Term Limits? I think I have come around... | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
I have a big BUT (none / 0)

I've used the same reasoning about the "good guys" and decided to throw 'em out anyway. The whole point is to destroy the power elitism, kill the lobbyist influence, and get back to the citizen's democracy that Jefferson et al envisioned. They didn't want career politicians; that's what beaurecrats are for...

by MedfordTim on 03/20/2008 03:05:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree again (none / 0)
Campaign finance reform isnt going to solve the legacy politician problem. The money from corporations is always gonna find its way in, NO MATTER WHAT...

If these guys at least know they only have X amount of years to be in office before they are termed out, they will in theory work to accomplish what they set out to do...

OK, I really dont believe that either, but its a start...

Ted Kennedy doesnt need to be there anymore...
Joe Lieberman...
Inouye....
Robert Byrd...
Ted Stevens...
Graham...
Feinstein...
Hutchinson....
McConnell....
Reid...
Kerry...
And every house member past 6 years...
Bootem all and start fresh...maybe something will get done!

thanks

by bobo1 on 03/20/2008 03:17:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The bureaucrats would need more power (none / 0)

Our country has become a lot more complicated than it was in the days of our founding fathers.  We have to have experienced politicians that know their way around the government, and that's just not something you can learn in a couple of years.  Your average Congressman right now spends two years just getting up to speed.  To me, it's almost a miracle that Obama was able to get so much legislation passed with so many sponsors!

The only alternative would be to give our bureaucrats more power as they do in the British government.   But bureaucrats are harder to get rid of when we want to.

I say level the campaign playing field and get corporate money completely out of the process.  Make scrambling for campaign money completely unnecessary.

It's corporate influence on the power structure that is the greatest danger, not the "elitism" brought about by simple longevity.

by EveningStarNM on 03/20/2008 11:22:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
And there's one other problem: (none / 0)

Since politicians would know that they won't have much time in office, and given that avarice is so common in people of all walks of life, how many politicians would be inclined to give away the store as fast as they possibly can in order to assure their futures after having left office?

by EveningStarNM on 03/20/2008 11:30:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
to both points (none / 0)

My view is that the reduced time would attract more honest people than crooks and the crooks would be easier to ferret out.

I think that one of the main reasons it DOES take so long to get things going is because the "longevity" members prevent new people from doing anything because it will make them look bad.

As far as the busybees needing more power, you're undoubtedly correct - if the situation didn't fundamentally change. First thing to do is remind all government employees WHO pays their salaries and WHO they work for. Today, this aspect is largely ignored and civil servants have become our masters.

Don't worry, I'm an idealist. No real change in favor of the people will ever take place.

by MedfordTim on 03/20/2008 03:25:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
As a fellow idealist... (none / 0)

I agree that no real change will occur -- at least not at any rate faster than a glacier moves.

by EveningStarNM on 03/20/2008 04:25:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Term Limits? I think I have come around... | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)