Comments on: How Al Sharpton Led Me To Oppose Term Limits

By: ColdWarrior

ColdWarrior — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:59:12 +0000

Let’s face it. When only about 60 per cent of the citizenry turns out to vote, and when half of the precinct committeeman slots nationwide in the Republican Party are unfilled, “we the people” get the government we deserve. I’ve talked to enough people now at the Tea Parties and town hall protests to get a sense that the “average” level of knowledge of basic civics, among the people who have enough time, anger and energy to get to a protest, is very limited. Most have not given any thought as to how the county, state and RNC chairman are selected. When I mention “precinct committeeman” I usually get, “What’s a precinct committeeman?”

Some good folks in Utah are putting together a set of short educational videos to explain how today’s “political system” works today. It’s a work in progress and I believe they are going to conclude that the solution is pretty basic: citizen participation in the two political parties.

Here’s the site: www.ourcaucus.com

I wish the videos were shorter. I wish there was less about “the problem” and more about the solution. But, they are well done.

Thank you.

Cold Warrior

By: pilgrim

pilgrim — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:05:10 +0000

By: reelman

reelman — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:59:56 +0000

The 2 most feared words to the thugs in D.C. are “term limits”..the prob was it shoud have been 12 years…y know what ALL the indicted thugs had in common? They ALL had over 12 years in the congress.

Had I one simple wish to change the direction of this country…(besides photo Id and age 25 to vote) it would be 12 year term limits or age 80…whichever is 1st…the country is infected with these 30-40 year lying thieves that want to die at age 99 in office!

ALL arguments to the contrary ignore history…and current reality.
If you can’t impact America after 12 years in the congress…GO HOME.
Remember a democrat in congress took the TL case to court…no other group.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:45:30 +0000

slow downs of the slouching towards gommorah are when leftist policy-caused recessions concentrate the mind….as in 1980 and as we speak

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:43:26 +0000

steroids hearings crystalized for me how the feds just have their noses in too much stuff.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:41:27 +0000

By: Warrior

Warrior — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:19:34 +0000

Yet these same “uncommitted moderates” fell for exactly the same “I’m a centrist” charade from Bill Clinton. (Remember the Democratic Leadership Council? A supposed “Third Way” organization designed to distance Liberal Democrats for the “liberal” albatross that Walter Mondale and others had hung around their collective neck.) They campaign to the center but govern from the left.

I believe the population is being dumbed down by public education, either by design or by default. And the teachers’ union bosses have admitted as much. Recall Al Shanker’s famous line that “I’ll start worrying about kids when kids start paying dues to the union.”

Also, for a thorough treatment of the “coordination” of business with and by the NSDAP, as well as a thoughtful discussion of so-called “third way” ploitics, see my reviews of Chapters Three and Four of Liberal Fascism in the diary section…

By: Warrior

Warrior — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:40:10 +0000

to federal money if the federal gubmint didn’t have so much money to dole out in the first place. The states need tough love just like addicts or welfare recipients. Someone will have to risk being unpopular enough to wean people and states off the fedeal teat.

And the Kingpin drug, er, federal largesse pushers have to be shown the door and the source dried up. If we could keep most of our own money we wouldn’t need any stinking gubmint stimulus, gubmint healthcare or anything else smacking of nanny gubmint…

By: kyle8

kyle8 — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:01:40 +0000

does the California legislature award seniority as much as the US congress does? It might be that term limits do nothing to stop the leftward slide of California, but I still think it would do wonders in the US Senate.

By: pilgrim

pilgrim — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:16:48 +0000

They put in strict term limits and they did not get ipso facto less graft. IJB tried to argue with the logic that things would be even worse had CA not imposed term limits. One can not predict the outcome of a path that was not taken. All we can go with are the results that CA is now in the worse shape it has ever been.
So I can not use logic to place the fault on the CA government with their strict term limits. I can, however use data to show that the CA government has not been improved since term limits were put in place.

By: kyle8

kyle8 — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:40:13 +0000

the presence of spendthrift politicians in the state is a function of the liberal/braindead voters and not the product of term limits.

Term limits (nationally) is a bad idea whose time has come because it is unwavering logic and fact that politicians who stay in DC the longest have the most power to get their way and put out more pork.

Just look at Robert Byrd. Even granted that the jug blowing idiots in West Virginia would always elect an evil grafter, if that grafter had less power, then there would ipso facto be less graft.

By: pilgrim

pilgrim — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:26:54 +0000

I have to wonder if you read my diary before you asked the question upthread about me being a californian. Your reply about how much worse California would be reminds me of Biden telling us how much worse the US economy would be without the Obama measures. No one can ever prove anything about the path that is not taken. We will never know if California had not term limited things would be worse. What we do know is that California is in a lot worse shape today than it has ever been in.
You can’t make any sense of a term limited legislator having no fear of voter backlash making mischief with spending, laws, and growing government. A executive can’t make that kind of mischief when he is a lame duck. He has to rely on legislators to set him up when he leaves because he can not create a new government program for himself.

By: pilotguy40

pilotguy40 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:55:56 +0000

One in office and one in prison. I hope Blogo gets there soon so. That dirtbag is on WLS. I would not listen to that station at all, but Rush is there.

By: IJB

IJB — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:25:40 +0000

This makes *no* sens to me. It makes NO sense to be for executive Term Limits, and against legislative Term Limits.

By: IJB

IJB — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:23:12 +0000

If not, I’m pretty sure you’re not up to speed, and don’t know what you’re talking about.

The answer is things would be MUCH WORSE without Term Limits – the Legislature would likely have passed a whole rash of nasty economic (read: even higher taxes, and even *more* spending, along with even worse environmental reg’s) and social legislation (gay marriage, pro-illegal alien stuff, etc.) that would have made the state even worse off.

If you seriously think things would be better off in CA if people like Willie Brown and Lockyer were running the show, you are seriously deluded. I mean BIG TIME deluded.

By: redneck_hippie

redneck_hippie — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:46:38 +0000

By: itrytobenice

itrytobenice — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:42:36 +0000

Felony and misdemeanor convictions.

By: itrytobenice

itrytobenice — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:40:42 +0000

I don’t know why. Maybe it’s because they haven’t been there long enough to get swamp fever.

Maybe it’s because by and large they don’t live in Jeff City but come back home and live with us.

Maybe it’s because they never do give up their day job when they know they’ll be unemployed in 8 years.

I don’t know. But I do know that my Senator and my Rep are always hanging around our community functions, party meetings, parades, etc. and we have had *much* better results since they’ve been limited. Even the crooked ones from the Metro areas have not had as much opportunity for mayhem.

By: redneck_hippie

redneck_hippie — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:31:33 +0000

However, I sorta wish Illinois had term limits for its officeholders. IL is going for the trifecta of fiscal irresponsibility, corruption as measured by jailbird former officeholders, and just about any measure of responsible prosperity-enabling governance. And the only term limit, as I said, has been a perp walk every once in a while.

By: pilgrim

pilgrim — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:17:09 +0000

By design, it is the legislature that makes law, spends money, and creates more government programs. The ability for them to grow the government is my concern with putting term limits on them.
The governors are the ones with the power of the police, the national guard, and running the execution of government. I don’t have an opposition to term limits on governors because they are not the ones who are in a position to grow the government. They are in a position to be very corrupt. example: Illinois