Romney: Too religious (LDS) Giuliani: Not religious enough Huckabee rallied too late. If he had the undivided attention of the religious right from the beginning, he'd have fared better. Thompson failed because he was just bad at the whole campaign thing (also true of Giuliani). Because it's not a very realistic appraisal of human psychology.
So instead you force an artificial limit on people? Introducing people's supposed psychology into the voting process is just plain dumb.
You are mostly right. I know that to be true in many cases. But incumbents hold such a great advantage (made more so thanks to Misters McCain and Fiengold) challengers have a very difficult time unless the incumbent is a convicted criminal or grossly incompetent. Term limits allow for a more even playing field on the election where the incumbent is termed out. I agree in part. How about we simply return to our founders original view? The House was supposed to be made up of citizen legislators. Lifelong congressmen is not what the founders had in mind. Serve a few terms and go home. Be a real citizen of your community. You can come back later if you choose. The Senate used to be appointed by the states legislatures. That may be a little too extreme for most Americans, but clearly lifelong Senators was not what the framers of the Constitution imagined. Creating term limits for senators, many more years then Representatives, is closer to the original intent of our founders. I do not think that a term limited senator held to three, or even two six year terms is going to thinking short term solutions. How is it that a Representative, that is up for reelection every two years, but held to four or six terms, is going to think more short term then he does now? Most of the same people that think there is too much money in politics and wants to control it or fund it with public money do not see that term limits solves those problems. And term limits do not infringe on the free speech of the electorate by regulating donations, media adds, or operations of interest groups like the NRA and teachers' unions.
I think politicians should have an "up or out" deal like we have.. 3 terms MAX per office. As much as some of us would like to be "JO Squadron Pilot for Life" they won't let us. Pol's should have the same deal. State Rep 3x2 year term = 6 years US Rep 3x2 year term = 6 more years US Senator 3x6 term = 18 more years.. That's 30 years straight of being a politician.. NO reason anyone should have to be a legislator more than that. I think they start losing touch way before that, but that's just my opinion.
I'm with this guy. People have completely forgotten what the founding fathers intended for the nation and in place have formulated their own views that they feel will promote their personal needs and wants. I'm also the type that doesn't feel a great dedication to either political party. I feel as if you have to choose one in order to fully exercise your right to vote as you cannot vote in the primaries without doing so. As a nation I think we continue to drift away from what the founders wanted and there have been several instances in our history where we decided to jump off the cliff into madness as far as moving away from the ideas of the founding fathers. It's unfortunate but this country only vaguely resembles the ideas that were set down in the late 18th century.
The problem here is the propensity of politicians to swing more toward the middle when the next election rolls around. They start tossing around all the buzz words that get people thinking they're actually going to do something this time around... Right. Although, what we really see is another example of a public that's just not willing to look into the people they're voting for. They simply see a few commercials, take them at face value, and then cast their vote for the one that comes off most likable -- if they vote at all. Rather than taking a look at their voting record to see if their walk lines up with all their talk. Term limits would seem to nullify the games career politicians play to keep themselves in office.
I agree that incumbents hold an advantage, but life ain't always fair. Both of you talk about the intent of the founders of our country, but if term limits was their intent then why did they not put them in the Constitution? I think it is a fallacy to think that the founders somehow limited themsleves in public office, some served very long terms in their own state legislatures and some further in the US Congress. Without that important experience gained from some of their extensive experience in their respective state legislatures, would our government structure turned out so resilient? I don't think so, that experience helped. The founders didn't get nearly everything right either, effectively limiting votering to white dudes and slavery are two examples. Another one is the military, many of the founders wanted a very small or non-existent full time military instead looking to 'citizen-soldiers' solely for our defense, not even bothering with a Navy at first. Not a very realistic concept back then nor today, the War of 1812 and the 'Bladensburg Races' disabused of any notion that was the case. I think that is incredibly naive, you could argue that even more money would be pored into races than is today if the races were wide open. You need money to run for office nowadays, term limits or not. Perfect example is the Virginia governor's race, where the race is well underway for funding.
Romney too churchy to be nominated by the party taken over by religious fanatics. Yup, there is the smoking gun. Giuliani said all the right things. He was in line with the values voters. Huckabee. How is it that a preacher and former governor of a southern state didn't have the undivided attention of the party that is so far to the right and composed of the same Christians fundamentalist that sat in his pews? Thompson. The GOP isn't impressed by washed up actors . I am just not convinced the GOP has gone far right. I haven't seen the proof yet.
I'm usually with you and your rational arguments, Flash, but I think much different here. Term limits are no more artificial than direct election itself. In fact, it would be hard to say what is "natural" in the sense that the founders of the nation used it when building a system of elected government. That's probably why they argued so much more about it than anything else. Why is it that the general approval rating for the legislative branch is yearly very, very dismal, but people still vote for their incumbent when elections come around rather than installing new blood? Answer that. Well? I have an idea. Could it be that our populace as a whole feels (or is) completely ineffective politically? Voters just can't believe or don't realize that their elected official is a part of the political class that is currently doing so poorly at running the country. Until the turn of the century the Congress voted on who would be in the Senate. This measure was in place to keep the Senate from having to tap dance for the electorate. Now all they do is tap dance and pull out the occasional flaming baton. They do this because it works for them and they're good at it. Stop the tap dancing. Imposing term limits would get the Senate back to the real business they were meant for. The system of government we have is really great, but it's not functioning the way it's supposed to right now. Granted, it is intentionally set up to make it really hard to get anything done (less than 30 amendments anyone), but the move that Senator Specter made is an indicator that the government has jumped the tracks. It shows that he truly is a member of the political class. This is a class that should not exist, or at least not in its current form. The idea of For the People and By the People makes no room for a political class like the one we have, yet we still have it. This is the problem that term limits solves.
