I'm against them.


Why? If someone is good enough to get elected again, they're doing a good job. Why remove them from office? Because they'll turn into a dictator?

I stand with you, mr. president. Actually, we should probably just appoint you king. A president is silly. Just ask john cleese.

In a word, yes. It stems from lessons learned during Roman times and various other civilizations that survived long enough to leave a mark in history. There are few people with the will power of Cincinnatus , a mere farmer who was called on in more then a handful of times to be put into the role of Dictator during times of war during the years of the Roman republic. This was needed because legislation needed to be swift during the pressing times of combat and what better way to do that then to have one person in total control. After the war ended, Cincinnatus would submit to his fomer role as a farmer, without abusing the absolute power he wielded. I don't know many poeple that could resist that.

Cinnicus is a hero to Rome!

Cincinnatus blurs lines between history and myth, not sure how true it is but still, hell of a story and man.

Ronald Reagan might still be president then....if he wasn't dead.

He's dead son. But I would have voted for him, he made me feel good to be American.

Yes I know that, son.

These threads aren't going to make any sense when AS gets back.

Look back at the posts StyChi and I made on April 9, 2004. Those won't make sense, either.

Oh yeah, I'm against term limits, as well.

I'm against Term Limits for every office with the exception of the President. Leave that one at 2 terms.

I have no logical rationale to back this up. Its just the way I feel man.

I'm for term limits. I see all these life long senators that get contribution after contribution from almost any group that will donate, and soon enough, they're doing the bidding of the contributors instead of what is in the best interest of the nation.

Also, and more importantly, we end up with a senate full of people afraid to make serious decisions because they're worried about how that will affect the polls. I'm really tired of it, and if these people knew that after their term, they were out, we might see some real change instead of a group of vote whores trying desperately not to rock the boat.

Career politicians like Teddy Kennedy make me sick.

One problem though that we can't overcome regardless of term limits is the problem of re-election which means that politicians are scared to implement tough policies when necessary for fear of their office. That's a much bigger concern for me than term limits.

Well, term limits are supposed to address that, but I think the landscape is changing. Even without re-election as a possibility, politicians won't make controversial choices for fear that their party will be punished by the voters.

term limits are anti-democratic.

the way politicians are i dont see it making a big difference, the agandas are about party affiliation not so much an individual running.

I'll discuss removing term limits in 2008. No sooner!

nice

interesting story. the rumor's been swirling for months. i'd normally be hesitant to stamp my approval on this, but bloomberg's been pretty good for the city.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/nyreg ... rg.html?hp

Bloomberg Called Ready to Announce Third-Term Bid

After months of speculation about his political future, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg plans to announce on Thursday morning that he will seek a third term as mayor, according to three people who have been told of his plans.

The extraordinary move promises to upend New York City’s political world. Right now, Mr. Bloomberg is barred by law from seeking re-election. But he will propose trying to revise the city’s 15-year-old term limits law, which would otherwise force him and dozens of other elected leaders out of office in 2009, the three people said.

In his announcement, Mr. Bloomberg, a former Wall Street trader and founder of a billion-dollar financial data firm, is expected to argue that the financial crisis unfolding in New York City demands his steady hand and proven business acumen.

The move represents an about-face for Mr. Bloomberg, who has repeatedly said he supports term limits and once called an effort to revise the law “disgusting.” He will apparently try to do so through legislation in the City Council, rather than the ballot box.

Mr. Bloomberg’s gambit carries significant political risk. The city’s term limits law was passed twice by voters, in 1993 and 1996, and several polls show widespread popular support for keeping it in place. Under the plan Mr. Bloomberg has outlined to associates, those voters will have no say in the matter, raising the possibility of a backlash.

Looks like I missed this thread the first time around, being that my wife was in teh hospital with a new baby at the time.

I am VEHEMENTLY against term limits of any kind.

1) As Eric said, if you're doing a good job, and your constituents want you to continue, why should they be denied that right?

2) The only thing worse than Congresscritters spending half of their time campaigning is to have half of them be lame ducks at any given time.

3) With term limits, there is no benefit of seniority, especially when some places have term limits and others don't. Those districts represented by term limited reps will never get their fair share or their voices fully heard.

4) IMO, term limits are a ploy by the Republican Party to a) dumb down teh Congress by keeping inexperienced people in the seats who are therefore b) reliant more than ever on party leadership for their marching orders. You have to remember, term limits was a cornerstone of teh Gingrich Contract on America, and I believe that a primary target of those term limits were moderate old school Republicans who were independent thinkers, and independent thought was incompatible with the new Republican Party. Also, since most districts are owned by one party or the other, the Representatives will, for all intents and purposes, be hand chosen by the party leadership for their loyalty to party, and little else.