Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

General John Kelly: "He said that, in his opinion, Mr. Trump met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law."

Tuesday, September 5, 2023

GUEST POST BY DAVE MILLER

 



A Change Has Gotta Come... 

They’re all too old. Every. Last. One!


Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Grassley, Jim Clyburn, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Hal Rogers, Donald Trump and more.


If you are over 75 years old, you should be running for public office or reelection. Period.


Nikki Haley was only 30% right recently when she said the Senate is “the most privileged nursing home in this country.” Because she left out the Presidency and the House of Representatives where Democrats have a host of folks, especially in leadership, in their mid 80’s.


If Democrats don’t think Joe Biden has lost more than a step or two, they’re not being honest. If the GOP thinks Mitch McConnell is still on the top of his game, they’re smoking too much of that old wacky tobacky.


And it’s the same for the rest of the lot.


No serious person is going to make the case that someone in their eighth decade of life has not slowed down. DMV’s across the land place greater restrictions on drivers license renewals as people age. Most people as they age face mandatory retirement across a host of jobs.


Ask yourself this…


Would you want an aging lawyer defending you in an important legal case? How about an aging medical professional, prone to freezing up, doing your root canal or heart bypass? Do you want to see your EMT show up to your accident scene, and having to be guided over to your injured son or daughter because of an unsteady gait?


Of course not.


So why are we alright with political leaders, well past their prime, continuing to serve. Why are we okay with octogenarians guarding extremely sensitive US security information? Surely there is something we can do.  


Like many, I am well aware of what the Constitution says. But the Constitution was always seen as a living document, malleable by amendments. Why not now? The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951 in response to FDR’s four terms, limited the president to two terms.


I’m convinced that the specter of aging US leaders, once a rare sight but now increasingly on display through social media, is changing our perceptions.


Whereas once our outrage seemed to be party specific, now we are hearing same party criticisms of our aging leader class. The GOP is rightly concerned about the recent Mitch McConnell freeze ups, just as some Democrats are expressing public consternation and calling for Dianne Feinstein to step aside after her recent struggles with shingles and a very visible physical decline.


Rather than push term limits, which as we have seen in states, simply keep the same people employed, albeit in other elected offices, we should move to a mandatory retirement age for all elected office holders in the legislative and executive branches of government and appointed officers in the judicial branch.


Admittedly, a one size fits all solution via an amendment to our Constitution is going to sweep up some seniors more than able to continue to effectively serve. But the same argument could be made on the minimum age limits already enshrined in our Constitution. 


Those exceptions however should not keep up from action. America is ready for change and we need younger people leading us and the chance to debate the new ideas they will bring to the table. 


An upper age limit will ensure ongoing renewal of our leader class, the infusion of new ideas and I believe, mostly rid us situations like we faced with an aging Senator Strom Thurmond, where one of his own aides once remarked that "for his last ten years, Thurmond didn't know if he was on foot or on horseback”.


America can, and should do better. 


23 comments:

Dave Miller said...

Dang typos...

The line "If you are over 75 years old, you should be running for public office or reelection. Period.

Should read...

If you are over 75 years old, you should not be running for public office or reelection. Period.

Joe Conservative said...

The reason that there will never be an age (or any other limit) is that said limit will then be used to justify another one... conveniently in an election to prevent an electable opponent from the "other party" from winning and diminishing the ruling party's dominance.

"Progressives" can't help themselves. Their lust for power is unquenchable. That is why we don't have 'term limits". Elected officials would never vote to make THEMSELVES relinquish power.

Les Carpenter said...

America needs another JFK type. A young politician with the intelligence and ability to inspire a new young generation to offer their service to the people of this nation.

As the aging group is replaced by younger less experienced folks we should hope for a less ego driven and more compassionate and less self centered individuals to lead the nation.

As we wait to see the change. Whatever it gives the nation. In the meantime maintain present moment awareness.

skudrunner said...

Rev, Great post and completely on point. The biggest problem is it the politicians who have to enact this and they are not going to give up their chance a untold riches by mandating they leave at a certain age. How much does mcconnel, pelosi and the other crooks make because they can use their position to bring on wealth and power and be assured they will be there for decades.

Maybe we can start with the president can't run if during his term he exceeds 70 and work our way down to the WH janitor, who is the most honest person in the building.

Shaw Kenawe said...

