Do you feel differently about "term limits" today than you did a year ago?

[kentuck]

The pat answer is that we already have "term limits" - it's called elections. But, do we really?

A couple of callers on C-SPAN mentioned term limits this morning on their call-in show and I tended to agree with them. At least, I am not as averse to the idea as I might have once been.

Is that the only way to clean out the scum in the Congress? Maybe limit them to 3 terms in the House and 2 terms in the Senate. Why would that be such a bad idea, especially under the circumstances we find ourselves?

[doc03]

1. That's about the only way we can rid ourselves of the teabaggers

in gerrymandered districts.

[BigDemVoter]

4. But the problem with gerrymandered districts is that we would only get new, greener & more

reactionary asshats. Trust me. I live in a gerrymandered district, and I KNOW what kinds of fools my district just loves to elect.

[doc03]

6. True n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

2. term limits do nothing to stop lobbying, consulting jobs, and board of directorships

that these so called public servants get rich off of.

[Recursion]

3. I'm ambivalent. Standard worry is it empowers K street

If congresscritters have higher turnover, lobbyists have more new legislators to "help" draft laws for. Not sure how far that goes.

Constitutionally, only the chambers themselves can set qualifications for their members, so how to actually make term limits happen is an open question.

[jberryhill]

5. Always thought it was a dumb idea, and still do

Having a perpetual legislature of inexperienced newcomers strikes me as a dumb idea.

I don't understand the utility of term limits, and have heard all the arguments umpteen times. In what occupation is experience a negative?

[loyalsister]

12. Exactly

The first year they kicked in here was an absolute nightmare. There were absurd bills introduced. Many with foreseeable court challenges that would shoot them down. Once they received "guidance" from lobbyists, their bills were more comprehensible but really really bad for the state and especially the people. As time has gone on, as their terms expire, they are graduating into positions as lobbyists.

[bluestateguy]

7. With gerrymandering elections are not realistic as term limits

Some redneck Republican in rural Kansas has a lifetime seat in Congress. Only term limits can break that cycle.

[loyalsister]

8. No

I still want the constitutional amendment that requires them in my state repealed. They are a nightmare!! I voted for them. Pretty much everyone who did has buyer's remorse. This state has steadily moved rightward since. It's because the only people who now run just want it for a line on their resume. People who want to make a difference know they won't have enough time.

[doc03]

9. How about mandatory retirement at some point n/t

[RC]

14. They do. It's called death.

A few were mostly catatonic at the end, but were still voting and being wheeled in and out of the chambers.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

10. If you replace a moron with another moron,

what have you gained? Term Limits are a diversion. Gerrymandering has done much more damage to our democracy than career politicians. Until redistricting rescued me, I would have been forced to vote for Alcee Hastings...Google him if the name is not familiar. But because his is a safe Democratic district, he could easily have been replaced with another just like him, particularly because he would have been losing his seat to term limits rather than being a lousy representative. (Although he is a reliable Democratic vote in the House) It would be better to primary a Rep or Senator who is not fulfilling his duty to his constituents.

If you're thinking term limits would correct the problems in the current congress, think again. Even with term limits, the do-nothing crowd would be more interested in making their corporate bosses happy as they would want future employment. In fact, now that I think about it, they would be even more likely to ignore the citizens in order to better serve their masters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Look at California and that is your answer

An inexperienced legislature in the hands of the staff, why it just extended terms to try to recreate institutional memory.

[Agnosticsherbet]

13. I do not support term limits.

I didn't support them back when Gingrich made his false promise to enact term limits. They have proven a major annoyance in California, where people just move to different job. The big problem is that there is no institutional memory, and good people when we get them are shit canned with the bad.

No job I know of operates by getting rid of people that knows what they are doing and replacing them with amateurs, that when they do work at a j ob long enough to understand it, must be fired and replaced by more amateurs.

Government is not a job for amateurs.

[pnwmom]

15. We've gotten rid of some great people with term limits. Tom Foley, D-WA, former House Speaker,

lost to someone who was pushing term limits.

As soon as that person ousted Foley, he changed his mind, of course. He decided term limits shouldn't apply to him.

[Egalitarian Thug]

16. Always was against them, still am. Changing the election system and rules of conduct

are the answers, IMO.

If it weren't so lucrative and blatantly corrupt, we would get whole different type of person going into politics.

[HiPointDem]

17. only if there are also term limits for the fucking lobbyists and backroom hacks who actually run DC.