note to conrad burns

[Hell's Bells]

mr burns;

i am a big supporter of you. however when we take a look at congress several items are relivent

1) one needs a large amount of cash in order to run an effective campaign
2) whenever point 1 is there there will be people who are willing to pay cash for favors

I remember a long time ago when you first ran for congress that you would only make it two terms then you would be done. Why are you still running for a 4th term? like the power in washington?
I think you should

1)not run for a 4th term and save some face in this abramhoff scandal
2)start promoting term limits for every state...that way there would be less abramhoffs running around

[SonomaCat]

I personally am not in favor of term limits. If a guy is doing a good job, keep them in office. If they have outstayed their welcome, then vote them out.

I would add that preventing gerrymandering to guarantee re-election would be a nice change, however.

[Hell's Bells]

I personally am not in favor of term limits. If a guy is doing a good job, keep them in office. If they have outstayed their welcome, then vote them out.

I would add that preventing gerrymandering to guarantee re-election would be a nice change, however.

Which is what term limits would do to an extent

so instead of having career congresspeople sitting in congress we will now have more career teachers/lawyers....well you get what i am trying to say

[Grizlaw]

Which is what term limits would do to an extent

so instead of having career congresspeople sitting in congress we will now have more career teachers/lawyers....well you get what i am trying to say

And as I'm sure everyone here agrees, anything that results in there being more lawyers has to be a good thing...right?

On a more serious note, I hear what you're saying about having fewer career politicians. I think part of the problem, though, is that our society has become complex enough that we need a certain number of people in office who have been there long enough to know how to get things done. Power can lead to corruption, and we do need to reign that in somehow, but I also am not sure term limits are the answer.

[Hell's Bells]

Which is what term limits would do to an extent

so instead of having career congresspeople sitting in congress we will now have more career teachers/lawyers....well you get what i am trying to say

And as I'm sure everyone here agrees, anything that results in there being more lawyers has to be a good thing...right?

On a more serious note, I hear what you're saying about having fewer career politicians. I think part of the problem, though, is that our society has become complex enough that we need a certain number of people in office who have been there long enough to know how to get things done. Power can lead to corruption, and we do need to reign that in somehow, but I also am not sure term limits are the answer.

so we can have more people that would much rather hold hearings on steriod use in major league baseball instead of supenaing drug tesiting records of the athletes and arresting anyone who tested posative......

honestly i belive that if we make the terms temporary instead of giving them the chance to run again and again we will take the career out of it and instead we will begin to have a sembelance of sanity in congress

we dont need the kennedys of the world who have absolutely no use in congress now other then to bloviate embarassingly over somthing HE IS A PART OF while there is probibly sombody is Mass that can do a better job but cant because of no term limits.

One thing we will have to admit to is the fact that they are in office is an advantage to itself. they can say "hey, i have all this experience on capital hill brining in jobs and money to the state" like burns is saying, instead of debating over how effective they have been representing the interest of montana...

[SonomaCat]

Well, if one of your anecdotal assertions is that term limits would somehow lead to mass arrests of steroid users, then I am definitely against term limits. I'm pretty sure that I don't want more people locked up for victimless crimes.

Although I'm not sure that term limits have any bearing on that issue.

[Hell's Bells]

Well, if one of your anecdotal assertions is that term limits would somehow lead to mass arrests of steroid users, then I am definitely against term limits. I'm pretty sure that I don't want more people locked up for victimless crimes.

Although I'm not sure that term limits have any bearing on that issue.

i was just using that as an example, sterroids are against the law and users therfore should be punished

[SonomaCat]

Just to go all the way down the rat hole on the thread ... do you also feel as vigilantly about the government going to extraordinary means (issuing subpeonas to access confidential medical test results) to prosecute the use of prescription drugs without a proper prescription when it relates to talk show hosts ... or is your passion for this limited to jocks?

[Hell's Bells]

Just to go all the way down the rat hole on the thread ... do you also feel as vigilantly about the government going to extraordinary means (issuing subpeonas to access confidential medical test results) to prosecute the use of prescription drugs without a proper prescription when it relates to talk show hosts ... or is your passion for this limited to jocks?

it depends

if the results of the said drug test get you fined/suspended from doing whatever you are doing *example...being a teacher* then they are of public record i belive *GL??*

if they are just doctor visits then they are private and therefore confidental

[SonomaCat]

They are not part of the pubic record. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to ask for them -- we'd already have access to the information and wouldn't need a subpeona.

As long as you are calling for Rush to be locked up along with any steroid users that are caught in this dream dragnet scenario, then I will give you credit for being consistent.

To me, it is all victimless crime, and should be dealt with through treatment (Rush) or through job-related penalties (baseball suspension, firing of teachers, etc.) at the private sector level. To prosecute people of crimes for this behavior (unless it leads to a subsequent real crime against someone else) is a waste of our country's resources.

[BWahlberg]

I personally am not in favor of term limits. If a guy is doing a good job, keep them in office. If they have outstayed their welcome, then vote them out.

I would add that preventing gerrymandering to guarantee re-election would be a nice change, however.

Yeah Bill Clinton would still be pres!

hahaha, just trying to get a rise out of you guys.

Hells, you're making a bold statement, but I think I might see where you're coming from. I'm surprised there isn't more concern from Montana Republicans that if Burns runs again the whole scandal thing will let the Dems gain an extra seat in the house.

As a Democrat I'm torn. Burns is the model republican, scandal aside. With this whole storm in DC around Abarmoff, I see it as a window to get Conrad voted out, so along those lines I want him to run again b/c it may allow Montanans to vote him out. On the other hand, he's Conrad Burns, most Republicans in Montana would vote for him regardless of any scandal if he was the only Republican choice, which very well could get him back to DC.

[Bleedinbluengold]

I'm sure Rehberg could run and win if Burns decided to "devote more time to his family."

[BWahlberg]

I'm sure Rehberg could run and win if Burns decided to "devote more time to his family."

That I could see happening (although I don't want it to )

[Hell's Bells]

They are not part of the pubic record. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to ask for them -- we'd already have access to the information and wouldn't need a subpeona.

As long as you are calling for Rush to be locked up along with any steroid users that are caught in this dream dragnet scenario, then I will give you credit for being consistent.

To me, it is all victimless crime, and should be dealt with through treatment (Rush) or through job-related penalties (baseball suspension, firing of teachers, etc.) at the private sector level. To prosecute people of crimes for this behavior (unless it leads to a subsequent real crime against someone else) is a waste of our country's resources.

i see where you are coming from

[Hell's Bells]

I personally am not in favor of term limits. If a guy is doing a good job, keep them in office. If they have outstayed their welcome, then vote them out.

I would add that preventing gerrymandering to guarantee re-election would be a nice change, however.

Yeah Bill Clinton would still be pres!

hahaha, just trying to get a rise out of you guys.

Hells, you're making a bold statement, but I think I might see where you're coming from. I'm surprised there isn't more concern from Montana Republicans that if Burns runs again the whole scandal thing will let the Dems gain an extra seat in the house.

As a Democrat I'm torn. Burns is the model republican, scandal aside. With this whole storm in DC around Abarmoff, I see it as a window to get Conrad voted out, so along those lines I want him to run again b/c it may allow Montanans to vote him out. On the other hand, he's Conrad Burns, most Republicans in Montana would vote for him regardless of any scandal if he was the only Republican choice, which very well could get him back to DC.

i think it is more of the "he is the incumbant so i wont run against him during the primaries because there is still plenty of people who like him and he will kick my ass" type of mentalty. as a republican about the only thing that is disappointing me is the type of press that his opponents are getting...seems to be along the lines of "since senitor conrad burns was cought picking his nose i wont because it makes me look bad"...no origional ideas whatsoever

[GOKATS]

I am not in favor of term limits, particluarly for legislative bodies.

