I favor a 12 year term limit for ALL Federal Government positions--12 years in the same job. That inclues Congress, federal judges at all levels, the FBI director, the Secretary of Defense--all means all (except President, where I think 8 years is enough for the power of that position). Yes, it will take a Constitutional Amendment, but I have never even seen anyone TRY to argue the merits of this position. That is because it can't be done. "Power corrupts', and absolute power corrupts absolutely." We all know that, and there is not even any disagreement. So people "oppose" term limits by simply ignoring the issue, as some sort of "social taboo" designed to keep worthy people from building the power empires they deserve (or staying as Supreme court Justices or Senators until they die at age 95 or 100).
The reason I bring this up again is that I am starting to hear REPUBLICANS again start to push this issue. Problem: The REPUBLICAN PARTY (as on illegal immigration, "global warming", homosexual marriage, affirmative action--"reverse discrimination"--and so many other things, including government spending and expansion of government) cannot push this issue without exposing itself as almost as big a bunch of hypocrites as most leftists.
Yes, I am cursed with a good memory, and a belief that it is more important to be honest in my beliefs and political allegiances than to shift with the political winds. That means that I remember that "term limits" (for Congress anyway) were part of the "Contract with Ammerica" upon which Republicans won Congress in 1994. They promptly exposed themselves as hypocrites then by abandoning the idea as nothing but political expediency once they got in power. "Now that WE are in power, and the corrupt, entrenched Democrats are out, it would betray our principles to make good people leave." Even Rush Limbuagh (wrong again) went along with the idea that the whole purpose of "term limits" was to throw Democrats out, and not to prevent the corruption of power held for too long. Republicans, of course, promptly showed they were just as subject to corruption as Democrats, and were punished for that in 2006 and 2008--as they abandoned principle for power in many more areas than term limits.
Now Republicans are starting to make noises again about the corruption of power, and the need for term limits. Sorry. Won't wash a second time. Republicans are NOT going to be able to ride this horse to victory a second time.
As I state above, term limits are a great idea--an idea so good that no one even tries to argue the point (Republicans did not once they got power--they just adopted the attitude that no one should throw out good people once they are in, to the extent they could not get away with ignoring the issue altogether).
But neither political party has any credibility no this issue now. That means the only way to get term limits is for the PUBLIC to demand them (by voting out people in there too long, and DEMANDING that such limits be passed by people already in office).
A "promise" by the Republican Party on the issue now means absolutely nothing, and voters will rightly consider such a promise for what it is worth.
P.S.: I am perfectly aware that Republicans only promised a VOTE on term limits in the "Contract with America", and that they held that vote. Doesn't matter. Republicans failed utterly to push the issue once they were in power, and several betrayed specific promises to honor term limits themselves. The above entry is dead on right. Republicans will merely appear as hypocrites of the most cynical sort to push term limits as a political issue now that they are back out of power. Sure, Republicans running for office should support term limits, because that is the RIGHT policy, but they should not expect to WIN on the issue until they ACT to enact the principle as the policy of our country.