FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's no wonder the Tea Party has the traction it does.
House Democrats voted Wednesday to adjourn so they can go home and campaign for the midterm elections. There is no budget, there is no decision on what to do about the Bush tax cuts that expire January 1. There is no willingness to confront any of the pressing issues they are paid to deal with.
You see, our lawmakers are cowards. They don't want to have to vote before an election. Could be bad for them. To hell with the American people. At the end of the day it's all about them.
They're getting ready to leave town - again - and won't be back for five weeks.
Before heading out, the House is expected to vote on a measure to keep the federal government operating through December 3. That's necessary because they never bothered to pass a budget.
Here's the problem: Large majorities of Americans disapprove of Congress and only one in four people trust the federal government to do what is right always or most of the time. But when they enter the voting booth, they re-elect the same people over and over: the people who are taking this country right down the drain.
This year there are signs that the midterm elections might be particularly brutal for the party in power, the Democrats. Experts think the Republicans have a decent chance of picking up the 39 seats needed to take control of the House. The experts also say Republicans have an outside chance of gaining 10 seats to control the Senate.
Things are bad for the Democrats all over, but especially in the Midwest.
One Republican pollster says that part of the country will be a "killing field for Democrats this year."
Here’s my question to you: Why would you vote for any incumbent?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Because in some cases the challenger is completely unacceptable, Jack. Out here in the Nevada Senate race, the alternative to Harry Reid, which is the Tea Party Republican Sharron Angle, is just plain NUTS and wants to take away the Social Security and Medicare I paid into my whole working life. For a senior like myself, that would be like a Chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
Donna in Wisconsin writes:
Because they voted the way I wanted them to on the majority of issues. Democrats got health care passed (not a perfect bill, but a great start, long overdue), financial reform, etc.
Bob in Kansas City writes:
Because the incumbent would be the lesser of two evils given some of the nutcases who are managing to get on a ballot in various parts of the country.
I don't think there are any incumbents running in Illinois, they've all been indicted or in prison. And if they're not, they should be.
Vote for someone new, and next election that person will be the incumbent. It's stupid to focus on this. Vote for the best candidate, period. If the person running is a lunatic, should I vote for her just because the alternative is an incumbent?
Is it better to vote for a career politician or a wannabe career politician? Is there really a difference? None of the above needs to be among the ballot choices. I sense the right type of individual for the job is either too smart to want it, unelectable, or both.
Dave in Orlando writes:
OK, I give up. Why would you?
Keith in Ohio writes:
Is this a trick question, Jack? There needs to be another lever for the voters to use in the election. That would be "FLUSH"!