Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

At The (Term) Limit

November 10, 2011 by  

At The (Term) Limit

I never supported mandatory term limits. I am well aware that the vast majority of those who hold elected office could better serve their constituents by taking a long stroll off of an appropriately short pier (unless they’re Kennedys). I am also aware that many of us live with precisely the government we earned at the ballot box. To put a fine point on it: We already have term limits. Every election represents the potential end of the term of the corrupt, the incompetent and/or the just plain undeserving.

Unfortunately, far too few of my fellow Americans share my attitude; especially when it comes to accomplishing more at the ballot box than picking up one of those fun little “I voted” stickers. Far too many of our Senators, Congressmen, commissioners, mayors, aldermen and such hold their positions for far too long. The re-election rate in the U.S. House of Representatives in the sea change year of 2010 still hit 85 percent, tying 1970 for the lowest mark in half a century. Your Congressmen managed to best their beleaguered Senate colleagues by a whole percentage point, with Senators returning to their taxpayer-funded digs to the maudlin tune of 84 percent.

Last Tuesday, the county I live in offered a ballot initiative to eliminate the current two-term limit on the position of Chairman of the County Commission. Although the current chairman is a nice enough old fellow, the initiative suddenly appeared in the final weeks before municipal election day, engendering fair questions about the timing and intent of the ballot measure. Despite my long-held view that political longevity should be bestowed by the voters alone, I voted “no.” I have concluded, after a couple of decades of soul-searching, that we in the electorate simply can’t be trusted with the task of keeping our elected officials honest.

Look again at the re-election rate for incumbents at the Federal level. Those rates change at the State and local levels only in those places that have instituted term limits as a matter of law. Elsewhere, taxpayers lay prostrate under the thumbs of the same wire-pullers and career loafers who gave birth to the exact disenchantment we’re discussing here today — and almost exclusively by their own hands.

Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) has served in the U.S. Senate since 1963. Inouye became the longest-serving current U.S. Senator 17 months ago, when Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) died. Representatives John Dingell and John Conyers, both Democrats from Michigan, have dishonored their constituents for more than a century combined. Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) left office in 2003 at the age of 100. He was the oldest-serving Senator and, until Byrd beat his record, he was the longest-serving Senator in U.S. history.

For those who muse that mandating term limits might discourage the best and brightest from running for office, the five aforementioned gentlemen serve as warning enough. The best and brightest among us want nothing to do with the electoral process, primarily because they might have to contend with petrified remnants like the five men mentioned, among others.

Some people worry term limits will drive out the few politicians who actually serve their constituents. Granted, mandated term limits would send Ron Paul for the exit, but Congressman Paul respects the voters enough to have abandoned a re-election bid in order to focus on his Presidential aspirations. As my grandfather might have said: “Ya gotta admire that kind of moxie.” And people like Paul find ways to contribute to their fellow man, Congress or not. The problem is that for every Paul, there’s an Alcee Hastings, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, Sheila Jackson Lee, Zoe Lofgren, etc.

Of course we can do better at the polls. We can elect thoughtful people who will pursue a course of action purely out of a sense of dedication to their Nation and its people. But we don’t do that. Time after time, offered the opportunity to improve our lot through intelligent balloting, we re-elect Charles Rangel.

Our Republic is slipping away from us. Term limits would hardly solve the problem. But they would be a start.

–Ben Crystal

Ben Crystal

is a 1993 graduate of Davidson College and has burned the better part of the last two decades getting over the damage done by modern-day higher education. He now lives in Savannah, Ga., where he has hosted an award-winning radio talk show and been featured as a political analyst for television. Currently a principal at Saltymoss Productions—a media company specializing in concept television and campaign production, speechwriting and media strategy—Ben has written numerous articles on the subjects of municipal authoritarianism, the economic fallacy of sin taxes and analyses of congressional abuses of power.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “At The (Term) Limit”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • s c

    What matters most is what WE, the American people, need. What the elected riff raff want is irrelevant. What the elected riff raff need is a periodic swift kick, constant reminders that their talents are peachy keen in an asylum, rarely do any of them come close to being normal and qualified (FORGET best and brightest), they need to be reminded that we don’t go to bed with others so we can be seen as ‘bipartisan,’ and we aren’t members of an exclusive country club that caters to the arrogant and the dumbest.
    Americans are always frustrated because we’re too young to remember the Founders. What we see on TV and hear on the radio are people who might make perfect sense in a laughing academy but probably couldn’t get a security clearance to work at a McDonald’s.
    Interrupting a riff raffer’s ‘divine right to get and keep consecutive terms’ is the only solution.
    When a citizen can justify keep “certain” people in office for decades, it is a clear sign that WE work for those elected riff raffers SOBs.
    It needs to be said that Washington is as close to a corrupt “utopia” as any mortal can get. It must be said that no one deserves that form of unearned status quo. For those who look at Washington and wink at the constant antisocial behavior of riff raffers, it’s no different than making the same, lame choice at the voting booth and expecting to see different results. Einstein knew, but we have to be reminded.
    Finally, I refuse to believe that any sane American can live with the idea that a riff raffer can go to Washington and get rich at our expense and STILL be seen as someone who deserves to be elected and re-elected until they become household names. My dog has more common sense than a riff raffer. Sadly, my dog also has much more common sense than a typical American voter (regardless of race, creed, color or any any other trait that defines an adult who works for riff raffers but thinks he’s “free”).

    • Vagabond

      very well said S C and oh so true, yes we need term limits. and any more I am thinking four years is more than enough for a president?? who spends his first four years campaigning for another four years so he can keep his free ride to visit Hawai as often as possible,

      • Christin

        Vagabond,

        I agree with you about the two-term president.