At the national level, the only way a congressman from a state such as Montana achieves any 'semblance of "clout" is thru longevity, resulting in seniority in committee assignments, leadership positions, etc.

I particlularly dislike term limits for legislators at the state level. I have chaired the Legislation Comm. for our state professional society since 1985 and I, and our full time lobbyist, spend a great deal of time on legislative matters of concern to our profession. In my opinion the worst thing to happen to the Montana Legislature is term limits.

The qualifications to run for legislature are so minimal that virtually anyone can be elected if they spend enough time and energy to win the vote of the people. The legislative process itself is not that difficult to understand, however the ability to strive for good, productive legislation requires a history and background knowledge that can only be realized thru experience in the legislative process.

In days past there was always an "old guard" in both houses of the Montana legislature that had the historic and legislative background to provide the leadership required to draft good legislation and quickly quash legislation of little or no merit. Since term limits went into effect, each session is much more of a loose cannon consisting of new faces with no knowledge of taxation, appropriation, or any of the hundreds of other types of legislation they will be deciding on. By the time an individual acquires the knowledge to be effective, they are term limited out and a new bunch of rookies comes in.

There is simply no way that these inexperienced legislators are going to be able to make rational educated decisions on the 2,000 or so bills they will face in a ninety day session every other year.

[bozbobcat]

Montana has been well served by senators and representatives that aren't limited to terms. Imagine what Montana would have been like if Mike Mansfield was limited to two terms? For the U.S. Senate and U.S. House, a lack of term limits is better than having term limits in most cases. The president's office is fine with 2 terms as the limit. As far as Conrad Burns goes, the guy is not looking too great as of right now, IMO. It's up to the voters to put term limits on poor politicians by electing another person.

As far as the Montana legislature goes, the term limits are a mixed deal at best. The new blood that comes in with each session can create some good things, but 8 years is not a lot of time to learn the ropes. The way that the limits are set up (no more than 8 years served in 1 house over a 16 year period, can serve in both houses, however) doesn't quite eliminate the career politicians either. They just switch houses every 8 years, which is legal. So in a way, the old cronyism is still there. I don't mind term limits on the governor and other state officials. I think Montana will miss Linda McCullough, the state superintendent of schools, when her term is up. It's an interesting discussion, and I wanted to add my two cents. But I ended up giving you about tree fiddy. ($3.50: it's from a South Park episode)

[Ponycat]

I am not in favor of term limits, particluarly for legislative bodies.

At the national level, the only way a congressman from a state such as Montana achieves any 'semblance of "clout" is thru longevity, resulting in seniority in committee assignments, leadership positions, etc.

I particlularly dislike term limits for legislators at the state level. I have chaired the Legislation Comm. for our state professional society since 1985 and I, and our full time lobbyist, spend a great deal of time on legislative matters of concern to our profession. In my opinion the worst thing to happen to the Montana Legislature is term limits.

The qualifications to run for legislature are so minimal that virtually anyone can be elected if they spend enough time and energy to win the vote of the people. The legislative process itself is not that difficult to understand, however the ability to strive for good, productive legislation requires a history and background knowledge that can only be realized thru experience in the legislative process.

In days past there was always an "old guard" in both houses of the Montana legislature that had the historic and legislative background to provide the leadership required to draft good legislation and quickly quash legislation of little or no merit. Since term limits went into effect, each session is much more of a loose cannon consisting of new faces with no knowledge of taxation, appropriation, or any of the hundreds of other types of legislation they will be deciding on. By the time an individual acquires the knowledge to be effective, they are term limited out and a new bunch of rookies comes in.

There is simply no way that these inexperienced legislators are going to be able to make rational educated decisions on the 2,000 or so bills they will face in a ninety day session every other year.

Good posting. With term limits lobbyists have even more power.