A Waste of Political Capital

[Disir]

They don't read the bills. 2 terms and out the door.

ok. I think if you were to consider all the angles of this, you would get behind a more comprehensive approach to the problem.

And if you spent less time trying to flost recycled policy and more time paying attention to what is going on then you might graduate to where the test of us are.

Oh brother.

How old are you? Has anything measurably changed in Washington during your lifetime? What about that of your parents? Your Grand Parents? The answer is probably no. Why is that? Do you think it is because we’ve had the same congress there for 100+ years? If so, keep your diploma; I want no part of your “graduation” The players have changed over time. And the same atmosphere exists to where politics rule the day.

If you change the rules of the game to make the players behave differently…then you get change.

2 terms and you're out will change behavior.

They don't read legislation and they aren't writing it. The celebrity status is unwarranted.

No evidence exists to support your statement. In fact all available evidence contradicts your statement.

You're wrong.

 

[candycorn]

ok. I think if you were to consider all the angles of this, you would get behind a more comprehensive approach to the problem.

And if you spent less time trying to flost recycled policy and more time paying attention to what is going on then you might graduate to where the test of us are.

Oh brother.

How old are you? Has anything measurably changed in Washington during your lifetime? What about that of your parents? Your Grand Parents? The answer is probably no. Why is that? Do you think it is because we’ve had the same congress there for 100+ years? If so, keep your diploma; I want no part of your “graduation” The players have changed over time. And the same atmosphere exists to where politics rule the day.

If you change the rules of the game to make the players behave differently…then you get change.

2 terms and you're out will change behavior.

They don't read legislation and they aren't writing it. The celebrity status is unwarranted.

No evidence exists to support your statement. In fact all available evidence contradicts your statement.

You're wrong.

I’d love to hear why you think just speeding up the revolving door will change things.

The special interests will just give them inducements that are not campaign related….

Please, the floor is yours…how will changing the players and not changing the rules change how the players play the game?

 

[BlackSand]

And if you spent less time trying to flost recycled policy and more time paying attention to what is going on then you might graduate to where the test of us are.

Oh brother.

How old are you? Has anything measurably changed in Washington during your lifetime? What about that of your parents? Your Grand Parents? The answer is probably no. Why is that? Do you think it is because we’ve had the same congress there for 100+ years? If so, keep your diploma; I want no part of your “graduation” The players have changed over time. And the same atmosphere exists to where politics rule the day.

If you change the rules of the game to make the players behave differently…then you get change.

2 terms and you're out will change behavior.

They don't read legislation and they aren't writing it. The celebrity status is unwarranted.

No evidence exists to support your statement. In fact all available evidence contradicts your statement.

You're wrong.

I’d love to hear why you think just speeding up the revolving door will change things.

The special interests will just give them inducements that are not campaign related….

Please, the floor is yours…how will changing the players and not changing the rules change how the players play the game?

How many currently sitting Congressional Representatives (House and Senate) do you think have been there more than 30 years?
What positions in the House or Senate do they hold?
How do those positions influence policy, rules/rule changes and the games being played?

.​

 

[flacaltenn]

You don't want an Independent candidate as much as you want a candidate neither party can depend on.
You desire is a candidate that simply leverages the existing opposition between two parties for favor and political clout.

Actually I want someone who doesn't get punished for speaking THEIR version of the truth. If the Minority Leader (Pelosi/Schumer for example) sets the "talking points" for that issue and you counter them in any way -- you WILL pay for that as party "extra". It'll be held as a grudge and affect your 'standing' for a long time in the Swamp.

Indies COULD use their "swing vote" popularity to feather their own comfortable nests. But I don't think folks of the caliber of a Phil Bredensen would do that. Governors are problem-solvers. Especially ones that served as the "minority party" in their states. This would be like Gary Johnson or Bill Weld. They were both red governors in purple or very Blue States.