        Ben Crystal,

        BUT how do we use ‘voting’ as ‘term limits’ if the elections are not true and legal because of:

        * Illegal gerrymandering of districts (which keep Socialists in power)
        * fraudulent voting and registered votes by radical community organizations ie. ACORN
        * Fraudulent Illegal votes
        * SEIU in charge of the Electronic Voting Equipment (ie NV – Reid, and now soros’s guys in Wisconsin)
        * Fraudulent prisoner votes who receive ballots by mail
        * Military votes (usually Conservative) not going out on time, thus not counted
        * Absentee and Early Voting Ballots not being counted unless the election is close… and then sometimes not even then (ie. Al Frankin where the liberal Judge allowed those urban votes counted, but not the Conservative Rural ballots.
        * New Black Panthers voter intimidation and disenfranchising (Conservative) voters and not held accountable for breaking the law by the corrupt AG
        * Voter Fraud where there are ballots using multiple names to addresses of empty lots and fradulent names…in Democratic Districts (TX – Sheila Lee Jackson 4700 votes and CA…)
        * MSM props a bad candidate or two candidates that TPTB approve of and often libel a good candidate and do not report the truth about candidates, thus many vote for a bad candidate
        * The Bilderburgs choose the presidential and VP candidate
        * the govt has 43% on Entitlements and even more now with the 99%ers, those receiving endless paychecks for jobloss, all who will vote for the Liberal Progressive who will keep giving them a free ride

        How then, Ben Crystal, can we get have a VALID Voting System for ‘term limits’ here in America???

      • madog2

        You want ever see a time limit on elected congress or senate when the rule of time in office is controlled by by the crooks in office. Just like the supreme court is controlled by the party majority.

        • Robert West

          Several States have, in the past, passed term limits for Federal office only to have the Supreme Court rule them unconstitutional. Until the politicians in D.C. are willing to place limits on themselves it is unlikely to ever happen.

    • dan

      well stated SC. And done so without calling anyone down for their party affiliation.

      • Kevin Cable

        I agree 100% with what SC had to say, and Dan,as well!

    • iam

      s c says, “What the elected riff raff want is irrelevant.” Not true! The only things we get out of Washington (and state legislatures) is what the elected riff raff want. What WE want is irrelevant. We want lower taxes, we get higher taxes. We say no to Ubamacare, we get Ubamacare. We want no bailouts for failed businesses, we get bailouts for failed businesses. We want responsible government, we get Pelosi laughing in our faces.

      • eddie47d

        We want less wars and we get more wars from both parties. We want more accountability on Wall Street and we get more corruption.We want less money involved in politics and more is poured in.We demand higher environmental standards and then they are weakened. The charade is played out with everyone no matter who is elected.

      • http://henry henry

        Trust more people match your ideology otherwise our free Western culture will go down the drain very fast . As a European have noticed the big changes on both sides of the Atlantic that are of great concern.If you pay close attention to the movement of different cultures from the Middle East,China, India, etc.that are coming to the West not to adapt to the local culture rather want to maintain their way of life. They suddenly are demanding services from our institutions without pay. The local language is also falling behind.Our politicians want to please those as their voices become very loud. Today, we have politicians on both sides only interested in doing their thing to stay in office not what is best for the Nation as such.Let us pray for a better future to correct the problems.A major problem are the younger generation who do not care.

        • Joe H.

          henry,
          I agree, but i don’t think it’s so much that the younger generation don’t care, it’s that they have been brainwashed by TPTB into thinking what is happening is copacetic!! Then they age a little and either get complacent or they one day wake up and realize they were wrong!

      • http://yahoo don

        the riff raff in dc don’t work for us. they work for big business and big money who reward them well. they look down on us like they are our rulers even though our vote could put them out and they could get their very generous retirement they voted in for themselves. maybe they should pay for their own insurance instead of getting taxpayers money free forever. their retirement should be 401k with a match at 1%. they are already rich after being payed off by big business. now next year we vote for president. probly be romney or perry. both freinds of the elitest rich. what happened to the candidate of the people. they’ve chosen obummer, bush clinton,bush,reagan with elitist bush, carter, can’ say ford was. wekow tricky dick was, johnson was esculating viet nam for big business, cant say kennedy was because he did’nt fit in with them. probly was why he was killed. i’d bet ike was and who knows from there. check out the “obama deception” online. it can be watched on line. it tells by who our presidents are chosen. we are with out government, our so called reps.

        • Vicki

          Don writes:
          “the riff raff in dc don’t work for us. they work for big business and big money who reward them well. ”

          Well. actually they work for themselves. Business simply takes the opportunity to buy them. We could too. Unions do it all the time.

          The real problem is the loss of honor amongst those we have foolishly sent back and back again. (Nancy P for instance) Our forefathers did warn us that our Constitution and way of government was only suitable for a moral and religious people.

          Our forefathers also intended a free press to keep straglers in line. This almost failed. Then came the internet and we all became able to “own the presses”. That is probably why the current government wants so badly to take control of the one arm of the press they can’t control.

          • Vicki

            Oh and lest we forget there were to other little changes that have a great impact on government.

            1. Senators used to be elected by the representitives of the states. The people could affect the election only by who they voted to be in their state government.

            2. People with no skin in the game were allowed to vote. Originally voting was done only by those who had something to loose if the government got to big.

            “English jurist William Blackstone wrote in the 1700s:

            The true reason of requiring any qualification, with regard to property, in voters, is to exclude such persons as are in so mean a situation that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them under some undue influence or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent with general liberty. ”
            http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring07/elections.cfm

            As we can see today the huge demand for the wealthy to pay more combined with the observation that a few great or artful or wealthy men have been able to sway many many of those voters (the willess ones).

            Were it that we were a tenth as wise as our forefathers.

        • PC Bob

          I don’t think Ike was part of that list. He warned us to be watchful of the military industrialist’s. The war machine. Johnson was very MUCH a part of that and actually wanted to accelerate the Viet Nam war. “War is just good business.”

  • Robin from Arcadia, IN

    The voting public is so uniformed that when they go to the polls they vote on name recognition. They don’t do their homework and are prone to apathy rather than interest. Term limits are needed for this very reason. We cannot trust our fellow Americans to vote as an educated voter and the MSM is as much to blame as those who vote blindly. Washington needs to be rid of career politicians. The time is now to demand term limits.

    • Vagabond

      Robin the American public spends their time watching soaps and sports when they should be watching FOX news to find out just what is going on in this world, thats the reason they vote so STUPIDLY,

      • Patriot1776

        While I agree that FOX is the best of the TV media, in this day and age with internet and even libraries there is no excuse to depend on a single news source. I picked up obama’s book (and read it in the store – I would not provide financial support to him intentionally) way before the election in 2008 and I read for myself what he had to say about himself. He is the wrong person to be in charge of this land that I love. It was there in black and white and not one of the media sources brought that fact out. We need to be active participants in our republic if we want to keep it free.

        • skippy

          thank you patriot!! I agree.

