"Warm in their seats, they were loath to leave them" - John Adams
To: cotton1706
There is no such thing as Brain Drain in Washington as most of them have already had their brains drained a long time ago....
2 posted on
04/22/2014 8:02:34 AM PDT by
GraceG
To: cotton1706
These folks are so obsessed with power. The shorter the term, the better. 20 years is too long
3 posted on
04/22/2014 8:04:20 AM PDT by
4rcane
To: cotton1706
20 years is too long.
Limit all congressits to 6 years total service.
4 posted on
04/22/2014 8:09:20 AM PDT by
Grampa Dave
( Herr Obama cannot divert resources from his war on Americans!)
To: cotton1706
“being questioned by members losing their gavels”
So unsurprising. What losers.
5 posted on
04/22/2014 8:14:40 AM PDT by
TheThirdRuffian
(RINOS like Romney, McCain, Christie are sure losers. No more!)
To: cotton1706
I have an idea. Nobody who has ‘served’ in congress for over 12 years should be permitted to chair a committee, period.
6 posted on
04/22/2014 8:16:12 AM PDT by
lacrew
(Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
To: cotton1706
Washington corrupts. The less time you breathe the seductive but toxic atmosphere of power the better.
8 posted on
04/22/2014 8:24:15 AM PDT by
BitWielder1
(Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
To: cotton1706
A "twenty (count them 20 Year Rule!)
Isn't that just wonderful! Our "conservative" GOP, voted to move a committee leader after a mere 20 years, time enough to get millions from companies hoping to shape various laws to benefit their businesses, into their own pockets!
Just fine and dandy, no one needs to be in DC longer than 6 years - period, and NO lifetime pension after serving a mere 6 years!
Any congress critter getting a pension now after having served 6 years, needs to lose it NOW!
9 posted on
04/22/2014 8:32:12 AM PDT by
zerosix
(Native Sunflower)
To: cotton1706
It’s a policy that is widely popular within the Republican Conference, but is increasingly being questioned by members losing their gavels. Which is precisely the problem this rule was meant to address. Nobody is irreplaceable, fresh leadership after ten or twelve years would be beneficial.
10 posted on
04/22/2014 8:36:10 AM PDT by
oldbrowser
(Does the federal government qualify as a terrorist organization?)
To: cotton1706
"... almost all of the white men leading the committees will be replaced by other white men." Oh, the horror of it all!
(If the word white were replaced with the word black, this statement would be decried as "racist".)
11 posted on
04/22/2014 9:11:17 AM PDT by
StormEye
To: cotton1706
“almost all of the white men leading the committees will be replaced by other white men.”
So?
13 posted on
04/22/2014 9:20:47 AM PDT by
Jim Noble
(When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
To: cotton1706
There aren’t any real term limits. House leadership can do as they like. But it sounds like the self imposed limits are functioning the way they’re supposed to function. If someone wants to quit because they can’t run their little fiefdom anymore, that’s on them.
15 posted on
04/22/2014 9:55:47 AM PDT by
Blackyce
(French President Jacques Chirac: "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure.")
To: cotton1706
I was in favor of term limits until I found out Rep. Peter King was against them. Now I am really, really, really in favor of them.
16 posted on
04/22/2014 10:24:14 AM PDT by
KarlInOhio
(Republican amnesty supporters don't care whether their own homes are called mansions or haciendas.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson