Both houses of Congress are meant to represent their particular areas and the people within them. It is NOT the responsibility of the Senator from PA to try and do what he feels is best for the people in CA, they have their own senator.

We vote for people to represent our interests and values. If an area or state votes in a particularly conservative congressman, they are implicitly agreeing with his politics and policies. If they go against what we believe, we vote for the other guy.

Requiring an actual vote on an appointee or an issue is NOT violating the spirit of the Senate. It is in fact forcing them to do the job they've been charged with. If a majority approves of something, that's not "ramming it through", that's called passing a law or approving an appointee. They're doing the task appointed to them. Just because you don't agree with the issue being approved, does not make the process wrong. You say they have to represent the minority in the country... well, you probably have some senators that would vote it down, and some that would vote it up, they're still representing the population that voted them in.

Our government wastes WAY too much time working through loopholes in rules and procedures to subvert laws and such to fit agendas. I'm tired of it from ALL sides.

You have still failed to show how such a change in the rules would be a BAD thing. You say "Well, the Republicans did this to Clinton, so we get to do it too!" That's stupid thinking right there. That's the thinking employed by both sides that keeps us from actually ever reaching meaningful compromises. For once, SOMEONE has to be the bigger man and go "Ok, I'll take the hit on this one if it means we have a better result in the long run"

Col - You're truely showing that you're nothing more than Anti-Bush with no consideration for anything else. Your knee-jerk reaction to anything Bush or Republican related shows that you're not even trying to be fair or unbiased in your "research" Take a second to look beyond the immediate situation and maybe you'd see that maybe, just maybe, the Republicans are doing a GOOD thing for the government, regardless of their own short-sighted reasons.

My opposition is to the conservative agenda that is dominating American politics. The vast majority of Americans are not conservatives and in fact if you take a look at the majority you would find there somewhere in the middle. Because the Republicans who are dominated by the conservatives have got control of Congress and the White House we are being governed from the fringe right which does not represent the majority of Americans truly want. That is clearly documented in a poll after poll that questions Americans about the approach that Bush and the conservatives are taking on many issues such as the budget, Social Security, border security, trade. Every one of those polls have between 30 and 40% support for the conservative right Bush agenda. It's time our government initiate policies that represent were the majority want to be not where the Republican right wants to be.

If the approval rating really and truely is that low overall for the policies of the Right, then they'll all get voted out next time around. Until then, they were legally voted into office and to try and game the system to prevent them from exercising the privledges associated with being in the majority is really the troubling bit.

This is how the system is designed to work, in cases where it gets out-of-whack, we have regular elections to fix the problem. What you want to do is change the system whenever it doesn't suit your world view as opposed to working within the confines of the system to fix problems.

You can't pick and choose when you do and don't listen to polls, or when you do and don't want to change the rules on how things are played. If you're in the minority, then since this is at least nominally a democracy, your voice is heard less. When you're in the majority, it's heard more... The system is not wrong in one case and right in another. It's the way it was designed to work.

To answer the question, "why shouldn't they" Answer the great Compromise in the Congress was to make sure in the Senate protected the interests of the minority groups and the house was based on the majority. It does not seem to me that that should be changed so Bush can get 100% of his judges approved! . Senate was to be more deliberative and recognize the minority in this country. Therefore changing the rules for judges violates that principal. When the Republicans want to do something else like change Social Security or make tax cuts permanent and Democrats filibuster, will the next change the ram through those kinds of actions?

Like I said give them an up or down vote. Knock off the BS, if they get a down vote they DON'T get in do they? An up or down vote would NOT guarantee Bushs selections get in now would it?

Every one of those polls have between 30 and 40% support for the conservative right Bush agenda. It's time our government initiate policies that represent were the majority want to be not where the Republican right wants to be.

Here he goes with his polls again. Col, polls are unreliable and a "poll" of 1000 people doens't truely represent the millions in this country. A President who bases policies on polls doensn't work. You think people aren't capable enough of handling their own finances, why should the President listen to them about government economics?

If I conduct a poll and the majority of people want a dictatorship, will you go along with it?

We have a dictatorship with Bush and the conservatives. What they want is NOT what the majority want but they continue passing laws that ignore what the majority want! We need a split in the power so there must be compermise!

This is FAR from a dictatorship... A majority yes, dictatorship no.

How do I know it's not a dictatorship? Because we still have elections, and in a few years we won't have Bush anymore. Seems to have all the trappings of a representative democracy.

