teul2 wrote:southdeltan wrote: I think you are reading WAY to much into my statement. I've never really thought that deeply about it. But since you ask, 2 terms per post (state, fed, local, what ever) sounds about right to me.
Most local and state politicians are not full time. My definition of a career politician is someone who hasn't done anything else except politics for most of their working lives. I have no problem with a state politician having a couple of terms while working fulltime, then heading to D.C. for a couple of terms.southdeltan wrote:teul2 wrote:southdeltan wrote: I think you are reading WAY to much into my statement. I've never really thought that deeply about it. But since you ask, 2 terms per post (state, fed, local, what ever) sounds about right to me.
Sorry, it wasn't aimed just at you specifically, you were just the last person I saw say that, lol.
If they do 2 terms here, 2 terms there, 2 terms over there, before you know it a politician will still end up making a career out of it.
36 was too damn many too. There was just nobody else viable to choose. McDaniel's presence in the race has brought to light the questions of Thad's ability to serve the whole term and the MS establishment's plan to slip in who they want into that seat upon Thad's retirement.southdeltan wrote:I see a lot of people saying this, and typically by term limits people mean 2 terms in a post. McDaniel has served 1.5 terms (6 years) in the MS Senate. If he wins and runs two terms in the US that'd be 18 years. I guess he's going to retire from politics at that point, but if he doesn't - will the total time in office (all posts he would serve) not matter if he's moving around. Say he runs for the House after 2 terms in the Senate, or for Governor. Would he still be considered a vote-worthy non career politician at that point? I'm just curious. How long is too long? 42 apparently is too long for some people, but 36 was ok.teul2 wrote: And my deep seeded belief in term limits is going to play in todays vote for me.
I thought I was for term limits, but the founders created a House and Senate (Great Compromise of 1787) to equalize power between small and large (based on population) states. The Senate gives smaller state more influence. Love it or hate it, seniority increases the power. We've benefited greatly from only having 5 senators over the past 67 years.
I agreeRebelYelp wrote:both candidates have their plusses and minuses, my biggest fear is simple:
A. that this primary as caused such deep seeded anger in both sides that the loser will not support the winner in the general
.
B. that the mud slinging, money spent, etc. in the primary gives the democratic candidate a leg up.
Neither is good, and could in turn give us a democrat in this senate seat. My point, regardless of how tonight shakes out, the winner deserves our full support.
.REBEL DUCK wrote:Looks like ole Thad pulled it off and I see people mad because te democrats supported Thad. Can you blame em if all you hear is cut government and you live off government who you gonna vote for?
I was about as split as I ever been. Just hope ever one supports the winner
They're not supposed to, but there's nothing to stop them.rjohnson wrote:Well crap, guess the status quo carries on. Now we have to make sure we don't lose that Senate seat. Question on the Dems that voted in the primary, they can now vote either party in the general election correct?
They won't. They paid no attention to Cantor getting kicked out, Tparty lost Ms and Ok primary races. I beginning to think any candidate thatJDgator wrote:This affair should serve as a serious warning to our elected officials that they tea party isn't going anywhere. And unless they want to face competitive primary elections at home, they'd better stick to their conservative roots. I don't expect Thad to do anything different but ambitious younger politicians should get the message.
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Bing [Bot] and 9 guests
