left to believe in.

The remaining hard-core Conservatives go around making bizarre claims and making accusations of conspiracies without proof.

Sort of like what you just did, claiming that Sand_Cat was “coached” to “blame the Republicans for what you do”.

Now, WE see a lot of that. Republicans claiming that Democrats are “racist” because we support programs that help all poor people, no matter what their race, (just because black Americans use the program; although LESS than white Americans do).

And I’m sure, since Republicans MUST agree with each other, that you have even convinced yourself that’s true.

charleo1

GOP Party bosses to rank, and file. Under the heading of: It’s not enough!
GOP Leaders crunched the numbers this week, and found, gerrymandering
districts is only a temporary fix. Also, electing token candidates with Hispanic
sir names, and raising their profile, won’t bump the Latino numbers more than
10%. The polls also found that changing the way they talked about the issues,
or lying about the issues, or running on one issue, and doing what we please,
would lose as many votes from the base, as it gained with voters not paying
any attention whatsoever. Or voters that never check back to see if we were lying.
The memo explained the Citizens United verdict allowing unlimited money to
fund campaigns, coast to coast, has not yielded the gains we had hoped for.
Nor, did suppressing the vote, and cutting the days the polls were open creating
huge lines, and making voters wait hours to vote, was a big disappointment.
Largely due to the numbers of people that voted, if it took all day! And, it also
seems to have really pissed our own voters off at the GOP. So, that was a bust,
all around. So, it was decided, if we are going to continue to be a major political Party,
we will need to stop people from voting altogether, or we’ll never win one of these things again.

pbrower2a

Next thing you know they will allow employers to dictate how their employees vote — or have government representing economic interests.

The former was what Communism did (because the State was the main employer), The latter is how Mussolini did things.

http://www.facebook.com/Jkirk3279 William Carr

Well, the big corporations are already getting away with making employees sit through anti-union, pro-conservative meetings, and there were all those threats of layoffs if Obama got re-elected.

Maybe it’s happening already.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_B6RROC4IUESHT322QS5VJVPYRM Lynda

Forrest Gump’s mother was right all a long. Pathetic time wasting and childish behavior is not what the country wants or needs at this time. Serious leadership and forward direction would certainly go a long way in that backwater. Good luck to the folks under such leaders.
nobsartist

republiCONs sure do spend a lot of energy on past issues.

Next they want to bring back the “float” test for women accused of being witches.

Perhaps legislation can be introduced to make republiCON activities ILLEGAL.

Activities like lying us into wars or no banking regulations or even “for profit” health care which although created by republiCONs, “for profit health care” is now mandated by “our” “democrat” president.

Then again, a number of “democrats” voted to allow bush to invade iraq and yet they still feed from the trough of the taxpayer that they fucked.

http://profile.yahoo.com/HGC4BGWVYXV76PHZBPSPOOU5GA Independent1

I don’t totally disagree with your comments about the Democrats that voted to invade Iraq, but I think you need to cut most of them a little slack, in that, their votes were based on what at the time were very pervasive lies; which recent documentation has shown were intentional and deliberate (and which in my mind should have warranted Bush and Cheney jail time). Also a lot of the Dems that voted for the war, had later publicly recinded their votes when they were made aware of just how pervasive and blatant the lies of the Bush adminstration were.

nobsartist

No slack. Most people that get lied too get pissed. They were lied to by wall street, oil companies, defense contractors, elon musk and the list goes on but from what I have seen, if republiCONS proposed a law where Dems were forced to cut off their heads, half of them would vote for it.

I for one am pissed. I think the dems have lied to me. And, they” havent done nothin’” but collect their bloated pay checks.

As a matter of fact, for the last 40 years.

Useless.

Bernie for President, fuck the other 2 parties of useless liars.

http://www.facebook.com/greg.smith.90857901 Greg Smith

Ding, ding, ding…This comment is a winner.

Mimihaha

Baloney. The lies weren’t that good.
http://foundersfollies.blogspot.com/ Chredon

The Dems did not vote to invade Iraq. They voted for a resolution “To use US troops to enforce UN sanctions in Iraq.” They had no idea how far BushCo would going to stretch the definition of ‘enforcing UN sanctions.’ They certainly didn’t know that we would invade Iraq even after the UN told us not to.

http://www.facebook.com/dominick.vila.1 Dominick Vila

The fact that vulnerable GOP senators in Georgia would prefer to be re-elected by a GOP controlled state legislature, should not surprise anyone. What we – the people – should be pushing for is the elimination of the antiquated Electoral College concept, and using the popular vote to elect our elected officials at all levels of government.

