I am all for term limits, but I think the whole "throw the bums out" mentality doesn't take into consideration that sometimes the replacement will be worse that what it there now. I certainly know that was the case for several offices in the last election out here. The governor's race was term limited and look what we're stuck with now. If a congress critter is representing the people who that put them in office, those of a different political bent aren't gonna like them. So it's hard for them to have a high national approval rating. The best example of this is Nancy Pelosi, who consistently gets low national ratings, but was reelected by 80% because the voters in her district like what she is doing.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jerry Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > "And replace them with whom" > > A challenger on the ballot. Alas, there isn't always a good option. For > example, what if Alan Grayson were to run in 2010 for his old congressional > seat? > > Of course, term limits would be better. Then you would two or more choices > and not even have to worry about the incumbent. > > The congressional job approval rating hovers around 20%. Incumbents win > re-election over 80% of the time. You put these two together, and it easy > to see that most people don't like your representative or your senator, but > are just fine with their ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:333676 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
