Rick Perry: I don’t support term limits

Rick Perry was asked this morning if he would support term limits for legislators, and he resoundingly said no. In fact he puts the onus back on the America people, saying that if we aren’t paying attention and we elect people who are spending too much money and who aren’t representing us, then we need to get rid of them. In fact, he says that a balanced budget amendment is a better idea than term limits:



Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

209 thoughts on “Rick Perry: I don’t support term limits

  1. About “Term Limits”: Both Constitutionally speaking and the way things actually already are in the real world, reality, term limits can be on every level, as in local, state, and national, and term limits already are on at almost all those levels, even on the level of the President of the United States of America…with the glaringly inconsistent exception of members of Congress. So question: What’s wrong with this picture? Answer: That very glaringly inconsistent exception of members of Congress.

    As for the Supreme Court having some years ago fronted the opinion as if term limits as they are, such as on the President of the United States, are Constitutional, but not on members of Congress, well not only have Supreme Court opinions a.k.a. “decisions”) been shown and otherwise proven contradictory, inconsistent and far from right and infallible, more than once (remember the racist “Dredd-Scott Decision”?), and not only is that Supreme Court opinion about term limits another glaringly contradictory and inconsistent opinion, but of course they opined as they did since the 22nd Amenment (limiting the President to 2 terms) was already in the Constitution and they didn’t want to try to act or opine against that!

    Anyway, although our Founders certainly didn’t want it to happen and tried many ways to guard and warn against it (such as Thomas Jefferson when he said “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government; so let us tie second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second does not become the legalized version of the first”), unfortunately the fact and reality in the real world is, as variously proven and shown, including by 3, 4, and 5+ term, entrenched, “play ball with the boys” career politicians, such as in Congress, term limits is the one sure way we, the people, have remaining to ensure and guard what remains of our freedoms and resources against such politicians and their government power-growing, liberty decreasing ways.

    As for the fear as if term limits invite or allow the Leftists/Statists (Democrats and others, the most notorious “career politicians” of all) to simply wait for term limits to remove from office truly representative Senators and Representatives, well that not only forgets and is inconsistent with the purpose of the 2, 4, and 6 year election cycles we have, but so also invites and is so very convenient to career politicians (which neither our founders and their writing of our founding documents intended) and how “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

  2. I’m always amazed by those who push term limits. We the people already have term limiting authority with each election! If 90% of us want candidate “A” reelected, but 10% of us do not, who wins with term limits? The minority. Why would you restrict your options to vote for a candidate of your choosing by not allowing that person to be on the ballot?

    As for the “seniority” point, it means the person with the most time in the position, does it not? If the most time was ten years or five years, someone will always have seniority.

    Vote for or against the candidate, but don’t allow the minority define for you who you’re allowed to vote for!

    Term limits. Bah! Humbug!

  3. The world must be upside down. Rick Perry from the great state of Texas has given me a reason to (i gag at the thought) vote for O (i can’t even say it). Ricky is for gay marriage and for the Dream Act…and now he is AGAINST THE FENCE!!! heaven help us if this is the best the republicans can offer.

  4. The world must be upside down. Rick Perry from the great state of Texas has given me a reason to (i gag at the thought) vote for O (i can’t even say it). Ricky is for gay marriage and for the Dream Act…and now he is AGAINST THE FENCE!!! heaven help us if this is the best the republicans can offer.

    1. So you think Obama’s going to build a fence in the middle of the Rio Grande River for the State of Texas? Obama does NOTHING to secure the border. Go ahead and vote for him instead, and see what happens at the border and how we treat illegals in this country. He’s already giving them amnesty!

      As far as Perry, let’s just say for argument’s sake you could economically build a big fence in the middle of the Rio Grande River and maintain it in a cost-effect manner (even though you know the water would be continually destroying the fence), what’s to prevent Mexicans from figuring out ways of scaling it, just like they do now? Remember ranchers, a big part of the Texas economy, rely on the river, so you can’t build a fence on the US side, and you certainly can’t build one on the Mexican side.

      Perry’s position is to have more boots on the ground positioned along the border accompanied by Drone surveillance so that the boots would know exactly where to pick up those who dare to cross the border illegally. He’s been asking for money from the Feds to do this for YEARS and it’s exactly what he’d do once president. That plan is far superior to spending the money to build a 1500 mile fence in a river.

      Perry’s opinion on the 12 million illegals already living in the US aligns almost exactly to Sarah Palin’s, who says it would be impossible to throw 12 million illegals out of this country and favors a path to citizenship. If you look at what he’s said and what she’s said on the subject, their quotes are almost identical.

      Perry is against gay marriage, period. You might not like his support of the 10th Amendment right of the states to decide for themselves based on how their residents vote, but he is not for gay marriage as you have erroneously stated.

      Heaven help us if those of us against Obama cannot start unifying and getting the FACTS out, instead of repeating these innacurate snipets. I remain open minded about all of our candidates and know for sure that any of them (except maybe Huntsman) would begin the “about face” this country so desperately needs.

    2. So you think Obama’s going to build a fence in the middle of the Rio Grande River for the State of Texas? Obama does NOTHING to secure the border. Go ahead and vote for him instead, and see what happens at the border and how we treat illegals in this country. He’s already giving them amnesty!

      As far as Perry, let’s just say for argument’s sake you could economically build a big fence in the middle of the Rio Grande River and maintain it in a cost-effect manner (even though you know the water would be continually destroying the fence), what’s to prevent Mexicans from figuring out ways of scaling it, just like they do now? Remember ranchers, a big part of the Texas economy, rely on the river, so you can’t build a fence on the US side, and you certainly can’t build one on the Mexican side.

      Perry’s position is to have more boots on the ground positioned along the border accompanied by Drone surveillance so that the boots would know exactly where to pick up those who dare to cross the border illegally. He’s been asking for money from the Feds to do this for YEARS and it’s exactly what he’d do once president. That plan is far superior to spending the money to build a 1500 mile fence in a river.

      Perry’s opinion on the 12 million illegals already living in the US aligns almost exactly to Sarah Palin’s, who says it would be impossible to throw 12 million illegals out of this country and favors a path to citizenship. If you look at what he’s said and what she’s said on the subject, their quotes are almost identical.

      Perry is against gay marriage, period. You might not like his support of the 10th Amendment right of the states to decide for themselves based on how their residents vote, but he is not for gay marriage as you have erroneously stated.

      Heaven help us if those of us against Obama cannot start unifying and getting the FACTS out, instead of repeating these innacurate snipets. I remain open minded about all of our candidates and know for sure that any of them (except maybe Huntsman) would begin the “about face” this country so desperately needs.

  5. They’re both bad ideas because it’s the lazy way out for uninvolved citizens. Vote people in who want to serve and vote them out when they get greedy or corrupt. Stay involved.

  6. They’re both bad ideas because it’s the lazy way out for uninvolved citizens. Vote people in who want to serve and vote them out when they get greedy or corrupt. Stay involved.