RSDrake

and term limits on the House of Representatives OR fixing the “gerrymandering” problem.

http://profile.yahoo.com/HGC4BGWVYXV76PHZBPSPOOU5GA Independent1

I’d like to see both? Establishing Term limits (maybe a max of 4-5 terms?) AND giving the Justice Department (not instate courts that can be stacked with judges favoring one party) more oversight authority on the asignment of voting districts to at least minimize, if not fully eliminate the effects of gerrymandering.

To be quite honest, I’d like to see an Amendment to the Constitution that puts term limits on Supreme Court Judges. I don’t think our founding fathers ever realized there would be such obvious political posturing by judges appointed by presidents that it would lead to such obviously partisan SCOTUS decisions like was made in 2000 to let Bush steal that election and to make decsions like Citizens United and some others that have also seemed very partisan. No president should have the authority to affect the partisan balance of SCOTUS’ decisions for decades by making appointments that last a lifetime. In my mind, it’s rediculous.

RSDrake

makes a lot of sense. Here’s one in Virginia. Taxing hybrid cars $100 per year to make up for the gas tax they don’t pay. What kind of a message does that send? :>)

If that’s not enough, they plan to lower the gas tax and raise sales tax. We’re not buying enough gas? :>)

CPAinNewYork

There’s no two ways about it: We have some really stupid legislators in America.
http://www.facebook.com/dominick.vila.1 Dominick Vila

…and some very crooked legislators….
http://www.facebook.com/ErikNash1965 Erik Nash

Really effing stupid and drunk on power!
longtail

I’m not sure they are all stupid…..some are just really dishonest.

http://www.facebook.com/Jkirk3279 William Carr

I have thought that no Congressman should be allowed to serve more than six years without a break.

Run for the opposite Chamber; switch sides. Take time off to do some “honest” work.

That would break up the domination of the Party Chairmanships without losing the good legislators who have experience.

CPAinNewYork

Amen, Mr. Vila. Amen.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=837414448 Maggie Milner Andregg

Dominick: This refers to state senators (who are by no means vulnerable in GA) electing our federal senators instead of them being elected by us.

drdavidgreen

How could Max Cleland “jump” into the race? He’s got no legs, you idiot.

TheSkalawag929

You probably thought that was funny.

Does dr stand for Doctor or dumb rube?

Lovefacts

Of course they want to repeal it. The average voter doesn’t realize the 17 Amendment gives citizens the right to vote for their Senators. Prior to it, Senators were selected by state legislatures. Should the Republican candidate support this, the Democratic challenger might have a shot at taking Georgia by using this against him.

http://profile.yahoo.com/HGC4BGWVYXV76PHZBPSPOOU5GA Independent1

That would certainly be a big positive (if a Democrat could win in GA) , especially in that it might demonstrate that enough Republicans were starting to see the damage their party is creating for our democracy, by making in many cases a mockery out of the voting process.
http://foundersfollies.blogspot.com/ Chredon

Actually, the Constitution says that Senators can be selected by whatever means the state legislature chooses. By the time the 17th Amendment was ratified, all but two states were already choosing Senators by popular vote.

sunmusing

Didn’t we send an army down Georgia way, once?

CPAinNewYork

Yes. It was led by a general affectionately called “Uncle Billy” by his troops. The traitors called him something else, but who cares what they thought?

lambypie

To Dominick Vila, THANK YOU!!! Down with the Electoral up with the popular vote. Couldn’t agree more!
stcroixcarp

Georgia is another example of the law of unintended consequences. The Union won the civil war and now the nation is stuck with these half wits.

http://profile.yahoo.com/HGC4BGWVYXV76PHZBPSPOOU5GA Independent1

I guess when you win a war, you have to be willing to take the bad with the good.

ococoob

Absolutely pathetic these people are. Sign of their desperation in losing power.
CPAinNewYork

Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment? Has the Republican Party gone completely crazy?

sunmusing

Crazy? Yes…and we don’t have “Uncle Billy” to call upon this time…
http://foundersfollies.blogspot.com/ Chredon

I don’t think ‘crazy’ is the right word. ‘Desperate’ seems more likely.

