Senator Dodd Should Lose
53An Argument for Congressional Term Limits
I read recently that Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut
is the “most endangered Democratic lawmaker” entering the 2010 election
cycle. Many Democratic leaders and
pundits fear that he will not be re-elected. My question is, so what's
the big deal? Of course I know that the Democratic majority does not want
to lose their 60-member filibuster-proof caucus. Regardless of that
prized possession, I say let Christopher Dodd and others like him lose
every election.
I do not know much about Senator Dodd and his accomplishments and failures, but
I do know that he has served five terms in the US Senate. That’s thirty
(30) years sitting on his high chair in the US Senate! If Senator
Dodd has not accomplished much yet, chances are he will not do much
hereafter.
My contention is simple: Why should one politician be allowed to
serve more than three (3) terms in the Senate or more than five (5) terms
in the House of Representatives?
On November 18, 2009,
Senator Byrd of West Virginia
became the longest serving lawmaker in Congressional history. That
is fine, except that he has been in Congress since 1959. Why?
That was 10 years before I was born. How can he be expected to speak
for me or people of my generation?
I have also heard that Senator McCain of Arizona,
the Republican 2008 Nominee will be seeking re-election to the Senate.
Why? He has been in Congress since 1983.
Congress is for people who do whatever it takes to ensure that
the people's business is in order. It is not for politicians to
vie for decades of position-jockeying and power-play. I am by no means saying that these men have
not done anything to better the lives of Americans. The point is, they have had enough time to
play their cards right.
One of biggest concerns is that there are too many politicians who have
been in Congress for too long and have become pillars of the Capitol,
holding onto their positions of power. The longer that Senators and
Representatives sit in their padded chairs, the more
being in Congress becomes more about them and less about the people
who send them to Congress to speak to our interests.
It is time for those who have been in Congress for over 20 years to step
aside to allow a fresh wind of ideas to flow through the Capitol and then
waft its way out to the hills and plains of America.
It is my hope that as you read this, you will not misunderstand
or misinterpret my position. I do not have anything personal
against Senators Byrd, Dodd or McCain, or against any other long
serving Congressional lawmaker. It is just my humble opinion that
there should be a limit to the number of years a politician should
be allowed to sit in Congress. Politicians lose touch with the
people and need to be replaced by those who are more closely aligned to
a particular group of people or generation. Basketball
players, football greats, golf masters all stop at a certain point when
their period of effectiveness is over.
Why then should serving in Congress be a lifetime role? It is
quite clear that many Representatives and Senators only show up to vote
and hold caucuses together.
Is it time for a revolution?
Shop Amazon
![]() | Amazon Price: $0.99 |
Amazon Price: $8.43 List Price: $15.95 | |
Amazon Price: $7.99 List Price: $15.95 | |
![]() | Amazon Price: $30.95 |
![]() | Amazon Price: $0.99 |
![]() | Amazon Price: $3.98 List Price: $8.99 |













suziecat7 Level 5 Commenter 2 years ago
It is time for a revolution but people are too apathetic. I say "dump the incumbant" and vote in new blood every time. Corruption may not have time to get its hooks in. Great Hub.