Ron: "I support term limits"
Posted December 1st, 2008 by pblumel
output
"You normally wouldn’t expect a 10-term Congressman to be a big term limits supporter but, as this year’s primary campaign made clear, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) isn’t a typical Congressman.
"Rep. Paul most recently reiterated his support for term limits publically in his Dec. 23, 2007, appearance on Meet the Press, where interviewer Tim Russert grilled the Congressman for the alleged contradiction between his tenure and his support for limits on tenure."
For the full story, see:
www.pblumel.blogspot.com
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Ron and Rand
2012
Disagree
The onus is on the people to be vigilant and kick out whomever whenever he or she fails to uphold the Constitution at every turn. Pretty simple...unfortunately, most people in this country fail miserably at being citizens and most are on board the "stupid train", as MikeLawson calls it. (Damn, that is funny!)
Rules must reflect reality
Well, unfortunately, what people should do and what they actually do are often different.
This is not unique to Americans, as you imply, but is universal in democracies: the self-interested few apply greater attention and resources to politics that the mass of citizens who are busy running their own lives.
This is why limits on government power, including term limits, are crucial to protect the people from politicians and their special interest sponsors. While the price of freedom is indeed eternal vigilance, it is also helpful to have *institutional* rules -- the Bill of Rights is the classic example -- that give us standing vis-a-vis our government.
Philip Blumel
http://pblumel.blogspot.c...
every elected officials have term limits
it's called election, re-elect no one.
Agree and Disagree
I agree with the practicality of term limits but I disagree in principle. Practically speaking the bad guys stay in and they just keep getting worse and worse and I'd love to see a turn-over every few years.
But I still believe that people should be free to vote for whomever they choose.
So it's like a stimulus check. While I like it and enjoy spending the money, I don't agree with it on principle.
Wikipedia adds Ron's term limits stance
"Paul was the first member of Congress to propose term limits legislation in the House, where he also declined to attend junkets or register for a Congressional pension."
I am glad to see Ron get credit for this. He doesn't get enough recognition for his pioneering on this issue.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
Philip Blumel
www.pblumel.blogspot.com
Giving Ron due credit
Here's another example:
"In the time he has spent in the House of Representatives, Paul has authored and sponsored bills to repeal the War Powers Act, impose term limits on elected officials, and abolish income taxes."
http://www.truthout.org/a...
Tom McClintock on term limits
One of the Ron-endorsed winners on Nov. 4 is Tom McClintock (R-CA), who will be joining Ron Paul in the House. Here is McClintock on California's term limits in Reason magazine:
"The influence of lobbyists was based on decades of ongoing personal relationships with legislators," says Assemblyman Tom McClintock, the most libertarian-minded member of the legislature. "Now the previously well-entrenched interests have to justify themselves to new people, who are strangers. And the new legislators are wary and will often say, 'Oh, you're a special interest lobbyist. I'm not sure I should talk to you.' "
Ron on term limits:
www.pblumel.blogspot.com
Congressional term limits petition:
www.termlimits.org
-pb
Ron Paul's 10 terms
They aren't contiguous, either.
And, he continues to function in the private sector even while in office.
Ron did not promise to self-limit but did anyway
That's a good point. Even though he never pledged to self-limit, Ron mentioned his support of term limits as one reason he left the Congress in 1984 (having entered Congress in 1976). He left and came back, which most term limits laws around the country permit.
Ron is right about self-limiting. To get the benefits of term limits, it has to be imposed on the whole body, not one member. Elections are for making decisions about individual races; term limits are one of the ground rules under which elections are held. It is an *institutional* reform.
For more info on Ron and term limits, see:
www.pblumel.blogspot.com
-pb
Term limits sis a good idea
11 terms is really not so long. I checked the other day and Paul is by far NOT any of the most senior congressmen (according to the terms they serve. Look at people like sen. Ted Stevens, almost 40 years in politics and Joe Biden, senator since he is 29 and now VP! There should be term limits for them. Also remember for congressman it sounds longer, but they serve rally just a 1/3 of the terms of a senator.
Ron Paul has been elected 3 times
as a non-incumbent. That is a record!
It's fairly simple
Ron Paul is willing to give up his position in order to contain the power position of dangerous others...however, if other power positions are to be maintained then he must maintain his in order to attempt any resemblance or counter balance of common sense in the House. It's EITHER - OR...makes sense to me..
Either every one's power is limited...or no one's power is limited
Unless he claimed that everyone else must follow term limits while "he" would be personally exempt...,,,that was not his position
Fair is fair
I don't see a contradiction
Ron is right
You are right. There is no contradiction. Term limits are an institutional reform and we do not receive the benefits from them is they are not imposed on the entire body. But we should absolutely impose them on the Congress! You can sign a petition to do that at: www.termlimits.org. Thanks.
Stop Me Before I Vote Again
I respectfully disagree with The Good Doctor.
Term limits are already institutionalized. We call them "elections."
The Freedom Formula: Au + Ag + Cu + Pb
Ron is right about term limits
Yes, quite often incumbents do face elections for Congress. In these, some 95% of incumbents win due to the automatic and largely insurmountable support they receive from special interests.
Of course, in many or most of these contested races, incumbents do not face serious candidates, but instead gadflys who do not have the support of their party due to the stastistical improbability of their victory.
And, in other cases, no one even tries to beat the incumbent and no election is held at all.
Term limits mandate regular, competitive elections and hence empower voters. They don't guarantee positive change, but they make it *possible.* Entrenched incumbency is a closed shop.
The old cliche that 'we already have term limits, they're called elections' is plausible only to those with no practical experience in politics.
What elections?
The last time I checked, 98% of the pond scum that is driving this country into the ground gets put back into office. Unfortunately, most voters are ignorant enough to keep voting them in even though Congress has a record low approval rating. We need term limits to protect ignorant voters from themselves. Of course in today's day and age, even with fully informed and rational voters, who knows what could happen when Diebold is involved. I believe that strict limits on the accumulation of power is vital to the long-term health of this country.
---
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms - should be a convenience store, not a government agency!