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.