Throw 'Em All Out.....

[quote]
Marmadogg wrote:
I hope you don’t fail so see the irony as Republicans were shouting ‘term limits’ from the roof tops when the Democrats were in power for decades and now that the roles are reversed you hear nothing about.

That was the best idea that never materialized.

An incumbent is more likely to die in office that to lose a re-election.

ALDurr wrote:

Is anybody going to say something about this, or are you, as usual, going to ignore it and continue the one-sided bashing?[/quote]

What is there to say? We said we want term limits, the Democrats have never been for term limits and the Republicans fudged on them – though, after the USSC case invalidating them at the state level on the grounds it was adding a requirement to the Constitutional requirements for service in Congress, they would now need a Constitutional amendment to enact term limits.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Marmadogg wrote:
I hope you don’t fail so see the irony as Republicans were shouting ‘term limits’ from the roof tops when the Democrats were in power for decades and now that the roles are reversed you hear nothing about.

That was the best idea that never materialized.

An incumbent is more likely to die in office that to lose a re-election.

ALDurr wrote:

Is anybody going to say something about this, or are you, as usual, going to ignore it and continue the one-sided bashing?

What is there to say? We said we want term limits, the Democrats have never been for term limits and the Republicans fudged on them – though, after the USSC case invalidating them at the state level on the grounds it was adding a requirement to the Constitutional requirements for service in Congress, they would now need a Constitutional amendment to enact term limits.[/quote]

What there is to say is that the Republicans are in charge now, so why has the tune changed? Is it because it now wouldn’t benefit them? What there is to say is that the Republicans are hypocrites and should lose all credibility on this issue.

[quote]
Marmadogg wrote:
I hope you don’t fail so see the irony as Republicans were shouting ‘term limits’ from the roof tops when the Democrats were in power for decades and now that the roles are reversed you hear nothing about.

That was the best idea that never materialized.

An incumbent is more likely to die in office that to lose a re-election.

ALDurr wrote:

Is anybody going to say something about this, or are you, as usual, going to ignore it and continue the one-sided bashing?

BostonBarrister wrote:
What is there to say? We said we want term limits, the Democrats have never been for term limits and the Republicans fudged on them – though, after the USSC case invalidating them at the state level on the grounds it was adding a requirement to the Constitutional requirements for service in Congress, they would now need a Constitutional amendment to enact term limits.

ALDurr wrote:
What there is to say is that the Republicans are in charge now, so why has the tune changed? Is it because it now wouldn’t benefit them? What there is to say is that the Republicans are hypocrites and should lose all credibility on this issue.[/quote]

They are hypocrites - and it’s because it wouldn’t benefit them PERSONALLY (as opposed to as a party – I really think they could care less on that point). It’s the incumbent mindset – it’s why states that gerrymander usually do so with the acquiescence of the other side (it creates safe seats for both parties).

But unless the Republicans have a 2/3 majority of both houses, which they do not, they can’t do it by themselves, whether they’re “in charge” or not.

What the Dems could do to make them look really bad, though, is to introduce an amendment themselves, even though they’ve never been for term limits, and force the Republicans to vote either for it or against it…

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Marmadogg wrote:
I hope you don’t fail so see the irony as Republicans were shouting ‘term limits’ from the roof tops when the Democrats were in power for decades and now that the roles are reversed you hear nothing about.

That was the best idea that never materialized.

An incumbent is more likely to die in office that to lose a re-election.

ALDurr wrote:

Is anybody going to say something about this, or are you, as usual, going to ignore it and continue the one-sided bashing?

BostonBarrister wrote:
What is there to say? We said we want term limits, the Democrats have never been for term limits and the Republicans fudged on them – though, after the USSC case invalidating them at the state level on the grounds it was adding a requirement to the Constitutional requirements for service in Congress, they would now need a Constitutional amendment to enact term limits.

ALDurr wrote:
What there is to say is that the Republicans are in charge now, so why has the tune changed? Is it because it now wouldn’t benefit them? What there is to say is that the Republicans are hypocrites and should lose all credibility on this issue.

They are hypocrites - and it’s because it wouldn’t benefit them PERSONALLY (as opposed to as a party – I really think they could care less on that point). It’s the incumbent mindset – it’s why states that gerrymander usually do so with the acquiescence of the other side (it creates safe seats for both parties).

But unless the Republicans have a 2/3 majority of both houses, which they do not, they can’t do it by themselves, whether they’re “in charge” or not.

What the Dems could do to make them look really bad, though, is to introduce an amendment themselves, even though they’ve never been for term limits, and force the Republicans to vote either for it or against it…[/quote]

It would never happen because the Democrats have no guts. They have shown that time and time again.