Term Limits, Sen. Kennedy?

What Kennedy said (his words, not mine) was that there come junctions in history when the age — and, yes, the experience — of political leaders becomes an impediment to the change the times demand. Thus his claim that the old, comfortable ideas of Truman had no chance challenging the freshness and hope that JFK brought to the volatile era of the early 60s.
I merely asked whether the same logic shouldn’t apply to all policymakers. The argument that elections serve as our manner of term limits is well taken. But presidents, too, are elected, and we’ve deemed that 10 years is all we should have to endure of their service. Or is that ceiling a breach of Democracy — a case of government protecting voters from ourselves? There are good arguments to be made on both sides.

The shorter the time survived inside the Beltway, the better indication that a person just might have some ethics and integrity.

Michael Salamone, thank you for saying it so eloquently!

Bob, since you talk about more educated Americans perhaps you need a little brush up on reading comprehension, I made no comment about Hillary’s experience, I commented on Obama’s political leanings in relation to her’s. And because I am critical of Obama does not mean that I support Hillary, you all need to stop feeding into the media frenzy that has made this the Obama/Hillary show.

Senator Kennedy’s endorsement may amount to a squandered effort if Obama gets dragged through the mud at Tony Resko’s upcoming trial, and although Super Tuesday will be well past by that time, there will be 17 additional primaries to endure and Teddy Kennedy could spend the rest of his days trying to resurrect his reputation.Seems to me at least,a little patience could have benefited more than the visceral urge to jump on the campaign wagon.

Janis Day,

Obama consistently wins the votes of more educated Americans, while Hillary Clinton is more popular among voters with less education.

Hillary has been in office for just under 8 years. Obama has been an elected official for 12. If we really stretch the truth and allow Hillary to claim her time as first lady of Arkansas and first lady during Bill’s presidency, that still doesn’t add up to her claim of "35 years". What I’m saying is, perhaps you should go back to school and brush up on your addin’ and subtractin’ before you start claiming that Hillary has the "experience". She does not.

Some other inexperienced leaders:

Abraham Lincoln: 10 years
John F. Kennedy: 14 years
Jimmy Carter: 10 years
Ronald Reagan: 8 years

Some thoughts… First off, Janice, you point out that local is not national… out of curiosity, did you support bill Clinton in 1992…? His qualifications by your standards were lacking as well…

To Michael Salamone… yes, they are called elections… Anyone notice that the fable the Republicans used to spin regarding term limits went the way of the dodo the moment they took control of Congress…. of course, the longer they stay in the minority, look for that phrase to return… Serves as a word of warning to those who would use it in reference to Senator Kennedy as it is, in fact, an RNC talking point… ESPECIALLY with regard to Senator Kennedy… He was the poster child when they would crow about it.

Finally…. I am seriously trying to make heads or tails of this vitriol toward one of the only Statesmen in the Democratic party… Senator Kennedy has served this country well. But now, because he endorsed someone other than your candidate, you feel the need to belittle his contributions? That’s a bit petty…..

For the record, I have three horses in the Primary… I am supporting the eventual nominee.

Are you serious, this isn’t about experience? Many of us complained about GWB’s lack of experince how can we over look Obama’s? Judgement is not experience and local is not national. Obama is unique but he unfortunately is not uniquely qualified, he barely qualifies.

AND he is not liberal or if you prefer progressive he is to the RIGHT of Hillary. If he invokes Ronny or any other Repub one more time in the primary I am going to puke. Save that pandering for the general election.

The new kid in the game doesn’t get to change the rules of the game, Obama doesn’t have the gravitas to do that–maybe some day but not today. So this is politics or if you will war–Obama knows that but his supporters just don’t seem to get it.

The word "awoken" is, of course, my own. It means "awakened". *:o)

Jeff shew,

Here’s how the next election goes: disillusioned Republicans stay home. End of story. The Republican base hates McCain, they don’t like or trust Romney and they won’t get the chance to vote for Hucksterbee. The fact is, even if McCain is the candidate, the Republicans don’t HAVE a candidate. The Republicans are dispirited, disenfranchised and confused about where they want to go next.

