The only reason there are term limits on the President is because of a Constitutional Amendment restricting the most beloved President in US history, FDR, from running for a fourth term because big business did not like him. I think, if a President is doing a good job, let him keep doing it.

then why the fuck run for the job? The way i see it the lobbying and special interest groups are far more influential when they can guarantee on having a guy who will vote their way consistently. When you have a fresh guy in every 4 years its alot harder to manipulate the game. You have guys in there on their 11th + term recieving millions from special interest groups and voting against public will. We need to keep things fresh. I would argue that there are far more congressmen not voting the way their people want them to than there are ones who vote the right way. If you keep people cylcled out you have people from a generation representing people who are part of the same generation. Not 80 year old fucks who are super christian anti-gay bigots claiming to represent liberal minded pro-lgbt 20 year olds.

You take the job because you want to represent your constituents, but that does not change the fact that elected officials/public servants cycle out, whilst lobbyists remain over the course of many cycles, and keep the memory of the chamber, which empowers them, in practice.

If you think lobbyists are powerful now, imagine how powerful they would be if they could offer people guaranteed employment in certain industries when they cycle out of office, if they played their game. Or if lobbyists continually "cycled-in" their guys.

I know, I know. If feels good to cycle other people's representatives out when we don't like them, but their constituencies apparently like them. My point is, it has proven to be MUCH easier to manipulate a legislative chamber when that chamber's memory is kept by lobbyists, and not public servants. You can THEORETICALLY say, "I think this will happen," but in practice, when it has been tried, it worked the way I have described. The downside of our democratic-republic is that it moves slow; that's just what we have to deal with. These people will get voted out, if their constituents do not think they are representing their interests. Unfortunately, not all people in all parts of the country agree with your views.

In theory, your idea is very emotionally pleasing, I must admit, but history and facts have proven that it does not benefit the people that the government serves, and it only serves to empower lobbyists. Why do you think California sends more water to LA and its manufacturing/tourism/entertainment base (all of which are a huge part of the economy with powerful lobbys), and bypass the farmers in the central valley that supply the entire country with food (more than any other state, and the next two combined, but only accounts for 2% of the State's GDP)? Lobbying is very powerful in California since we imposed term limits. We can ignore history, and "try it again" in the major leagues, but I think it's a bad idea because it has never worked out well when tried.

If you think that what I described would not happen in Washington, while Citizens United is law of the land, you're probably wrong. Money is already speech, and term limits will just make everything worse. There's a reason why Glen Beck in convincing his listeners that term limits are a good idea.