And of course they would "play both sides'. Both sides usually have valid points. They just will never credit "the other side" for HAVING a valid point. It's a matter of humility and not arrogance to play to the "fears" of the other sides and make them understand not to fear a plausible solution.

Look at my Avie. It has a purpose. When you have JUST 2 sides pointing fingers at other -- it's a VERY unstable relationship. It's naturally EXPECTED to be deadlocked and full of useless spin and bluster. You add a couple fingers pointing from OTHER directions -- and the problem solving and the solutions tend to come out...

You run an Undependable candidate ... I'll look for an Independent candidate that has their own or new ideas.
You may think that is unrealistic and won't work ... There hasn't been a decent conservative since President Coolidge.

There are MANY great opportunities for powerful leaders to CHOOSE to be Independents in Congress. Ron Paul for example was essentially a Libertarian serving as a Repub for decades. He was a pain in the ass for the GOP leadership -- but his popularity as an indie voice kept him getting re-elected. He voted strict Civil Liberty, fiscal responsibility and against ill-conceived foreign wars and interventions. Same on the left for Dennis Kucinich who I largely admired for similar "non-conformist" stands. BOTH those folks could have bailed from their parties and WON in their districts as Indies. And been even MORE effective in speaking and voting their principles.

Yes -- it only works when the candidate serves out of HUMILITY and PRINCIPLES. And what the heck would be wrong with that?

 

[flacaltenn]

NEW opportunities for Independents in the Senate/House would largely come from the "Entrepreneurial" class. Folks like Mark Cuban (Mavericks owner, venture capital, Shark Tank guy).. Or folks who have spent their time studying policies and issues and could voice either side of all arguments. Giants from the journals like the Nation or National Review that aren't Dems or Repubs but true Liberals, Conservatives, small "l" libertarians and even Socialists. They could also come from the many "think tanks" that stay focused on SOLUTIONS and just not "winning".

Should not be a bunch of ladder climbing party animals that just cruise up the food chain to reach their "Peter Principle" level of incompetency. Getting party battle ribbons for getting wounded on their way up.. Getting that Senate seat JUST to be able to run for the Presidency.

 

[candycorn]

Oh brother.

How old are you? Has anything measurably changed in Washington during your lifetime? What about that of your parents? Your Grand Parents? The answer is probably no. Why is that? Do you think it is because we’ve had the same congress there for 100+ years? If so, keep your diploma; I want no part of your “graduation” The players have changed over time. And the same atmosphere exists to where politics rule the day.

If you change the rules of the game to make the players behave differently…then you get change.

2 terms and you're out will change behavior.

They don't read legislation and they aren't writing it. The celebrity status is unwarranted.

No evidence exists to support your statement. In fact all available evidence contradicts your statement.

You're wrong.

I’d love to hear why you think just speeding up the revolving door will change things.

The special interests will just give them inducements that are not campaign related….

Please, the floor is yours…how will changing the players and not changing the rules change how the players play the game?

How many currently sitting Congressional Representatives (House and Senate) do you think have been there more than 30 years?

Too Many frankly. They must be doing something right if they keep getting elected though. If the voters of Iowa are happy with Chuck Grassley...who are we to say that they are wrong?

What positions in the House or Senate do they hold?

Leadership positions. Where they are enabled to make rules to keep them in power. Change the rules to where they have less power. Get rid of Chuck Grassley and what do you have ....Senator Jane Doe of Iowa whose primary responsibility is to be friendly to their constituencies and keep the money coming in.

How do those positions influence policy, rules/rule changes and the games being played?

To the injury of both the voters and their junior members.

​

 

[BlackSand]

You don't want an Independent candidate as much as you want a candidate neither party can depend on.
You desire is a candidate that simply leverages the existing opposition between two parties for favor and political clout.