All that changes if Hillary is in the race. If Hillary is in the race, they won’t care if Donald Duck is the Republican nominee–they’ll show up in massive numbers to vote against her. That’s just a fact. Hillary CAN NOT win. She is a wedge issue unto herself. The Republicans will drag out all the old attacks to fire up their base, and it will work. Not only will it get the Republicans engaged and determined to defeat her, it will sway many Independents who don’t like the Clintons either. And many Democrats will simply stay home. The Clintons will be left with the Democratic base, and Hillary will lose. No, wait, check that–the Clintons have now alienated much of the Democratic base by repeatedly playing the race card. They won’t have the base either. Hillary will be defeated in a landslide and we will be left saying "President Duck" for four years.

The Clintons took a big gamble when they brought race into this campaign. Barack Obama has awoken the sleeping hopes of many hopeless Americans. If Hillary dashes those hopes, she will not easily be forgiven.

Sometimes, you Obama-ites amaze me. The rhetoric that some of you are starting to use about him make him sound like Jesus Christ–it makes you sound culty. Can the Senator from Illinois give a good speech? Sure–although his speechifying style is sermonizing, and that has never appealed to me. Just because you can deliver a good speech doesn’t mean you should be given the keys to the car. This person has shown that he has a big achilles heel–he can speechify to his heart’s content, but if you stick him in a debate or in front of a journalist who doesn’t go supine for him, and he cannot defend his speech statements. For me, I don’t give a fat rat’s rear if you can talk up a storm–defending your ideas against a tough questioner is a greater skill….and old boy can’t do that. Why do you think he refuses to speak to the press unless they softball and fawn on him? For all of you Hillary-haters who vigorously hope the Senator knocks her off, you might want to remember something–even if Hillary goes down, the Senator will not get to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue without encountering John Sidney McCain. Most of you here probably hate him, but McCain will NOT let the Senator just smooth operator his way into the top job. If Obama wants it, then Mccain will put him through the wringer for it, and to be frank, I am not convinced your racehorse is up to it. With Obama the nominee, not only will McCain be firing salvos, but the Murdoch media empire (Fox, NY Post, and WSJ) will be free to beat him like a pinata.

sorry meant "really" rather than rally.

Has cynicism really blinded people from not seeing what is rally taking place? Obama is uniting people, inspiring young and old, moderate republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, black and white, asian and native american, latinos and all cultures to vote for him.

Others complain that he is going to talk to conservatives and republicans to get them on board. I wonder how many of those people have read about his record? His record of working with some of the most conservative republicans that successfully passed legislation without compromising his principles puts that argument to rest.

Others think Obama is not "experienced" enough. Obviously they are not taking into account Obama has had more years as an elected official that Hillary. His "experience" is much more conducive to changing "politics" as usual because he is not entrenched in Washington politics.

Some say he is too young: Bill Clinton was two years younger than Obama when he took office.

This election is not about race; it is not about "experience;" it is however about making wise decisions based on sound judgment & common sense. We’ve had an excruciating 7 years of trickery and deceit with "experienced" . Do we want more?

Which candidate is more likely to bring change: a candidate entrenched in the Washington political establishment or the one whose experience is outside Washington?

Last but not least: With a deep understanding of the human psyche and a grasp of world events and how the two are inseparable indicates Obama is uniquely qualified to become the next president.

Let’s not allow cynicism to blind us to a unique opportunity for real change.

"I value Sen. Kennedy

The point is how can Sen. Obama villify the "status quo" and "Washington Insiders" at the same time he glories in Sen. Kennedy’s endorsement. I value Sen. Kennedy’s service to the country as most democrats do, but with all due respect, he is the posterchild for status quo. That’s the point most Clinton supports make against Obama. He promotes change, will dissing established Democratic figures, like Sen. Clinton who have worked under great pressure to advance liberal ideas for decades. Sen. Obama has exercised some of the most divisive politics I’ve seen, the kind that was used against Al Gore and John Kerry. Some how Sen. Obama has turned experience into a bad thing, a la G.W. Bush! If Obama becomes the candidate it will be because voters fall for the same con every time, "I’m the outsider who is gonna change Washington". There’s nothing new or inspiring about this kind of drivel.

Jeez! Bitter Hillary supporter much? It’s amazing to see how easily you people have turned against Kennedy now that he’s thrown his support to someone else. What happens if Al Gore endorses Obama? You gonna register as a Republican?

Before we get too far afield on term limits, let’s pause to remind ourselves that the term limit law covering the president of the US is not in the original Constitution, but was enacted in 1951 by irate Republicans who were outraged that FDR won four terms as president. And a good law it was, because now we have a president, who as far as I am concerned, did not deserve even one term.

I’d rather see John as Obama’s AG. Imagine him putting Republicans in jail for politicizing government and all their other transgressions. There’d be nobody left on their side to run against him in 2016.

"Question: Does this apply to congressmen as well, or just the executive branch? Because it sure is a curious sentiment coming from an eight-term senator

I agree with Michael Salamone. Ted Kennedy has been elected and re-elected because he stands up for liberal values and the working people of America.

I’m for still for John Edwards in this primary season and will vote for him in California.

But I definitely like Obama’s style and charisma — that does indeed harken back to JFK. Now, if he only shows the courage and commitment of the late Bobby Kennedy (the one who was running in ’68) and follows through on the truly liberal Teddy Kennedy’s ideas and record, we’d have ourselves the makings of one great President.

Even though I’d personally like to see an Edwards-Obama ticket, I’d be thrilled too with an Obama-Edwards ticket (as long as Edwards’ progressive values and fight for the poor and the middle class in health insurance, jobs, and getting out of Iraq is part of the agenda.) This indeed could be a transformational election.

We have term limits. They’re called elections.

We have term limits. They’re called elections.

Not a bad point. I was wondering how they’d make the distinction in their speeches. Obama did it well, as expected: "Ted Kennedy stands apart from the prevailing wisdom in Washington that has reduced politics to a game of tactics and transactions, in which no principle is beyond sacrifice. And his public life is a testimony to what can be achieved when you focus on lifting our country up, rather than tearing political opponents down."

The man is good.

I personally doubt he’ll run again–so, he’s got nothing to lose (except John Kerry’s seat).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2012#Ted_Kennedy_.28D.29_of_Massachusetts

Too clever by half.

It’s really very simple, Obama’s change mantra has a big tent, if you want real change you’re welcome no matter the age. Obama doesn’t discriminate.

Too clever by half.

It's really very simple, Obama's change mantra has a big tent, if you want real change you're welcome no matter the age. Obama doesn't discriminate.

Not a bad point. I was wondering how they'd make the distinction in their speeches. Obama did it well, as expected: "Ted Kennedy stands apart from the prevailing wisdom in Washington that has reduced politics to a game of tactics and transactions, in which no principle is beyond sacrifice. And his public life is a testimony to what can be achieved when you focus on lifting our country up, rather than tearing political opponents down."

The man is good.

I personally doubt he'll run again–so, he's got nothing to lose (except John Kerry's seat).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Sena…

We have term limits. They're called elections.

We have term limits. They're called elections.

I agree with Michael Salamone. Ted Kennedy has been elected and re-elected because he stands up for liberal values and the working people of America.

I'm for still for John Edwards in this primary season and will vote for him in California.

But I definitely like Obama's style and charisma — that does indeed harken back to JFK. Now, if he only shows the courage and commitment of the late Bobby Kennedy (the one who was running in '68) and follows through on the truly liberal Teddy Kennedy's ideas and record, we'd have ourselves the makings of one great President.

Even though I'd personally like to see an Edwards-Obama ticket, I'd be thrilled too with an Obama-Edwards ticket (as long as Edwards' progressive values and fight for the poor and the middle class in health insurance, jobs, and getting out of Iraq is part of the agenda.) This indeed could be a transformational election.

"Question: Does this apply to congressmen as well, or just the executive branch? Because it sure is a curious sentiment coming from an eight-term senator

I'd rather see John as Obama's AG. Imagine him putting Republicans in jail for politicizing government and all their other transgressions. There'd be nobody left on their side to run against him in 2016.

Before we get too far afield on term limits, let's pause to remind ourselves that the term limit law covering the president of the US is not in the original Constitution, but was enacted in 1951 by irate Republicans who were outraged that FDR won four terms as president. And a good law it was, because now we have a president, who as far as I am concerned, did not deserve even one term.

Jeez! Bitter Hillary supporter much? It's amazing to see how easily you people have turned against Kennedy now that he's thrown his support to someone else. What happens if Al Gore endorses Obama? You gonna register as a Republican?

