I'm sorry my friend, but I utterly and completely disagree with your take on term limits.

It is an error to build in a mindless auto-pilot mechanism that automatically removes a decent legislator, and makes them ineligible to seek re-election. By all means, if you find yourself with a crummy legislator, then organize a challenger. Primary their ass.

1) Characterizing term-limits as "automating government" is a huge and erroneous over-reach--at best.

2) It would be nice if the majority of people were able, willing, or financially/time-constraint capable of organizing their own primary challenger every time they felt it necessary to remove a bad incumbent. Unfortunately, that is not reality-based, as such an effort is so cumbersome as to make the idea nearly unrealistic.

3) If Establishing term-limits is such a bad thing, why do they exist for the highest office in the land, as well as most governorships, and many state and local offices? Has our government ground to a halt, stopped producing good legislation, or become insanely corrupt solely because of the term limits already in place? I think it's easy to argue "no."

4) The fact of the matter is, as Glenn himself points out time after time after time, the number of craven, corrupt, and "anti-representative" members of Congress FAR outnumber those like Feingold and Paul. So that itself argues quite strongly against your point.

5) I also think it can be persuasively argued that the original founders' intent was NOT to make public office a lifetime career, but rather to serve the peoples' interests until your original goals were met, and then return to civilian life.

Term limits is nothing more than a lame attempt to automate government. We're too tired, we're too busy, we're too broke, we're too something, and we'd really like to find a tool by which to relieve us of having to keep an eye on our legislators.

I could not disagree more. Aside from your obvious overreach, the system has been pervertedly altered over the last 100 years in order to create and maintain an insider, insulated, old-boy network that protects its own. Outside commissions, ethics committees, and oversight groups are virtually excluded from the process, and third parties are vehemently fought against and all but legislated out of existence from becoming any kind of mainstream choice for a disaffected citizenry. The processes for instituting any meaningful opposition are so ornery and needlessly cumbersome, that the effect is to discourage participation from the system in anything more than a "trickle in" manner. If you need proof, just ask Ron Paul about his run-in with the Missouri Republican Party and his attempts to have his delegates particpate in a meaningful way at the state convention.

Of all the auxiliary lessons I learned from FISA, it's hard enough to get a good legislator, and train them to keep looking over their shoulder to their constituents. Why, then, if you have one that's decent and trained, would you want to automatically have them removed because of a time limit?

And just as easily from FISA, it could be learned that entrenched incumbents who want nothing more than to keep their seats and their power, will cover-up, obfuscate, and outright lie in order to pass legislation which is anathema to what the citizens want and deserve. In fact, this is FAR AND AWAY more often the case than it is not, and term limits would definitely limit the ability that corrupt power-mongers seeking to legislate us into bankruptcy or war have over the direction of this country over the long-term.

Also, one of the biggest problems with lack of term limits is the money involved. To most Congressmen and women, it is ALL about raising money for re-election. They spend HUGE sums of time and money to create warchests designed to crush any opponent who gets in their way. How much good legislation goes unthought of, unwritten, and unapproved because of the amount of time spent raising ever more dollars to get re-elected?

Where's the incentive for the legislator to respond to their constituents as opposed to making the kinds of friends that will help them keep their nest feathered and fluffy? Where's the incentive for citizens to establish a connection with their legislators if they're automatically gone in some arbitrary time period?

I would argue that they still have to be re-elected every 2 or 4 years (maybe an 8-year limit might work better, who knows). Or perhaps they go through what many judges do in that they are on the ballot to be "renewed" for another 2 or 4 years, and if voters want them out, a new election is held. The point being, there are still plenty of ways to keep term-limited legislators accountable. It is NOT an all-or-nothing proposition as you seem to believe.

As for "establishing a connection," this is simply a false dilemma argument all the way. First, most citizens don't even know who their legislator is, or how to get in touch with them. Second, there are these great tools now like the internet that legislators have become quite good at using in order to keep their constituents informed and to allow legislators to be contacted. Not to mention those tried and true things known as phones and letters with stamps on them.

In short, your argument is weak re: the straw man "automation of gov't via term limits" as well as it does nothing to address the stage 4 cancer of corruption that has all but shut down any kind of meaningful and helpful legislation and representation.

Term limits.

Comprehensive Lobby Reform.

Comprehensive Finance Reform.

The only things that will actually make the gov't work again for its original, intended purpose.

Representatives from KFC and the makers of Kool-Aid ought to be suing this group of clowns for illegal use of their logos, trademarks, etc.