What about age limits then? Most Americans retire at age 65/67 average right? For example wasn't Strom Thurmond still in office when he was in his 90's? That's crazy IMO.

Set a age limit. I mean they get a great pension for life anyways. Something has to be done cause the bunch who is in now ain't worth a hill of beans.

Yeah, an age limit might work, certainly Thurmond stayed on too long, but guys like John McCain and Bernie Sanders (trying to be bi-partisan) aren't exactly spring chickens, but they bring a lot of institutional knowledge to the table and they still seem to have it together.

One of the real problems is the breakdown of the way it used to work in Congress. Freshman were supposed to keep their mouths shut, and maintain low profiles. there ahve always been exceptions including JFK, Obama and now Cruz who clearly never had any interest in being long term Senators, but were using their seats as platforms to run for president, but even Hillary kept quiet for two years in the Senate, made friends in both parties and then got a plum committee job.

The other thing that is missing is that it used to be that members and their families would spend most of their time in D.C., and not running to their districts all the time to raise money. This caused members to forge friendships with people with different points of view. Nowadays it is two armed camps, which is nuts.

I like the Reagan - Tip O'Neill rule that after six in the evening they would never discuss politics.

Wow DT, we agreed on a political matter.

Tip O' Neill and Reagan were a good combo. They did not always see eye to eye but they got shit done in the name of the people they served. I believe if both men were alive today they would be ashamed of their respective parties

I'm reading "Killing Jesus" by Bill O'Reilly. As I read the events leading up to Jesus' "conviction", I couldn't help but think the Republicans were acting like a bunch of Pharisees. (Disclaimer: I didn't think of Obama as Jesus).

Their loyalty shouldn't be to the party, it should be to the American people. They should do what is best for all.

Let's just assume that we never put in term limits for the President - who do you think would have been elected to a third term? Eisenhower likely defeats Kennedy and JFK waits until 1964 or even 1968? Do you think Reagan could have been the first to win all the states against Dukakis? Clinton against Bush (W) in 2000? Obama in 2016?

Putting aside the question of whether congressional and senatorial term limits are a good idea, it can only happen through a constitutional amendment. It is unconstitutional for a state to impose any term limits on federally elected officials.

An amendment would require 2/3 of both houses to approve the amendment, which isn't going to happen, or a constitutional convention called by 2/3 of the state legislatures. And none of the Amendments to the constitution resulted from the latter.

But for those, who want term limits, the best answer is we already have them. The members of congress and senators are subject to election and reelection. If there is a problem with bad people in office getting reelected constantly, there is then a bigger problem with the people, who keep installing them in office.

The problem is if members of congress decide to vote as they please, again parties mean nothing. But as I said, they mean something, at least to me. I don't like unpredictability in politics. I like to vote for a certain platform and know that the party I vote for would be loyal to those values. Those values are what I think is for the good of the people.

If that is the case - why is there a need for term limits for the President? I think we should either have them for all, or not at all.

The XXII amendment limits the terms of the president. The difference is that the presidency is an executive office with considerable power vested in one person.

A senator or congressperson works in the legislative branch. Singularly his or her power is comparatively minor; its strength rests entirely in its body composing many people. As such, there is more of a need for term limits for the chief executive.

James Madison spoke out against term limits for congress in the Federalist Papers. Again, the people have the power of term limits in the ballots they cast.

Of course the wonderful people that we elected would not vote themselves out of a job. They want to keep the millions they make meanwhile screwing you out of your job with the wonderful decisions they make.

But there in itself lies the problem. If you think one particular branch of ideology is right then you get what we have today. The answer (except in extreme circumstances) usually lies somewhere in between the right and left. Something most people don't seem to understand

This is something i agree with. Senators amass so much power as they build up time in Senate, they have too much of an edge over newer Senators, and become almost impossible to defeat in an election. They also become out of touch. If any political body needs term limits, it's them. A 75 year-old man in same seat for over 20 years cannot have any idea of life on outside. They are in own thier world, and become a closed club.

I agree Kly. It takes effort to learn about candidates and to vote. Some Americans don't want to make the effort. In addition, there is a paucity of knowledge among so many Americans about national issues. Those with so littel knowledge insist on looking at those issues in elementary terms. They neglect to consider the effects of our pluralistic society.

I might if you eliminate the gerrymandering that takes place to ensure that incumbents are re-elected.

Some excellent points being made here

And that's why we review our positions every couple of years. We get to vote again and change our position. I never said a certain branch of ideology can be right all the time. But you certainly can identify with one, in a certain period of time, in a certain political environment. The important thing to me is that when I vote for a party, I get exactly what their platform claim should that party win the election.

Gerrymandering was rampant after the 2010 elections that brought Republican majorities to the state houses, which coincided with the national census that compelled redistricting. Pennsylvania, like other states was carved up into congressional districts that defied fairness and geographic sense. The intent was actually to eliminate Democratic incumbents by marginalizing their districts.

They then pushed to overhaul our presidential electoral process by allocating electoral votes by individual district, claiming this was more fair. They knew they were very unlikely of beating Obama in 2012, and had their ruse succeeded, this past election, which Obama won by a comfortable margin in 2012, would have produced the ludicrous result of 14 votes for Romney and 6 votes for Obama. Of course, the voter ID law was rushed through to further reduce the voting impact of the poor, elderly and urban minorities, all of whom typically vote Democratic.

LOL!!!

When did the republicans compromise? The entire time they kept insisting on the president agreeing to defund, delay or repeal the ACA. And why us being truthful not acting civil? The teabaggers are the lunatic fringe and are out of touch. They are also a threat to our republic and way of life. They didn't have the votes to overturn the ACA or to pass new legislation to do it so instead, they hold the entire country hostage, shut the gov't down and cost us $24 billion. Tell me why they're not extremists please.

how do rubio and ryan distance themselves from themselves?

This is one Republican for which this Democrat could vote:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/11/jeb-bush-defends-immigration-remarks/?hpt=hp_t2