[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The best person available would be great if for one exception. Without parties the best individuals can't get elected. Once you've taken money from someone they either control your votes the majority of the time or they cease giving it to you and you're defeated in re-election.
This is why I was always in favor of term limits. Yes, it restricts choice. Yes, if someone is well qualified and doing the job well they are put out to pasture despite the electorate wishing them to continue. However I think that takes away the "My congressperson/senator is good, it's your's that is the problem.".
Well, except in my case. Specter really does suck and I'm not overly found of Santorum either. So yeah, my Senators do suck.
Anyways I'm conviced we would be better off with term limits. I'm convinced we'd do even better if we picked 435 Representatives from the phone book every 2 years for the House and let those 435 elect 100 Senators as terms expired every 6 years. The idea of a citizen legislature is a noble idea but hasn't existed in centuries, if ever.[/QUOTE]
And again, as simple as that, we agree on something. Although I try to avoid risk/benefit analysis, there is far more to be gained through term limits than lost. I'd love to see states tackle that issue one at a time; hey, if they can keepp the queers from getting hitched, they can throw out the trash after two terms.
I'll see your Specter and Santorum, and raise you a McConnell and Bunning.
ing ages. I hope that's something all of us can agree on (otherwise, you're admitting to being content with the state of affairs in your government and your party, two things I imagine very few, if any of us, could admit to having currently).
