From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Term Limits Initiative
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:21:29 GMT
Organization: Totally Unorganized

In article <1992Nov5.164050.18646@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>In article <1992Nov05.100034.18413@gibdo.engr.washington.edu> bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
>>Robert J. Hall asks:
>>| With the (presumed) passage of the Washington Term Limits initiative, I was
>>| wondering about the prospects of this law being overturned in the courts?
>>|
>>| Anybody have a clue?
>>
>>Paul Kemp (pkemp@byron.u.washington.edu) responds:
>>| Without a doubt it will go to the courts and be overturned.
>>| I think Bush himself said it would take an admendment.
>>
>>  As a long time supporter of Common Cause and other "good government"
>>  groups and causes, I was happy to see the term-limits initiatives pass 
>>  in all 14 states that voted on them yesterday.  Now that the ice has
>>  been broken, expect many more states to follow. 
>
>Does Common Cause actually support term limits? Usually they have more
>sense than that.
>
>This should have been said before the election (and I did say it a year
>ago), but term limits are aimed at other people's congressmen. You always
>have the option to vote against your own. And that is effective term limits.

Not really.  The term limits makes it much easier for another choice
to be offered, without having to go through a jillion obstacles.  Since
when has one party ran TWO candidates for the same office (other than
in primaries)?  The term limits means that after a certain time, someone
else gets a chance - so one can choose between two NEW candiates, not
a new one, and one who gets the lions share of the contributions and
who has an accumulated war chest of money, which is what gives incumbents
a virtual lock on the office, unless they do something REALLY nasty.

Obviously, abuses of power that had all the people up in arms was not
enough to counter their enormous advantage - the check bouncers, junket
abusers, and other characters that blew thousands of dollars of tax payer
money on their own enjoyment managed to get back in.  This in spite of
the fact that they have shown that they consider the public a resource
to be exploited, not constituents to be represented.

A good  candidate, but who lacks the mega-bucks, has no chance in
realistic terms.  With term limits, the playing field is levelled to
some degree every few years.  It should also discourage those who run
for office because of how it will line their pockets.  THat will leave
those some of which might actually want to do some good SOME measure
of chance.

ONE CANNOT GET THE VOTES IF THEY CANNOT BE HEARD.  And the incumbent
literally drowns out the challenger by use of his huge cash reserves,
the experienced staff with access to resources the challenger has
no access to.  Term limits may not be perfect but it is better than
nothing.  Interesting that the most volcal opposition to term limits
came from, who else, but the INCUMBENTS.  Not surprising, IMHO.

If its a bust, it can be repealed.  And congress critters that try
to get it tossed out will be showing what they really care about -
their perks and privs, not what the people want (why else would they
try to overthrow the choice of the people, whom they are SUPPOSED
to represent, not instead to dictate what they should want in their
opinion).

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket" 
Newsgroups: seattle.general