RobertCHastings

In the first place, they don’t have the votes in both houses of Congress to get their proposal before the public. In the second place, it would never pass the 3/4 of the states hurdle so, to use a familiar Republican comment, it is dead on arrival. However, if they would pursue something like getting rid of the Electoral College, they might have a shot at it. Excuse me, that would never go with the Republicans, would it? The electoral College affords them whatever SLIM chance they have of winning the next presidential election.
adriancrutch

This guys MUST work for ALEC? Paid to tip their hats at the most fundamental natures. I’m sure they themselves have done zero research into that bill. Just the middlemen of ALEC speakbots.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_REQQEMPOQISA3W6B42SHFMKTEM Andrew

Wow…repeal the 17th Amendment…ya know, why are the Georgia GOP “half-assing” this?!? Come on, guys! Go for the brass ring (LOL)! Repeal all of the Amendments you don’t like! Or, introduce an Amendment whereby the Constitution only applies to benefit Republicans and Fascism is the rule of law for everybody else! LMAO
http://twitter.com/ChuckGamble1968 Chuck Gamble

It just proves one thing. The GOP are sore losers, so they will take their ball and go home before they can lose again. Democrats are getting better at winning elections, and that just scares the crap out them.

http://foundersfollies.blogspot.com/ Chredon

It just proves that the GOP has no objection to cheating in order to win. If they can’t win fair and square, they try to change the rules to benefit themselves. That’s why they want this. That’s why they want to get blue Presidential states to allocate their EVs proportionately while red states allocate theirs winner-take-all.

darkagesbegin

must be getting too expensive for the Koch brothers to buy senators these days.
Pamby50

After the way they villified Max Cleland, I would like to see him get back in the race. Go Dems!!! That the republicans feel the only way they can stay in power is by fixing the race.
kdmarion

Whether there is partisan politics at play here or not, it is FACT that the 17th ammendement to the Constitution has had a delitorious effect on our Union and should never have been rattifed. Please understand that the unaccountable spending happening in Washington that is bankrupting our nation and stealing from our children and grandchildren along with the onerous requirements placed on the states to administer Washington programs would most surely not been accomplished had Senators in Washington been accountable to the State Legislatures they were responsibile to as originally drafted in the Constitution. Do you think a Senator elected from the State Legislatures would feel free to enact Federal Legislation harmful to the State he is elected to represent? No, he or she would go to Washington to REPRESENT the state, that is, the state government he or she is elected to REPRESENT.
When a Senator is elected by say 2 or 3 million voters, to whom does he or she answer? To whom is he or she accountable? No one! The Senators when publicly elected as they are now are complete political free agents and behave as such.
By the way, the election of Sentors by the State Legislatures would result in the pulling power closer to the people. Think about it. That government that works best is that which is closest to the people. If you and your neighbors can elect your State representative, and he or she in turn elects the State’s Federal Senators, doesn’t your vote carry more weight? Can’t you have more influence on a local politician that one in Washington. How does my vote carry ANY influence when it take three million votes to get elected to Senate?
Repeal the 17th ammendment to restore accountability.

ShadowFoxBiH

obviously you think that the state governments are not corrupt which is something that is not true, I am not sure what state you live in but I can tell you if you have faith in your state government to make a decision for you you must be living in la la land

http://www.facebook.com/allan.richardson.969 Allan Richardson

And considering that the suggestion came from Georgia, which does not even have (but is debating) an ethics rule, and whose governor’s name is Deal, I cannot see how Georgia is held up as the model of honesty.

Hawkeye

The real reason for the 17th Amendment was that the previous Senators were nothing more than tools for the majority party leadership in the various state legislatures, not working on behalf of the country as a whole in any way shape or form and not working on behalf of their own state residents either. Now they have to make some appeal to every voter not just placate the already rich and powerful. It is not a fact capitalized or other wise that direct election of Senators is detrimental. For that matter the movement for the 17th Amendment actually started in the state legislatures themselves with 31 state governments calling for the reform before Congress began to act.

W Edward LaRue

re “tools for the majority party leadership in the various state legislatures, not working on behalf of the country as a whole in any way shape or form
and not working on behalf of their own state residents either.” It was inane arguments like that the the low information, constitutionally citizens bought into the repeal. The Senators were not supposed to be “working on behalf of the country as a whole in any way shape or form”, they were intended to be working for their State. Re “not working on behalf of their own state residents”, that was not the intent, only to protect their State. To make it simpler, they were not intended to be “collectivists”, they were to protect their State from the Federal Government. And their is no way for you to determine their state of mind in this regard, unless you are claiming to be a mind reader.
http://foundersfollies.blogspot.com/ Chredon

“It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.”

