This first one as you can see is for term limits. As I've said before (I think on MySpace back in 2009) I think term limits are a bad idea that's time has come. What I mean by that is two year terms are what is supposed to keep politicians from getting corrupt, but that doesn't seem to be working.
If you notice the image above I crossed out "pledge" and replaced with "plan". I did this in part because I am anti-pledge. Pledges are McCarthy-esque over simplification that are designed to eliminate nuance. Yeah I know nuance is the refuge of a scoundrel but it is also where you find common ground. I'm against the political dynamic of finding the most extreme candidates from either side and seeing who can take over government. I am for finding people of differing ideas discussing policy and taking the best aspects of everyone's ideas.
The other part of me being against this pledge is that term limits are only a good idea until we can figure out what to do about the money gap in politics. If politicians were not overwhelmed with lobbyist, I would entrust the voters to limit political careers by voting for their rivals.
As a matter of principle I might have taken the position that lobbyist be damned, it still comes down to voters, term limits are anti-voter. But honestly I think most voters are for the term limits in place. Though Sara Lampe supporters may disagree with me on this...
www.electladendorf.us
I really like your approach on this Nicholas. We need to be open to new information and not limit ourselves by signing pledges.
ReplyDeleteI vividly remember President Bush (1) declaring "Read my lips, no new taxes!" Then to get the government back to work, he had to compromise and break his pledge. A good reason not to make a pledge because you never know when you might need to compromise for the betterment of the state of Missouri.
Bush should have (and maybe did) know better. I believe Reagan had to raise taxes 7 times. But people often forget why Bush made that pledge in the first place.
ReplyDelete