        • Martha

          You do know he did not win the popular vote, don’t you? It was the Electoral College that put him in. Makes me wonder why they push us to vote then. With them overriding the majority of the American people desires, our time and vote is wasted. Along with term limits, we need to get rid of the Electoral College too. Maybe then, our voices will be heard and heeded.

          • Martha

            Why do we still have the Electoral College?

            The Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution. It would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.

            Note that the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the use of the popular vote in the States as the vehicle for selecting electors has substantially changed the process.

            Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States.

            This being the case, why don’t we demand it of our Congressmen and Senators?

          • patrick H.T. paine

            “To conquer, first DIVIDE!”

            Actually he DID win the popular vote….65 million to 60 million.

            “Do not ask for whom the bell tolls……..”

          • eddie47d

            Stop with the dog and pony show Martha. Do you need a truth test administered? Obama won both the popular and the electoral vote.69,456,897 and 365 respectively and McCain won 59,934,814 and 173.

          • ChristyK

            We still have the electoral college to prevent all of the people in the big cities from making the rural voter’s votes not count. There are so many people in the big cities (mostly moochers), that the rural voters would have no say in government if you got rid of the electoral college.

            To fix our government we need to repeal the 17th amendemnt (popularly elected Senators). Ever since the 17th amendment, all of the power has moved to the federal government (against the constitution). If the Senators were selected by the state legislators, they would represent the states. We would not have the issues with the Feds telling the states what to do. Did I mention that is unconstitutional? The individual has very little control over the Federal government. We can effect change much easier if most of the functions of government are controlled at the state level (as the constitution intended).

        • Joe H.

          Patriot1776,
          even Fox has become co-opted. how many times compared to perry, gingrich or romney, do you hear them mention Ron Paul?? VERY LITTLE IF ANY! A truely unbiased newssource would give EQUAL coverage and let the people decide!! All of the news sources are trying to MAKE the news instead of just reporting it!!

      • lkar

        I agree, I am a FOX news guy also, but I also use the internet and do occasionally watch CNN. What people will watch is “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and believe they are watching news! Speaking of which, did anyone see Nancy pollution on his show last night? Every freakin answer was “blame the Republicans” and “put the Democrats back in charge”.

        • Ted Crawford

          In defence of Nancy, she must be careful how she talks, her lips could cause servere injury. She dare not ride in open vehivles for fear they might beat her eyebrows off! It does seem to help with her chin whiskers though!

        • Iva Raggon

          Wake up. All news, whether Fox Noise, MSM, NBC, etc. is slanted by the very fact that news is EDITED by human beings. Their beliefs and attitudes shape how the news is presented and interpreted. A friend, who is a news editor, did a demonstration for our kids one day. He showed a clip of a politician speaking with shots of happy audience reactions. and asked the kids if the politician was speaking the truth. He then re edited the clips lingering on the shot of the politician long enough to see him look down and then away. He then edited in different shots of the audience that showed less happy faces and people looking away. When asked again, the kids thought that the politician was lying. Same footage same material… just a different cut.

          Remember that it was Fox that did the reprehensible story showing Michelle Bachmann speaking on an outdoor podium in winter and kept cutting to adoring crowds reacting to her speech. The crowd , however was shot i the summer at a different event and was used to reinforce Fox news editors’ favorable opinion of Bachmann. So spare us the reverence for Fox News. They have no more journalistic integrity than anyone else, they just slant the message to what you want to hear.

          In the case of Vermont Governor Howard Dean’s famous shouting screech, the sound was recorded with a Sennhieser shotgun mic which only accepts sound from a narrow angle so all that was heard was Dean’s voice. What was not heard was the extremely loud crowd voices that almost drowned out Dean’s voice which in the real situation was barely heard. Right leaning media kept showing the clip of Dean which made him sound crazed, but if the had played the full sound there would have been a different reaction to his behavior.

          The news is an artifact made by humans. The images that are presented can be flattering or not, the moments chosen and how they are edited can shape how an audience interprets the information. So if you think you are getting truth from ANY news outlet you are kidding yourself. That is why it is important to listen to a variety of news sources and draw your own conclusion.

          • Bud Tugly

            Also consider the amount of air time given to bimbos like Lindsey Lahan and Kim Kardassian who have done little to contribute to humanity and are famous for being famous. Recently a Viet Nam Medal of Honor winner who saved 13 lives under heavy enemy despite being shot four times passed away. Not one news outlet commented on this REAL hero’s passing. Media journalism has become just another form of entertainment.

            Sadly gone are the likes of Walter Cronkite, Harry Reasoner, and Eric Severeid who brought real integrity to every broadcast..

      • c.w.s

        Lest we forget…FOX is the only news agency that has won a legal battle by arguing in court that there is “no law, rule, or regulation” that prohibits it from knowingly broadcasting false or slanted content. (it is only an FCC “policy”) You can look it up yourselves on Google.
        The point is, never rely on only one source of information. FOX is as biased as all the rest of the MSM, it only presents more of what you already believe. If FOX was the end-all to information there would be no need for cites like PLD and others.

    • http://al@bellaproducts.com al metcalf

      And the time is now to remove the ability for elected politicians to decide their own salaries, working hours and benefits. In every state there are government schedules concerning pay for the government employees. These elected people are government employees and should be controlled by the existing schedule for actions, pay and benefits.
      The same story for all elected Federal Employees. With defined terms limits, defined pay and benefits we can control these thieves. Now all we have to do is enforce the laws of Treason with the firing squad and we have solved our crooked politician problems.

  • http://personalliberty rockdoc01

    Part of the problem, especially on the local level is that there is a shortage of people who will run for office. They would rather stay with what they have for jobs, focus on their own family, and focus on their own hobbies/interests. Alot of people don’t want to get involved in politics and who would blame them with all the smearing that goes on during a campaign. It’s hard to even get people to attend their school board or county/local council meetings. Unfortunately I think the days of the common man being a short-term representative on the national level are long past. Everyone in ther now is a lawyer, doctor, or businessman. Voters are gettin glazy too. They recognize a name and pull the lever. Tough for someone new to get in.

    • Bev

      Money talks and bs walks. Being elected is like winning the lottery. I think term limits are way overdue.