  7. I do not support Rick Perry, but I agree that Term Limits are a BAD idea. A few years back, some Republicans signed a pledge that they would limit their terms, Most honored their pledge, and we lost the most honorable reps and Senators. The one you would LIKE to limit their will never support Term Limits. So we end up with only elected officials who are career politicians. I do not like the Politicians I support to limit their own Terms.

  8. Another thing Perry doesn’t support…is consistency and principles. Remember when he actually supported Al Gore’s first run for president?

  9. Go figure! A career politician supports career politicians. He’s relying on the fact that most U.S. congressional districts like their own member, bot not the others. Until congressional term limits are enacted either through the Creation of Laws, or an Congressional Amendment, we are going to keep coming back to these problems over and over and over again.

  10. The problem is that people have not been engaged and most are ignorant of what’s going on in and out of Washington. Too many politicians con the people and they accept the lies. The prime example is Obama’s election. People voted emotionally and accepted him at face value.

    I like Rick Perry (with reservations) but he IS a career politician and of course he, like so many other politicians, will never support term limits.

    Bureaucrats are also a problem, but they CAN be hired and fired IF we deunionize all government employees.

    Washington is a mess of corruption. Term limits would be a first step towards cleaning it up. AND, ex-politicians should also be banned from any lobbying or influence peddling. Like the Founding Fathers, they need to go back and resume their jobs and careers amomg the general public living under the same legislation they pass, nor must there be any special percs for them either.

    Their aristocratic view of themselves must change. They are PUBLIC SERVANTS!

    1. The problem isn’t the people. It’s the power of incumbency. They vote themselves so much power and advantage (think redistricting for one) that to raise money to run against them is almost impossible.

    2. The problem isn’t the people. It’s the power of incumbency. They vote themselves so much power and advantage (think redistricting for one) that to raise money to run against them is almost impossible.

  11. The problem is that people have not been engaged and most are ignorant of what’s going on in and out of Washington. Too many politicians con the people and they accept the lies. The prime example is Obama’s election. People voted emotionally and accepted him at face value.

    I like Rick Perry (with reservations) but he IS a career politician and of course he, like so many other politicians, will never support term limits.

    Bureaucrats are also a problem, but they CAN be hired and fired IF we deunionize all government employees.

    Washington is a mess of corruption. Term limits would be a first step towards cleaning it up. AND, ex-politicians should also be banned from any lobbying or influence peddling. Like the Founding Fathers, they need to go back and resume their jobs and careers amomg the general public living under the same legislation they pass, nor must there be any special percs for them either.

    Their aristocratic view of themselves must change. They are PUBLIC SERVANTS!

  12. Some years ago, a dear friend of mine ran for state representative in the wealthiest counties, full of hope and ideals, and won. He came from a decent family that was a pillar in our small community. After two years in office, I had a chance to see him once again. I did not recognize him. This once good man said to me, “you have no idea what it is like to have this kind of power.” I thought, “they got you.” We need to have this debate. There are those leaders who can accomplish in 2 years what others could not in their lifetime! Sarah Palin, for example, is one of them. If only voters would take the time to look into candidates’ history without relying on the media spin (even so-called conservative spin)!

  13. He’s relying on the stupidity of the American public, specifically TX to keep his job as long as he wants to. He knows how his pockets get filled. Way to go slick Rick! Nothing like being honest.

    Palin 2012!

  14. He’s relying on the stupidity of the American public, specifically TX to keep his job as long as he wants to. He knows how his pockets get filled. Way to go slick Rick! Nothing like being honest.

    Palin 2012!

  15. I have always advocated the position the governor has. It is more important for electoral involvement than term limits. The voters can always term limit someone if they decide to. And open primaries so it is easier to get rid of bad actors early in the electoral cycle.

  16. hes right. there should be no law, including the current potus limits, telling me who I can vote for.
    voter imposed term limits is the phrase I push on people.

  17. He’s a CAREER politician. 30 years. Of COURSE he doesn’t support term limits. He’s an Establishment politician. There’s no way he’s going to support term limits as they’ll effect the very people that want him elected. It’s a fake campaign with two candidates that the Establishment have “picked” for us dummies. Romney and Perry. The outsiders are obvious now…and we should ONLY vote for one of them: Cain, Bachmann, Johnson, Paul. Huntsman is a democrat and is loyal to Obama. He’s only running to muddy the waters.

    1. Yes he has served 30 years as governor, of course he is against term limits /sarc
      Or he does not believe in saving people from themselves.
      I don’t support them either.
      If you are stupid enough to elect someone like reid or pelosi as a representative you deserve what you get.

      1. Yep, unfortunately, it spills over onto the rest of us. Just look at what Reid and Pelosis did to us with Obamacare. Those folks in California and Nevada don’t just have a rep and a senator, they have Super-rep and Super-senator. They should both wear blue tights and a cape.

        Note: Please don’t try and picture this…for your own good. It’s already too late for me 🙂

        1. So you think a term limit is going to change anything?
          If they get re-elected due to the support they have, what changes when they put that support behind the “new guy?”

          1. Term limits without other major reforms does nothing, but in combination with eliminating the financial incentives and immunities that go along with it would go a long way.

          2. Term limits without other major reforms does nothing, but in combination with eliminating the financial incentives and immunities that go along with it would go a long way.

  18. It’s depressing seeing how many ignoramuses we have on our side.

    Hey fools all you have to do is look at California. Term Limited for 21 years. Workin’ great isn’t it? Those twenty years have seen the consolidation of ALL POWER in left wing special interest groups and public employee unions. They’re the only entrenched power in Sacramento.

    I thought we prided ourselves on common sense and real results over slogans and ideology? Go ahead sheeple ignore the facts and cling to your fantasies of how life ought to be.

    Pathetic. You don’t deserve a free republic.

  19. And lets not forget the left’s propensity for jerry-mandering districts to hold onto seats that are up for grabs. No, term limits are a necessary tool in taking control of our nation back.

  20. sorry, Gov. Perry….once you’re ‘in’ the likelihood of ‘gettin you out’ is slim to none. Cronyism takes over (whatever your constituency has the most of, will sidle up to you FOREVER!) & term limits are THE ONLY WAY to stop this incestuous relationship of ‘paying for candidates’ then seating them damn near permanently. TX may be different, but IL is one parasitic state that ONLY term limits will rectify!!!

    1. Those machines that keep getting that politician elected are going to go away with a term limit huh?
      Looks like you just trade the devil you know for the one you dont know.

  21. Break the back of cronyism, and term limits will be far less a minded consideration. Sarah explained how that is achieved.

  22. I’m reluctant to support the idea of term limits for Congress, as I’ve said on my blog:

    Now term limits were not instituted in the Constitution by the Founders because they thought that the people would be able to determine for themselves when the time was right to replace whoever was in office. However they also intended for the President to be subordinate and answerable to Congress and the States.

    The electoral process is there for a reason. By instituting term limits, basically what you’re saying to the People is “we don’t trust you to vote out your representatives when they should be out of office”. But then should a brick wall standard be set for when people should be out of office, or should the People have the power to decide when someone should no longer be their representative?

    There are flaws in the system, but those flaws, in my opinion, do not warrant ending the open term limits currently in place.

  23. I’m reluctant to support the idea of term limits for Congress, as I’ve said on my blog:

    Now term limits were not instituted in the Constitution by the Founders because they thought that the people would be able to determine for themselves when the time was right to replace whoever was in office. However they also intended for the President to be subordinate and answerable to Congress and the States.

    The electoral process is there for a reason. By instituting term limits, basically what you’re saying to the People is “we don’t trust you to vote out your representatives when they should be out of office”. But then should a brick wall standard be set for when people should be out of office, or should the People have the power to decide when someone should no longer be their representative?

    There are flaws in the system, but those flaws, in my opinion, do not warrant ending the open term limits currently in place.

    1. One thing I am in favor of with little to no reservation is a line item veto for the president. Our legislation bills are so huge today, I think it necessary for a serious proof read, and a red pen.

      1. I’m on the fence on that one. I can see where it can do some good, such as with these massive spending bills. But then again, governors have had line-item veto powers for the longest time (it was also in the Confederate Constitution), so the question to ask is why it was never put into the US Constitution.

        I believe the reason is to keep the appropriations power purely with Congress. A line-item veto power over spending bills shifts some of that appropriations power to the President unless an Amendment conveying the power is worded such that the President can only deny an appropriation rather than the refusal and reallocation power briefly held unconstitutionally by President Clinton.

        It’s an interesting topic of debate and discussion, I’ll grant that.

        1. “so the question to ask is why it was never put into the US Constitution.”

          Maybe because the founders, and framers didn’t forsee congress morphing into earmarking whores. Just a thought.

    2. One thing I am in favor of with little to no reservation is a line item veto for the president. Our legislation bills are so huge today, I think it necessary for a serious proof read, and a red pen.

  24. I find my self agreeing with Perry on term limits. We need to to our jobs. However he fails to mention that the 17th amendment stripped the People and the States of our power to recall our senators. I will take him a lot more seriously if he stakes out a stand to repeal the 17th.

    It is odd he does not apply the same logiche uses on on term limits, to the budget. It is our job as well to force the sellouts in DC to balance the budget.

    The balanced budget amendment is a Statist Trojan Horse. We cannot trust the political elites to amend the Constitution. They will use the opportunity to transfer more power to the Central Government and away from the People’s House.

        1. If someone gets elected stating that he wants to do that, it does gain traction towards the movement in visibility and in reality. He cannot himself redact constitutionally amendments, and noone has stated he could, but the president being for it does carry with it some power if only psychological.

        2. The President does propose legislation all the time, though — it just must go through a Senator or Representative to start the legislative process. He can do the same with a Constitutional amendment, as amendments start out in the process as special pieces of legislation. There are Republicans who support both ideas, but good luck getting it to pass the first leg of the process, though. Both parties rely too heavily on taxation to overturn the Sixteenth Amendment, and I doubt you’ll find Senators willing to support overturning the Seventeenth.

          Perry would have better luck taking the matter to the State legislatures and getting the State legislatures to petition Congress for a constitutional convention (read Article V of the Constitution if you have no idea what I’m talking about).

          1. Constitutional conventions are very dangerous things. I’m not sure we are ready for what would happen if it did. Taxation would then be placed through the fair tax. A consumption based tax to replace the income tax. It would not just eliminate taxes.

            1. It sounds like you think that a convention can just modify the Constitution as if they are modifying a word document. Not so. And if I’m misinterpreting, allow me to apologize.

              Basically if the States petition for a Constitutional convention, that convention will be set up only with the purpose of proposing amendments. Any proposed amendments must still go through the normal ratification process, keeping all safeguards in place.

              1. I do understand the premise. I dunno..I guess its just my distrust of governments as they stand now. Getting the chance to make massive changes to the constitution just worries me is all. As long as there is no constitutional crisis preceding the convention it would not be like editing a word document.

  25. Term limits, by themselves, accomplish little if anything. Term limits with no other reform empower the executive, because of the large bureaucracies that exist within it that have no term limits. The agencies that wield more power then the congress would be made more powerful, as they would have less entrenched politicians speaking out against them. Does this mean that term limits itself is not a good idea? No it does not, but term limits without other major government reforms such as the balance budget amendment and the reduction of the size and scope of the executive is a dangerous thing indeed.

  26. I will never vote for Rick Perry. It’s either Sarah Palin or I’ll write in my cousin’s name on the ballot if she doesn’t run.

    BS

    Don’t Tread On Me

    1. Then you are an idiot. And I’ll gladly vote for him. I have three times. He doesn’t quit. And he’s brought us legal reform and low taxes in out state. You just rite in your cousin, who I’m sure has done the same in their state.

    2. Then you are an idiot. And I’ll gladly vote for him. I have three times. He doesn’t quit. And he’s brought us legal reform and low taxes in out state. You just rite in your cousin, who I’m sure has done the same in their state.

      1. You have to laugh at the Palinistas.
        She won’t say she’s running in June.
        She won’t say she’s running in July.
        She won’t say she’s running in August.
        She won’t say she’s running on Labor Day.

        And they go to every Conservative website and lash out at every candidate but the one who won’t say.
        I used to support Palin for President. Until Perry got in. And it tears them apart he’s taken her base.

        1. So her base is ok with a candidate who has the most lax of all border states outside of california on immigration? And gives “special privileges” that I cannot have to their children? Even if thats not a big deal, my biggest problem with Rick Perry is he has an instinct to think that government can decide things for individuals better then those individuals or their parents. In more then one situation.

        2. So her base is ok with a candidate who has the most lax of all border states outside of california on immigration? And gives “special privileges” that I cannot have to their children? Even if thats not a big deal, my biggest problem with Rick Perry is he has an instinct to think that government can decide things for individuals better then those individuals or their parents. In more then one situation.

          1. Look at the Tea Party polls. They show the majority of the Tea Party support Perry. Of course, ignore them, make excuses for them, say they will be wrong “when she gets in”. But polls aren’t “just for strippers” when you are running for President.

            Palin should have gotten in way way back. Now she and her die-hards are coming off as kooky as Pat Paulson in the 70s.

            I live in Texas. The most Republican county in the state. My little personal scientific poll shows not one person could care less if she’s in or out. Not one.

            1. Then you were a leaner, not a supporter. There is a difference, and by the way I have not leaned towards any candidate at this point. I have problems with each and every one of them and it depends on what they do from now til primary time to whom I will support. There are a few I can’t support, and some I can support. But I’m no supporter to any one candidate. I want to like Rick Perry, but so far I haven’t seen that I can trust him. If a guy comes up and asks you who your going to vote for, even if she’s in the poll you are naturally going to be more likely to say you’ll vote for someone who is already in. Thats just a psychological truth. Polls at this point in 08 had fred thompson winning, and he ended up about where herman cain is now. McCain was about where Cain/Bachmann are now, and he ended up winning. Polls mean nothing until much later.

