http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3146735Well, damn.
I guess even a primitive, like a broken clock, can be right two times a day.
Husb2Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-11-08 08:46 PM
Original message
Term limits
This comes up every now and again.
The biggest opposition argument I hear is that we wouldn't have stalwarts like Ted Kennedy. The counter argument is that we wouldn't be burdened by ****wads like Arelen Spector and John McCain.
On balance, I think it would be a good thing. I'll suffer from a lack of Teddy in favor of having citizen-legislators instead of ossified careerists in it for the power, glory, perks, and self-aggrandizement.
I want representatives in Congress, not careerists to whom I don't matter.
Actually, the orchidectomized sparkling husband primitive forgets Vast Teddy has been around a lot longer than the senators from Pennsylvania and Arizona.
Remember how northeastern liberals used to complain about how senators from the south, Democrats, had been around since God was a boy, and obstructed progress?
Democrats like McClellan, Ellender, Russell, Eastland, Stennis, Sparkman, Byrd, et al?
Well, the northeastern liberals got their revenge, burdening us with Vast Teddy, who's been around since the ice first began creeping south to form Vermont.
LisaM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-11-08 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm against them, except for President.
It worked well with FDR, and frankly, Bill Clinton would have likely won a third term if he could have run, but on the flip side, Reagan might have stayed president until he died.
However, we've had some good representation from long-term Senators. Carl Levin, for example. And would you want Barbara Boxer termed out?
Decent civilized people would LOVE Babs to be termed out.
Husb2Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-11-08 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Do you honestly think career politicians care about you?
Really?
LisaM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-11-08 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Yes, I think some do. Patty Murray does, I think.
And I think Carl Levin does too.
I think Paul Wellstone did. I think Russ Feingold does.
Levin might, and Feingold might, but Wellstone is dubious.
And Pats Murray along with Babs Boxer are generally considered the stupidest U.S. Senators, with very low IQs (intelligence quotients).
Husb2Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-12-08 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. I think you can probably name 10 or 20 who are there to serve the people .... the rest of them .....
...... not so much. Some clearly better than others, but all of them art of the club.
I want the club broken up.
SteinbachMB (235 posts) Fri Apr-11-08 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. Career politicians?
...blech.
Iris (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-11-08 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. take a way the cynicism and you could call it career public servants
I know, I know - too idealistic, but it would be nice if our leaders weren't beholden to lobbyists and special interests and could gain knowledge and experience that could be a career in serving the people.
realpolitik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-11-08 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. In Missouri
Term limits guarantee that the only ones who know how to make the system work are the lobbyists.
Uh, we had an interesting experience last year, in Nebraska.
There was much doom-and-gloom because, with term limits, the 49-member Nebraska legislature was losing 24 of its members, all replaced by novices, including some who had never run for, or held, political office before.
In 2007, the Republican governor of Nebraska signed the largest tax-cut bill in the history of the state.
Now we can hardly wait to get rid of the other 25 deadweights, this year.
Husb2Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-11-08 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. That's easy
Criminalize lobbying.
But what are the planned-parenthoodlums to do, if that happens?
realpolitik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-12-08 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. The lobbyists are opportunistic parasites who control the system in the Missouri statehouse because they have more institutional knowledge than legislators.
I agree about lobbyists. I don't think I support term limits.
But I do support total public campaign financing.
That takes the grease out of the corrupt machine.
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-11-08 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
7. Well, the voters are the ones keeping them in...
and I'm okay with that.
Personally, I think a president should be able to have three terms rather than just the two. I sometimes wonder what sort of world we would live in had Bill Clinton gotten a third term.
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-11-08 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
9. Not Term Limits,
Prison Terms. Get the criminals out of circulation.
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-12-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. 1 out of 100. Yeah! Build that economy! Siss boom bagh!
Judicial discretion yes! Term limits on prison terms no! Term limits for politicians yes! Term limits Judges no!
Yupster (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-11-08 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
10. I'm for term limits
On balance I think it's a good thing.
Someone like Ted Kennedy can find other places to serve the people if he wants to. He can be in the House, Senate, Governor, head of a NGO, and a forward-looking businessman.
Ninety year old relics like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd can retire.
Damn. As usual, the primitives are way behind on the news.
Holly_Hobby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-12-08 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
12. Other gov't workers are forced to retire at 65
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-12-08 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
14. we really have little if any true representation...the lobbyists own congress
Yeah, the lobbyists do own Congress, and one of the biggest lobbies is the abortion industry.
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-12-08 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
15. The trouble with term limits is that staffers would be there forever anyway
Any you might be surprised how many bills are written by staffers and never even read by the bill's sponsor...
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-12-08 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
16. Ugh
We have term limits here in California, and it hasn't helped a damned thing. It's just a big game of musical chairs, while the staffers and lobbyists stay in the same place and wield the power elected officials have lost.
We have term limits - they're called elections.
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-12-08 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
17. Outsider's view.here
I live in a country with no term limits for anyone. I think that term limits for top leaders are a good idea, and wish we had them here. Both Thatcher and Blair stayed too long, and became like little elected dictators.
I would not recommend term limits for MPs/members of Congress, however. I suspect this would simply lead to their keeping a 'day job' and neglecting their duties to their constituents.
MartyL (347 posts) Sat Apr-12-08 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
19. I agree
or can we at least thrown them in prison for enabling war criminals? At the very least they should be thrown out of office for not upholding the Constitution, their sworn duty. We have elections, but who does the counting?
www.peacecandidates.com
I think that's an interesting question, who does the counting, to ask of Republican machine bosses in Chicago, Detroit, Seattle, Memphis, Atlanta, Washington, San Francisco, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Boston, Providence, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Kansas City, St. Louis, New Orleans, &c., &c., &c.--you know, all these corrupt big blue cities run by Republicans.
