Quote:
Originally Posted by Sdiver
Myself personally, I'm somewhat divided about term limits for members of congress. On the one hand, I'm for it. People like Kennedy and his little "dynasty", are reason for creating term limits.
But on the other hand, look at Charlie Wilson, (Charlie Wilson's War). Had term limits been in place while he was first elected into office (1972), and the Soviets still marched into A-stan, would he have been as instrumental in bringing them down, as we all know how he, along with others, brought down the Soviets?
|
Gents,
The one constant in life, above, death, taxes, and the Cubs since 1908, is
Change. Things change, the pendulum swings. It's fun to be in the catbird seat and watch everyone else grovel and complain. But sooner or later, the positions switch, the haves become the have nots, but just wait, - the pendulum can only stay out there so long before it comes back again.
Long before there was a Kennedy with 46 years, there was block of the long serving Solid South Democrats who maintained Southern Traditions. They morphed into the Dixiecrats in 1948 who fought for States-Rights and Segregation; a few flipped and became Republicans.
So, the issue of Term Limits is a non argument - it doesn't matter. Have them, don't have them - it only changes the dynamic, not the outcome.
A side note, for some reason, the Midwest seems to be a bad place to try to hang on to a Senate Seat. Looking at a map of the Top 25 Longest Serving Senators, we see that regionally, the south has the most and is the place to be if you want to die in office as an old, old man, but the Northeast is a close second; then the West. Perhaps the voters in the Heartland are just a bit more discerning? (See map, attached)
Senators Map.jpg