The point is how can Sen. Obama villify the "status quo" and "Washington Insiders" at the same time he glories in Sen. Kennedy's endorsement. I value Sen. Kennedy's service to the country as most democrats do, but with all due respect, he is the posterchild for status quo. That's the point most Clinton supports make against Obama. He promotes change, will dissing established Democratic figures, like Sen. Clinton who have worked under great pressure to advance liberal ideas for decades. Sen. Obama has exercised some of the most divisive politics I've seen, the kind that was used against Al Gore and John Kerry. Some how Sen. Obama has turned experience into a bad thing, a la G.W. Bush! If Obama becomes the candidate it will be because voters fall for the same con every time, "I'm the outsider who is gonna change Washington". There's nothing new or inspiring about this kind of drivel.

"I value Sen. Kennedy

Has cynicism really blinded people from not seeing what is rally taking place? Obama is uniting people, inspiring young and old, moderate republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, black and white, asian and native american, latinos and all cultures to vote for him.

Others complain that he is going to talk to conservatives and republicans to get them on board. I wonder how many of those people have read about his record? His record of working with some of the most conservative republicans that successfully passed legislation without compromising his principles puts that argument to rest.

Others think Obama is not "experienced" enough. Obviously they are not taking into account Obama has had more years as an elected official that Hillary. His "experience" is much more conducive to changing "politics" as usual because he is not entrenched in Washington politics.

Some say he is too young: Bill Clinton was two years younger than Obama when he took office.

This election is not about race; it is not about "experience;" it is however about making wise decisions based on sound judgment & common sense. We've had an excruciating 7 years of trickery and deceit with "experienced" . Do we want more?

Which candidate is more likely to bring change: a candidate entrenched in the Washington political establishment or the one whose experience is outside Washington?

Last but not least: With a deep understanding of the human psyche and a grasp of world events and how the two are inseparable indicates Obama is uniquely qualified to become the next president.

Let's not allow cynicism to blind us to a unique opportunity for real change.

sorry meant "really" rather than rally.

Sometimes, you Obama-ites amaze me. The rhetoric that some of you are starting to use about him make him sound like Jesus Christ–it makes you sound culty. Can the Senator from Illinois give a good speech? Sure–although his speechifying style is sermonizing, and that has never appealed to me. Just because you can deliver a good speech doesn't mean you should be given the keys to the car. This person has shown that he has a big achilles heel–he can speechify to his heart's content, but if you stick him in a debate or in front of a journalist who doesn't go supine for him, and he cannot defend his speech statements. For me, I don't give a fat rat's rear if you can talk up a storm–defending your ideas against a tough questioner is a greater skill….and old boy can't do that. Why do you think he refuses to speak to the press unless they softball and fawn on him? For all of you Hillary-haters who vigorously hope the Senator knocks her off, you might want to remember something–even if Hillary goes down, the Senator will not get to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue without encountering John Sidney McCain. Most of you here probably hate him, but McCain will NOT let the Senator just smooth operator his way into the top job. If Obama wants it, then Mccain will put him through the wringer for it, and to be frank, I am not convinced your racehorse is up to it. With Obama the nominee, not only will McCain be firing salvos, but the Murdoch media empire (Fox, NY Post, and WSJ) will be free to beat him like a pinata.

Jeff shew,

Here's how the next election goes: disillusioned Republicans stay home. End of story. The Republican base hates McCain, they don't like or trust Romney and they won't get the chance to vote for Hucksterbee. The fact is, even if McCain is the candidate, the Republicans don't HAVE a candidate. The Republicans are dispirited, disenfranchised and confused about where they want to go next.

All that changes if Hillary is in the race. If Hillary is in the race, they won't care if Donald Duck is the Republican nominee–they'll show up in massive numbers to vote against her. That's just a fact. Hillary CAN NOT win. She is a wedge issue unto herself. The Republicans will drag out all the old attacks to fire up their base, and it will work. Not only will it get the Republicans engaged and determined to defeat her, it will sway many Independents who don't like the Clintons either. And many Democrats will simply stay home. The Clintons will be left with the Democratic base, and Hillary will lose. No, wait, check that–the Clintons have now alienated much of the Democratic base by repeatedly playing the race card. They won't have the base either. Hillary will be defeated in a landslide and we will be left saying "President Duck" for four years.

The Clintons took a big gamble when they brought race into this campaign. Barack Obama has awoken the sleeping hopes of many hopeless Americans. If Hillary dashes those hopes, she will not easily be forgiven.

