SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (132608)3/21/2001 9:10:30 AM
From: willcousa  Respond to of 769670
 
the republicans abandoned seniority for committee chairmanships under Newt.

The type of person who will give up real life for the power of federal office for life is dangerous. That is why we need term limits.



To: Lane3 who wrote (132608)3/21/2001 9:39:28 AM
From: dave rose  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
<<<advantage of incumbents without artificially reducing the skill and experience level of Congress>>

Skill and experience----you must be joking. There are few in Congress that I respect. Maybe Ron Paul.



To: Lane3 who wrote (132608)3/21/2001 12:48:32 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Respond to of 769670
 
I think term limits are too contrived and arbitrary. I'd rather trust the voters, but adjust some things like committee chairmanships, franking, etc. to reduce the campaigning advantage of incumbents

Agreed. And I've reconsidered my reconsideration of pork. From the point of view of a constituent, success in getting improvements into his district is a legitimate measure of success that can be taken account of in deciding who to vote for. It may not be a measure that purists and theoreticians want used, but politics is neither pure nor theoretical; it is down-to-earth and practical.

SO: No term limits. You want them out, you have the vote. Having some arbitrary rule make up your mind for you is simply abdication of your responsibilities as a citizen. The lazy way out.