[libertyman]

About the term limits thing: I strongly disageree, because a changing of the guard makes little difference when the "newbies" are as ignorant of the Constitution & its limits on federal spending, war, & police powers as the members they are replacing. Federal involvement in education (which President Bush supports wholeheartedly) could have something to do w/ that, among other things.

On top of that, should we ever get another member of Congress with the honesty & backbone of Davy Crockett (which we do, & his name is Rep. RON PAUL), I don't wanna be forced to vote for someone else, one who has less respect for the Constitution, due to his being term-limited from office. If he decides VOLUNTARILY to term limit himself (which Rep. PAUL has in the past, & he has followed through on his promise), fine...I may not like it, but that's his choice.

I say we need a REVIVAL of constitutional knowledge in this country instead: didn't you notice how back in Davy Crockett's day that Horatio Bruce, an ordinary "blue collar" guy who may or may not have had the finest lifestyle or education, seemed to know more about our Constitution than well-educated white collar movers & shakers of our age do? & how he based his voting preferences on Congressional candidates who would obey their Constitutional Oath of Office, rather than some special interest/single-issue voters of today (which fill the ranks of BOTH the Dim & GOP constituencies)?

[Recon Dad]

I wish I had your Ron Paul, but I am stuck with John Boehner, who has decided that the most important thing he can do is get reelected. My quandary is that here I am in a heavily conservative area, solid red zone and I have no alternatives. The party will never back someone else because they lose the seniority and that means less bacon coming home. The days of citizen representatives is over. If you take a position like Ron Paul your fighting the party system designed to reward those who conform.
A person who knows he has only 6 or 8 years to serve will be more inclined to make decisions that are not based on getting elected in the future.
I appreciate the presidents efforts in education reform, but I don't know that this is an area covered in the Constitution. At least he isn't throwing money at the education problem.
Thanks you for your response.

[El Gran Salseron]

It's all about getting elected and nothing more.

They have to get the black vote so they vote for welfare.

They have to get the Hispanic vote so they are for amnesty and worker permits.

Etc etc etc, ad infinitum.

That's why I have always felt that these bills should be by national vote, once a year, not by some "representative" or "senator."