Plenty of "lifers" on the right side as well, myself, I agree term limits are a good idea.
2 terms sounds about right though I could go with as many as a 3 term max. And why not see a senator see his 2 terms run out and then run for Congress for 2 more terms? President for 2 terms?

Term limits have more benefits than negatives, we all know how few sitting members get tossed out, This only helps reduce that effect. Take Harry Reid for example, how in the world could he win? (yet he did) and I am not saying it's a Democrat "thing" at all, shaking things up every few years isn't bad at all!

archduke

Do you think the elected Members of Congress are the ones who actually write the bills they vote? Very rarely does the actual member draft the bills they propose. Most bills are drafted by the lobbying group that supports the idea or by the permanent legislative staff. And I call them permanent because even if their member loses reelection, the capitol office staff will find job with another member. For example, the staff counsel in my boss's Harrisburg office is on her 3rd or 4th member

.
No. But I assume that they write a "prescriptive bill" require specific mechanisms for how the law is to function. Rather than an objective bill .
And for this reason are reliant upon the lobbying groups expertise. (Rather than a committee made of of ALL the stakeholders in the area of concern?)
Which really means that by being prescriptive they've narrowed the ability of those executing the law to perform effectively to meet the goal of the law.

Its no shock that rickp is against this logic. The left thrives on meglomanics and the cult of personality, and lifetime positions of power. They love the Ted Kennedy's and Robert Byrd's and Barbara Mikulski's and Charles Schumer's and Harry Ried's. They love lifetime politicians with powerful socialists in charge to choke off any other opinion and thought. Term limits would strip them of this, but that is not my motivation in suggesting it.

Actually, I see the arguement for term limits...
What i'm talking about is the intelligent use of a professional beauracracy, or an inclusive committee of external stakeholders, who bring expertise to the table and can work towards meeting the goals or objectives that politicians set out for them.
as for the worship of personality? You claiming it doesn't exist on the right? Could we name some long lasting senators who's personality has sustained them?

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:...cult of personality... ...the cultish phenomenon of the likes of Kennedy, Byrd, Mikulski, Schumer, Reid, etc. These people are/were in fact hard core leftist socialists...

What would that make Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders?

"Personality Cult" has a much more specific and radical meaning than is implied by your usage. It requires more than getting lots of publicity and having a core of followers who think you're heroic and never wrong.

Posts like these make conservatives look pretty emotional and ill-informed. Hyperbole sucks.

If there's even so much as one 'hardcore leftist socialist' in America I'm fairly certain he isn't a member of Congress.

The way I see it, if you want to reform Congress to that extent then it would have to be tied in with a number of other reforms. These should probably include lengthening the terms of office for Congressmen to 4 years. Whether you hold the Congressional election at the same time as the Presidential is something that would have to be looked at as well, but I'd say there's a good case to be made for that. I'd also be wary of setting the term limits too short for the reasons set out above by others. There is something to be said for a legislator gaining experience. Perhaps a maximum of 4 4-year terms for Congressmen and 3 6-year terms for Senators would be ok. That way you get the advantages of term limits without having to put up with losing the wealth of experience that old-timers accrue (or not to msuch an extent anyway).

A reform like this would also be a good excuse to have a look at the issue of political funding as well. Since it would likely require a Constitutional amendment you could maybe override the ludicrous recent SC decision on the issue, and possibly add in a few sensible controls to trade union funding as well. In theory if you synchronise the Congressional and Presidential elections then it should reduce the amount of money that individual candidates need to raise, so you could afford to take steps to also drive out a lot of the corruption that comes with massive corporate and trade union donations. It could well be a really healthy development. Not that it will ever happen of course....

Sass, why not change Senatorial terms to 4 years and have elections every 4 years for all levels of government? And I think you could limit terms in congress to 3 terms of 4 years ...though perhaps you'd allow senators to run for congress and house members to tun for senate att he end of their limited terms...
But generally by narrowing the election cycle I think you'd achieve much of what you claim.

I think Ricky is partially right, but this is the nature of progressive government in and of itself. Just by giving government more and more "responsibility" people become more dependent on it. Children only think in the short term. Why? because they have no reason to think long term. It's something that grows as you get older. But the less responsibility you have, the less you think about it. Take retirement savings, for example. Fewer people plan for it now than before Social Security. That trend is reversing, but only because SS is going broke (Ponzi scheme that it is).

And I'm not sure whose quote the original one is, but it's certainly not a failure of policy. The progressive elites have gotten exactly what they want---sheeple. They just don't like some of the unintended consequences of it.

Guapo, short termist thinking is not simply a symptom of 'gubmint'. Private companies are just as prone to it, and they have a lot to be responsible for. The problem is that they are responsible to people who pore over quarterly reports and worry over stock values, management chasing annual bonuses, arbitrary targets...

But hey, you got one of those libertarian code words in, 'sheeple'. Nice to know you lot haven't lost your sense of superiority over the rest of us.

I didn't say that short term thinking was "simpy a symptom" of government. Because I said that A causes B, it is not safe to assume that I also mean "the only cause for A is B".

And 'sheeple' isn't a code word. Its meaning is clear. It's a portmanteau. A proper example of a code word is "intervene" or "help" or "liberate" when used in a context referring to the government. When they say "liberate," it means "occupy". When they say "intervene" or "help," it means bomb the living shit out of them. That's a code word.

I was not saying that B cannot cause A, just adding that C does, and so we would be intellectually lazy to assume that government is why people do not look far ahead. To my mind it's a natural failing.

As for 'sheeple', it can be both a codeword and a portmanteau. In this case it represents to me that the person is self-important and sees the rest of us as unthinking rubes.

Which would possibly be the case were we to think you had the sticking power to GM a tourney game to the end and not jvst drop it with barely a word. But I digress

So you're saying that you agree with me? Then what's the beef? Oh. Now, I see.

Well, I'm sorry about ditching you guys in the tournament, but I did tell Ant. I just didn't follow up. I had some emergencies to work on, and that's the only time I've bailed as a GM. Plus, that tournament was a fiasco from the beginning.

But I digress. ;)

It's good to see that you agree that progressive government is a cause of dependence and apathy.