Term Limits Are On The Ballot
Fullerton voters will soon be deciding if they’ve had enough of the jurassic councilmen Don Bankhead and Dick Jones. Sharon Quirk-Silva has championed Measure M, which puts the enactment of term limits up to voters.
Term limits are a practical countermeasure against the momentum of dimly lit incumbencies and perpetual perpetrators of barely-passable mediocrity.
In other words, Bankhead and Jones have been on this boat for far too long. We’ve shown you video after video of incoherent ramblings, procedural blunders and pharma-induced outbursts as these two men bask in the early stages of senility. Decades on the dais have made them callous to the concerns of Fullerton residents, proven by their constant bullying and dismissiveness during public meetings. And while we’re watching this sideshow, they have been cluelessly steering our city directly into boondoggle after boondoggle, at our expense.
15 Replies to “Term Limits Are On The Ballot”
Bu bbbbb but they’re my bosses and without them I won’t be able to keep my empire alive!!!
Well, there is always Doug Chaffee and Marty Burbank. Surely they support my efforts to rid the barrio of blight.
“bask in the early stages of senility”
You’re being too kind.
Term limits are not always a good thing. Sometimes limits end up forcing people out that are doing an excelent job. Like throwing the baby out with the bath water. There is no substitute for an informed electorate doing their job and voting out the dead wood.
“Like throwing the baby out with the bath water”
The semi-senile HeeHaw’s favorite saying!
“Sometimes limits end up forcing people out that are doing an excelent job. Like throwing the baby out with the bath water.”
Maybe. But looking back at Fullerton history I find no such baby has ever existed. Let’s drain the tub.
Vote No on Term Limits.
If you do not like the bums…get off of your ass and take back your government.
That’s what we’re doing – taking it back by plebescite. Don’t worry, you’ll get used to the idea and it won’t scare you so much.
With money corrupting the system term limits are a reasonable way to fight back against the power of incumbency.
$ is corrupting local offices worse than anyone would have imagine.
Getting up the gumption to participate and become-stay informed of government at any-every level is a difficult burden of citizenship.
Once an individual clears that hurdle, actually becoming involved in civic debate and persuasion is an additional and bigger burden.
Gathering support and then running for election is a huge step (for the civic minded individual, as oppossed to the government employees union hacks who percolate up from police departments and teachers unions).
So, once elected, the then-incumbent gets an advantage, but nothing more.
If problems emerge and challengers can articulate or demonstrate better solutions our existing election system works quite well to remove and replace incumbents.
The term limits “solution” does more to create a permanent political “career path” for the “professional” type of candidate, and thus removes the “part time” type of legislator-candidate which I think that our Founders invested with the greatest POWER in our system of government (i.e. the House of Representatives).
I like and prefer the supposed amateur political candidates and office holders, rather than the “professional” career oriented types. The latter (professional) types would seem to look at each public office as merely a stepping stone or resume’ line, rather than as a potential continuing source of local prestige and opportunity for community service, which our (perhaps) less that slick long time serving local politicians probably endeavor to provide.
If the supposed “know-nothing” “amateur” “hack” is so inept, then he or she should be easy to displace. Other than the government employees’ union-financed candidates, I don’t think it is so easy to run for and win an election.
I think everything about government service should be difficult except for reducing government spending and cutting taxes. So, I intend to work hard to help elect individuals who focus on those issues of reducing government intrusion in our lives and families and thus increasing our individual freedom.
So Rain, how do you account for Blankhead’s 22 year reign of error? Not to mention Jones. How’s that system workin’ for ya?
Limiting who I can vote for is undemocratic. The problem is that schools teach us that whatever we do does not make any difference anyway.
There are limitations built right into the Constitution on who we can vote for President. Are those undemocratic?
Barney Wewak thinks so.