I am not an enthusiastic supporter of my progressive U.S. Senator this year

[cali]

I agree with the majority of his positions. That's not the problem. This is:

He's been a U.S. Senator for 37 years, over half of his life. That's just too long. And it's not like there aren't a slew of good potential candidates.

Yes, of course I'll vote for him. Yes, of course he'll be handily re-elected. I'm not for term limits, but 37 years is just too long, and yes, I essentially felt the same way about Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd and I think it's ridiculous that Daniel Inouye has served in the Senate for 48 years and has already announced that he'll run again in 2016 when he'll be 92.

[vt_native]

1. Yes, Pat Leahy has become fossilized and not so progressive

He is supporting the military's efforts to base the (horrifically loud) F-35 in densely populated Chittenden County Vermont.
This will greatly damage our tourist economy and quality of life, and harm housing values. He even sent a rep to a hearing on the environmental impact to sing about the economic benefits of the program, which is just another bloated, underperforming, overbudget program for another unnecessary weapon system.

[Sherman A1]

2. Perhaps we need a maximum age limit

there is already a minimum age to serve in the Senate, it may be time to institute a retirement age for all government officials, such as President, VP, Justices, Congressmen & Senators. It would not be that they could not be consulted from time to time on issues as senior statesmen or women, but getting them out of the day to day might not be the worst of ideas.

[drm604]

3. It's a decision to be made by the voters.

I don't believe in term limits or age limits. Always let the voters decide who represents them.

I personally don't set arbitrary rules like age when determining how to vote. Evaluate each individual legislature on their merits. Ted Kennedy fought for what's right until the end and if his constituents wanted to keep him there until the end then that's their right.

[cali]

5. uh, didn't I say right in the OP, I don't believe in term limits.

and you seem to have missed the gist of the op which is about these guys spending too long in Congress. Of course it's up to the constituents, but don't you think it's a bit much having 92 year olds who have been in the Senate for over 50 years, running?

I think there's a grotesque aspect to people spending upward of 30 years in the House or Senate.

[drm604]

7. Sorry, but I don't have a problem with someone spending a long time in the Senate

if their constituents like them and want to keep voting them in. There's nothing "grotesque" about it if it's what the constituents want.

You considered Kennedy's career to be grotesque? I don't even know what to say to that.

[cali]

8. it's difficult not to have contempt for people who deliberately

twist words. Now that's grotesque.

you know perfectly well I never said I thought that Kennedy's career was grotesque, dearie.

Shame on you.

[Jakes Progress]

4. There's not limit to complacency, ineptitude, or self-serving.

For some, four years is enough.

Incumbency carries advantages and disadvantages.

(Hmm. So you would have voted out Teddy? Got an agism problem?)

[cali]

6. depends who was running against him in the dem primary

and it's not about ageism, dear. It's about the length of time in the august body.

[Jakes Progress]

10. Principle be damned?

So you wouldn't have anything against a 30 year old with 40 years of experience? Handy that argument. Sort of like having nothing against a woman running for president - as long as she has a penis.

Look around at what other groups are so in favor of term limits. Like that company?

[FarCenter]

9. Senators who've been in office a long time are figureheads; their staffs are what is important

So what matters is the powers and positions that result from their seniority and how their staffs use it to influence legislation.

As long as they can be wheeled to the floor to vote, their age doesn't matter.