John McCain’s Incoherent Questioning Of James Comey Shows Why We Need Term Limits

Does America really need a permanent ruling class of career politicians?  According to Real Clear Politics, right now Congress has an average approval rating of just 18.8 percent.  It is an institution that is dominated by politicians that are able to keep winning elections over and over again because they are extremely good at raising money.  And our permanent ruling class of politicians has learned that it greatly pays to pander to the special interests and the wealthy donors that are able to inject large amounts of cash into their campaigns.  This incestuous system produces many incumbents that are almost unbeatable, and the result is that some of these Congress critters end up staying in Washington much, much longer than they should.

On Thursday, we witnessed a perfect example of this.  Senator John McCain’s incoherent questioning of James Comey got so much attention on social media that USA Today did a whole story about it

The Arizona Republican spent most of his allotted time for questioning Comey to ask about the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of State. But his questioning wasn’t exactly coming out in the most coherent manner.

“So she was clearly involved in this whole situation where, fake news — as you just described it, is a big deal — took place,” McCain said, referring to Clinton. “You’re going to have to help me out here. In other words, we’re complete, the investigation of anything former Secretary Clinton had to do with the campaign is over, and we don’t have to worry about it anymore?”

Comey replied, “I’m a little confused, senator.”

I would have been confused too.

No matter what you may think of McCain, it is clear that his ability to think clearly has gone way downhill.  In the aftermath of the hearing, McCain released a statement in which he blamed his incoherence on staying up late to watch baseball games…

“I get the sense from Twitter that my line of questioning today went over people’s heads. Maybe going forward, I shouldn’t stay up late watching the Diamondbacks night games.”

Of course there are many Democrats that are in the exact same boat.  For some reason, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has a really hard time remembering Donald Trump’s name

For at least the third time, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi referred to the current president as George W. Bush.

Talking about her battles with Republicans over abortion, Pelosi said, “For decades I’ve served in Congress and for decades I’ve had to fight the Republicans’ opposition to birth control, contraception and family planning.

“They do not believe in it,” Pelosi declared at The Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. “And a lot of those people voted for George— for, what’s his name?” she asked, apparently struggling to remember President Trump’s name.

And just recently, Pelosi could barely get through a 7 minute speech to Refugees International

She botched country names as she read them from her notes.

“With the specter of famine looming in, over northeast Nigeria, Somalia, south “Sudon,” and “Yuma — Yamen,” she said, flubbing “Yemen.”

Pelosi asserted cutting the foreign aid budget would “only deepen the crisis fighting — facing the children.”

“Children, America, children need America to be their champion,” she said moments later.

Pelosi thanked Refugees International for “channeling — challenging us to honor our values.”

Just over 7 minutes after she started, Pelosi thanked the group for the invitation, stood and stared awkwardly, then made her way off the stage.

We end up with politicians like this because the system makes it nearly impossible to conduct successful primary challenges against incumbents.  And once the general election comes, most areas of the country lean so far in one direction or the other that the candidate from the other party doesn’t stand a chance.

And to ensure that their “political careers” keep going, most members of Congress never stop raising money for their next campaigns.  In his new book entitled “Giant Of The Senate”, Senator Al Franken admits that he often spends several hours a day on the phone raising money…

“It’s not uncommon to have three straight hours of call time scheduled as part of your day. … It’s brutal.”

This is why I am proposing that we limit all members of the House and all members of the Senate to just one term.  If there were no re-election campaigns to raise money for, perhaps they could spend their time doing the jobs that we elected them to do in the first place.

This would be one of the fastest ways that we could clean up Washington.  Special interests and big donors would lose their ability to legally bribe members of Congress by donating to their next campaigns.  And instead of a permanent ruling class of career politicians, we could return to the days of actually having citizen representatives.

But of course convincing members of Congress to willingly limit their own political careers is not going to be easy.  Just getting any sort of term limits passed would be a great victory, but my long-term dream is to limit all members of Congress to just one term.

So other than members of Congress, who else would be against term limits?

Well, perhaps unsurprisingly I did find one article in the Washington Post that was against the idea…

Here’s a plan that is sure to improve the quality of your local hospital: Fire all the doctors and nurses with nine to 12 years of experience. Just kick them all out. Or why don’t we fire every Apple software engineer who has been at the company that long? That’ll surely yield better iPhones. Or fire every Post reporter with a decade under his or her belt.

No? Sound crazy? I agree. Those are terrible ideas.

If Congress was doing a good job, there may be some merit to that argument.

But at this point the American people are so universally dissatisfied with Congress that it is clear that something must be done.

So we should definitely encourage those that love liberty and freedom to challenge corrupt career politicians all over America in 2018, but we should also push very hard for term limits on every level of government.