            2. Personally, all the ‘who did what, when’ is irrelevant to me. What DOE’S matter is the person’s policies, their character, and what they’ll do (and wont do) if elected.

              1. I laughed and laughed and laughed when I heard her say that. It made Karl Rove look like an idiot.

                Anyone who even attempts to use statistical inference during this election cycle will look like a fool.

                Back when you could say “a poll among registered Republicans”, a statistical sampling might have made sense, but now, the best you could do is “a poll among self identified TEA party voters”. This has about as much statistical validity as polling Dem primary voters during Rush’s ‘stop Hillary Express’.

                The heads of many ‘Turd Blossom’ followers will be exploding continuously until Palin finally declares.

                Did you catch Palin’s language Saturday, replace Obama “with who and with what”? Do you think the “with what” refers to an alternative party?

          2. The kids had no say in the matter. Other than being born on our side of the Rio Grande they broke no laws. There has to be a point where you take into consideration the hardships the kids have to face. I think Perry is right to lean to the side of compassion when making these type of decisions. It does not make him a liberal at all. It just makes him a human being.

            1. Insinuating that I’m not a human being? It is about the rule of law. We cannot encourage lawlessness. Thats what this does. I’m gonna illegally cross the border to have this baby so that while I may never have citizenship they will give him de facto citizenship. I’m for (figuratively) a tall expansive wall and a large gate.

                1. Kids every day are punished for their parents action, in both real and psychological ways. Any time we throw a father or mother in jail it is punishing their kids as well. It sucks, but sometimes life sucks. If we took away every other perk of being an illegal alien, maybe I would come around on this, but not until there is a literal or figurative wall, and we erase all incentives for employers to hire illegals. Then, maybe you can talk to me about this.

        3. Palinistas eh! It tears them apart eh! Then your commitment to Palin was no deeper than an empty tuna can, now was it?

          Your reasons are well… not just shallow, but non-existent. Please state your reasons. Saying “she won’t say she’s running…” is not very convincing since the Karl Roves and others of the establishment are saying the same thing… as if they didn’t pester the sh*t out of Palin at every corner to declare yes or no. Demanding an answer as if she were answerable to them for reasons of their own choosing. So that’s no argument. You are entitled to favor someone else… but for goodness sake do it on more substantive grounds.

          1. He’s definitely better than O’, but so am I. I think he might waste a lot of time, money, and whatever else might be wasted, on Global Warming mumbo jumbo because he only believes the scientists that are in the grant club, university club or whatever club it is that keeps these special eggheads spouting nonsense while ignoring fact. The same goes for his belief in evolution. It’s also nonsense.
            If they can get us to believe these things, they can get us to believe many other whacked out things which are ludicrous on their face, ridiculous under the skin, and pure foolishness right to the marrow of the bone.

            1. Rshill… what the? Are you trying to tell me you don’t believe in evolution? I’m shocked… shocked I tells ya.

              But now, my good friend… you clicked “like” to this post from Mark Smith:

              “Oh really – well let me be as SMART as you. If it’s Palin V. Obama, I’m writing in my cousin. ”

              Explain yourself sir!

              1. Live and learn Las. Silly.

                I like it because I thought him were being sarc-ass-tic 🙂

                I don’t think folks should write in their cousin.

                1. You was almost co-mitten anti-Palin treason. It would uv bin better to cut out thine tung or smite away thine tips of thine fingers than to commit such an unspeakable act. For pitiable shame sir! Maketh thine first digit not fall with such haste on the “Like” protuberance so lightly. I’ll be a wachin’.

                2. You was almost co-mitten anti-Palin treason. It would uv bin better to cut out thine tung or smite away thine tips of thine fingers than to commit such an unspeakable act. For pitiable shame sir! Maketh thine first digit not fall with such haste on the “Like” protuberance so lightly. I’ll be a wachin’.

            2. Rshill… what the? Are you trying to tell me you don’t believe in evolution? I’m shocked… shocked I tells ya.

              But now, my good friend… you clicked “like” to this post from Mark Smith:

              “Oh really – well let me be as SMART as you. If it’s Palin V. Obama, I’m writing in my cousin. ”

              Explain yourself sir!

        4. You have data to support that assertion, I presume? Meanwhile, you noticed she drew large crowds that the other candidates wish they could draw, right?

          1. Now your catching on!

            John McCain was my last RINO vote. RINO = Liberal = Perry = Romney = …

            I’ll write in whomever I please and you are apparently incapable of understanding the concept of a protest vote. I don’t believe Perry will help the country. Calling me an idiot won’t change my mind. When this country goes down, and it will, I want the democratic party and their antiAmerican philosophy to blame. Perry can’t help. I’m not sure anyone can at this point. I like Palin because I believe she’s the only one who might.

            BS

            PS – This is how to debate MARK SMITH. You know, without using ad hominem attacks.

  27. Of course he’s not for term limits- he’s been governor for how long? People, it seems did vote this past November and not much has changed. The early congress and senate never made their careers in Washington, many of them didn’t even make politics their careers. Most were doctors, pastors, business men, farmers- who saw a need for their communities and states, ran for office, and did their jobs. After their term, they went back home and back to their “real” jobs.
    We have a menality in politics these days, once in, always in unless you get voted out. Problem is, too many morons such as some of the brilliantly idiotic folks we’ve seen here on Scoop have been there for decades and are crazy, corrupt and view their positions as serving the people, some even equate their service to those who are fighting oversees. It’s pathetic.

  28. Term limits should be required for all government elected officials.

    I used to be opposed to them myself but then I realized these folks stay in office for so long and build up a perpetual stream of cash and influence…then it’s impossible to get rid of them.

    1. i still am against term limits..in the new information age, 24hr news cycles ..it doesn’t take much money to get heard…also people cant say they are too busy to care either..esp. when the news is so easy to keep up with.

      1. sorry, but that excuse doesn’t fly when you have these voting yahoos(approximately 1/3 of the voting block imho) that pay more attention to DWTS or a candidate’s hair than their position on any issue

      2. sorry, but that excuse doesn’t fly when you have these voting yahoos(approximately 1/3 of the voting block imho) that pay more attention to DWTS or a candidate’s hair than their position on any issue

      3. sorry, but that excuse doesn’t fly when you have these voting yahoos(approximately 1/3 of the voting block imho) that pay more attention to DWTS or a candidate’s hair than their position on any issue

    2. I agree! It is especially difficult to primary an incumbant. Usually takes the other party to take out an incumbant. You can’t underestimate the power of the political establishment to preserve their power structure. 2010 was an exception, with many incumbants taken out in the primaries. But that effort took a radical socialist agenda to energize the TP movement. Hopefully we’ve seen the last of that type of motivation, again making it difficult to remove an incumbant.