    • lkar

      It is the costs and time to campaign that does a disservice to those that would like to serve for the good of the people. Only the lawyers, doctors, and businessman have the name recognition and connections monetarily to persue the political career. You usually only have to worry about 1 to 3 opposition (people they usually know from connections). Term limits is a start. What about the whole process of campaign and the money?

      • http://patriotdepot.com 1911man

        I must agree, term limits and campaign reform are a good start.The american people must also get involved to the point of taking elections seriously,like we’ve all heard before, elections have consiquences,people have to do their own research on candidates and make an informed decisions as to whom they think represents their own personal ideals.

      • http://al@bellaproducts.com al metcalf

        The campaign season is to long. Each person should have a complete resume of experience which is posted to the public. Ninety days before the election the debates start. Ten days before the election the campaign is over. There has to be some rules. Right now we have politicians starting a campaign two years before the election. Hell Obama started campaigning the day he arrived in the Congress of the U.S. He was assigned to the Chair of the Afghanistan War Committee. How many meetings did he call in the two years? NONE!! He was busy campaigning for President. We need some rules. If you are in an elected job then you cannot run for office without resigning. Right now we have every house member running for election while they are supposed to be working for us. What are we STUPID? Obama has been running for reelection for the last six months already. Let’s get a grip on this problem or it will only get bigger.

  • Breeze

    It would be nice if a “common” person could run for office. Not some super-rich control freak lawyer, who only want to control the world/country.

    • Lost in Paradise

      Now you are talking sense. THis is something I would also like to see. Down size the government by 50%, and most would only serve one term, and go back to what they were doing. It should also be illegal for attories to apply for any position, except being hired as an attorney.

      • c.w.s

        Agreed. Jesse Ventura (love him or hate him), once said that he felt that being a lawyer should disqualify a person from being in the legislature since they might later profit in private life from laws they themselves helped create. Interesting point.

      • eddie47d

        Since 35 of our Founding Fathers were either lawyers or went to law school for their education and training should we exclude the laws they signed onto?

    • ChristyK

      It would be much easier for the common man to run for federal office, if the legislature was a part time job as was the case for the 1st 100+ years. Because the power of Congress is enumerated and limited, it should not take most of the year to pass all of the laws that are necessary. If the Feds went back to their constitutional limits, it could be a part time job. This way our Congressmen & Senators would spend most of their time back with the “little people” living under the laws that they created. I also believe more ordinary people would be willing to serving in DC for 1-2 months per year (like the Wyoming legislature & others) rather than most of the year. What America loving, honest individual wants to live in corrupt DC for most of the year. That is torture. Only the power grabbers like living in that viper’s den.

  • dl johnson

    Rather than term limits – how about pay limits? Twelve years of pay checks to any individual.

    Congress has the right to obligate the Country under the Supremacy Clause for most any damnfool thing, but there are limits as Congress may obligate the Country for one year except 2 years for the Army. That kind of leaves retirements as not permitted obligations.

    Getting right with the Constitution is going to be hard but limiting ‘empire builders’ inside the government is a start

    • Joe H.

      dl johnson,
      “twelve years of paychecks…” If you don’t tie that to term limits, it would not work. People like nancy peelousy, dirty harry reid, and bawney fwanks would still stay in office to collect the “special” funding from bribes!!!

  • jim phelan

    Suggest a citzen legitslature. e,g . Texas

  • http://none Little Old Lady

    I totally agree it would be great to set limited terms, however our “wonderful @#* ” congress put a law into place that prevents this from ever happening. I’s love to see: A two term limit and all fringe benefits taken away once they leave office. Add to this, a equal flat tax for everyone, elimination of all foreign aid and outlaw all lobby firms, and return the control of our money to our government and dismiss the FED. But like you stated we will never get enough Americans off their duff to protest this law to do anything about it. So the foxes will continue to run the hen house making up the rules (laws) that keeps them in power. After all, what fox is going to vote themselves out of a cozy arrangement. Unless the public finally wakes up and protests to have this law changed, limited terms can only remain a pipe dream.

    • Patriot1776

      We can’t honor our Founding Fathers or the patriots who have given their lives to grant us the freedoms of this great nation by lying down and allowing our government to tell us how they are going to rule over us. Our Founding Fathers could have easily laid down and done obeisance to the king of England and we would still be under English rule today. They were out manned, out gunned, against the most powerful military in the world at the time. They didn’t even have 100% of the citizens on their side. But they stood together and fought for what they believed in and because of that we have been able to live in the land of the free. If we want to give our children and our grand children the opportunity to live as free men and women, we have to stand and NEVER GIVE UP!!!

      • Lost in Paradise

        That also means we will need to fight like our fore fathers did. It will be a welcome blood bath. Lock and load!

    • http://patriotdepot.com 1911man

      very well said,I must concur.

  • Skyraider6

    No politician should be allowed to seal their records. The courts did an unjust service to the American people by sealing the low life’s records.
    HAPPY BIRTHDAY MARINES
    SEMPER FI MF

    • Thinking About

      That is a good idea, sure would like to see the military record and the SEC investigation on GWB.

      • Joe H.

        Thinking about,
        I don’t care much for GWB but during the fiasco on the reporter accusing him of going AWOL, his military records were unsealed for a short period. I, on the other hand, would like to see nobummers college records ,including his college finance records!! BTW, THOSE have NOT been unsealed!!!

        • Thinking About

          That would be fine with me and to see the real grades GWB made and not the ones his dad bought. Martha Stewart went to prision for violating SEC rules and the only thing GWB had to say to dad’s friends was his accountant did not cover for him in providing notice of intent to sale his shares like the requirement. No one should be above the laws and rules of this nation.

          • Joe H.

            thinking about,
            I was, in case you didn’t notice, talking about abummers records not GWB!! I want to see if he requested foreign student benifits for federal grants. If he did and he IS a foreign student, he is not eligible to be pres. if he did and he IS NOT a foreign student, then he is guilty of a federal offense, fraud to be exact, and is not eligible to be president!!! If he is NOT guilty of any offence, then what does he have to worry about?? I also want him PROPERLY vetted before he is put back on the ballot. and not by nan peelousy, either!!!

  • Michael P.

    The problem originated with the Constitution, the Founding Father’s failed to impose term limits. When they put a term limit on the presidency they should have put it on the Congress as well. Nor should judges serve for life.

    • Greg T

      Term limits are only necessary when the voters refuse to act.

