Republicans — do the right thing — term limit Grassley

What is Grassley’s gambit — so determined to hold onto office for likely his forever.

Is it to be the longest serving of some sort?
Here is where Grassley stands at that: see here and here.
A rivalry with certain colleagues?
Time and timeliness to prepare the main family business – politics?
Susceptibility to flattery from staff and hangers-on (lobbyists) who want to maintain power and influence associated with a seniority based system

Readers are aware we believe in term limits. Particularly at the federal level — the further away the service, the more the need. The body politic needs such a rule because as it stands now incumbency is so overwhelming and as such breeds corruption if not in the elected and reelected officials, in the way things are done in Washington.

The country realized that and applied its concerns as regards the presidency through the 22nd Amendment. But the scope of it is limited to the presidency and we suspect jealousy got the matter through the Congress and to the people . . . but heaven forbid they would include themselves even though the same concerns ought to apply.

Washington based power is intoxicating, indeed so much so it will even cause people to fly back to Iowa once a week or a month, whatever — the politics of insuring their actual residency in Washington. Such is the sacrifice of some members of the political class. That town causes otherwise sensible people to believe they are indispensable or something. It is in the water.

Few are immune enough to retire at the top of their game. (or maybe laying the groundwork for most favorable conditions for a dynasty takes more time in individual circumstances).

For G*d sakes, in this or any state either other people with similar or more astute philosophy of government can do the job or the addicted politician in his many years of service has done little (successfully) to improve or stabilize the political lot . . . to strengthen the bench. Some might scoff – what politician ever seeks to strengthen the bench! It is a fair scoff — but one that points to why term limits never seem to happen.

We understand that there are objections to term limits but also that they are answered effectively by the organization US Term Limits. Term limits are as appropriate (in different ways) as minimum age and residency requirements. Those are traditional most everywhere in the U.S. and term limits are becoming traditional as regards state office. They are even more important at the federal level. It is elitist or rather pathetic and not conservative to oppose them.

The usual rejoinder to calls for term limits is that elections are term limit decisions . . . that there ought to be the freedom to call on anyone to represent you. Sounds rather fundamental so one would think the RINOs and elements of Libertarians who parrot those views would be calling for repeal of the 22nd Amendment and the fundamental right to vote for the 16 year-old genius they are aware of . . . wherever they might live.

OK so I hold to advocating for term limits but at least as strongly I hold to the view that Democrats in spite of convenient noise they make to decry long serving Republicans, Democrats would be the least likely to implement them. They are even more captured by the bureaucracies, ideological and otherwise in DC that oppose them because those bureaucracies have more control and seniority without term limits. No shaking up their applecart.

And when a Republican is up against a Democrat whatever the stated positions on term limits, well the positions and ideologies of Democrat party are so harmful, so evil in some areas that combined with their untrustworthiness I still opt for the Republican, and so it will be after today. To be sure the entrenched political class from our party counts on that — which is why the primary is the place to implement them.

And so for such reason among others I support Carlin over Chuck Grassley in the primary. Carlin is at least as conservative, give and take, as Grassley (it is silly to think a big government conservative like Grassley is pure ideologically). And Grassley has exhibited some serious affronts to conservatism and has unnecessarily given legitimacy to the economic and cultural debacle we are experiencing under the Biden residency. Below are some links to articles that are supportive of Carlin / critical of Grassley. They should be widely considered.

Grassley says we should have equal interest in the border with Mexico and between Ukraine and Russia (pardon me but this documented statement by Grassley does not even seem sentient)

Said Grassley: “I’m saying I would not—we’re not going to repeal the Affordable Care Act.”

Grassley is for Sale: Which Means So Are You.

Deace: It’s time for Charles Grassley to go. Vote Jim Carlin for U.S. Senate.

The following are articles here at V’PAC that sort off chronicle problems with Grassley of late