      The argument others have made about the danger of replacing an honest pol with a slime is a red herring as the political establishment is also known to fight to prevent an honest candidate from replacing a slime incumbant. As a result, term limits help to limit the influence of the political establishment, providing the people an even stronger voice in who represents them.

      It is interesting to see the right’s political establishment make themselves sound as petty as the left with their personal assaults on Sarah.

      1. They did the same thing in Nevada with Sharron Angle. She was strong and had alot of support, but no real support from the GOP. She was up against Harry for pete’s sake! She could have used the extra support, but instead the GOP ignored her. Harry and his son rigged the machines and allowed illegal union employees to vote. Even then he only won by a slim margin. Term limits would help to stop this kind of crap.

  29. As good as Perry is in some senses, this right here shows that he is an establishment republican. Gingrich and Romney are also clearly establishment republicans and I think Huntsman is just in the wrong party. As far it limiting the power for the good ones that are up there, well guess what it also limits those bad ones. We limit the power of the President as far as term limits so who the heck does congress and the house of reps think they are that they are able to “serve” for infinity and beyond. If they are truly doing a good job they can serve in both houses of Congress, serve in one and then run for serving in the other.

  30. Wish he had been at the Palmetto today, would like to see him in the spot to compare with the other candidates in that format. Career pols are most likely to participate in the corrupt practices that seems to be so prevalent today in some quarters.

  31. It is going to be very funny seeing so many “true conservatives” endorse the dream act gardisil candidate. The GOP will become the party of the dream act and million dollar kickbacks to campaign donors. God help our party.

  32. I think after 10 years they should go out and work in the private sector to see just what a mess they’ve made of things. You, know, share the sacrifice. Even the good ones get too entrenched and lose touch with the real world. I’d be willing to sacrifice a few good ones to lose all of the rotten ones.

    1. This is a healthy concern. We have to ask the question: Are we even capable of holding our elected officals accountable with, or without term limits? For example: More presidents have served only on term vs two terms. Four presidents were assassinated. McKinley, and Lincoln were elected to a second term. JFK, and Garfiled were killed during their first terms. Roosevelt was elected four times. That’s practically a sitting president for a generation in and of itself.

    2. I don’t understand why the people keep electing some of these folks. Money can’t vote, influence can’t vote, corruption can’t vote. You can argue how these things can influence the vote, but ultimately, My Mom can vote, so can my kids. I also can vote, so can you. Ballots alone term limit folks negating all other factors, and the right message can negate those other factors. We’ve seen it.

      The term limit thing is a quandry…it’s a sticky wicket even. So sticky that what may be the right move may be the least popular and tougher to sell. Folks like their own reps for some reason and they keep winning. The fact that a given senator can have a sterling voting record according to his or her party while completely, manipulating what comes up for a vote, is misleading as heck.

      One can argue both sides of the term limit debate. I think the Founders would be for limits and for power not tending to concentrate and coalesce around so few, due merely to their seniority. Seniority over performance bugs me to no end.

      1. You capture my thinkin’ on this one, too. I was for term limits before I was agin’ em.

        I think we need another sort of penalty for the permanent political class. Something akin to the way patent law works: you can keep your patent if you’re willing to keep paying the higher and higher costs to maintain it.

        It ought to cost more and more to stay in power. Like a tractor pull!

      2. You capture my thinkin’ on this one, too. I was for term limits before I was agin’ em.

        I think we need another sort of penalty for the permanent political class. Something akin to the way patent law works: you can keep your patent if you’re willing to keep paying the higher and higher costs to maintain it.

        It ought to cost more and more to stay in power. Like a tractor pull!

  33. I get his point, and to an extent I agree-new congressmen would constantly leave room for the majority party to remain. I’m not sure that really jolts me to that point of view though.

    1. It’s the sheeple that were bribed and voted for all the wrong reasons. Do you blame the shark when you go into shark infested water.

      You need to take responsibility for your vote and it’s results.

      1. The ideal of an informed constituency “kicking the bums out” is a fine sentiment, but experience has shown it just doesn’t square with the reality of human nature. Given enough time, some of these pols get themselves more intractably embedded than dog ticks, and it’s almost impossible to remove them under ANY circumstances, no matter what their constituency wants – because they’re able to count on the stupidity of some, and bribe the rest.

        1. Absolutely, its similar in form to the utopian idea that dems/socialists have about their world. People are inherently good, and will work for the common good. There are people like that, but they are not plentiful. Just like there are a few that are informed and literate in politics, but they are not plentiful. You have to consider human nature when dealing with anything in politics.

          1. The moribund permanent political class is an albatross around the republic, sapping it of the oxygen it needs to be flexible, innovative, and responsive to constantly changing circumstances. The need for term limits is so manifestively apparent to me, it’s personally frustrating there isn’t more clamor for them. OUT with the OLD, IN with the NEW – it’s good for the physical body, and for the body politic as well.

          2. The moribund permanent political class is an albatross around the republic, sapping it of the oxygen it needs to be flexible, innovative, and responsive to constantly changing circumstances. The need for term limits is so manifestively apparent to me, it’s personally frustrating there isn’t more clamor for them. OUT with the OLD, IN with the NEW – it’s good for the physical body, and for the body politic as well.

          3. “People are inherently good, and will work for the common good. There are people like that but they are not plentiful.” (Joshua)

            This seems are bit off kilter. Each sentence might stand seperately, if the “that” were defined, but when you put them together, can you hear the screeching brakes? That’s why I stopped here. Just a little hint from your Uncle Rs.

            1. If your talking grammatically, I’d point to your post as well. In theory…all I’m saying is that there are people who would still work to promote the common good, but there are not enough to create the liberal utopian society that they are for.

              1. You mean, the common bad then. Ok. However, liberal utopia is as far from good as it gets sir. It wasn’t a grammatical problem you had, it was more like a, “it don’t make sense” thing. This one is the same.

                1. Ok..maybe I have to break it down into smaller words or something. I believe that if human nature did not get involved that theoretically the liberal utopian dream could become a reality that actually was a positive thing. But that would require robots, and people dedicated to that ideal to be 90% or more. I believe there are some willing to work for the common good, in friend circles, families, christian small groups, and other things like that. Jesus called us to be personally working for the good of those around us. The disconnect is that liberals believe that it can be done on a grand scale, which completely contradicts human nature. When governing, you must take human nature into account. All the “overarching” liberal ideals (I’m not talking about statists in government I’m talking about people here) are all good things. Stewardship of the environment, taking care of your fellow man, sharing, caring for one another. All of this is good when on a personal level, it only fails when you then try to accomplish this through government. When government gets out of the charity business, more individuals give to charity. Most politicians who espouse utopian ideals are only using the liberal persons emotions to make a play for their vote. Anyone who calls themselves a Christian believes in stewardship, in taking care of your brother, in loving your neighbor as yourself, and it shows in their personal views of the world. Trying to translate that into government, that deals with human nature on a grand scale is truly a utopian dream that could never be accomplished and therefore government should not be in the business of making it happen. Liberals believe their representatives are trying to make this happen, conservatives know that this is not able to be accomplished, even if on a personal level they believe in the stated “ideals” of the liberal philosophy on a personal level. To say that what I am saying is for the common bad, is misunderstanding my entire point.