      This debate about term limits honestly comes down to not trusting the voters. If you can’t trust the voters, then there really isn’t any hope in our form of civil government.

      The founders were correct in not advocating term limits. They knew we’re screwed if we have to enact laws to force ourselves to do what we’re expected to do. The founders knew this country could only survive if we governed ourselves.

      Do not blame the Founders for our failures.

      • Stan in Texas

        Another reason for term limits……Have you ever stopped to think how it is possible for a person with an annual income of about $169,000 (Salary for Congress, I think) to become a multi-millionaire in just a few years?

        It is almost impossible to vote out a sitting Congressman by defeating him in a primary election. The Party will back the incumbent every time and the only choice is to vote for the other party to get him out.

        TERM LIMITS NOW

        • Greg T

          The system is broken and term limits will not fix it.

        • Greg T

          Look at how the media gives a pass to Bill Clinton and his sexual conduct. Look at how every conservative/non-progressive candidate is given deep canal exams and false accusations pass for fair character analysis. Look at today’s field of Republicans dashed by the press (whether you like them or not).

          It is harder for our candidates to pass the torch to newbies. Newbies are the target. Term limits give even more power to the press to lessen our field even more, while providing even more non-vetted newbies like Obama.

          Term limits sound like an easy fix, but it will fail to make the changes you are hoping for. Laws cannot restrain sin. Laws expose our sins. Make term limits your goal and you will focus on the wrong target. We need the ability to reduce our laws not make more.

    • Greg T

      Oh, and the Founders did not place term limits on the President. The Democrats in Congress did after FDR died.

    • Jonathan

      Actually, the Founders did not limit the term for the Presidency. That did not occur unti 1951 with the passage of Amendment 22. President George Washington voluntarily stepped down after two terms, creating a precedent for the two term limit that was backed up by both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. This precedent was only violated by the two Roosevelts (Theodore with an unsuccessful bid for a non-consecutive third term in 1912 and Franklin with four successful term elections in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944) and Ulysses S Grant with his unsuccessful consecutive third term attempt in 1880. It was after Franklin Roosevelt’s death in office that Congress pushed the term limit for the presidency.

    • c.w.s

      I don’t see that as much of a failure as allowing each house to set up it’s own methods of operation. By doing so, the concept of “seniority” slipped in along with “sub-committees”. These two concepts combine to create dynamos of political activity and foster the perception that it is better to keep a person in office.

      Rather than term limits for people, I’d rather see mandatory “sunset” clauses for all legislation – say fifteen years. That way, instead of thinking that they have to find new laws to create to look as if they’re actually doing something of value, they’d spend their time looking over what has already been done and reflect how these laws serve the people. (just an idea) Each fifteen years, as a law is about to expire, the legislature could either re-enact it, let it die a peaceful death, or reshape it into something that better fits the needs of the day…

      • ChristyK

        I’ve liked the idea of sunsets for laws for a long time. I would make the sunset at 10 years though. Most of the laws are bad for the American people. If they had to vote for them to continue, it would be easier to fillibuster to prevent the law from continuing.

        I also would like to change the law to require 60% to vote for a bill to pass. 50% +1 allows for too much partisanship. If a law is really necessary, they should be able to get 60% of the Congress to vote for it.

        I would also like a law that says the Congress doesn’t get paid if they don’t pass a budget. (I know that this is dreaming)

        • Joe H.

          ChristyK,
          you want to see these bums work on the economy?? just connect their pay to the economy. If the economy goes down 20%, so does their pay! If it goes up 20% then it goes up. see, the way it is right now, they don’t have a vested interest in things going up. They get their pay even if the economy tanks. My way, if the economy tanks, SO DOES THEIR PAY!!!

  • Tony N

    Here is even more reasons we need terms Limits , We all need to Listen to THIS !!!!! And he is talking again today live in a second half interview about the elites plans to transform the International societies into the NWO

    http://www.allamericangold.com/
    Wednesday Pastor Lindsey Williams

    Today’s Podcast: http://allamericangold.com/ptg02nov11.mp3

  • Stephan F.

    In order to get into the “correct” frame of mind, I proffer these quotes from a couple of individuals who had a knack for getting it right:

    “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington

    “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” – Thomas Jefferson

    At this stage of the game we find ourselves compelled to restart the process of tying down this monstrosity of a beast by reinstituting “the chains of the constitution” on government. And a good first start is to implement good-ole fashion term limits. And by that I mean “strict” term limits — one term and you are out. No and’s, if’s, or but’s. Got it?

    And to Ben Crystal I say: welcome back to the light side of the force.

    • Stephan F.

      Oh, and one more thing. It’s high time to implement a process of recall. If the people of a district or state feel their representative is not doing his or her job adequately, they should have a right to fire them. And I’m not talking about instituting some convoluted process of impeachment. I’m talking about a confidence vote that would enable voters to toss these incompetents right out of office, immediately. And if a politician is found to have violated his oath to the constitution he should be subjected to criminal prosecution.

      We must start demanding that politicians be held with their feet to the fire in upholding constitutional principals.

      • Joe H.

        Stephan F.,
        Recall, no confidence vote?!?!?!?? I’M IN!!! Only, have a national poll each year and if their support drops below 45%, AUTOMATIC and we go into election mode!!!

  • Lori

    Like the TV show “Who wants to be Millionaire?”, the politicians are the contestants. The winners instantly become millionaires and their wealth increases the longer they stay on top, with all the perks and power.

  • Average Joe

    My only problem with setting term limits is this: If these idiots that the rest of the idiots “elected” into office know that they will only have “X” amount of time in office to accomplish “their” goals, then they will fast rack their agendas through congress and a lot of very bad laws will be rushed through in the name of expediency (think, Healthcare bill or the Patriot Act)…this worries me more than how long they hold office. As Ben stated, there is a mechanism in place to rid ourselves of these worthless parasites…VOTE THEM OUT! (of course, educating your freinds,relatives and neighbors will help considerably in getting them booted from office).Just because 90% of the electorate is apathetic and can’t be bothered to actually do their due dilligence, doesn’t that the other 10% of us shouldn’t try to change that equation by educating them.

    Apathy can be overcome by enthusiasm, and enthusiasm can only be aroused by two things: first, an ideal, with takes the imagination by storm, and second, a definite intelligible plan for carrying that ideal into practice.
    Arnold J. Toynbee

  • Rennie

    It is absurd to think you don’t meet people on a daily basis who could more honestly and wisely govern this town, state or nation than the career politicians who lust for power and other people’s money.

  • http://google Al Smith

    You are correct in all you say BUT until you put GOD BACK IN OUR AMERICA we are finished.

    • Kevin Cable

      Al Smith is 100% correct!

    • Greg T

      And take back the classroom…

      • http://patriotdepot.com 1911man

        I agree with you both, this country has left god out of our lives and gov., and,the ed. system is a joke. we need to get back to the basics of both.

      • Joe H.

        Get Rid of the federal DEPT OF EDUCATION!!!

  • Patriot II

    We need to compensate No one in Government other than Expenses and to cover their losses from not being gainfully employed.

    We should simply have a Lottery of qualified Patriotic Volunters who want to Serve their Country!

    THAT WOULD FIX ONE HELL OF A LOT OF PROBLEMS!!!

    • Lost in Paradise

      I totally agree PatriotII and the sooner we push for term limits, the better.

  • CP

    A couple of comments to various posters. First, the founding fathers did NOT set any term limits for the president. That was done by primarily the Republican party having a fit after FDR died and jamming a term limits amendment for the president through. They complained that another president might be so well liked he would be re-elected until he owned the office. The founding fathers actually had a bit shorter term for the president in mind than the current maximum of ten years, or the more common max of eight years. They had contemplated one seven year term to allow for all the loose cannons that keep popping up. After that, they came to the conclusion that America deserved better than a mandatory seven year sentence under a president who turned out to be a genuine pain in the backside. Consequently, a four year term, to be repeated if and when the people desired. Study a bit of history, then complain about what is or isn’t a fact.

    • Patriot II

      CP, History also shows us that terms were shortened due to Assassinations!

    • s c

      cp/communist puppet, while you’re in a ‘history’ mood, IF you really have any use for REAL history (not history that massages your political delusions), it might interest you to KNOW that the Founding Fathers – those men your type LOVES to HATE – didn’t include a proviso for term limits because [ready for it, big boy?] in the latter part of the 18th century in America it was assumed that ONLY a suspicious character who was NOT FIT TO HOLD OFFICE would DARE to consider being a PUBLIC SERVANT long enough to make it a FRICKING CAREER!
      Now, sonny boy, BURN what you call “history books,” wake up and get yourself EDUCATED, comrade.
      You are YEARS behind the learning curve. Did you EVER learn squat about American history? By yourself, you make quite a case for not letting ANY kids attend a USELESS public school. Take your patronizing, socialist/communist attitude and JAM IT, comrade!

      • Lost in Paradise

        Damn S.C., I am beginning to like your attitude. Outstanding post, absolutly outstanding.

      • Joe H.

        Darn sc, you been into the mean pills again???? Woooooweee!! Loved it!!!

    • Patriot II

      CP;

      BTW, FDR was the start of our slippery Slide towards Socialism. He was a Socialist.

  • http://www.americasnextpresident.com Stan

    Bill, like you, I used to consider the election itself to be enough of a “term limit.” A couple of decades ago I realized that elections and “public service” in this country are a lot like the “boiling of a frog.”

    You see, we (the public that continues to vote these people into place) are the frogs, and the elected “officials” are the stove and temperature operators. As long as the temperature remains “comfortable,” we don’t worry about who is at the stove, controlling the heat.

    Every once in a while, they get the temp turned up a little too high (taxes too high, too many regulations, etc…) and it jolts a few of us frogs into consciousness, so we vote them out (turn the temp down a little), and hope for something a little better.

    The old stove operators teach the new stove operators how to turn up the heat ever so slowly to keep getting voted in, but still to keep lining their, and their friends (and thus theirs, once again) pockets. by taking the slow, slightly incremental, increase the heat (taxes, regulations, fees, etc…) route, they also practically ensure themselves to be re-elected. They point out to all us “frogs” that without them the water would either boil away or the fire would be turned off (lowering taxes, fees and regulations) and the water would be freezing cold!

    Either way, for the most part, we’ve caused it to be their jobs to convince us how the water temp is just right or needs to be adjusted just a little bit and they are the ones to keep it there or adjust to the right point.

    The really poor part of the story to me is that in a lot of cases, it really doesn’t matter whether the stove operator is a democrat or republican, their first obligation seems to be to convince us that we can’t survive without them being the operator of the stove!

    George Washington warned the Republic of this in his Farewell Address when he told us to be wary of those that would put party before person and liberty. This is a warning that needed to be repeated loudly and constantly throughout history!

    Today we need more people like those that founded this country and less like those that have operated the stove for far too long.

    Term limits seems to be the only solution that makes sense on a national level. I know this would be impossible under the current circumstances, but an amendment to the Constitution limiting the number of consecutive and maybe even the total number of terms one could serve might be exactly what’s needed to turn down the heat a little and set all us frogs free!

    • http://www.americasnextpresident.com Stan

      Ben,

      Sorry about the “Bill” at the beginning of my post…
      Don’t know what I was thinking!

      Stan

  • Morton L. Friedman

    I will posit that abolishment of retirement benefits for elected officials would go a long way in creating voluntary term limits. With it needs to be a rigid enforcement of insider trading rules. Rather interesting how many of our elected officials become millionaires on their ‘pittance’ of a salary while in office. As it is often said, We have the best Congress that money can buy.

    • Jeep

      While I agree that eliminating retirement for elected officials is a good thing, it will not deter any politician from life long status quo. As you said, they almost all make tons of money during their reign. The “pittance” of a retirement check is not really necessary in any retirement plans a career politician may have. It is the duty of the citizenry to impose term limits. Unfortunately, that duty has been abrogated and left in the dustbin by the electorate. Today’s voter has three choices, vote for party, vote because you saw this guy last night on TV, or be responsible and vote for the candidate that best represents your views after doing your homework. And, in a society that one can become famous for, well, just being famous, there is little hope of the electorate choosing to become educated and to make responsible decisions.

  • texastwin827

    Sadly, it’s not likely we will ever see term limits, given that the people who would be limited are also the ones that would have to pass term limit legislation. Why would they bite the hand that feeds them?

