It really is pathetic isn't it.  Just total mismanagement of funds.  That's the point I was trying to make regarding the government and political candidates.  They can raise tons of money for their own campaign and waste it as they see fit, then they mismanage our tax dollars once in office.

Too bad that the Republicans are writing off Libertarians and Tea Party as being a divider of concervatives.  I think Tea Party, Constitutionalists, and Libertarians are all just fed up with the Republican Party.  We need a change, but not like the change that Obama was thinking.  We need more of a choice in candidates than just Dems and Republicans.  It's time we had a viable say in how large our government can become.

That's exactly right, they don't get it.  If they did the tea party would not have been necessary.  I don't want to see a division of the conservative vote (like the Tancredo/Maes crap we've got going on in the CO Governors race), but rather I would like to see the republican party embrace and act on the ideas that gets the tea party fired up.

This is a prime example for term limits and the "outlawing" of "proessional polititions".  I have a very simple solution to these "professional incompets".  Just put a set term limit for ANY elected office of 12 years.  If you hold any elected office for 12 years, it would be illegel to hold another political office for the rest of your life. That would put an end to these people who get elected for life and bleed the average citizen to death with there repeated waste. 

I would not agree to a "lifetime term limit" as the length would bring up some issues. The office of president is one that would concern me. Before I vote for a candidate for president, I want to see how they have managed their political career prior to running. With a 12 year limit, that would exclude most politicians from running. Many presidential candidates start in the senate, house, govenors office, and even the local offices such as mayor. 4 years as a mayor, 4 as a govenor, 4 in the senate would bring them to their limit and someone who has proven themselves in these arenas would then be ineligible for president. I would rather support an 8 year limit on any one office.

That is a very good point Wings. I agree with you there. I think the limits need to put in affect at the office level. But I think everything should have a limit... or atleast some other way of getting rid of someone who strays from the path.

First if the incumbents arn't sent packing we have only ourselvs to blame.We need to be active ,get out the vote, The liberals did it two years ago, if we can't shame on us.

 As for term limits I believe the limit shold be 12 years at  state level , and 12 years at federal, with the regs set in place that would prevent anyone serving as an elected official from working for the governmet or ant gov contractors for the same number of years they served.

Alex

First if the incumbents arn't sent packing we have only ourselvs to blame.We need to be active ,get out the vote, The liberals did it two years ago, if we can't shame on us.

I agree with this but while I understand the sentiment about term limits I am not sure if they are a good idea as they do not discriminate against good or bad politicians.  People would not expected a good quarterback to be forced to retire after let's say four seasons so why force a good elected offical out after an arbritray time?

Don't mean to offend anyone, but the reason for term limits is that the vast majority of voters don't take the time to research the incumbents records and hold them accountable.

Maybe we need term limits, but not because of the elected officials, but because of the voters who keep them there.

I am an active duty soldier with 17 1/2 years and currently deployed to the remote mountains of Afghanistan.  I said all that to say I can't openly display an edorsement or opinion of our "Leaders" in Washington DC. But have a long term goal of being up there one day and want to end with one simple question if you would allow me.  What ever happen to "For the People, By the People"?