What is your opinion on mandatory terms limits for all elected

[hangloose]

officials who hold state and federal positions. I feel professional politicians are either arrogant or not in touch with the heartland after many years playing the elitist game.

In my opinion no one should serve more than two terms in any one position. This will guarantee a turnover and injection of new blood. It will also help keep the greater public more involved by a continuing change in the political landscape and also offer third party candidates more opportunities to flourish.

But what do you think?

[Mojambo]

1. Couldn't agree more

Politician shouldn't be a career. It should be extended jury duty.

[NEOBuckeye]

2. Yeah, term limits have worked real wonders for Ohio

Or maybe it just showed the Democratic Party's real weakness here on the state level. Our term-limited GOP-dominated State Legislature and Executive just keeps replacing older, inept politicians with newer, even more inept ones.

New blood my ass. I'd sooner go for a Proportional/Parliamentary-style system that puts more emphasis upon party platform than individual candidate personality & record, though I'm sure that would be a tough sell in the U.S., where individualism is everything.

[newscaster]

4. Thats all well and good

but with term limits, should you happen upon a really good guy, you are going to hate to lose him after two terms. Thats when you will start looking for loopholes. You can get rid of a guy any time you want by voting him out (at least thats the theory) but while you might be able to get rid of a bad guy after two terms, having to lose a good one will be very hard to take.

[Yupster]

9. But a really good guy can serve in the House, the Senate,

the presidency, the cabinet, as governor.

There are so many ways to serve without getting entrenched.

[readmoreoften]

3. sounds good

[devilgrrl]

5. It's a bunch of hooey. Don't like the candidate? Vote them out.

:-|

[Lu Kang]

14. Uh huh

So think Lieberman should go? Well, there sure as hell isn't going to be another dem besides him running for a LONG time. Guess that means the only choice is a republican.

Nice black and white thought you have there.

[BiggJawn]

20. Then they should run a Dem against him.

They DO have a primary system there, don't they? A sad fact, even as lousy as Joe-mental is, as long as he gives the right people what they want, they'll be no opponent fielded against him.

[devilgrrl]

21. How's this for Black & White thought?

[EC]

6. Nah

We'd lose Kennedy, Fiengold, Pelosi, Hillery, they are all still effective.

[Garbo 2004]

7. It wasn't an improvement in the Califnia Legislature IMO.

It was sold with the same "new blood" idea but it's the same old money. Lost a lot of institutional knowledge, not just legislators but also staffers. And term limits seem to be a greater incentive for perpetual campaigning, partisanship and connection making since they're looking for the next leg up since they know one way or the other their stay is temporary. So many spend more time figuring how to prepare for either other elected offices or using connections for jobs in the private sector, often as lobbyists.

No greater public involvement in the process as far as I can see and the turnover doesn't help to establish relationships or continuity.

It's one of those things that appeals to voters, but I don't see that it's done anything to improve the quality of the Leg or what it produces or that it has made the Leg more responsive to its constituents. I instead suspect perhaps the lobbyists have even more power.

Just my off the cuff opinion. I haven't worked directly with the Leg in years. But a lot of the changes I saw after term limits came in were not for the better in their effect IMO. I may be old fashioned but I prefer the old method of term limits, just vote 'em out. ;)

[JI7]

11. i agree, it's just seen as a stepping stone now

and especially in a large state like california issues like budget are a huge and time consuming thing. and it takes time for people to understand how to work with others to get a good one passed.

unlike some people i don't see all politicians as self serving types. i think many of them are ambitious but i also think it has a lot to do with them wanting to help people and they feel they can do something. a lot of the times what one may see as a politician pandering is seen in their own state or district as the politician getting the job done.

[Yupster]

8. I agree with term limits

Not so much because of Republicans and Democrats, but because of Strom Thurmond.

In South Carolina no Republican would challenge him. No Democrat could beat him, so he can serve as a cadaver for a decade.

I also just think the idea of a professional politician is a bad idea.

[JI7]

10. i oppose term limits for congress, at the state and federal level

[ISUGRADIA]

12. Term limits are a bad solution to the problem of incumbency

98% of federal candidates win because the playing field is biased towards them. Make elections more competative through public financing, free air time, and non-gerrymandered congressional seats.

[donheld]

13. When it comes to some politicians you just wanna keep them forever

Like Denver's Pat Schroeder

[m berst]

15. 100% opposed

The people have a right to elect the representative they choose, and to disallow a candidate for having been elected in the past disenfranchises those who wish to continue supporting that candidate.

"New blood" only helps the forces of reaction and works against progressive and liberal causes. Republicans can play revolving doors between the government and industry and think tanks because they don't make any attempt at doing any important work for the people. It makes no difference for the Republican agenda who is sitting in what chair of power. Liberal causes, however, need dedicated and exceptional leaders, not just chair warmers or transplants from the corporate board room of some defense contractor.

Term limits is part of an extremist right wing agenda to cripple and eventually eliminate representative government altogether.

In my district in Detroit we have elected John Conyers again and again, because he is the voice we want representing us in Washington. If we were denied the right to vote for him, it could only help the Republicans.

on edit - Term limits, along with flat tax ideas, a national sales tax, "reverse racism," and "free markets" are in my opinion just a few of the extreme right wing ideas that have permeated into the thinking of many Democrats, and would at one time have never been considered by the party. These are all designed to destroy government as an effective representative of the people's interests, and favor the wealthy and the powerful.

[Pepperbelly]

16. totally disagree for many reasons ...

For democracy, there is no justification for telling voter who they can vote for. If they have a pol that fits their needs and if he pol wants to run, they should be able to vote for him/her.

For government, it is exceedingly complicated and not something that can be easily learned in a short period of time. Our voters imposed term limits and it has been disasterous. No one in the legislature now has the experience and knowledge necessary for good government. Now, they fuck up the simplest things like budgeting, meeting fed requirements on various programs, financing the schools.

No, I do not like term limits at all.

Plus, historically, term limits are always argued by those who LOSE elections.

[hollowdweller]

17. I'm not for term limits but I'd favor a nepotisim statute

Too many politicians are elected because of their family name and I'm not just talking about Bush

[jmowreader]

18. It will turn elected office into the aristocracy

It's expensive to run for office. If you could only serve for two terms, one of two things would happen--both bad. You'd either have a congress made up of ultra-rich people who could afford to run on their own, or a congress so indebted to the people who paid for them to get elected that special-interest politics would be even worse than it is now.

And both scenarios HEAVILY favor Republicans.

[BiggJawn]

19. Oh! like Newt Gingrich put forth....

Funny how out of all the congressmen who took the term limit pledge, the only ones who got castigated for breaking it and staying in office were Democrats. The ReTHUGs just ignored criticsm when they stayed in office beyond the term they said was to be their last.

Bluntly put, I see term limits as insuring that our Congress is plunged into a state of having perpetual "Freshmen" running the show. I think the proponents of term limits want a large amount of "churn" in the legislature in order to fast-track Dominionist candidates into the Capitol.

Then they can say "Oh, Term Limits don't work. We need to repeal that." (shades of Newt)

Who would you rather have on the Armed Service Committee? Dick Lugar, who's spent a life in public service, or some Dominionist newbie who couldn't even SPELL "school Board" until he was elected to one 2 years before he ran for Senator?