From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Debate 2:  "Please state your position on Term Limits..."
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:54:07 GMT

In article <15OCT199223481973@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>Moderator:  We have a question up here.

>Questioner: Please state your position on Term Limits and if you are
>            in favor of them, how you will get them enacted?

>Clinton:    I know they're popular, but I'm against them. I'll tell 
>            you why. I believe number 1 it would pose a real problem
>            for a lot of smaller states in the congress, who have 
>            enough trouble now making sure their interests are heard.
>            Number 2, I think it would increase the influence of unpaid
>            an unelected staff members in the congress who have too much
>            influence already. I want to cut the size of the congres-
>            sional staffs, but I think you are going to have too much
>            influence there by people who were never elected who have
>            lots of expertise. Number 3, if the people really have a
>            mind to change they can. You're going to have a hundred
>            twenty to a hundred fifty new members of congress. Now let
>            me tell you what I favor instead. I favor strict controls
>            on how much you can spend money for congress, strict limits
>            on political action committees, requirements that people
>            running for congress appear in open public debates like  
>            we're doing now. If you did that you could take away the
>            incumbents advantage, because challengers like me would
>            have a chance to run against incumbents like HIM for House
>            races and Senate races. And then the voters could make up
>            their own minds without being subject to an unfair fight.
>            So that's how I feel about it, and I think if we had the
>            right kind of campaign reform we'd get the changes you want.

>I think we ought to limit terms, and do all that other stuff afterwards.

Well, that doesn't surprise me, Mr Tice.  No one ever accused you of
being for democracy.  You and your Ross "We can amend that dang
Constitution" Perot.

Guess what -- terms already are limited.  Congressmen have 2 years,
Senators have 6.  After that, if these people want to go back to
Congress, people have to vote for them!  They have to get reelected!

Wow!  What a great system!  We get to keep the legislators we like, and
get rid of the ones we don't!  What could be better than that?

>The problem is how to get those laws passed since it's the incumbents
>who make them. Even if they do feel "picked-on" by their own overbearing
>staffs and need someone to protect them -- like long time incumbent
>Governor Bill Clinton. 

Look, Steven!  Bill Clinton didn't pander!  He didn't tell people what
they wanted to hear.  He gave an honest answer which wasn't going to be
very popular, but which made a lot of sense.

>  Stephen D. Tice       One term is enough. Then a person can run 
>  Arlington Texas       for a different office -- after a year off.  
>\                 /     No reason to campaign on Public Time.

I mean, geez.  Ross always talks as if we ought to run the government
more like a business.  What kind of business would get rid of its
employees every two years and hire new ones?  Not a successful one.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | Clinton/Gore '92.  Four more weeks!!!
Is every Bush supporter illiterate?  Democrat is a noun, not an adjective.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton