Pat Buchanan: The War on Christine O’Donnell

"If term limits are appropriate for the presidency (they are), then they are good for all federal offices. Two terms max for any office."

Keep in mind that it was not until the second half of the 20th century that presidential term limits were added to the Constitution. Our founders did not write it that way and all presidents subsequent to Washington merely honored the standard he had set. IMHO, term limits are one of those Catch-22's that doesn't resolve itself so easily. If we a had a responsible electorate, educated in how our government was supposed to operate, that would be all the term limitation we would need. By that same token, in a free country, people should be permitted to vote for the person they felt best represented them and the needs of their district. Finally, if honorable people were seeking public office, they would step down before their "career" in politics became an issue.

Nobody loathes political careerists more than I, and I certainly understand the frustration with seeing all the insiders continuously returned to office for life, but keep in mind that term limits cut both ways. If you have a representative or senator that is kicking butt and taking names, don't be disappointed when some non-starter takes his place because the good guy can't run again.

Rather than term limits, I think there are two things that need to be done to revitalize our body politic:

1. Repeal the 17th Amendment. Restore the concept of federalism by giving the states their direct seats in Washington.

2. Separation of Powers: Practicing lawyers are by definition officers of the court, and consequently, members of the judicial branch. Their participation in the legislature is a conflict of interest. Barristers should have to be out of the active practice of law for a set period of time (i.e. 5 years) before becoming eligible for legislative or executive office.

Implement the above two, and I don't think there would be any more need for term limits.

To the Republican establishment, tea party people are field hands. Their labors are to be recognized and rewarded, but they are to stay off the porch and not presume to sit at the master’s table.

I would like to expand om Pat's thoughts with the following:

To the Political establishment, American people are field hands, to be seen, not heard. Their labors are to be recognized and rewarded, but they are to stay off the porch and not presume to sit at the master’s table.

Pat was very similar to the current crop of tea party supported nominees in that he tired of the Gag Or Puke party trying to change things. He went against the establishment, which up until that time had loved and supported him, and instantly was branded as anti-Semitical. Even as he won voters to his side, people that were his “friends” came public and stated that even if he won they would, and COULD NOT support him. This swift back hand from the old line Pukes both embittered him, and forced him to either crawl through barbed wire in a salt marsh, or push on to outside power channels. Everything I have read of his has been normal discussions of past present or future. It is his rock hard belief, that we were stampeded into the first World War....we were.....that caused the second World War....it was. Nearly all the things that garner him deep vitriol stem from this. Our entry into a centuries old feud between Germany, France and Britain in the early twentieth Century, actually caused the death camps, the huge loss of life etc. People perceive that as firing up the ovens in Buchenwald.

Observing the hysteria and nastiness of Karl Rove and the GOP establishment at the stunning triumph of Tea Party Princess Christine O’Donnell, the answer is no.

We all know why....Most of the insiders running the Republican party are a bunch of arrogant AHs that are only looking out for themselves...This is clear....These people would sell their conservative principles out to the highest bidder as they beg others to support their better evil.

That strategy has nearly left America and our economy, dead on the floor.

Yes. Stuart is a good guy. He deserves higher visibility. He is very well spoken.

Joe,

Interesting reply.

The Founders did include term limits for the presidency -- a max of four. I believe Washington's choice to limit his service to two terms stemmed from his desire to return home, and his desire to not make the presidency seem like a kingship that lasts for a lifetime. Whatever, Washington's noble behavior showed he had greater wisdom than the bulk of the Founders in the regard of limiting term of service.

If we had a responsible electorate. The trouble is, we don't have that and likely never will. They are easily exploited by charming politicians, and most are more than willing to tap into their neighbors' wallets in an attempt to enrich themselves somehow or fix their problems. Much of that could be solved if the politicians and judges would allow only the enumerated powers at the federal level.

Term limits limited the damage Clinton was able to do, and it will limit the damage Obama is doing. I'm beginning to have some hope that the electorate will be wise enough to drop Obama after four years, and to limit the damage he can do in the last two of those years by saddling him with an opposition Congress. But, I'm not holding my breath.

Voting strictly for the best needs of one's district is not necessarily in the best interests of the nation. There needs to be measures that hold that impulse in check to some degree. Term limits help, because Congress would have less incentive to bring the pork home (perhaps not much less). Scrapping the seniority system in Congress would also help, and with term limits doing so would make sense. Let interested members run for such positions on their merits rather than on their ability to consistently bamboozle the voters in their districts.

I don't have the Amendments memorized, but I'm guessing the 17th is the one that made senators subject to popular vote. I agree strongly that it should be repealed. Exporting much of the power now focused in DC to 50 diffuse locations would have to be a good step, and it would make local and state politics much more interesting, as they should be.

I never thought about attorneys serving in the executive or legislative branches as a conflict, but it makes sense. Are they precluded from functioning as attorneys while doing so already? If so, a waiting period wouldn't accomplish much. Term limits and lower pay and perks would make it less attractive for someone to stay away from one's profession for a substantial length of time.

In a term-limited system there would be an incentive to arrange mentorships within parties in an effort to prevent a bozo from effectively take over from a good legislator.

Term limits have improved the executive branch, and they will improve the legislative. I think the most screwed up branch is the judiciary, and I'm not sure how to fix it. Perhaps a start is to not exempt them from lawsuits. If more attorneys and judges could be sued, we'd have a better society.