                2. Yeah Josh, I’m dumber than a box of rocks. Two syllable or more words really confuse me. Thanks for putting it such a way that even I can understand it. This post is much better and maybe should’ve been the first one. We did get there eventually though didn’t we? Carry on soldier 🙂

                3. Ok..maybe I have to break it down into smaller words or something. I believe that if human nature did not get involved that theoretically the liberal utopian dream could become a reality that actually was a positive thing. But that would require robots, and people dedicated to that ideal to be 90% or more. I believe there are some willing to work for the common good, in friend circles, families, christian small groups, and other things like that. Jesus called us to be personally working for the good of those around us. The disconnect is that liberals believe that it can be done on a grand scale, which completely contradicts human nature. When governing, you must take human nature into account. All the “overarching” liberal ideals (I’m not talking about statists in government I’m talking about people here) are all good things. Stewardship of the environment, taking care of your fellow man, sharing, caring for one another. All of this is good when on a personal level, it only fails when you then try to accomplish this through government. When government gets out of the charity business, more individuals give to charity. Most politicians who espouse utopian ideals are only using the liberal persons emotions to make a play for their vote. Anyone who calls themselves a Christian believes in stewardship, in taking care of your brother, in loving your neighbor as yourself, and it shows in their personal views of the world. Trying to translate that into government, that deals with human nature on a grand scale is truly a utopian dream that could never be accomplished and therefore government should not be in the business of making it happen. Liberals believe their representatives are trying to make this happen, conservatives know that this is not able to be accomplished, even if on a personal level they believe in the stated “ideals” of the liberal philosophy on a personal level. To say that what I am saying is for the common bad, is misunderstanding my entire point.

        2. Absolutely, its similar in form to the utopian idea that dems/socialists have about their world. People are inherently good, and will work for the common good. There are people like that, but they are not plentiful. Just like there are a few that are informed and literate in politics, but they are not plentiful. You have to consider human nature when dealing with anything in politics.

        3. Absolutely, its similar in form to the utopian idea that dems/socialists have about their world. People are inherently good, and will work for the common good. There are people like that, but they are not plentiful. Just like there are a few that are informed and literate in politics, but they are not plentiful. You have to consider human nature when dealing with anything in politics.

      2. The ideal of an informed constituency “kicking the bums out” is a fine sentiment, but experience has shown it just doesn’t square with the reality of human nature. Given enough time, some of these pols get themselves more intractably embedded than dog ticks, and it’s almost impossible to remove them under ANY circumstances, no matter what their constituency wants – because they’re able to count on the stupidity of some, and bribe the rest.

  34. How does Mr. Perry square the idea of supporting Supreme Court justices having limited tenure but not congress?

      1. Yes, in his book he advocated against lifetime appoinments. Here is a cut & paste from Todd Gilman @ McClatchy.
        Perry, in his anti-Washington book “Fed Up!,” derides the high court as “nine oligarchs in robes” and writes: “We should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability.”

        1. Finding more reasons everyday to frown on Perry.” No accountability” duh? They are the last step of the law, ergo-Supreme Court. Who would he like them to account to?

        2. Finding more reasons everyday to frown on Perry.” No accountability” duh? They are the last step of the law, ergo-Supreme Court. Who would he like them to account to?

  35. How does Mr. Perry square the idea of supporting Supreme Court justices having limited tenure but not congress?

  36. I’m for term limits and a prohibition from working as a lobbyist for at least 5 years after leaving offce.

  37. I’m for term limits and a prohibition from working as a lobbyist for at least 5 years after leaving offce.

  38. I’m for term limits and a prohibition from working as a lobbyist for at least 5 years after leaving offce.

  39. problem with term limits is that you would get rid of senators like jim demint, tom coburn, rand paul,…they cant stand for reelection after the limit is reached…i dont think that is a good idea..

    1. They would work hard for the 6-8 years (part time) to get what needs to get done for their country, then go back to their regular jobs. The good politicians had jobs prior to being elected.

        1. Then that politician won’t be there long enough to put down roots, whore him/herself out, and acquire the clout necessary to prostitute their office anyway.

    2. There’s absolutely nothing to prevent good people like DeMint being an influential spokesman and strong advocate as a private citizen. Nor is there any reason they can’t be a source of aid and assistance to candidates and new members of congress. Life need not end upon termination of one’s tenure.

  40. “Bureaucrats don’t have term limits.” Huh?, so he’s against term limits? I think he’s been in politics too long, if he thinks the longer in a political job the better you get. More powerful maybe, not better. Term limits and part time is what a small central government would require of it’s elected officials. Follow the constitution and no need for balanced budget amendment.

  41. Without term limits a representative spends at least half of his time campaigning, not doing what he was elected to do. Look at our imposter in chief, almost everything he does or says, almost everywhere he goes is campaigning, not that he has the ability or desire to represent “we the people” anyway.

    1. The president is term limited though.

      Perry does bring to the discussion a very important point. “Accountability”. Funadmentally, term limiting is a measure of not holding elected officals accountable.

  42. Sorry Mr. Perry, it is the lack of term limits that leads to capital cronyism, when you are paid for by and owned by the lobbyists you are not representing your constituents. The congress was not intended as a career opportunity just by the notion of 2 year and 6 year terms. We would never consider a Kennedy’s seat or a Byrd seat if we had term limits. Term limits would also tend to limit the corruption we see when districts are carved up to save incumbents.

  43. They know that the average working person or family does not have the time to keep up with their shenanigans and puzzle through FEC finance report to see who they are working for.

  44. They know that the average working person or family does not have the time to keep up with their shenanigans and puzzle through FEC finance report to see who they are working for.

  45. Term limits is a ball in the air. No term limits=corruption but the RUB is that the onus is on the VOTERS constantly rteelecting the same TRASH. A pwerfull legislator with seniority is vital..I sa y keep No term limits but get the voters minds educated. One example of seniority: D Issa. He ha spotential for doing some clean up….ifd he is supported by the v o t e r s demanding his investigation into Gun Runner is succerssful.

      1. Issa has enemies. What are you wanting….a fairly tale? Politics and politicians are always gonna be disappointing. Get use to it, pull your pants up and live in the world were the fight and the cause takes precedence over whining.

        1. There is no need for your rude behavior.

          Issa dangled a carrot under the electorates nose before the 2010 election. He has not delivered. That should mean people have a reason to vote him out. We need people who can deliver.

          Our founding fathers did not believe in lifetime politicians like Rick Perry who have become extremely wealthy while producing nothing and employing no one but by using the governments dime.

          I will take it a step further. I don’t think they should get paid. It should be community service. Then they themselves will only want term limits.

          What is it with you Perry supporters? Why do you have to be rude? Your candidate will get vetting whether you like it or not. It goes with the territory. Obama was a nightmare because he wasn’t vetted properly. We cannot afford to allow that to happen again. No one knows your candidate except for Texans and plenty of them are saying that they voted for Perry while holding their nose. The country is on a precipice. We need the right candidate who is a proven reformer. There is no more time for politics as usual. People are not going to sit down and shut up. Our children’s future depends on it.

          1. My support expressed most often and enthusiastically has always been for a not-yet-declared candidate, Sarah Plain. where in my comment above did I say that I was a “Perry supporter”?? It isn’t there. The topic was term limits!

          2. My support expressed most often and enthusiastically has always been for a not-yet-declared candidate, Sarah Plain. where in my comment above did I say that I was a “Perry supporter”?? It isn’t there. The topic was term limits!

    1. Issa always seems to have grand plans that never seem to come to fruition. I think some criminal charges should have come out of his committee by now.

      1. What Issa is dealing with is much worse than Watergate where obtaining information is blocked. Issa is attempting to accomplish something with Obama’s regime and that is like no other wide spread criminal enterprise in American history. they ignore supoenas, circumvent the constitution utilize fiat and exectutive power at will. The wheels turn slow.

        1. I agree gun walker, fast & furious is worse than Watergate but the investigation does not have to end. Any new term limit amendment would take more time than this criminal investigation. Term limits should not impact this horrific crime.

          1. Regarding Fast and Furious here is a funny story about Senator Mike lee. I support him so nobody call me a mike lee hater.

            Sen. Mike Lee fielded a question during a recent town hall in Sanpete County about the controversy over the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ “fast and furious” operation in which agents allowed U.S. guns into the hands of suspects in Mexico they hoped would lead them to big-time weapon traffickers.

            Some of those guns eventually were used in crimes, including the murder of a border agent, prompting Congress to investigate.

            One of the attendees at Lee’s event asked the freshman senator: “What can you do to get these people to fess up about ‘fast and furious’ and how high it went?”

            Lee’s response: “OK, let’s pretend that one of us doesn’t know what ‘fast and furious’ is.”

            After an unusually long pause, the attendee sheepishly said, “Would that be you?”

            To which Lee said, “Yes, sir.”

            Laughter filled the room.

            Lee knew the story just not that it was called fast and furious.

          2. Regarding Fast and Furious here is a funny story about Senator Mike lee. I support him so nobody call me a mike lee hater.

            Sen. Mike Lee fielded a question during a recent town hall in Sanpete County about the controversy over the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ “fast and furious” operation in which agents allowed U.S. guns into the hands of suspects in Mexico they hoped would lead them to big-time weapon traffickers.

            Some of those guns eventually were used in crimes, including the murder of a border agent, prompting Congress to investigate.

            One of the attendees at Lee’s event asked the freshman senator: “What can you do to get these people to fess up about ‘fast and furious’ and how high it went?”

            Lee’s response: “OK, let’s pretend that one of us doesn’t know what ‘fast and furious’ is.”

            After an unusually long pause, the attendee sheepishly said, “Would that be you?”

            To which Lee said, “Yes, sir.”

            Laughter filled the room.

            Lee knew the story just not that it was called fast and furious.

        2. I know he’s working on Fast and Furious/Gun walking and granted obama is obstructing as usual. But, what about Sestak bribary, choosing which laws to follow, New Black panthers at the voting polls, regulations imposed by czars and all the other unconsttutional goings on. Not even a reprimand from Issas committee on anything in over 2 1/2 yrs.

          1. Issa is imperfect. He is a politician but he is one that does not need the money. He’s got his own “stash”. He does not need to be vulnerable to “being bought”. He does not need the perks of office holding either. Issa managed to get Gov. Grey Davis out of CA and he spent plenty of his own money doing that. He’s faced death threats. The Sestak case appears to involves a White House cover up. Thats the kind of weighty stuff Issa has to juggle while in a virtually thankless job..

    2. There are a lot of examples of Attorney Generals around the country who have come in to office and begun to clean things up without being there 12-20 years. By increasing turn over in congress, aggressive people will know they only have a short time to make their mark and that they are not there for the pension benefits. We need fewer “Robert Byrd”‘s and “John Dingle”s in Congress and more Paul Ryans.

        1. I know Issa is not the AG, but I was using as an example how newly elected AGs get moving quickly as opposed to newly elected congressmen. If congressmen were term limited, they wouldn’t sit back for 4-10 years to figure out how things worked, because with term limits, they might be out of the job by then.

    3. Educate the voters. How? The libs have control of the media and the schools.

      Without term limits, people like Maxine Waters will be re-elected until she’s 100 years old.

      She is never re-elected because she is doing a good job.

      Perry is a RINO

      An octopus can change it’s appearance to fit the situation, but it’s still an octopus.

      1. I am well aware of who is controlling the media and schools, I have been in both venues…and some others. M. Waters is reelcted because she panders to a base that eats it up. A younger substitute would feed the same crap to the ignorant voters and we would end up with a Stepford wife of M Waters. So what’s accomplished with that approach.

        I don’t challenge the RINO portrayal of Perry at all.

    4. steveart you may be surprised to hear me agree with you on term limits. The way I look at term limits is from the lens of freedom. What would be the choice that would convey freedom? To me that would be no term limits because it puts the power in the hands of “we the people”, which is better than not being able to vote for someone if he/she has proven to be a good representative legislator.

      1. Then why is it that term limits for president, governors, etc. are viewed as a good thing by most conservatives, and moderates in this country. What makes legislators different?

        1. Joshua, I’m glad you brought up Presidents. This would be an exception to the rule, because of the stress of the job – two terms is enough. The other poliicians you mentioned I would respectfully say I disagree with their term limits. This is one of those differences that conservatives can have and not lose our values on.

        2. Joshua, I’m glad you brought up Presidents. This would be an exception to the rule, because of the stress of the job – two terms is enough. The other poliicians you mentioned I would respectfully say I disagree with their term limits. This is one of those differences that conservatives can have and not lose our values on.

          1. Sure, we can disagree, but the logic is the same for any post. Stress was not a reason that was founded upon the creation of term limits after FDR, but rather consolidation of power structure and other easily manipulated things from the inside. I’m not even ready to state that I am 100% for term limits, but we have to do something to stop the inevitable change that politicians go through after being elected twice. They start taking advantage of all the perks, get into the social circles, get fully into their party politics, and start at all times looking for their own reelection. Does this happen in all cases? no, but look at the current republican minority leaders words from recently and compare them to the upstart senator from what 16 years ago? Two different people.

        3. Joshua, I’m glad you brought up Presidents. This would be an exception to the rule, because of the stress of the job – two terms is enough. The other poliicians you mentioned I would respectfully say I disagree with their term limits. This is one of those differences that conservatives can have and not lose our values on.