Actually I want someone who doesn't get punished for speaking THEIR version of the truth. If the Minority Leader (Pelosi/Schumer for example) sets the "talking points" for that issue and you counter them in any way -- you WILL pay for that as party "extra". It'll be held as a grudge and affect your 'standing' for a long time in the Swamp.

Indies COULD use their "swing vote" popularity to feather their own comfortable nests. But I don't think folks of the caliber of a Phil Bredensen would do that. Governors are problem-solvers. Especially ones that served as the "minority party" in their states. This would be like Gary Johnson or Bill Weld. They were both red governors in purple or very Blue States.

And of course they would "play both sides'. Both sides usually have valid points. They just will never credit "the other side" for HAVING a valid point. It's a matter of humility and not arrogance to play to the "fears" of the other sides and make them understand not to fear a plausible solution.

Look at my Avie. It has a purpose. When you have JUST 2 sides pointing fingers at other -- it's a VERY unstable relationship. It's naturally EXPECTED to be deadlocked and full of useless spin and bluster. You add a couple fingers pointing from OTHER directions -- and the problem solving and the solutions tend to come out...

You run an Undependable candidate ... I'll look for an Independent candidate that has their own or new ideas.
You may think that is unrealistic and won't work ... There hasn't been a decent conservative since President Coolidge.

There are MANY great opportunities for powerful leaders to CHOOSE to be Independents in Congress. Ron Paul for example was essentially a Libertarian serving as a Repub for decades. He was a pain in the ass for the GOP leadership -- but his popularity as an indie voice kept him getting re-elected. He voted strict Civil Liberty, fiscal responsibility and against ill-conceived foreign wars and interventions. Same on the left for Dennis Kucinich who I largely admired for similar "non-conformist" stands. BOTH those folks could have bailed from their parties and WON in their districts as Indies. And been even MORE effective in speaking and voting their principles.

Yes -- it only works when the candidate serves out of HUMILITY and PRINCIPLES. And what the heck would be wrong with that?

I think you left Joe Lieberman out ... But meh.
There were a lot of things that Senator Lieberman supported I was very fond of ... But others not so bad.

.​

 

[BlackSand]

To the injury of both the voters and their junior members.

Thanks for the response ... But I am not certain there is any good reason to throw the idea of term limits away.

It doesn't make much to have term limits ... Because the Representatives change, but the people on the staff don't.
Who cares if you get rid of the congressperson, if the person who reads the correspondence, sets the meetings, grants exposure and whatnot remains the same.

On the other hand ... I am not against the idea of slowing things down ... I kind of favor gridlock.
Congress and legislation was never meant to be garbage that is thrown together and shoved through with a thin majority.
After the politicians are dead and gone ... Their piss poor legislation remains for eternity.

.​

.​

 

[flacaltenn]

You don't want an Independent candidate as much as you want a candidate neither party can depend on.
You desire is a candidate that simply leverages the existing opposition between two parties for favor and political clout.

Actually I want someone who doesn't get punished for speaking THEIR version of the truth. If the Minority Leader (Pelosi/Schumer for example) sets the "talking points" for that issue and you counter them in any way -- you WILL pay for that as party "extra". It'll be held as a grudge and affect your 'standing' for a long time in the Swamp.

Indies COULD use their "swing vote" popularity to feather their own comfortable nests. But I don't think folks of the caliber of a Phil Bredensen would do that. Governors are problem-solvers. Especially ones that served as the "minority party" in their states. This would be like Gary Johnson or Bill Weld. They were both red governors in purple or very Blue States.

And of course they would "play both sides'. Both sides usually have valid points. They just will never credit "the other side" for HAVING a valid point. It's a matter of humility and not arrogance to play to the "fears" of the other sides and make them understand not to fear a plausible solution.

Look at my Avie. It has a purpose. When you have JUST 2 sides pointing fingers at other -- it's a VERY unstable relationship. It's naturally EXPECTED to be deadlocked and full of useless spin and bluster. You add a couple fingers pointing from OTHER directions -- and the problem solving and the solutions tend to come out...

You run an Undependable candidate ... I'll look for an Independent candidate that has their own or new ideas.
You may think that is unrealistic and won't work ... There hasn't been a decent conservative since President Coolidge.

There are MANY great opportunities for powerful leaders to CHOOSE to be Independents in Congress. Ron Paul for example was essentially a Libertarian serving as a Repub for decades. He was a pain in the ass for the GOP leadership -- but his popularity as an indie voice kept him getting re-elected. He voted strict Civil Liberty, fiscal responsibility and against ill-conceived foreign wars and interventions. Same on the left for Dennis Kucinich who I largely admired for similar "non-conformist" stands. BOTH those folks could have bailed from their parties and WON in their districts as Indies. And been even MORE effective in speaking and voting their principles.

Yes -- it only works when the candidate serves out of HUMILITY and PRINCIPLES. And what the heck would be wrong with that?

I think you left Joe Lieberman out ... But meh.
There were a lot of things that Senator Lieberman supported I was very fond of ... But others not so bad.

.​

Yeah. He actually won as "indie" kind of. Because the Dems primaried him out to punish him. He won the general as a phony 3rd party candidate. And went to Congress as an Indie -- but SOLD OUT to Harry Reid for a Committee seat. Didn't follow thru on "the game" of being an independent voice. EVEN AFTER they screwed him. The fight wasn't in him. He folded too easily because he already had the Washeimer's Disease.

 

[BlackSand]

Yeah. He actually won as "indie" kind of. Because the Dems primaried him out to punish him. He won the general as a phony 3rd party candidate. And went to Congress as an Indie -- but SOLD OUT to Harry Reid for a Committee seat. Didn't follow thru on "the game" of being an independent voice. EVEN AFTER they screwed him. The fight wasn't in him. He folded too easily because he already had the Washeimer's Disease.

Well he did use the Independent "political capital" you were talking about.
It just didn't turn out being that helpful for him the long run.

.​

 

[flacaltenn]

I kind of favor gridlock.
Congress and legislation was never meant to be garbage that is thrown together and shoved through with a thin majority.

Gridlock was great "voter protection" strategy back when Congress wasn't this dysfunctional. But there is a MASSIVE backlog of shit that needs attention. And it affects the daily life of EVERY American. And gridlock is no longer a sane option. SOLVING the pestering sores has got to be done. Either UNDO the damage of Dodd/Frank, O-care, budget reduction, immigration issues or fix all that. It makes life miserable in America to have all that stuff neglected.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah. He actually won as "indie" kind of. Because the Dems primaried him out to punish him. He won the general as a phony 3rd party candidate. And went to Congress as an Indie -- but SOLD OUT to Harry Reid for a Committee seat. Didn't follow thru on "the game" of being an independent voice. EVEN AFTER they screwed him. The fight wasn't in him. He folded too easily because he already had the Washeimer's Disease.

Well he did use the Independent "political capital" you were talking about.
It just didn't turn out being that helpful for him the long run.

.​

You can't put domesticated Senators back in the wild. They don't have a chance at survival. You need largely outsiders that have some fight in them.

 

[BlackSand]

I kind of favor gridlock.
Congress and legislation was never meant to be garbage that is thrown together and shoved through with a thin majority.

Gridlock was great "voter protection" strategy back when Congress wasn't this dysfunctional. But there is a MASSIVE backlog of shit that needs attention. And it affects the daily life of EVERY American. And gridlock is no longer a sane option. SOLVING the pestering sores has got to be done. Either UNDO the damage of Dodd/Frank, O-care, budget reduction, immigration issues or fix all that. It makes life miserable in America to have all that stuff neglected.

So you say ... I support smaller government.
That usually consists of the government not trying to solve every problem someone can think of.

We wouldn't be talking about all the junk that needs fixing if they hadn't produced junk to start with.
There is a reason the Founding Fathers made it more difficult to pass legislation.
They intended to make Representatives more responsible in writing it in the first place.

.​

.

 

[flacaltenn]

So you say ... I support smaller government.
That usually consists of the government not trying to solve every problem someone can think of.

I'm totally with you on that. The arrogance of inserting themselves into all these gigantic reforms with no intention of MANAGING them or OVERSEEING them is nerve-wracking.

But from a pragmatic point of view. The clean--up to GET to that principle of getting govt to FOCUS and prioritize on their primary duties is why Hercules had to clean the stables.

For the fifth labor, Eurystheus ordered Hercules to clean up King Augeas' stables. Hercules knew this job would mean getting dirty and smelly, but sometimes even a hero has to do these things. Then Eurystheus made Hercules' task even harder: he had to clean up after the cattle of Augeas in a single day.

Anyone signing up for Swamp duty has to be willing to get dirty and smelly.

 

[Disir]

And if you spent less time trying to flost recycled policy and more time paying attention to what is going on then you might graduate to where the test of us are.

Oh brother.

How old are you? Has anything measurably changed in Washington during your lifetime? What about that of your parents? Your Grand Parents? The answer is probably no. Why is that? Do you think it is because we’ve had the same congress there for 100+ years? If so, keep your diploma; I want no part of your “graduation” The players have changed over time. And the same atmosphere exists to where politics rule the day.

If you change the rules of the game to make the players behave differently…then you get change.

2 terms and you're out will change behavior.

They don't read legislation and they aren't writing it. The celebrity status is unwarranted.

No evidence exists to support your statement. In fact all available evidence contradicts your statement.

You're wrong.

I’d love to hear why you think just speeding up the revolving door will change things.

The special interests will just give them inducements that are not campaign related….

Please, the floor is yours…how will changing the players and not changing the rules change how the players play the game?

It is changing the rules. That is what term limits do.

You no longer have to worry about losing your job You are losing your job. So, here is your shot.

 

[candycorn]

Oh brother.

How old are you? Has anything measurably changed in Washington during your lifetime? What about that of your parents? Your Grand Parents? The answer is probably no. Why is that? Do you think it is because we’ve had the same congress there for 100+ years? If so, keep your diploma; I want no part of your “graduation” The players have changed over time. And the same atmosphere exists to where politics rule the day.

If you change the rules of the game to make the players behave differently…then you get change.

2 terms and you're out will change behavior.

They don't read legislation and they aren't writing it. The celebrity status is unwarranted.

No evidence exists to support your statement. In fact all available evidence contradicts your statement.

You're wrong.

I’d love to hear why you think just speeding up the revolving door will change things.

The special interests will just give them inducements that are not campaign related….

Please, the floor is yours…how will changing the players and not changing the rules change how the players play the game?

It is changing the rules. That is what term limits do.

You no longer have to worry about losing your job You are losing your job. So, here is your shot.

Where is the evidence that speeding up the revolving door will change anything? You have none.

Do you not think that special interest will simply take the money they were going to spend on funding Senator X's campaign and find another way to give it to her or him in the form of jobs, positions, endowments to their foundations?

 

[Disir]

b

2 terms and you're out will change behavior.

They don't read legislation and they aren't writing it. The celebrity status is unwarranted.

No evidence exists to support your statement. In fact all available evidence contradicts your statement.

You're wrong.

I’d love to hear why you think just speeding up the revolving door will change things.

The special interests will just give them inducements that are not campaign related….

Please, the floor is yours…how will changing the players and not changing the rules change how the players play the game?

It is changing the rules. That is what term limits do.

You no longer have to worry about losing your job You are losing your job. So, here is your shot.

Where is the evidence that speeding up the revolving door will change anything? You have none.

Do you not think that special interest will simply take the money they were going to spend on funding Senator X's campaign and find another way to give it to her or him in the form of jobs, positions, endowments to their foundations?

I don't need to.

There is a greater chance of getting term limits than waiting for you and yours to come around and take care of business. The Congress thinks it's entitled.

They don't write or bother to read legislation. Most of them are attorneys. They know how. The 50s, 60s, 60s and 80s so more people raising independent voices. Then it shifted to voting along party lines. Because they want their jobs and accumulating power. So.... we just take that away. Term limits say you're already going to lose your job. So, if you ran on addressing this, this and this policy.......then this is how long you have to address it. If you choose not to then not so sure how you are going to manage to deal with the jobs afterwards.

All of that can change, if these clowns read the legislation. But, they can't be bothered to do that.

Shit, you rehash outdated policy either because you don't know the history or you do know but you don't give a damn and you're going to push it anyway.

 

[candycorn]

b

No evidence exists to support your statement. In fact all available evidence contradicts your statement.

You're wrong.

I’d love to hear why you think just speeding up the revolving door will change things.

The special interests will just give them inducements that are not campaign related….

Please, the floor is yours…how will changing the players and not changing the rules change how the players play the game?

It is changing the rules. That is what term limits do.

You no longer have to worry about losing your job You are losing your job. So, here is your shot.

Where is the evidence that speeding up the revolving door will change anything? You have none.

Do you not think that special interest will simply take the money they were going to spend on funding Senator X's campaign and find another way to give it to her or him in the form of jobs, positions, endowments to their foundations?

I don't need to.

Thats a new gambit in trying to convince us that you're right; providing no evidence what so ever.

There is a greater chance of getting term limits than waiting for you and yours to come around and take care of business. The Congress thinks it's entitled.

The states tried it already; the US Supreme court overturned it in 1995. So the only alternative is to change the constitution. Asking prospective US Senators currently at the state legislature level to vote against their best interest is a fools errand. Changing the rules to actually benefit your representative is a much easier trek.

They don't write or bother to read legislation. Most of them are attorneys. They know how. The 50s, 60s, 60s and 80s so more people raising independent voices. Then it shifted to voting along party lines. Because they want their jobs and accumulating power.

Because Senate and House rules are set up to do just that.

Can I explain something to you that you seem to be missing? As long as we have the committee system in place, there will always be members of congress with more power than others and one party or the other will determine what goes on in Congress. Whether they have been there for 4 years or 40 is irrelevant. The old proverb goes, "In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is the king." Someone is going to be in power and special interests will entice them one way or the other. And special interests will be there with a bucket full of money to entice them one way or the other.

Someone is going to be in power and special interests will entice them one way or the other.
Term limits say you're already going to lose your job. So, if you ran on addressing this, this and this policy.......then this is how long you have to address it. If you choose not to then not so sure how you are going to manage to deal with the jobs afterwards.

All of that can change, if these clowns read the legislation. But, they can't be bothered to do that.
[/quote]
So all of the problems that the nation has have to be addressed in 4 years? A comical notion to say the least considering the House is only in session for 162 days a year, and at least a quarter of that time is spent either overtly campaigning or raising moeny for you or your party.

Someone is going to be in power and special interests will entice them one way or the other.
Shit, you rehash outdated policy either because you don't know the history or you do know but you don't give a damn and you're going to push it anyway.[/QUOTE]

You are the one ignoring history.

The names and faces have changed over time. The corruption and party patronage remains. Speeding up the revolving door will do nothing. You cite no evidence that it will because there is no evidence. Meanwhile, in other organizations, most visibly in sports, changing the rules changes how the players behave. Look at stolen bases in baseball. Teams used to use that as their bread and butter. Today, it's a losing proposition? Why? New ballparks have made home runs and extra base hits a higher percentage than the attempt to steal a base even though players are faster than ever. The rules changed so the players behavior changed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oh brother.

How old are you? Has anything measurably changed in Washington during your lifetime? What about that of your parents? Your Grand Parents? The answer is probably no. Why is that? Do you think it is because we’ve had the same congress there for 100+ years? If so, keep your diploma; I want no part of your “graduation” The players have changed over time. And the same atmosphere exists to where politics rule the day.

If you change the rules of the game to make the players behave differently…then you get change.

2 terms and you're out will change behavior.

They don't read legislation and they aren't writing it. The celebrity status is unwarranted.

No evidence exists to support your statement. In fact all available evidence contradicts your statement.

You're wrong.

I’d love to hear why you think just speeding up the revolving door will change things.

The special interests will just give them inducements that are not campaign related….

Please, the floor is yours…how will changing the players and not changing the rules change how the players play the game?

It is changing the rules. That is what term limits do.

You no longer have to worry about losing your job You are losing your job. So, here is your shot.

We already have term limits – they called elections.

And the people alone are responsible for the conduct of elected representatives.

 

[Disir]

b

You're wrong.

I’d love to hear why you think just speeding up the revolving door will change things.

The special interests will just give them inducements that are not campaign related….

Please, the floor is yours…how will changing the players and not changing the rules change how the players play the game?

It is changing the rules. That is what term limits do.

You no longer have to worry about losing your job You are losing your job. So, here is your shot.

Where is the evidence that speeding up the revolving door will change anything? You have none.

Do you not think that special interest will simply take the money they were going to spend on funding Senator X's campaign and find another way to give it to her or him in the form of jobs, positions, endowments to their foundations?

I don't need to.

Thats a new gambit in trying to convince us that you're right; providing no evidence what so ever.

There is a greater chance of getting term limits than waiting for you and yours to come around and take care of business. The Congress thinks it's entitled.

The states tried it already; the US Supreme court overturned it in 1995. So the only alternative is to change the constitution. Asking prospective US Senators currently at the state legislature level to vote against their best interest is a fools errand. Changing the rules to actually benefit your representative is a much easier trek.

They don't write or bother to read legislation. Most of them are attorneys. They know how. The 50s, 60s, 60s and 80s so more people raising independent voices. Then it shifted to voting along party lines. Because they want their jobs and accumulating power.

Because Senate and House rules are set up to do just that.

Can I explain something to you that you seem to be missing? As long as we have the committee system in place, there will always be members of congress with more power than others and one party or the other will determine what goes on in Congress. Whether they have been there for 4 years or 40 is irrelevant. The old proverb goes, "In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is the king." Someone is going to be in power and special interests will entice them one way or the other. And special interests will be there with a bucket full of money to entice them one way or the other.

Someone is going to be in power and special interests will entice them one way or the other.
Term limits say you're already going to lose your job. So, if you ran on addressing this, this and this policy.......then this is how long you have to address it. If you choose not to then not so sure how you are going to manage to deal with the jobs afterwards.

All of that can change, if these clowns read the legislation. But, they can't be bothered to do that.

So all of the problems that the nation has have to be addressed in 4 years? A comical notion to say the least considering the House is only in session for 162 days a year, and at least a quarter of that time is spent either overtly campaigning or raising moeny for you or your party.

Someone is going to be in power and special interests will entice them one way or the other.
Shit, you rehash outdated policy either because you don't know the history or you do know but you don't give a damn and you're going to push it anyway.[/QUOTE]

You are the one ignoring history.

The names and faces have changed over time. The corruption and party patronage remains. Speeding up the revolving door will do nothing. You cite no evidence that it will because there is no evidence. Meanwhile, in other organizations, most visibly in sports, changing the rules changes how the players behave. Look at stolen bases in baseball. Teams used to use that as their bread and butter. Today, it's a losing proposition? Why? New ballparks have made home runs and extra base hits a higher percentage than the attempt to steal a base even though players are faster than ever. The rules changed so the players behavior changed.[/QUOTE]

The best that can be expected from you is to change nothing.
As you said, why would they bother to harm themselves in the process. Thanks for nothing, Candy.