posted on 06/12/2007 12:20:36 PM PDT
I support term limits. I don't think any politician should serve a lifetime in public office. Two terms is plenty. Its not like these talentless hacks couldn't be replaced by people who have something new to contribute. I would like congressional term limits. Two terms for senators and six terms for House members. Poster Boy #1 for term limits is Ted Kennedy. He's served in the Senate since I was born. Poster Boy #2 is Trent Lott who thinks his 35 years of service makes him better than his constituents. Term limits would be the best reform that could ever happen to Congress.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
posted on 06/12/2007 12:21:41 PM PDT
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
America is more and more being governed by an arrogant elite of professional politicians. The advantages to incumbency are great. I know of no other way than term limits to get back to the founders concept of citizen legislators.
posted on 06/12/2007 12:25:27 PM PDT
Extend them! Extend them! Make them relinquish the Orb!
The problem with California term limits is that the players just find another elective office to hold. And the people just vote them in. Look at the former Governor Jerry Brown. He became the mayor of Oakland and then Attorney General of the State. Problem is, I think some people just vote for a name they have heard in the past instead of voting with intelligence.
posted on 06/12/2007 12:26:25 PM PDT
(Jimmy Carter allowed radical Islam to get a foothold in Iran.)
Term limits have been great in OK for the Legislature — in fact I would recommend them. Without term limits the Dems would still control the OK House and we wouldn’t be tied in the Senate. In 100 years of statehood, the Republicans have NEVER controlled the OK Senate outright. We are tied this time and are in position to take it over in 2008.
I am all in favor of term limits. Ours are 12 years max in either the House or Senate which is six terms in the House or three in the Senate or combination thereof which reaches 12.
posted on 06/12/2007 12:38:18 PM PDT
( Inhofe for Senate 08 -- Broken Glass Republican -- vote out the RATs in 2008)
posted on 06/12/2007 12:39:19 PM PDT
Term limits engendered a parade of what I call "put-up-dolls," candidates hired to mouth the right phrases for a couple of years while delivering the goods, then to take their new job as a reward on the way out. Even if they were honest, they aren't there long enough to learn real competence.
Term limits got rid of a good many dedicated public servants too. A good example was Quentin Kopp. However much I disagree with his politics, the guy was honest.
posted on 06/12/2007 12:50:00 PM PDT
(Duncan Hunter for President)
I agree that California’s 6-year legislative term limits are far too low, and have been disastrous - the $35 billion energy scam raid on the state, the horrendous state budget defict, etc. We might as well have a one-day limit and draft people off the street to be legislators for a day.
IMO a simple 16 year limit would be fine, and I’d like to extend that to state appellate & Supreme Court judges, Congress, and all federal judges too.
posted on 06/12/2007 1:05:21 PM PDT
They sounded like a great idea and I used to be all for them but after seeing what happened in CA I'm now against them. All they've done is create an environment where every politician's main concern is getting their next job instead of doing their current one. I also think it's made them less responsive to their constituents and more beholden to groups that can help them in their next election. Be careful what you wish for.
posted on 06/12/2007 2:08:09 PM PDT
Term limits speed up the process by which the representative body more closely matches the thinking of the people.
After all is said and done, it's the voters who are mostly to blame or credit with the condition of the government, even more so when term limits are in place. After all, they elected the rotten scoundrels.
posted on 06/12/2007 2:15:29 PM PDT
(The Republican Party is merely the Democrat Party's "away" jersey - Vox Day)
All great answers thus far offering many views and insights. I’ve something more I’d like to throw in for consideration.
First, would term limits give control of government to bureaucrats that are not elected, but serve their entire career with the government?
Secondly, I’ve seen some suggestions to limit total time served in elective office to a combined 16 years. Had this been the law in 1960, Richard Nixon would have been prohibited from seeking the presidency as he had already served 6 years as Senator from California and 8 years as Vice-President under Eisenhower, thus he had already 14 total years in elective office. Just a thought for consideration.
posted on 06/12/2007 3:01:12 PM PDT
(NO AMNESTY FOR INCUMBENTS! - All must go back from whence they came!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson