Term Limits? I think I have come around...

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
I've always opposed term limits with the reasoning that people should be allowed to vote for who they want as long as they want.

What Cenk said at the end of the show about Rep. Conyers sent me as far to the other side as one can go.

Max 2 terms for House, 1 term for Senate, and ONE TERM FOR PRESIDENT.

Here's why...


Why haven't our elected representatives followed our will and sought justice in our names? Because they are afraid of losing seats, which translates to losing power.

One of the principles of the founding fathers was to keep power at a minimum. The generations of politicians since have subverted this until we end up with people afraid to do the things which MUST be done.

So, take away the ability to gather power. Keep their time in Washington to a minimum and in the case of Senators and President, they can spend their last year working instead of campaigning.

Look at the recent history of 2nd terms for Presidents. Scandal ridden, get next to nothing done, buyer's remorse sets in almost immediately, the economy dumps about halfway through...really, wouldn't four years of any of the pricks we've had eight of since '68 have been enough? The two we have had for only four years both came in when the economy was riding The Cyclone; they were both fairly ineffective because the power holders in Congress waited them out.

Now, if I could figure out a way for the SCOTUS Justices to have to come up for renewed confirmation every ten years. Get rid of the rubber stampers who never contribute to the legal discussion but are there only for furthering an agenda. (Yes, Clarence, I'm talking about you) Then, when Scalia opens his incredibly ignorant mouth and says things like "...it would be absurd to say that you can’t stick something under the fingernails, smack them in the face. It would be absurd to say that you couldn’t do that," he would be held accountable at some time. Imagine, the country is having an argument about what a preacher says in front of 8000 people but someone on the highest court of our land says "Torture? What name so?" and no one says a word. WTF is wrong with this picture?

BTW, anyone else think Greenspan KNEW the economy was about to fall to pieces and that's why he got out of the pool when he did? Hmm?
< WOW!!! A thread about me!!!! | EV Count Update for 3/19/08: More good news for McCain >
 Display:
I know my endorsement might mean death to your thread, but I agree with you 100%. Time to limit all of em, judges included...

Thanks...

by bobo1 on 03/19/2008 05:41:13 PM EST


Bill Clinton's third term would have prevented George W. Bush's first term.

by Dogger on 03/19/2008 06:37:59 PM EST



Clinton was a conservative. I don't share the opinion that he was worth much at all. He had already acquiesed to the PNAC crowd, what makes you think HE wouldn't have invaded Iraq? Marijuana jailings doubled during his time in office, "privatized" jails flourished, he signed a welfare reform act that didn't do shit for the people ON welfare but made a lot of Republicans (including Cenk, at the time) very, VERY happy.

Thank you. I think you made my case even stronger.

by MedfordTim on 03/19/2008 09:31:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I have a more favorable recollection of those years, because I compare Clinton's term to the mess that came before him and the absolute nightmare that followed.

I prefer a more progressive administration than Clinton offered, but he was much better (and the best America would vote for, unfortunately) than the regressive GOP.

As for Iraq, the PNAC tried to get Clinton to invade, and he refused.

Can you really imagine Clinton getting the 8/6/2001 briefing and doing nothing? He would have tried to stop it; we know  this because his team uncovered and stopped the Millenium plot. But America had Bush, so nothing was done to prevent the murder of 3,000 American on 9/11.

by Dogger on 03/19/2008 11:54:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Term limits would mean getting rid of Dodd, Feingold, Wexler, Waxman, and a lot of other really good people.  Term limits are like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Campaign finance reform, however also would solve the problem.  When incumbents don't have to worry so much about raising money and find that they must answer to their constituents rather than to some foreign-owned corporation, we'll get better quality work out of them.  I doubt that we'll get a truly progressive government, but I do believe we'll get a responsive government, and one which is focused more on the needs and dreams of the citizens rather than on the avarice of corporate interests.  And if an incumbent proves unsatisfactory, it will be easier to get rid of him or her, although I think the primary process also must be streamlined in order to facilitate that.

by EveningStarNM on 03/20/2008 12:53:29 AM EST



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 ]
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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]
 Display: