Louisville Courier Journal Editorial: "No Term Limits". I DISAGREE!
No to term limits
What is it about Republicans that makes them think terms limits are a good idea?
The best example of this occurred in 1947, when, in power in Congress for the first time in a generation, the GOP passed the 22nd Amendment, limiting a president to two terms. Their purpose was clear: to prevent America from electing another Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected four times and probably would have been elected to four more terms had he lived long enough.
Back in the '90s, tired of long-term Democratic control of Congress, Republicans started the chant again, but they abandoned it pretty quickly after their massive victories in the 1994 midterm elections.
In Louisville, limiting terms hasn't been the issue in the past. Rather, the problem with state and local government was the limitation of one term for mayors and governors — a situation that made them lame ducks from the moment they take their hand off the Bible on inauguration day. Here in Louisville since 1986, voters have twice embraced the notion that mayors should be able to succeed themselves. And in the early 1990s, statewide voters approved the same opportunity for governors.
Continuity in office doesn't assure progress on important issues, but in the case of Louisville, it has. Consider the airport expansion, government consolidation, the waterfront park and Fourth Street Live, and the case is made.
The latest effort to limit the mayor's terms is being pushed by (guess who?) Republicans on the Metro Council, weary, no doubt, of repeated drubbings by Jerry Abramson, who has been mayor for most of the past quarter century, before and after governments were merged. As with the post-war congressional effort, this is spite, pure and simple, but it won't hurt Jerry Abramson, who has decided not to seek a third term and will run instead for lieutenant governor.
Mind you, nobody on the council is talking about limiting his or her own terms. Just the mayor's.
We encourage the council to consider a lesson national Republicans learned after they changed the Constitution to spite FDR. In 1960, President Dwight Eisenhower almost certainly could have been easily re-elected. And in 1988, Ronald Reagan would have been a shoo-in for a third term.
Voters going to the polls on Election Day set term limits. They are the best judge of whether a person deserves a second term. Not politicians who are envious of another's success.
Editor's comment: "Voters going to the polls on Election Day set term limits. They are the best judge of whether a person deserves a second term. Not politicians who are envious of another's success."
Great point.
I used to feel the same way, but the voters are so IGNORANT -- and elected officials want them to stay that way -- that I NOW believe ONLY term limits will save us from ourselves!
What is it about Republicans that makes them think terms limits are a good idea?
The best example of this occurred in 1947, when, in power in Congress for the first time in a generation, the GOP passed the 22nd Amendment, limiting a president to two terms. Their purpose was clear: to prevent America from electing another Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected four times and probably would have been elected to four more terms had he lived long enough.
Back in the '90s, tired of long-term Democratic control of Congress, Republicans started the chant again, but they abandoned it pretty quickly after their massive victories in the 1994 midterm elections.
In Louisville, limiting terms hasn't been the issue in the past. Rather, the problem with state and local government was the limitation of one term for mayors and governors — a situation that made them lame ducks from the moment they take their hand off the Bible on inauguration day. Here in Louisville since 1986, voters have twice embraced the notion that mayors should be able to succeed themselves. And in the early 1990s, statewide voters approved the same opportunity for governors.
Continuity in office doesn't assure progress on important issues, but in the case of Louisville, it has. Consider the airport expansion, government consolidation, the waterfront park and Fourth Street Live, and the case is made.
The latest effort to limit the mayor's terms is being pushed by (guess who?) Republicans on the Metro Council, weary, no doubt, of repeated drubbings by Jerry Abramson, who has been mayor for most of the past quarter century, before and after governments were merged. As with the post-war congressional effort, this is spite, pure and simple, but it won't hurt Jerry Abramson, who has decided not to seek a third term and will run instead for lieutenant governor.
Mind you, nobody on the council is talking about limiting his or her own terms. Just the mayor's.
We encourage the council to consider a lesson national Republicans learned after they changed the Constitution to spite FDR. In 1960, President Dwight Eisenhower almost certainly could have been easily re-elected. And in 1988, Ronald Reagan would have been a shoo-in for a third term.
Voters going to the polls on Election Day set term limits. They are the best judge of whether a person deserves a second term. Not politicians who are envious of another's success.
Editor's comment: "Voters going to the polls on Election Day set term limits. They are the best judge of whether a person deserves a second term. Not politicians who are envious of another's success."
Great point.
I used to feel the same way, but the voters are so IGNORANT -- and elected officials want them to stay that way -- that I NOW believe ONLY term limits will save us from ourselves!
Labels: News reporting
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 3:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home