JoeCon, -FJ:" 'Progressives' can't help themselves. Their lust for power is unquenchable.

Remember when the GOpers wanted to change the Constitution so that Arnold Schwartzenegger could run for the presidency? Schwartzenegger was born in Austria and was a popular governor at the time, and the GOP in its lust for power, wanted to change the Constitution. I remember that lustful move from the GOP.

Lust? Just today we found out that a federal court in Alabama is forcing the Alabama state legislature to stop its illegal gerrymandering. A panel of three federal judges blocked Alabama from conducting any elections using a congressional map that was accused of being racially gerrymandered against the state's Black voters.

Oh, and this one:

Donald J. Trump and the GOP insurrectionists tried to overturn a free and fair election and install the losing candidate as the POTUS.

Talk about LUST for power!

Dave Miller said...

Joe stated... "The reason that there will never be an age (or any other limit) is that said limit will then be used to justify another one... conveniently in an election to prevent an electable opponent from the "other party" from winning and diminishing the ruling party's dominance."

No Joe, that cannot happen. There is absolutely no way a Constitutional amendment can be passed quick enough to limit an imminent election. Further, I would assume any amendment of this type would exempt current ppl serving, so everyone elected afterwards would know the rules.

Look for ways to make the system better amigo.

BTW... as this would effectively limit the terms of some, do you consider Newt Gingrich, the father of the Contract with America, that included term limits, a progressive?

Dave Miller said...

Skud... the politicians currently clogging the system could be grandfathered in and exempted. Then they'd never be voting against their own interest.

It's 100% workable if we could get it before the American people first so as to build momentum and pressure on the folks in DC.

Dave Miller said...

Shaw... regarding the Alabama issue... the courts [a conservative SCOTUS] have already found Alabama viiolated the law in their first attempt to redraw the lines in that state. This was their second attempt.

Also, in Florida, another court found they too drew election lines in order to specifically eliminate black seats in their government.

The SCOTUS also found NC did the same.

In Wisconsin, the GOP is moving to impeach a recently elected liberal Supreme Court judge before... wait for it... she has ever even ruled on a case. Why???

Because if she is impeached, she is unable to rule and give the liberals the court majority the ppl there voted them.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Dave M.

Have you pointed that out to Joe Con? He's accused Progressives with having a "lust for power."

Meanwhile we continue to read how GOPers with a majority in their state legislatures change certain rules to dilute a Democratic governor's authority/power -- I read how one red state legislature (I think it was Kentucky) changed the ability of a governor to appoint a US Senator if the current GOP Senator should resign or die in office. It used to be the governor who appointed a US Senator to fill a vacancy, but the Kentucky legislature changed that so the governor of the state has to appoint someone the state Republican Committee chooses, not the governor! The present governor of Kentucky is a Democrat, thus the Kentucky legislature was able to pass a law so that the Democratic governor CANNOT appoint a Democrat to fill the vacant Senate seat, thus not changing the makeup of the US Senate at this point, should McConnell retire for medical reasons.

But according to the GOPers, it's the progressive who lust for power. LOL!



skudrunner said...

Rev, That would be a good idea but there is no way it would ever work. Congress is a big fraternity/sorority or better yet a good ole boys/girls club. They swear at each other in public then meet at the bar and congratulate each other over their brilliant deceptions. To agree to age/term limits would be giving up millions of dollars and all that power to determine how us underlings should behave. England has their king and queen as their worthless figures and we have our politicians. It doesn't matter which party wins because they will always take care of each other.

Politicians are worse than snakes because they never shed their skins.

Les Carpenter said...

What's the problem with snakes skud?

Dave Miller said...

Skud... you could be right about it not being possible, but I'm forever an optimist...

So, maybe. I just believe if the American ppl start demanding it, it'll get bi partisan support and maybe can be forced on official Washington.

Shaw... I've never seen FJ, Socks, or any of the Joe accounts backtrack on anything, or even consider that his/their opponents could be right about anything. So what would it matter? It's why I seldom address them personally, because they have no desire to consider. They just want to bludgeon you with videos, links and what not to "prove" a point.

Craig said...

So, maybe. I just believe if the American ppl start demanding it, it'll get bi partisan support and maybe can be forced on official Washington.

It's the American ppl who keep re-electing these fossils. If the ppl demand it, the solution exists. No need for a Constitutional amendment.