It won’t be easy to get them, but just about anything that is worth doing in life is going to take some hard work.

6 thoughts on “John McCain’s Incoherent Questioning Of James Comey Shows Why We Need Term Limits”

  1. WRONG! Term limits are unconstitutional. Our Constitution says that Senators are to be selected by the States, who keep an eye on them and oversee their behavior. Should any Senator fail to carry out his oath of office or his duties faithfully or become corrupt, the State has the authority to remove him immediately and to replace him immediately. Unfortunately, the members of Congress, afraid they wouldn’t be able to carry out their lifelong corruption, passed a law putting the election of Senators into the hands of the people. People were duped, thinking this was a good thing when, in fact, it enabled Congress to enter into all kinds of corrupt deals, remain in Congress no matter how corrupt they were, and there was no longer any oversight. Another violation of our Constitution does not make it right.

    • I think the Supreme Court ruled that term limits are unconstitutional awhile ago. California passed a 2-term limit law (still in effect), for all politicians. The Supreme Court came back and said that the state of California can limit state and local politicians but not limit politicians serving a national office. The person who financed the proposition wanted to force Feinstein out.

  2. McCain’s, question were not Incoherent Michael and trust me I cannot stand the man but I believe McCain was calling Comey a hypocrite but instead as you point out ; he appeared disorganized in his questioning.
    As for term limits as I recall we’ve had them before and term limits posed its own problems as well.

  3. Many career politicians are also not only mentally challenged, but corrupt! But term limit, an excellent idea will never fly! The swamp will never be drained.. till kingdom come!

  4. Term limits sound really great. In these times of the uneducated serfs being driven to an emotional fervor, their angst is being guided by the Marxists against the wrong problems. Term limits wrongly seems to be an easy solution to a problem caused by a society that has become shallow and uninterested except in times of crises. Essentially, our problems are the results of We The People being unengaged and seeking quick emotional faux solutions to problems created because we’ve been thinking short term, only responding to emergencies, we have caused, by, yes, previously only seeking emotional, short term solutions.

    Term limits allows We The People to deny the problem is our fault, wrongly of course. We can go back to voting for whomever wears the badge of our party or buys the most lies via TV commercials. An argument I always try to use, because I’ve seen it personally and it is powerful, as well as real: To found America and keep her free, nearly 1.4 million Americans have given the ultimate sacrifice. They are dead. They died for us. Without question we have a duty to slow down and get this right. We have a duty to meet candidates in our communities, coffee shops and churches. We have a duty to read their financial disclosures, learn if they cheat on their spouse, and shake their hands and look in their eyes. We have to duty to make every best attempt to elect honorable men, and, when the scallywags slip past our newly-affirmed efforts at Due Diligence, we must turn them out of office. We must do that, not rely on parchment barriers to do it.

    The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union had term limits. Why did the Founders not include them in the new constitution? The framers of the constitution knew term limits did more harm than good.

    – Gouverneur Morris: “The ineligibility proposed by the [terms limitation] clause as it stood tended to destroy the great motive to good behavior, the hope of being rewarded by a re-appointment. It was saying to him, ’make hay while the sun shines.’”
    — Madison’s notes at the Constitutional Convention, 1787

    – Alexander Hamilton: “Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection [than term limits]…. One ill effect of the exclusion would be a diminution of the inducements to good behavior. There are few men who would not feel much less zeal in the discharge of a duty when they were conscious that the advantage of the station with which it was connected must be relinquished at a determinate period, than when they were permitted to entertain a hope of obtaining, by meriting, a continuance of them.”
    — Federalist, #72

    – All members of Congress in their final term would have no incentive to be responsive to their constituents. This greatly increases the influence of special-interest lobbyists. In other words, if you think Congress is corrupt now, just wait until we have term limits! With 535 seats in Congress, 469 are up for election this year. If the people want them out, the majority of Congress can be fired this year (and every two years).

    – “Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them….”
    — President James Garfield

    Easy explanation for reps in Washington. They are there because we send them there. The only solution is an informed electorate, which would term limit anyone politician, any time it wanted to. There is nobody to blame for the “status quo” but ourselves.

    Can you name one political office that has term limits imposed on it that has been filled with nothing but constitutional conservatives since the term limits were imposed?

    Knowing the dangers of a lame duck session of congress, could you imagine how much worse things would be with the entire Congress in an endless state of lame duck?

    Also, term limits would take out the good politicians that we have. For example, why would you want to term limit Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Mike Lee, or Thomas Massie? To name a few.

    In short, if the goal is to hold politicians to the powers enumerated to them by the Constitution, there is no evidence to suggest that term limits would solve anything.

Comments are closed.

The Most Important News