A Political Statement

[ChuckD]

I may not be the brightest bulb in the box, but for the life of me I dont understand how the American people think that just 1 person can change it all. I also feel that there should be term limits in Congress, that way new fresh different voices will be in. They could be better or worse than the previous but new nonetheless and with limits in place then someone else can take a turn.

[secondarychaos]

I must say this is the calmest, most rational political discussion (note that I didn't say arguement) I've ever read on a forum.
I must say, Bravo for the levelheadedness.

[Jackpine]

Chuck, I think you're pretty bright. I doubt one person CAN change anything. If, however that one person can work with others (the real art of politics, and diplomacy) then change can occur.

The whole issue of term limits is a very mixed bag, isn't it? On one hand, by not limiting them, we risk reelecting some very corrupt, but "clever" politicians over and over again, because, to be honest, many people don't really do much research before voting. On the other hand though, if you get someone GOOD in office, you don't really want that person kicked out just when he/she has finally learned the ropes and is able to contribute. And, with seniority comes power and influence - and from a good representative, that's a good thing.

Secondarychaos, thanks for your observation. Part of our levelheadedness is due to the collegial atmosphere that Corey and Bill promote. We seem to be attracting people who are willing to share, rather than those who get off on "put-downs".

- Jack

[ChuckD]

Originally Posted by JackandJanet

Chuck, I think you're pretty bright. I doubt one person CAN change anything. If, however that one person can work with others (the real art of politics, and diplomacy) then change can occur.

The whole issue of term limits is a very mixed bag, isn't it? On one hand, by not limiting them, we risk reelecting some very corrupt, but "clever" politicians over and over again, because, to be honest, many people don't really do much research before voting. On the other hand though, if you get someone GOOD in office, you don't really want that person kicked out just when he/she has finally learned the ropes and is able to contribute. And, with seniority comes power and influence - and from a good representative, that's a good thing.


- Jack

Yeah sometimes it would be a damned if you do, damned if you don't. But I do think there would be room for it. Plus if the people would be more involved in whats going on in Congress instead of having the blind eye and then complaining, that would be more productive.

Also on Obama, you may like him or you may not, but he is a good speaker and he got alot of Americans to vote. Ones that have never voted. The first thing that I said when he got elected was that he needs to suround himself with quality people or he would be done for. I think he should have offered Powell a position (maybe he did and I didn't hear about it) but he did say that Powell would be on speed dial anyway.

[Sburn]

Originally Posted by JackandJanet

The whole issue of term limits is a very mixed bag, isn't it? On one hand, by not limiting them, we risk reelecting some very corrupt, but "clever" politicians over and over again, because, to be honest, many people don't really do much research before voting. On the other hand though, if you get someone GOOD in office, you don't really want that person kicked out just when he/she has finally learned the ropes and is able to contribute. And, with seniority comes power and influence - and from a good representative, that's a good thing.
- Jack

Here in CA we've had term limits for a while now. What has happened is that the same career politicians just end up finding a different office to run for when they term out. State Senators term out and run for Assembly, termed-out Senators and Assemblypersons run for State Controller or Insurance Comissioner, termed out whatevers run for Mayor as a way of staying in the public's eye as a prelude for running for Governor or National office....Wash, Rinse, Repeat... Different tree -- same monkeys.

Meanwhile, the non-elected career bureaucrats tend to actually run things, since they get a new boss (elected or appointed) every few years. So you end up with stuff like the CARB (California Air Resources Board i.e., smog police) that have no accountability to the voters.

[Jackpine]

Originally Posted by Sburn

Here in CA we've had term limits for a while now. What has happened is that the same career politicians just end up finding a different office to run for when they term out. State Senators term out and run for Assembly, termed-out Senators and Assemblypersons run for State Controller or Insurance Comissioner, termed out whatevers run for Mayor as a way of staying in the public's eye as a prelude for running for Governor or National office....Wash, Rinse, Repeat... Different tree -- same monkeys.

Meanwhile, the non-elected career bureaucrats tend to actually run things, since they get a new boss (elected or appointed) every few years. So you end up with stuff like the CARB (California Air Resources Board i.e., smog police) that have no accountability to the voters.

Yes - excellent point! The new elected official comes in has to take a while being non-productive while he learns things, then, he has to "reinvent the wheel", since he doesn't know why his idea didn't work before and finally, when things don't work out, the career people put everything back the way it was. (And 2 or 4 more years have gone by).

We have some of that problem in the active duty military. And it was recognized as it pertained to units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. A decision was made to not rotate personnel in and out of units to minimize this effect.

Non-active duty units like the Guard and the Reserve, do better here I think. They have a true "corporate memory" that really makes them more efficient as a unit than active duty units.

- Jack

[ChuckD]

Originally Posted by JackandJanet

Yes - excellent point! The new elected official comes in has to take a while being non-productive while he learns things, then, he has to "reinvent the wheel", since he doesn't know why his idea didn't work before and finally, when things don't work out, the career people put everything back the way it was. (And 2 or 4 more years have gone by).

We have some of that problem in the active duty military. And it was recognized as it pertained to units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. A decision was made to not rotate personnel in and out of units to minimize this effect.

Non-active duty units like the Guard and the Reserve, do better here I think. They have a true "corporate memory" that really makes them more efficient as a unit than active duty units.

- Jack

Not sure if I would agree with that. When we got deployed they took everybody in the state that hadn't deployed and a list of volunteers and put them in a unit that been disbanded. There was alot of people that had never met each other, much less worked together.

[Jackpine]

Ouch, that's not good! I was thinking more of a Guard unit deploying AS a unit. Not being combined with anyone else.

- Jack

[ccoll5]

I know, it is very calm, composed, insightful, and tasteful. I would hate to see this discussion on f150online haha.

[JWBFX4]

Originally Posted by ccoll5

I know, it is very calm, composed, insightful, and tasteful. I would hate to see this discussion on f150online haha.

The moderators would be working overtime, if that went on over there