—James Madison, The Federalist #62

http://twitter.com/IamEmperorSam Emperor Sam

The purpose behind repealing the 17th Amendment is to give STATES a voice in the operation of the Federal Government. Without such a voice, state rights and the function of state governments will increasingly diminish, while the federal government expands. We have a 2 soverign system for a reason – single soverign systems do not work, as their subjects are servents to the soverign. With a 2 soverign system, the powers are balanced. The 17th amendment upset this balance, and our country has been suffering ever since. You might not realize it, but the 17th Amendment has primarily been responsible for putting corrupt politicians in Federal office year after year, with no accountability, because they can just purchase their seats by: 1. privately purchasing TV adds, or 2. giving free services to the uneducated to vote for them. As a result, a new aristocracy has arisen in our country – the Senate. If States APPOINT senators, as was originally intended, states will be able to have an effect on federal policy. The ‘people,’ will still have a voice, since the House always has been popularly elected. You might as well have the Senate vote itself immune to all laws (they are already immune to many). . . they are the true tyrants of our country.

pbrower2a

State governments can be terribly corrupt, too. Consider the Michigan Snake Legislature — if the 17th Amendment were not in action in 2012 Michigan pols would have replaced Debbie Stabenow with someone who believes that no human suffering is excessive if a profit is to be derived from it. In 2014 it would replace Carl Levin with someone who would well represent wealth and corporate power instead of people. Do that in enough places and America begins to resemble a fascist state with feudal economics and Commie repression.

As it turns out, the Senate has become a block to the Hard Right while Tea Party politicians have entrenched themselves and gerrymandered themselves into nearly-unaccountable power and rigged the Congressional delegations.

The House of Representatives has become the House of Corporate Lobbyists.
http://foundersfollies.blogspot.com/ Chredon

I also believe that the 17th Amendment took away the power of the states in the Federal government, perhaps to their detriment. But the 17th was also a legal recognition of facts on the ground – all but two states were already electing Senators by popular vote.

Voters believed that by making the Senate elected by popular vote, they were taking power into their own hands. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Think about this – when a Senator is selected by his legislature, he can at least only be bought by people of his own state. Today, Senators have to collect millions of dollars in donations in order to run a campaign, and they’ll take it wherever they can get it.

http://foundersfollies.blogspot.com/2013/02/founders-follies-v-bobbing-for-senators.html

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VXGBX5D2AVJ2M5XEQK4JR4Y42I Mike

Wow, now I know why the country is in such a mess if the comments on this board are representative of the electorate. Maybe you all should do a little reading and attempt to understand the motivation for the repeal. Sheesh
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VXGBX5D2AVJ2M5XEQK4JR4Y42I Mike

“In the latest example of the GOP’s selective reverence for the Constitution,”

Could someone please explain how repealing an amendment by the constitutionally prescribed method is showing a lack of reverence for the Constitution? Is it any wonder our country is in the toilet if this is representative of American journalism.

Pronghorn

Henry Decker isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer.
W Edward LaRue

Your point is well made, this article was never intended to be an objective report.

http://twitter.com/jodamiller Joshua Miller

Since you can’t gerrymander a state, the best you can do is make sure that the body that elects US senators is gerrymandered.
Danish0072001

Actually they want to go back the original intent of the Constitution—that is a good thing. The 17th Amendment further bastardized states rights. If we didn’t have the 17th Amendment we would have unfunded mandates by the Feds. As it stands now the States have no voice. Most of the comments on here are by people who don’t know diddly sqawt about history.
cdfcn@hotmail.com

17th amendment helped produce monolithic bloated unaccountable runaway federal government
cdfcn@hotmail.com

this author lies – repealng the 17th amendment brings the law of the land back to the original intent of the constitution
cdfcn@hotmail.com

liberals just blow the mind
daryl johnson

it’s all about retaining white privilege. 400 years of slavery and jim crow and 50 years of voting rights. you tell me, who’s fooling who. i’m sorry to tell my right dishonorable republican friends that the genies out of the bottle and there’s no turning back know.

understand, that pro-life crowd is not interested in black and brown abortions. they can count like the rest of us as they try to stem the demograhic change which has taken place and will continue.
Rosegirl

Sure can tell this is a liberal Left thread! Lies, lies, and more lies. Especially the one that the GOP “hates America”. LOL! That’s funny! We all know who really hates America and it’s not the Republicans! But of course the Dems are coached to “blame the Republicans for what you do”. OPEN YOUR EYES AND LOOK AROUND YOU. DON’T YOU SEE WHAT THE DEMS AND COMMIES ARE DOING TO OUR COUNTRY?? Look at the mess it’s in! And you can no longer blame Bush! Face the facts; the mess just keeps getting messier and it’s right in your face! Those who chose not to see it by purposely keeping their blinders on don’t want to see it! If the article is true the Republicans are just desperately trying to SAVE this country one state at a time if need be. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that one out. Some people don’t need to be in politics because they don’t know what they are doing or don’t care. This country has come too far to go backwards because of political ineptness. For instance this current administration cuts our Military during these very sensitive times and then turns around and gives SIXTY MILLION DOLLARS to a radical country that HATES us (Egypt)!! I don’t guess our tanks and jets were enough! Good grief! They not only hate us but our only friend over there and that’s Israel! Well, go figure; like I said some people don’t need to be in politics and they are mostly Democrats as history has proven over and over again!
http://www.facebook.com/allan.richardson.969 Allan Richardson

I suppose they would next want to repeal Amendments 13, 14, and 15, because slavery, white-only citizenship, and white-only voting (better yet, land-owner-only voting) is closer to what the Founders intended? Oops, I hope they aren’t reading this, it may give them ideas!

