Unfortunately not. The corruption in both parties is born of the actual parties themselves, as opposed to the individuals in them.

So long as the Democratic Party can do what it likes and not get voted out, term limits will make no different. They will just mean you have one guy in for ten years, to be replaced by pretty much the same guy in a different skin ten years later.

The same applies to the Republicans.

The hold your nose voter is the second greatest enemy of democracy in the world. The greatest is the guy who doesn't vote.

What you need is to get everyone voting for the party they actually want in power, not the party which they feel that they have to vote for otherwise the Republicans or Democrats will win.

The fact that Bush hasn't been impeached says worlds about Democrats. Keystone Cops is about it for all of them.

Funny how when Sandy Berger was responsible for evidence going missing, the DoJ was onto it in moment. And needless to say, the rightwing hoardes were baying for blood.

For a sampling of slime:

http://michellemalkin.com/2004/07/19/sandy-bergler/

And helpfully she links to other occasions when Clintonites were linked to stuff going missing. No doubt we can look forward to exponentially more outrage that the gubmint "lost" evidence this time relevant to the prosecution of terrorists.

Not to mention that under Bill Clinton, what Silenced just brilliantly described as the US "state religion",that single most freedom destroying policy in the US, the War On (some) Drugs, greatly expanded.

I never inhaled indeed.

this requires Democrats to grow a pair. divadab

When oh when are we going to see the Democrats enforce some accountability?

-- Caligula would have blushed

Democrats would have to hold themselves accountable for their own part in this.

For example, what is Biden doing - he who led those disgraceful Sen hearings on Iraq in 2002, then authorized the invasion - blathering about how he would move to impeach if Iran is attacked?

Why isn't he back in DC holding hearings on the latest outrage re- the NIE and all the lies about that, among other things? Wouldn't Iowa/NH voters and the rest of us respect him more if he did that?

I fear you may be right, but I really want to believe in the process.

Maybe it's really always been this way, but we are at the point where someone doing the decent and honorable thing (filibustering Telecom amnesty) is a great and noble deed. And it is, relatively, but sheesh. Can it really be so difficult to do the right thing?

More parties would be a boon to the system. And not just these 3% vote getting parties, but to be in a situation where you have a serious block of people that must be compromised with, otherwise no legislation will pass.

It seems to me like we are very much indoctrinated into an either/or mentality, Republican or Democrat, with us or against us, etc. The person running for office most likely to be associated with principles of a fairly distinct party affiliation, Ron Paul, is still labelled as a Republican, and not a Libertarian. Why not? Kucinich is still called a Democrat, but wouldn't he likely fit a little bit better with a more liberal party than the Democrats (in their current incarnation)?

And so I get where you are coming from, but I think that divorcing oneself completely from the system is absolutely the wrong way to go. There is too much power lost if one goes that route, and I do believe that the system still has life in it, and can be set right. Adherence to the rule of law is a party-less principle.

What if there was a way for voters to signal that they (or a majority, at least) didn't like anyone that was running? Then, the public could stay invested in the process, but fairly loudly proclaim that none of the candidates presented for inspection pass. If, for example, a majority of voters voted for "We need new candidates", the option would always exist to send a pretty clear message to the institutions that something is broken, and needs to be fixed before things can go forward. Imagine a vote of no confidence, but applied to the primary process. Extremely fractious, but hoo-ya, talk about power to the people.

Just a thought.

Remember when Harry Reid shut down the Senate in an attempt to force Pat Roberts, then chair of the intelligence committee to finish part 2 of the investigation into the intelligence failures around the invasion of Iraq (part 2 was supposed to report on misuse of intelligence by the WH in making the case for war)? (See http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Reid_takes_Senate_into_closed_session_1101.html) Well, Roberts more or less agreed to finish up the report but that didn't happen. Now that Rockefeller is chairman of the committee, I wonder how the report is coming. One doesn't hear much about it. Perhaps Harry should close down the Senate again to try to force Rockefeller to finish the report.

Rockefeller has gotten his opprobrium the old-fashioned way — he earned it.

Now that Rockefeller is chairman of the committee, I wonder how the report is coming. One doesn't hear much about it. -- Frankly, my dear, ...

I've been wondering the same thing. Who's going to hold accountable those who are supposed to hold the Bush Adm accountable? We're so screwed.

initiating a censure process?

Can any member of congress bring up a censure motion? Wouldn't a motion to censure Rockefeller and Harmon for the very offenses you list force them to publicly defend their actions?

when people say they wish we had a three party system, i say "hell, i wish we had a TWO party system!"

*thank you* for making the point that these Democratic enablers are complicit in the crimes of the Bush™ Administration.

To Paraphrase Roseanne:

We are so far beyond screwed that the light from screwed won't reach us for ten billion years.