Dem or Repub - I'm likely to consider voting out incumbents because

they've created too many IOUs. I understand that it's likely anyone running for office will owe someone --a sad state of affairs for a Democracy if you ask me-- but long time incumbents not only owe more and more people for each election, they've also created IOUs in congress where they've agreed to trade one vote for another.

Long-term incumbents all know each other way too well and in my opinion, have been inside the beltway too long to remember what life is like for the rest of us out here. Congress has become one huge 'good ol boy' network and it's too full of fat, pasty-faced rich white men.

CREATE TERM LIMITS OURSELVES!
If congress won't pass term limits - then we the people can create them ourselves by putting in fresh faces and fresh ideas via fresh congresspeople. And every time they start to look compromised by IOUs, vote 'em out. I believe congressional turnover is the only way to provide true representatives of the people.

That is, if we ever get honest elections again.

Just one opinion.

"Vote out the incumbents!"

Most people know that the Repubs have been in control and they would suffer more from such a movement. I say, go for it!

for slogans that remind people we have the power to change congress.

In todays sound-byte world, the right slogan can make all the difference.

I like that one. It says the same thing in a more indirect way.

.. voting out the DINO Dems as well.

Just don't vote out the good ones.

Sue

so important that we win in 2k6 I'd say knock yourself out. 2k6 is too important for experimentation.

WE MUST WIN.

- or is that Senate only? I'll have to check on that.

Also - so many of Americans are fed up with Congress at this time, a big majority vowing to vote Democratic, it may be a good time to try it.

The entire House is re-elected every two years. Unfortunately, the recidivism rate is over 90%. It really is stacked for the incumbant, due to redistricking by gerrymandering. With the R's in charge in so many states the past few years, a lot of states have been stacked to support them. In fairness, that's what the Dem's did for 40 years, although I'm not so sure they were quite as brazen and crude about it. For example, in the past, redistricking only happened immediately after a census year. DeLay forced redistricking in Texas in an off year, mid-90's, not too long after it had been done following the 1990 census. It's one reason Texas is now so solidly "republican." I think they are still arguing whether or not that was legal.

a term limit for congress. Lifetime politicians worry less about their constituants and more about setting up a cozy retirement via their special interest friends.

means voting for some one other then a Dem then it's a bad idea and will do more harm then good.

eom

All I'm promoting is turning out the self-interested old timers.

and on the issue of term limits. Actually, urging the defeat of Democrats is forbidden here, whether they're long-term incumbents or not. Where you see "fat, pasty-faced rich white men", I see John Lewis, John Conyers, Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, Jim McDermott, John Murtha, Tom Lantos, Henry Waxman, David Obey, Ike Skelton and Soloman Ortiz-just to name a few. Who among them would you like to see lose, and which Republican would you like to take their places?

Mandatory term limits is not my personal idea of democracy. People should have the right to re-elect a member for as long as he or she has majority support. Oppose them, run against them, write LTTEs condemning them, but don't take away my right to vote for the candidate of my choice by limiting the number of terms they can serve.

Likewise, just my opinion...

when compared to the total headcount. If congress represents us, then watching cspan would have the world believe our country is 90% white and wealthy. It's not.

Against term limits? Even the president has a term limit. It's not as if there aren't other good public servants waiting in the wings. Of course, unless campaign reform comes along with term limits, we'll still get only the 'best connected' candidates.

Really. The system just isn't working anymore.

people of color. Other than law-breakers such as Rep William Jefferson, I want to see every last Democrat running for re-election to the house win. That, plus 15 new seats, will give us back control of the house-which is what I, personally, would like to see. Defeating good Democrats because they've been in office a number of years is not a practical way to achieve that goal.

The presidential 2 term limit was totally voluntary until post-FDR. The founders had no such intentions and I'm really sorry that later congresses over-ruled them. Otherwise, we'd likely be two years into Bill Clinton's 4th term.

If we had term limits, Robert Byrd would have been forced into retirement in 1970 and Ted Kennedy in 1974. Sorry, I just don't buy into term-limits. That's what the vote is for-we have the power to force them to be "limited" if 50% of the district chooses to use it.

I'm not happy with the system either, but my solution would involve public financing of elections, not term limits.

:)

Then the only ones who understand about writing legislation will be the lobbyists.

You're seriously suggesting I vote for the Republican over Pete DeFazio???

just to send 'em a message, huh? Sorry, I don't buy the OP's reasoning at all.

Why should I vote against a Democrat who supported Bill Clinton to put in a Republican?

if you're thinking of voting out your incumbent Dem, you should probably be at freeperville.com instead of Democratic Underground.

From the rules:

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.