The 17th Amendment was adopted in 1913 because the Senate was controlled ENTIRELY by corrupt statehouses and their party machines (whichever party prevailed in each state).

W Edward LaRue

the founding fathers knew what they were doing. Your calling them ‘corrupt’ statehouses shows how the 17th amendment was passed. The Senators were to represent the States that sent them, not their political party, like now. In one amendment, we lost the principle of Federalism. With all the stupid comments on this website, we are shown how much the population has been dumbed down by ignorance of history. This country succeeded as a Republic, not a Democracy, Democracies NEVER last!

Michael Conroy

[.......excuse me, picking myself up off the floor laughing. ] Oh yes, I’m *sure* that the motivation for this was to “give states a voice”. Well, yes if you view states as collections of political hacks basically feathering their own nests — which is what the GA legislature is– .. sure. It would be very good for them. It would stink for the people. Fortunately, it well never make it Amendment. Thank God, but don’t thank Georgia.
Mogumbo Gono

The way it is now, Senators answer to their politcal Party, instead of to their state’s voters. A Democrat Senator will vote the way the Democrat Party in Washington DC tells him to vote — no matter how much his home state’s citizens object.

The 17th Amendment was pushed by the Rockefellers for their own political gain at the time. But it has perverted the system, to where states don’t much matter any more. We began as the United STATES, but the 17th changed us into the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. It was a bad move. Now our Senators answer to their Party, instead of to the voters. I trust people can see that.
Stephen A. Weiss

I am certain that there are good reasons for having democrats and their supporters but I also know that no sane person has ever put forth any argument containing such reasons.
http://twitter.com/topcardauctions Great Card Auctions

You Southern Baggers hate America (outside your own little sphere), democracy, and the Constitution. Don’t even try to deny it, everyone knows it’s true you fascist losers.
http://foundersfollies.blogspot.com/ Chredon

Note: If we assume that any state that has a single party in control of both houses of their legislature appoint two Senators of that party, and all other states split, the Senate today would be R62, D38.
John Pigg

I am not so sure whether or not I think this is a bad thing. The Senate was originally designed as an upper body to be separated from populist votes of outrage.

Instead of having highly partisan Statewide races you would have the state legislatures becoming more important.

Indiana is a perfect example of this, a moderate Republican was forced out of his party by an extremist Tea Party candidate. Thankfully the state realized how crazy Mourdock was, but the legislature of Indiana always support the distinguished statesmen Richard Luger over the Tea Party usurper.

I know it is anti-democratic, but I find the whole concept interesting…..
http://www.facebook.com/geblack Gene Black

Having senators more aligned with state direction rather than the wild swings of popularity is not a bad thing. There was a reason the senate was not elected by popular vote when the constitution was framed. It was changed after the civil war due to senators not being sent to congress by states out of protest. There have been many who have called for this return to balance envisioned by the founders. Whether this is a ploy to regain lost momentum is less important than the question of whether it is the right thing to do.
RealityBitesU

This is just a time waster and diversion. VOTE – IN EVERY ELECTION, STATE LEGISLATURE IS VERY IMPORTANT.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1362702462 Madelaine Ayers Henne

again, trying to change the rules to win!!
g_man954

With popular vote they will lose every time. Self serving, wealthy interests are pushing for this repeal….this is worse than Communism or a dictatorship.
JSquercia

I am sure these Aholes would like to “restore” the Constitution by repealing the 14th amendment as well and that pesky one that gave Women the Right to Vote
Rumplestilskin

First thing we need to do is acknowledge that the GOP is NOT “conservative” in the sense of preserving something good, but in fact a “reactionary” backward looking organization. Once that premise is accepted everything they do makes perfect sense. They want the USA of 1850 where the wealthy controlled everything, most people couldn’t vote and the majority were barely getting by working six days a week.

Memo Pad

Amid Tightening Senate Polls, Georgia Republicans Seek Repeal Of 17th Amendment

Follow Us

Newsmaker Memo

Most Read

Most Comments