    • Jeep

      And, it is sad to say that the there is little hope of the electorate rising up to force an imposition of term limits. After all, it is far too easy for politicians to “redistibute” money to buy off segments of the population. As radical as this is, I think if you pay no taxes (i.e. the bottom 47%) then you should not be allowed to cast a national ballot. No one in a free society has the right to impose a tax (read that as “legalized theft”) to pay for the “poor”, or any other pet projects to “bring the money home to my electorate”.

    • eddie47d

      Not that argument again about denying others the right to vote. Many elderly live in that bottom 47% and do pay taxes on their home yet are zeroed out because of deductions. Would you exclude them? How about those apartment dwellers who pay no direct homeowner taxes or maybe no taxes through various deductions. You are on a slippery slope.Some of you have said that government workers don’t pay taxes and should have no say in who gets elected.Oh Really! Since those veterans in our military are government workers maybe we should exclude them too. More slippery slopes.

      • Jeep

        It’s simple eddie, how about everyone pays some taxes. But, your liberal “sensibilities” will never allow for that. After all, then even you eddie would have to “kick in”. And, we can’t have that, now can we?

        • John Lilleburns ghost

          The tax issue is easy the country switches from raising tax revenue on earnings to raising tax revenue on spending. As for property taxes they are the first thing that should go. As to the original poster “Jeep” arguement It is flawed for at least 2 reasons I can think of:

          1 – Once you set a value on a vote it becomes a commodity and therefore easy to sell
          2 – The logical continuation of his argument is if I pay more tax I get more votes. Will you be happy when Bill Gates and Warren Buffett get to decide everything

          I know you can sensibly argue that both scenarios alraedy exist but why institutionlize it?

        • eddie47d

          Why do you make false accusations Jeep in saying I don’t pay taxes? I’ve owned a home since April 1973 and have never been on assistance so what is your problem.

  • tom s

    We need definite term-limits for all elected positions & there should be no pensions & retirement perks. Most of these person seeking these positions claim they just want to serve the people or nation! baloney, most are seeking to enrich themselves. Let them serve a limited term & then they can return to their profession in the private sector. They wouldnt be passing laws & increasing perks, pay, & pensions if they realized that they wouldnt be there to receive them….

  • http://personallibertydigest.com Naomi

    Most voters today know nothing beyond what they see on TV. The MSM basically tells them who to vote for and the sheeple shuffle like zombies to the polls to check off the names that they recognize from hearing them on Tv or reading them in the local liberally biased newspaper. This goes for ballot initiatives too. Here in Ohio the TV ads emotionally appealing for no votes on issue 2 funded by 30 million in union dues, killed Gov. Kascik’s chance at real economic reforms. So sad. Also, when I went to bote, there were a few names for school board running unopposed. I did not know who they were and was not going to vote for someone just because they were on the ballot. However, unless I voted for them my vote could not be completed. Is that normal?

    • Thinking About

      If KasIch was really interested in reforms he would have started at the top and went down, cutting his salary and benefits. That’s the big problem, always wants to cut the little people and then flaunt the benefits they receive. Maybe now he will look and see where the numbers are and know the little guys will go and vote and do not like his dirty hands in a subject he is unwilling to do himself. Roll on to the good citizens of Ohio take your state back from the dirty hands of those who wish to rob you.

    • eddie47d

      Naomi doesn’t want anyone to know about the $20 some million from Republican sources or any of the false advertising from the right on Issue 2.

      • Joe H.

        eddie,
        That is less problematic than your union buddies coming in from out of state getting involved in something that is none of their business since they don’t live in the state!!!

        • Thinking About

          Didn’t know the Koch Brothers lived in Ohio are many other places they are putting funds into.

  • C. R.

    And if they don’t re-elected to this office, they quickly apply for another job in the public trough! I have always been against more than 2 terms because then they pack their bags, go back to the farm (or whatever) with no perks just like the rest of us! They are stale after 2 terms and/or become part of the problem and not the solution. If they say they can’t really get into things in 2 terms, that really should tell us we need to clean up the whole lot of governments at every level and get rid of their backbiting, infighting, sharing the wealth, and blocking OUR true limited!! government. Two terms is more than enough and we can assure you of that having suffered with Honda, Boxer and Feinstein (just 3, there are more) constantly in our faces and doing what they want or themselves and their pocketbooks and not representing us. However, many voters are not intelligent to be voting, just read/hear a name and put a check mark. Having been an election official, I got fed up with the non-thinking voters who just want to wear the sticker but have no clue what they have done, and those who don’t speak English voting. They should NOT vote without speaking and understanding the language. We are not Mexico, Vietnam, Korea, Iran, etc., etc., so how can they truly understand how and why they are voting. Enough is enough. Two terms is ample. If our forefathers could do it, so could these 30 working days a year politicians! Enough with the fundraising to keep their position while they cry it is too hard and too much work! I should be so lucky in my 12 months a year job. If so hard/difficult, why try to stay in office? Hey, you get rich, can increase your salary and perks, and retire in super comfort! so that is why they want to stay in longer and longer. Their effectiveness wore off after 2 terms and they must go!

    • Joe H.

      C. R.,
      One problem with your idea. Right now Ron Paul is the only candidate worth voting for and by your rules he would not even be in office!!! therein lies the problem!!!

  • D. Romano

    I, too, was not a proponent of term limits until approximately 10-12 years ago. I’ve come to believe that it’s the only way to remove those who become entrenched in their elected seats. Your examples of Inouye, Byrd, Thurmond, Dingell, Conyers et al. are excellent support for term limits. I live in Maryland, a state under the dictatorship of a Leftist Democratice party which is wholly supported by all of the major media in the State. An opposition party is almost non-existent. Voters in the 2010 election returned Barbara Mikulski to yet another term in the Senate. She’s been there over 30 years, in addition to the time she spent in the House of Represenatives. Look at the damage she’s done to our nation! She’ll continue to do it as long as she holds the seat. To relieve our burden from people who view elected office as their rightful profession, we must have some recourse. Term limits appear to be a reasonable solution.

  • Buck

    Nobody knows who to vote for , incumbemt or not , the former guardians of freedom are too busy trying to support the progressives to tell tha American citizens the truth about candicates . Case in point , how many articles were there on Obamass communist upbringing and communist friends as well as his connection to the likes of Bill Ayers BEFORE the election ? With the useless , traitorous press we are stuck with every citizen would have to spend days and weeks to find out the true background and beliefs od candidates . The MSM are almost the ultimate scum of American society , of course our childrens ” educators ” are even lower .

