In response to:

Incumbents Forever

rreid Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 10:11 AM
TERM LIMITS! I hate the concept but it works for the presidency why not the legislators? I love my senators (Inhofe and Coburn) but would sacrifice their tenure in order to rid the barrell of the rotten apples!
InsightingTruth Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 11:13 AM
We already have term limits: 2 years for House, 6 years for Senate, 4 years for President.
-
The type of term limits you advocate have not changed the course of government anywhere they have been tied. Why do you think they will work for the federal government?
Stuart95 Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 1:20 PM
"Why do you think [term limits] will work for the federal government?"

a. We're desperate and don't know any other methods that might end a Congress made up of men beholding to monied special interests rather than the voters (partly because Congressmen inevitably become addicted to the perks office, and partly because voters are idiots).

b. If we had term limits, we would have no reason to remember names like Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Schumer, Waxman, Boxer, Waters, Dingell, Kennedy, Byrd, etc. etc. etc.

c. The more feeble-minded and morally malleable a Congressman, the more easily he is bought by special interests. That ultimately generates a Congress full of morally weak and moronic people (anyone want to argue with that observation?).

AS A CANDIDATE for lieutenant governor in 1982, John Kerry assured the voters of Massachusetts that he wasn't seeking the position as a mere "stepping-stone" to higher office. But just one year into his four-year term, he announced his candidacy for the US Senate seat that Paul Tsongas was vacating because of illness.

Few people held Kerry's broken commitment against him. In part that was because nobody had believed it in the first place (all candidates for lieutenant governor seek the position as a stepping-stone). But it was also because everyone knew what Kerry knew: If he passed up...