The word "awoken" is, of course, my own. It means "awakened". *:o)

Are you serious, this isn't about experience? Many of us complained about GWB's lack of experince how can we over look Obama's? Judgement is not experience and local is not national. Obama is unique but he unfortunately is not uniquely qualified, he barely qualifies.

AND he is not liberal or if you prefer progressive he is to the RIGHT of Hillary. If he invokes Ronny or any other Repub one more time in the primary I am going to puke. Save that pandering for the general election.

The new kid in the game doesn't get to change the rules of the game, Obama doesn't have the gravitas to do that–maybe some day but not today. So this is politics or if you will war–Obama knows that but his supporters just don't seem to get it.

Some thoughts… First off, Janice, you point out that local is not national… out of curiosity, did you support bill Clinton in 1992…? His qualifications by your standards were lacking as well…

To Michael Salamone… yes, they are called elections… Anyone notice that the fable the Republicans used to spin regarding term limits went the way of the dodo the moment they took control of Congress…. of course, the longer they stay in the minority, look for that phrase to return… Serves as a word of warning to those who would use it in reference to Senator Kennedy as it is, in fact, an RNC talking point… ESPECIALLY with regard to Senator Kennedy… He was the poster child when they would crow about it.

Finally…. I am seriously trying to make heads or tails of this vitriol toward one of the only Statesmen in the Democratic party… Senator Kennedy has served this country well. But now, because he endorsed someone other than your candidate, you feel the need to belittle his contributions? That's a bit petty…..

For the record, I have three horses in the Primary… I am supporting the eventual nominee.

Janis Day,

Obama consistently wins the votes of more educated Americans, while Hillary Clinton is more popular among voters with less education.

Hillary has been in office for just under 8 years. Obama has been an elected official for 12. If we really stretch the truth and allow Hillary to claim her time as first lady of Arkansas and first lady during Bill's presidency, that still doesn't add up to her claim of "35 years". What I'm saying is, perhaps you should go back to school and brush up on your addin' and subtractin' before you start claiming that Hillary has the "experience". She does not.

Some other inexperienced leaders:

Abraham Lincoln: 10 years
John F. Kennedy: 14 years
Jimmy Carter: 10 years
Ronald Reagan: 8 years

Senator Kennedy's endorsement may amount to a squandered effort if Obama gets dragged through the mud at Tony Resko's upcoming trial, and although Super Tuesday will be well past by that time, there will be 17 additional primaries to endure and Teddy Kennedy could spend the rest of his days trying to resurrect his reputation.Seems to me at least,a little patience could have benefited more than the visceral urge to jump on the campaign wagon.

Bob, since you talk about more educated Americans perhaps you need a little brush up on reading comprehension, I made no comment about Hillary's experience, I commented on Obama's political leanings in relation to her's. And because I am critical of Obama does not mean that I support Hillary, you all need to stop feeding into the media frenzy that has made this the Obama/Hillary show.

Michael Salamone, thank you for saying it so eloquently!

The shorter the time survived inside the Beltway, the better indication that a person just might have some ethics and integrity.

What Kennedy said (his words, not mine) was that there come junctions in history when the age — and, yes, the experience — of political leaders becomes an impediment to the change the times demand. Thus his claim that the old, comfortable ideas of Truman had no chance challenging the freshness and hope that JFK brought to the volatile era of the early 60s.
I merely asked whether the same logic shouldn't apply to all policymakers. The argument that elections serve as our manner of term limits is well taken. But presidents, too, are elected, and we've deemed that 10 years is all we should have to endure of their service. Or is that ceiling a breach of Democracy — a case of government protecting voters from ourselves? There are good arguments to be made on both sides.

I don’t know. I love Coach Outlet Online Store, I was in Chelsea the happiest man since the arrival of a person who should have never Prada Shoes. I was thinking I would have Coach Outlet be there all my life and a few months later, I buy Coach Purses. So you never know. In Inter I found an incredible family. Players; amazing. President; amazing. Then after two years I felt, even with two more years Coach Purses Outlet, I felt it was over. I need something new for me. So you never know. But when I sign a Coach Factory Outlet, I sign with the intention to respect the contract and be happy for that Prada Sneakers. So if everything goes in the right direction, yes I will stay Coach Outlet Store.