Maybe we should demand a law or amendment that would preclude a convicted felon from seeking or serving as president. Seems a more pressing issue at this time.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Craig

Yes!

But doesn't the 14th Amendment address preventing a former POTUS or ANYONE who committed sedition against the United States from ever holding federal office again?


I hope the American people never forget that the current Republican Party wants to put back in the Oval Office a guy facing 91 felony indictments and that same guy who's been found liable for raping a woman.

Trump's cultists don't seem to be bothered by those shocking facts. Probably because the former GOP is no longer a political party but a rag tag bunch of seditionists and cultists who worship a liar, a cheat, a fraud, and a rapist.

skudrunner said...

Ms. Shaw, Couple of things. the donald was not seen at the riot so how is he responsible for sedition. He didn't do anything to stop it but he was not directly involved. Facing 91 felony indictments not guilty of committing 91 felonies. I do realize this is a tricky point because he is guilty until proven innocent but it is accusations at this point. If accusations translate to guilty then joey b is guilty of selling influence. I know joey b has not been indicted but look how long it took the dems to get indictments on trump and that is with the press and doj on their side.

Second, if the democrats present a viable candidate maybe trump wouldn't be tied with saint joey in a national poll not just republicans.

Shaw Kenawe said...


skud: "Couple of things. the donald was not seen at the riot so how is he responsible for sedition."

You're joking, right? I can't believe you actually wrote that. Are you serious?

TRUMP WAS AT THE J6 RALLY, INCITING HIS MOBS TO March to the Capitol. Do you know why he wanted them to march to the Capitol? He watched the mobs attack the United States Capitol AND DID NOT CALL OFF HIS MOBS FOR HOURS! EVEN THOUGH HIS FAMILY AND US CONGRESS FOLKS BEGGED HIM TO!



TRUMP WANTED HIS MOBS (some of them armed!) to stop the electoral certification of the 2020 vote. That is a crime against the United States government. It sounds like you're defending Trump and what he did. Are you?

Here's something you may want to consider about the law: "Even though Manson didn't kill anyone himself, he was the person who convinced others to kill for him. In the eyes of the law, he is just as guilty of murder as the stooges in his cult who did the actual killings."

skud: "If accusations translate to guilty then joey b is guilty of selling influence."

No. It doesn't work like that no matter how much you try to shoe horn that into an indictment. Joe Biden has NOT been indicted for anything.

You obviously have no idea what an indictment means. It means that a grand jury of ordinary American citizens listened to evidence presented to them UNDER OATH sworn on a Bible, and that grand jury found that the evidence was so compelling that THEY INDICTED TRUMP.

That has not happened even remotely to Joe Biden. No matter how you and the other Trump cultists try to make a comparison.


skud: "I know joey b has not been indicted but look how long it took the dems to get indictments on trump and that is with the press and doj on their side."

No. There was no "press and doj on their side." The grand juries delivered those indictments on the weight of compelling evidence of crimes committed by Trump. Period.

Apparently you and others know very little to nothing about how our laws work.

Dave Miller said...

Skud... here's how trump is responsible...

"He didn't do anything to stop it..."

Your words, not mine, Shaw's or anyone elses.

Trump is culpable for simply this... he took an oath to uphold and protect the US and the Constitution. On J6, from a distance, he did not act, again, your words, when he could have to stop the insurrection. He encouraged the insurrectionists. he gave them aid and comfort. He's paid their legal bills. He has publicly lied for them.

That makes him, if the charges/indictments are proven, responsible. He was essentially an accomplice after the fact. He was aware a crime was being committed, had a way to stop it and stood by and did nothing.

Again, by your own words.

Anonymous said...

Don’t you ever see the light?

Craig said...

Ms. Shaw, Couple of things. the donald was not seen at the riot so how is he responsible for sedition
Skud, Donald has not been charged with sedition. He hasn't even been indicted for inciting the J6 insurrection. All 91 indictments have been published. read em.

Shaw explained to you the difference between accusation and indictment. Biden has been accused of selling influence without any credible evidence but that won't stop Repubs from opening an impeachment inquiry. Good luck with that.

skudrunner said...

"TRUMP WAS AT THE J6 RALLY" That I haven't seen "former President Donald Trump remained out of sight from the public and watched TV in the White House private dining room, ABC News' chief" How can he be there from his dining room?


Skud... here's how trump is responsible...

"He didn't do anything to stop it..."