Like I said, if they are truely ignoring the majority, then they won't be reelected. But you were saying Bush wasn't representing the country but he still got elected with a clear majority of the vote. What you want is a dictatorship that suits your own views. God forbid people actually might have voted for and AGREE with what's happening now.

I disagree so I vote against them, but I recognize that I am one person and it's possible that more than a few disagree with me. That's their right. My rights do not extend to rob them of the value of their vote.

You're really starting to slip off your rocker here Col.

How can it be a representative democracy when you got George Bush running around the country telling everybody to change Social Security when majority don't want it changee. How many millions of taxpayer money has he spent on his 60 SS trips? He got his way with over 200 judges and demands all 209. Sound like a dictatorship to me. We are certainly do not have what the majority wants.

We have a dictatorship with Bush and the conservatives. What they want is NOT what the majority want but they continue passing laws that ignore what the majority want! We need a split in the power so there must be compermise!

You really don't have any logical thinking do you? We do not have a dictatorship and to even suggest so just shows how stupid anti-Bush people can be. You don't run the country based on a poll of 1000 Americans, don't you get that? Our government is elected so a split in power is up to the country when they head to the polls. The obsessive anti-Bush rhetoric that you and others live by is part of the reason democrats are not in power.

How can it be a representative democracy when you got George Bush running around the country telling everybody to change Social Security when majority don't want it changee. How many millions of taxpayer money has he spent on his 60 SS trips? He got his way with over 200 judges and demands all 209. Sound like a dictatorship to me. We are certainly do not have what the majority wants.

Once again col, you have lost it. I would be you most Americans don't even know how social security works, much less know anything about how to fix it. That's the reason you don't run the country on polls.

You never answered my question.

If I conduct a poll and the majority of people want a dictatorship, will you go along with it?

It's not a dictatorship because we voted him in, and he can't run again in 2008. You really have no clue how this system works do you? When a leader does something we don't agree with, we make appropriate changes in the next election. What will you say though when in a few years, the republicans still hold the majority? That the whole thing was rigged? That Americans are too dumb to pick their leaders? The Social Security thing isn't new... we heard about it before the last election, yet he still got back into office. His policies have remained pretty steady since he started in 2001, yet he still won. How do your polls explain that?

He's not demanding all 209 get approved, just that they get VOTED ON. That is far from unreasonable, far from exerting dictatorial power.

Col, you obviously don't understand anything about how the government works. Republicans are in majority because THEY WERE VOTED IN. You make it sound like they somehow took over. Your polls don't mean squat.

It's time for the stupidity to stop and our elected representatives to do their jobs. Their job is to vote on the issues, including judges, not to hold up the very process they were elected to perform. If the majority votes in a majority of Democrats, they get their way. If the majority votes in Republicans, they get their way.

That's how it's supposed to work.

My latest poll indicates that 100% of polls are misleading.

NO.. We have a constitution that provides for a republic where the wishes of the majority rules. A dictatorship would violate the free will as soon as it became effective.

The fact that the GOP is in control is different from the conservatives. The problem is that the conservatives have taken control of the GOP but when you look at what the majority want it is not what the conservatives want. That is why we need a split in the power to prevent what the conservatives are doing. They have effectively subverted the democracy since the will of the minority (the conservatives) are controlling the will of the majority (moderate Republicans, independents and Democrats).

How can it be a representative democracy when you got George Bush running around the country telling everybody to change Social Security

He can tell anyone that will listen. But that DOES NOT mean it'll happen. And BTW I'm "sure" *you* would know just what it is that the rest of the country wants.

I believe the majority want Congress to fund Social Security so it can continue to pay the full benefits to current and future generations. The do not want to change it. The majority do not support what Bush wants to do. Most understand creating individual accounts DOES NOT insure the ability to pay benefits as promised! In fact they understand it moves the system into deeper problems.

That is why we need a split in the power to prevent what the conservatives are doing. They have effectively subverted the democracy since the will of the minority (the conservatives) are controlling the will of the majority (moderate Republicans, independents and Democrats).

You keep forgetting Americans voted in the Republicans. You can't split power just because you don't like the result. Tell the democrats go get some ideas of their own and maybe they can start winning elections.

I believe the majority want Congress to fund Social Security so it can continue to pay the full benefits to current and future generations. The do not want to change it.

That's all it is. Your belief. You need to stop telling everybody what the country wants because you really don't know.