Senators and Represenatives represent the states and districts that vote them there. So why should we deprive the very voters who elect their Congressmen of the choice to continue to do so? Just because I don't like Senator X from Idaho doesn't mean I should be able to force him out as a resident of Virginia. The way we selected Senators was actually changed by the 17th amendment because of egregious corruption and the ineffectiveness in the system, leaving Senate seats vacant for long periods of time because of partisanship in the state legislatures, figure that. And it was the state legilatures that selected Senators and not the US Congress. If voters are the ones who have the final choice, what is wrong with that? The idea that term-limits are somehow the solution is still laughable to me. We have single term limit on the governor in Virginia and it is politics as usual, just with a shorter time span. Partisan rancor is still there, stuff doesn't get done because of politics and money is still a huge factor. That we will somehow get to a better place solely because of term limits, or that it is what the founders practiced (they may have preached, but many did not practice) is naive. One only has to look at any part of our history to find that almost all the problems, issues or complaints we have are repeated throughout our entire history. Term limits ain't going to fix it, it is the way of government in a democratic/republican system of government.
You wouldn't be forcing someone else's elected official out. It would just be a new rule of the game. State legislatures chose candidates and the Congress elected them. The Senatorial goat rodeo of pre-17th amendment was apparently mostly caused by the Civil War and all of the unbelievable instability that caused. It's not a fix-all, but I think it would be worth a shot. But then, I'm all for a consumption tax and much, much more power for the states. What is your solution for overcoming the unbelievably paradoxical overspending yet careerist government?
There was no candidate that Conservatives were truly happy with. Romney's Mass health plan scared the shit out of Conservatives. Giuliani is pro-life, pro-gay rights, pro-stem cell research, and had a rough divorce - what values voters was he attracting? Huckabee's late emergence and his appeal to Christian voters masked his liberal stances on taxes and immigration. FDT may have not gotten much bite from Republicans, but there was a bit of time he was floated as the "conservative" choice until people realized a few witty remarks didn't make up for a complete lack of campaigning. The conservative vote got split, and McCain walked away as the most "electable" candidate with the most mass appeal. The McCain of late 2008, incidentally, was much, much more conservative than the McCain of 2000. He adopted a solid pro-choice stance, supported the bush tax cuts after he opposed them, and nominated a very conservative running mate as an olive branch to the Conservative wing of the party (possibly costing him the election). Fortunately, we no longer run our country like we're in the 18th century. Mike- what is this political "class"? You mean profession? What exactly is wrong with the professional legislator or statesman? The founding fathers, as Flash pointed out, believed in curtailing the threat of a standing army by enforced amateurism. That folly was quickly and wisely discarded. How exactly is amateurism supposed help the political process? We are today lacking statesmen like Henry Clay, John Stennis, or Dan Patrick Moynihan, but that is hardly an argument to do away with career politicians altogether.
You think there are no more Clays, or Stennis' out there that can't get a toe hold or won't spend the money because of the current climate? Would there have been an inherent problem with Moynihan or Clay leaving after making great contributions for just 12 years instead of a lifetime? You don't think great men would make a contribution wherever they were? And how many do nothing leeches or has beens do we have in Congress for every Clay? Amateur performances are not based on years of service. Face it. Most our Senators and Representatives act like rank amateurs. It has nothing to do with the years you spend there.
It is a national system. A congressman from Idaho makes laws for Virginia. That is why the federal government/Constitution can set various limits on candidate eligibility, terms, campaign rules, etc. That is also the rational behind allowing a big out of state organization to come into my state and spend a million dollars getting a guy elected that I don't want elected and may not have been elected without out of state money. That is why the UAW, and the NRA can support and promote candidates all over the country. So if enough Americans think it is better for the nation to have term limits then the guy in Idaho will just have to suck it up. Then you don't support the term limit on the chief executive?
I see nothing in the Constitution about Congress electing the Senators, only state legislatures. Either way, the system was broken and needed fixing. I don't want to change things drastically on a maybe, especially when the 15 state legislatures that have term limits still have of the same issues that legislatures without term limits have, like overspending, etc. Have term limits really helped California? I don't have a solution, but I certainly don't think term limits will even come close to providing one. It certainly hasn't helped some of the states that have instituted them, how do you explain that? But the congressman from Idaho is that state's/district's representative in Congress, not Virginia's. So I guess if most Americans support gun control, say a reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban, all is good then? Amend the Constitution to reflect that? I guess you would have to suck that one up, like it or not. Apples and oranges, the President as a single person holds as much power, if not more, than the 535 voting members of Congress.
I have a solution, but it can never be done. Increased emphasis on civil discourse and civics from the population at large. There are numerous road blocks to this. The preponderance of money is against it, the only class of people that can truly effect it have neither political rights nor representation in any form, and we are accelerating, not slowing, our civil decline (as determined by rates of broken homes). Flash, I wasn't really arguing for or against term limits. I was merely pointing out that elections are not term limits. I tend to think of it in a different light. I think it is dishonorable to cling to power for the sake of power. I believe an election should be treated more like a mandate, and for the most part they have been. When the mandate becomes to stay in power, that's when it's time to go.
But a single vote by the senator from Idaho can pass a bill that will be the law of the land across the entire U.S. Ah, that includes Virginia. OF COURSE!! I would fight the proposed amendment. But once changed, yup. I am opposed to gun control first and foremost because it is unconstitutional (though there are other moral and logical arguments). But if the Constitution is changed, fair is fair. I try to be consistent. So how do you feel about the number 100, as in senators. I don't believe when the Constitution was amended wrt Presidential terms they had in mind that a single president was too powerful. If that were so then they could have changed the Constitution to reduce the power of the presidency or provide for co presidents, or a parliamentary system.