Your words, not mine, Shaw's or anyone else's
So does that make -H- responsible for four American deaths because she didn't do anything. Does that make joey b responsible for 13 deaths in Afghanistan. oops sorry he did something like ordering the withdrawal against advisors advice.

Ms Shaw, the remainder of your joey is great is just partisan politics. And craig, accusations and indictments are one thing but being found guilty has not happened.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skud: "So does that make -H- responsible for four American deaths because she didn't do anything"

Dear Gawd.

Hillary wasn't at a rally in front of the embassy urging the attackers to attack the embassy and kill the ambassador.

Trump gave an incendiary speech; he told his mobs that Mike Pence should do the right thing, which was to decertify the electoral votes; and he told his mob to march to the Capitol and that he'd join them. Luckily Trump had WH lawyers who stopped him from going to the Capitol because had Trump marched with the mobs, he would be facing a trial for treason against the United States. You can look that up. Trump wanted to march with the mobs. Had he done so, he'd have been charged with TREASON!

You are twisting yourself into a proverbial pretzel to excuse what Trump did on J6. Why?

I'm gonna guess that you weren't so concerned with Hillary's innocent until proven guilty when she was investigated by the Republicans in the House for BENGHAZI!

Jack Smith isn't a fool. He brought indictments against Trump for what he did on J6 with plenty of evidence to back up that indictment. Do you actually believe Trump did nothing to encourage his mobs to attack the Capitol and that he knew nothing about the Proud Boys (who've all been found guilty of seditious conspiracy) and what they planned that day?

Do you actually believe that after hearing the evidence presented by Jack Smith to the grand jury about Trump's involvement on J6 that it is all a nothing burger and that the ordinary conservative and liberal Americans who heard this evidence decided to indict an ex-president on flimsy evidence? You think Jack Smith is that dumb? Really. Look him up and find out about criminals he's dealt with in the past.

Apparently you know little to nothing about how our system works and apparently you think Jack Smith is stupid enough to present these indictments that you believe have no merit, since Trump was just watching it on tv.

Here's what you leave out: TRUMP WATCHED THE ATTACK ON THE U.S. CAPITAL FOR OVER 2 HOURS AND DID NOT DO ANYTHING TO STOP IT. TRUMP HAD THE POWER TO TELL HIS MOBS TO GO HOME. TRUMP DID NOT DO THAT FOR OVER TWO HOURS AS HE WATCHED THE US.CAPITOL BEING ATTACKED AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES, INCLUDING HIS OWN VICE PRESIDENT.

While the US Capitol was under attack and the VPOTUS was being rushed to safety for his life, no Secret Service officer grabbed Trump and rushed him to safety. Don't you wonder why that was?

That stinks to high heaven. Lots of Trump's thugs knew he was in no danger. "Trump said 'I don't effing care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me" as an angry mob avoided metal detectors at his January 6 speech: ex-aide testimony. Testimony under oath by an ex-aide who was there that day.


You obviously never watch the J6 hearings the House broadcast. The majority of the witnesses were Trump White House staff and secretaries of state in the various states he tried to steal Joe Biden's votes from.

skudrunner: "And craig, accusations and indictments are one thing but being found guilty has not happened."

Well that's nice of you. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess those words never passed your lips during all the investigations and accusations charged against Hillary Clinton, who, BTW, has NEVER BEEN INDICTED FOR ANYTHING.

Shaw Kenawe said...

This is for skud, who often comments that nothing every happens to Antifa rioters:

BREAKING: For the first time, a network of violent #Antifa-linked suspects have been indicted on RICO charges plus terrorism, money laundering & arson. 61 “Stop Cop City” suspects, many already charged with domestic terrorism previously, have been indicted by the same Fulton County, Ga. grand jury that indicted Trump & his associates. The suspects allegedly were involved in a number of attacks across the US.

Dave Miller said...

And now we have some polling supporting what I, and apparently many Americans want as it regards age for our federal politicians.

New polling has found broad support for imposing an upper limit: 76 percent for the commander in chief, 73 percent for senators, 72 percent for representatives.

According to an Economist/YouGov.com poll, when asked what the maximum age should be, the average ages given are 67 for president and 66 for senator and member of Congress (the median age given is 70 for all three positions).

If an age limit of 66 were in effect, almost half of senators currently in office would be ineligible, given that the median age of Senators is presently about 65,” the poll authors wrote.