    • joe H.

      Buck,
      I damn well know who to vote for!! Ron Paul/ Judge Napolitano!!!!

  • John Lilleburns ghost

    Liberal libertarian here saying no if people want to elect someone for life thats their right. However I have to admit that the arguments for them oulined by most of you who support term limits are strong when we look t those who have been elected. So definitely watch the b****rds and decouple the gravy train. No free trips, staff, 1st class travel, etc. No lobbying! As stated before I think their pay should be based on approval rating

  • J. J. Winkels

    Our country desparately needs term limits for all elected officials at all levels in all of our governments. It should also include the supreme court.

  • John Lilleburns ghost

    Eddie, I am so liberal that most of these posters would send me to a death camp if they got a chance but what you are saying is childish. A CEO is judged on the performance set by the board, you can argue that its not fair all you like but its not your business how individual companies choose to renumerate their staff from the CEO to the Janitor. Successful corporations are major employers and provide the vast majority of significant opportunities for wealth creation in the western hemisphere. Sulking about other peoples success is not the way forward.

    • eddie47d

      I do get on the CEO bandwagon quite a bit. Some of this compensation is our business. When Joe Nacchio was wanting bigger and bigger golden parachutes and then tanked the Quest Company then there is a big problem in how we compensate these executives. Every employee working there lost thousands in retirement dollars and some hundreds of thousands of dollars.His company lost 58 dollars a share and that effected many investors because of his actions.Then he still thought he deserved that $52 million. He may still be in prison but his arrogance lives on with other CEOs. The CEO of United Healthcare retired 2 years ago and received 1 billion 400 million in compensation. Fair? Honest? I doubt it considering how much healthcare costs to the average American went up under private plans. .When the big boys play the little guys pay. Another thing that chaps my hide is the constant union bashing here on this site. Union members may get $60-100,000 for labor yet the constant drumbeat that they don’t deserve this compensation is rather odd. I do believe they are “sulking” over what someone else makes and their jealousy over someone else money is non stop. I’m sure you are not in favor of unions but I could use the same line of thought the anti-union folks do. Could it be that those board members you mentioned authorize those huge salaries because they will also be compensated down the line? So who is scratching who’s back?

      • Joe H.

        Well, eddie, when your union buddies price themselves right out of the market, don’t come here and complain!! See you guys don’t want to “bargain” over pay rates, you want to “decree” pay rates, and there IS a difference!! I pray to God almighty that every state in the union goes right to work!!!

      • eddie47d

        I knew Joe loved Communist China’s wages!

        • Joe H.

          eddie,
          higher wages aren’t worth snot if you don’t have a job because the shop closed!!! Can’t sell goods = no job!!!

  • simian pete

    I think we should make an exception (on term limits) for Senator Daniel Inouye. He is a WW2 hero ….

    • Joe H.

      simian pete,
      as much as i honor the veterans and the heroes of all our conflicts, being a hero doesn’t preclude a person from being non-productive in office!!

  • CanCan

    I am one who thinks that term limits are a good idea, as it keeps politicians from turning their term into a career. They are supposed to serve the American people, not live off them like parasites. However, if Americans are dumb enough to keep voting in the same, corrupt politicians year in and year out, then they well deserve the crap they receive from them. It is just that those of us who would rather see some limits, who end up paying the price for the stupidity of the majority.

  • hitthedeck

    My father told me years ago that a politician can be corrupted and not even know it until it’s too late to correct. Unlimited terms for a politician are the explanation for a gathering of power that centers on control of the people rather than service to the people. The service to the people should be simple and within the bounds of the constitution. If a politician has limited terms then the services are limited to service but if the terms are unlimited the politician looks for services to serve his self.

  • Mutantone

    There are already term limits laid out in the Constitution, for two years and for six years no where does it say they can go further than that for the congress. it states:
    Section 2 – The House
    The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
    No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
    Section 3 – The Senate
    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
    Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; (and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 2.)

  • Earl, QUEENS, NY

    Term Limits. This is an issue in which I disagree with many conservatives. At best, term limits are merely a placebo to all of our problems. My biggest beef about politicians is not how long they serve in public office, but how they serve – the fact that so many are leftists who ignore our Constitution. IMHO term limits are mostly ineffective, if not detrimental. E.g., although not as conservative as I’d desire, Rudy Giuliani was the best mayor we had in my lifetime. Sadly, we lost him to term limits after 2001. But that didn’t stop the billionaire Bloomberg from thumbing his nose at NYC term limits by getting elected to a 3rd term. Why were New Yorkers stupid enough to re-elect a law breaker like this??!! Likewise with most other politicians here in New York, as well as in Washington DC. What good are term limits if leftwing Democraps are merely replaced with other leftwing Democraps?? (And in today’s leftwing Marxist Democrap party, some are worse tham others!!)

    Think about history. Even if FDR had been limited to 2 terms, that wouldn’t have stopped him from fully implementing his (failed and costly) New Deal in less than 8 years. Likewise, Lyndon Birdbrain Johnson was POTUS for less than 6 years, but was still able to compound FDR’s blunders with his Great Society. And now look at the trillions of unfunded liabilities we face as a result!! It also took only 4 years for the loser Jimmy Carter to wreak much havoc on our economy. And on 11/4/2008, voters made ‘One Big Awful Mistake America’. Look at all the damage he’s done in less than 3 years!! If (God forbid) BHO gets a second term, that’s the end of America. ….. In contrast, I read of a recent poll suggesting a majority would rather have seen GW Bush elected to a 3rd term instead of having BHO as POTUS.

    Of course there are many good conservative congressmen and senators who should be kept in office – those in favor of constitutional limited government, getting rid of the EPA, saying “NO” to the environmentalist wacko Marxists, etc. We need to get rid of more leftwing democraps on all levels of government. Primary elections are also very important for all offices, e.g., defeating RINOs and mushy GOP wimps who cower to democraps. People just need to start voting more wisely. We already have the ability to do that at the polls. So why would we have to pass term limits????

  • FreeMan

    It is virtually “impossible” for a career politician to be a representative. They believe that they are the “New Aristocracy”. Unfortunately, they do in fact become the new “Ruling Class.” And, equally unfortunately, voters primarily vote party not person. I say 1 term, and no reelections for any individual. Lets return to a representative government at all levels.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.