Indeed the GOP did, and a lot of good it did them. McCain's positions on some very key issues were identical to that of the victor in that election. Those two were the same candidate, plus or minus, and the more popular one won.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Sen. Specter goes to the dark side!
- Thread starter desertoasis
- Start date
Proof that so called moderates or even independents do not usually make good candidates. The voters need clear choices. Governing is different and sometimes compromises are made and positions soften. Making a habit of walking down the middle of the road, agreeing with everyone or shifting positions frequently does nothing to advance an agenda. I am afraid the President will show moderates from both sides how to effectively advance an agenda. And he will not do it with moderates but with reliable left wing ideologues. I weep for our country, to turn a famous AW phrase.
For all the other Congressmen/women, not their own. If that were not the case then there would be a lot higher turnover in Congress, but there is not. Term limits are not a panacea, they focus too much on the short fix and not longer term. And the results would be a focus on the short term and not the long-term, where we need a long-term view with some of the issues we face.
We already have term limits, they are called elections.
Elections =/= Term Limits, sir. C'mon now.
Actually I would disagree with the first part of your post as well. Right now I think we could use some more focus on short term objectives. If Congress had done what the public wanted with regards to TARP (i.e. the short term, fierce reaction against it), I think we would be in a far better position, politically, to help ourselves up and out of this situation we're in.
Actually I would disagree with the first part of your post as well. Right now I think we could use some more focus on short term objectives. If Congress had done what the public wanted with regards to TARP (i.e. the short term, fierce reaction against it), I think we would be in a far better position, politically, to help ourselves up and out of this situation we're in.
Voters don't have to vote for the incumbent, you are actually depriving them of a choice. You are imposing an artificial limit, why do so when people have a choice already?
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.
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.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
LivingSacrifice
New Member
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.
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.