          1. The more a politician gets elected, the more they are going to be elected. Once someone is elected 3 times it becomes nearly impossible to get them out of office. The idea that we could have a president for 16 years again with all the structure and power that goes along with that is truly frightening.

          2. The more a politician gets elected, the more they are going to be elected. Once someone is elected 3 times it becomes nearly impossible to get them out of office. The idea that we could have a president for 16 years again with all the structure and power that goes along with that is truly frightening.

        4. Both governors and the president have “executive” positions. It’s too risky to
          leave them in office as they ultimately over-exercise there “executive powers’.

        5. Governors and Presidents are EXECUTIVES. They exercise their powers in such a manner that it is easy for them to run amok with that power. Hence, the limits.

          1. Sure..they are executives, and sure its easy for them. I challenge your idea that it is not easy through gerrymandering and coalescing, and outright taking advantage of voters ignorance to do the same thing in the legislative branch.

            1. Gerrymandering is a bad dream and regarding the use of it by incumbants it is a nightmare. The country can proceed with voter ignorance as it has for a long long time. Todays “voter ignorance” is not limited to the poor or “under privelaged”. It’s the lack of transparancy of the government at all levels. American governmental architecture can function with the flaw of ignorant voters…it always has and those who think their insights and education is superior to the “ignorant” class would have to position themselves, shape the government and in effect be the flip side of Obama’s regime….that would mean the frustrated, Conservatives running the country as a privelaged few dictating to the ‘ignorant” group. THAT, is a VEERRRY slippery slope.

            2. Gerrymandering is a bad dream and regarding the use of it by incumbants it is a nightmare. The country can proceed with voter ignorance as it has for a long long time. Todays “voter ignorance” is not limited to the poor or “under privelaged”. It’s the lack of transparancy of the government at all levels. American governmental architecture can function with the flaw of ignorant voters…it always has and those who think their insights and education is superior to the “ignorant” class would have to position themselves, shape the government and in effect be the flip side of Obama’s regime….that would mean the frustrated, Conservatives running the country as a privelaged few dictating to the ‘ignorant” group. THAT, is a VEERRRY slippery slope.

      2. I’m not surprised that your perusal of the topic is multidimesional and arrives at the power being left with “the people” The downside is when so many of the “people” reelect their own nefarious and pandering legislators. every system has imperfect componants but I like retaining “people’ power.

        1. Without term limits people still have the power to elect, and if we can restructure how the government works to look like it was supposed to with part time representatives who have to sacrifice to come to washington and not get undending perks and eliminate gerrymandering and other such political devices, we may get to a point where we do not need term limits. Possibly, as I’ve said I’m not 100% sold on term limits, and to do term limits as the environment we are now without other reforms is toxic.

          1. Well stated. I’m extremely impatient about fine tuning the sytem in so many ways. My position on term limits, pro/con, is on the cusp alot. Due to the current political environment it is unquestionably most urgent to look at all adjustments available. There’s a tight rope to walk. Thanks for the well considered reply.

    1. Agree. Just because someone is popular doesn’t mean they are good for the country, uh, Kennedy’s. Besides, I like the idea of the bastards having to get another job just like the rest of us.

      I would go one step further and prevent them in working in, around, or for Government in any fashion for an equal amount of years for which they served after their booted-out day arrives.

    2. Agree. Just because someone is popular doesn’t mean they are good for the country, uh, Kennedy’s. Besides, I like the idea of the bastards having to get another job just like the rest of us.

      I would go one step further and prevent them in working in, around, or for Government in any fashion for an equal amount of years for which they served after their booted-out day arrives.

      1. I would take it a step further. I would base their retirement on years served and it would be reasonable. Not the outrageous benefit package they get now.

      2. You make my point precisely, although I don’t agree with you. If we have States that elect responsible representatives and senators, and impose term limits on them, then there’s no long term counterbalance to the Kennedys and Rockefellers, and the Schumers from other States that keep electing the same tired old Socialist (communist) politicians pushing the command economy agenda. Until we have a level playing field, if we find someone who acts like they may have actually read and understand the Constitution of the United States, why arbitrarily ditch them and have to try another who MAY be a talk the talk, but can’t walk the walk type? My GOD, could you imagine how the left would rejoice if they knew that within a few years Jim Demint and Rand Paul and Paul Ryan would be history, leaving the heavily entrenched Democrats in power? I’m all FOR term limits, IF you do it by Constitutional Amendment, so it’s applicable to the New England and West Coast states that habitually send the communists to Washington! (And the state I’m in… The People’s Republik of Maryland!) I also favor a return to the original means of choosing Senators, via appointment by the Governor, and approval of the state legislature, or election by the legislature. The House of Representatives is to represent the People, the Presidency represents the Federal Government and the Senate was SUPPOSED to represent the State governments. Could you imagine the Federal programs that get funded by the Feds only to get dropped into the states laps 3-5 years later to add to the states budget ever passing the Senate if the States were actually being represented?

    3. Absolutely not!!! Term limits only make parties stronger. Getting rid of gerrymandered districs is much more important. Re-districting in the hands of politicians means the pols choose the voters instead of the voters choosing their leaders.

    4. Boy do you have your head on backwards!

      First of all California proves Term Limits if anything make matters worse. Furthermore your idea would be practically impossible to enact. The terms for Federal legislators are part of the US Constitution. You’d need a constitutional amendment to pass Federal term limits. What an enormous waste of effort when all people have to do is pay attention and vote. Is that too much to ask?

      Rick is doing you the honor of telling you the truth. You can’t handle the truth.

      1. I completely agree! Term Limits would definitely make things worse. Elected officials use unelected staffers to get things done. The majority of the staffers are . . . let us say, less than honorable and enjoy the power they have (enjoy proving this power by insuring that everyone knows who they are and who they work for). Most of these staffers are out for themselves and owe no loyalty to the people who elected their boss. How much more power will these fools gain with term limits? The newly elected congress people will be relying on these cretins even more than they do now. No thanks, at least an elected Congress person must show some loyalty to those who elected him. It is up to the people to decide how long they want their elected leaders to serve or not serve their interests.

        I used to be for term limits until I had to interact with several of these Congressional staffers. Arrogance does not even come close to describing these fools.

      2. I completely agree! Term Limits would definitely make things worse. Elected officials use unelected staffers to get things done. The majority of the staffers are . . . let us say, less than honorable and enjoy the power they have (enjoy proving this power by insuring that everyone knows who they are and who they work for). Most of these staffers are out for themselves and owe no loyalty to the people who elected their boss. How much more power will these fools gain with term limits? The newly elected congress people will be relying on these cretins even more than they do now. No thanks, at least an elected Congress person must show some loyalty to those who elected him. It is up to the people to decide how long they want their elected leaders to serve or not serve their interests.

        I used to be for term limits until I had to interact with several of these Congressional staffers. Arrogance does not even come close to describing these fools.

Comments are closed.