Redstate

But I think Frist has been much less effective than Hastert.  Perhaps it is a measure of his impotence rather than his efficacy, but Hastert has not goaded House Republicans into betraying the public's wishes (as on immigration) or caving to environmentalist pressure (hence the semi-annual attempt to open ANWR).  If anyone deserves to be toppled it is Frist, whose clumsy on-again off-again support of the President has neither consolidated the support of the base nor made inroads to moderates.  Aside from the SCOTUS nominees, as much the result of...gulp...Arlen Specter's efforts as those of the Majority Leader, what successes does the ostensible Presidential candidate have to his credit?

The title above reflects a bit of bias on my part.  I'm not a fan of term limits.

We've already seen good Senators and Congressman replaced as chairman of committees.  Orrin Hatch was a fine Judiciary Committee Chairman in the Senate, and did superb work on getting judges confirmed.  Yet this arbitrary limit forced him to step aside for Arlen Specter.

Henry Hyde was similarly good on the House Judiciary Committee... and again was shunted aside for a much less capable chairman (as Sensenbrenner has proven to be).

Whatever happened to the concept of elections, or encouraging a challenger from within?

No need to dump Frist, he's leaving.  And if Hastert announced he was stepping down as Speaker at the end of 2006, that would be plenty.

has term limits so there's a type of precedent already set.  Roust the scoudrels out even when they aren't scoundrels.  The evidence of what incumbency and the purse can do is manifested most glaringly in the decline of the Republican party.  Term limits has faults but this is a nightmare.

       While we're at it we may examine the possibilities and mechanisms for doing the same for our dedicated congressional staff.  Eight years and then the gutter, excuse me, the highway.

       The sight of these smug untouchables plopped behind their ostensible bosses at hearings, feeding them questions and answers, and in Kennedy's case, shots of Jack Daniels, is alone enough to sicken.

        Private enterprise beckons, a new world awaits, the experience of proving worth thru labor and talent casts it's benign shadow, as does the opportunity to be laid off, passed over for a raise, and thrown out on your ass.

      It's called the world, life, and it exists just over the rainbow, just outside Washington D.C., epicenter of potholes, sloth, and the worst educational system in America.  Bon Voyage!

If someone should leave for many "infractions" (not just two), that person is george w. bush.  And may he take mikey dewhine with him back to texas.

The salaries earned by staffers are all the term limits we need.  And in many cases, at least on the GOP side, the staffers are the good guys.

President Bush is term-limited.  That saves us the trouble of having a bitter primary fight in 2008, fortunately.

Speaker Hastert is not term-limited though.  So the next Rep. Shadegg would have to challenge the incumbent, which isn't a pleasant thing to do.

So it's not the same, really.

It's in that Constitutuion thingy.  8 years.

He is easily the best Presidential material walking around. The White Flag Party has less than zero to offer and Condi or Jeb are the only Republicans I can get excited about.

...As the longest serving GOP Speaker of the House, surpassing Joseph Cannon (1903-1911).

IOW, unlike the Dems (e.g. Sam Rayburn), the GOP doesn't tend to leave people in positions like that in perpetuity.

Sounds like a good tradition to maintain. Eight years is enough. It's time for someone new.

What a great idea!. First, you get a better Speaker. Second, it looks like Republicans are changing. Third, it shows there is some accountability as Speaker

until after the mid-term elections. If the Republicans are able to hold the majority, then let the caucus make the decision. Right now isn't a good time even to discuss a leadership change due to the pending mid-terms. If the GOP caucus wants Hastert out as Speaker or, God forbid, Minority Leader, let them do it after January. If they want him to stay, he should.

I write this fully disgusted with the William Jefferson affair, even though I understand the arguments from the other side a little better now (but still find them somewhat spurious). Nonetheless, he has been lowkey, and away from the Beltway he comes across quite well. That's not a bad face to put forward even if it is deceptive.

but other Committee Chairmen, such as Jerry Lewis at Appropriations, should also be term-limited out.

Hastert should simply announce he will not seek reelection as Speaker.

Once these guys get the taste of power, their whole rationale for taking power in the first place is quickly forgotten.  

I may be messing up the quote, but isn't the last line of Orwell's Animal Farm

And we looked from the men to the pigs, and from the pigs to the men, and realized it was no longer possible to tell the difference.

I agree, it's time for Hastert to go... Republicans are clearly headed for the minority at this point and they need BOLD new leadership on the Congressional level if they are to have any chance of remaining in the minority...

IF for some reason the Republicans do end up in the Minority, I think it would be right for Mr. Hastert to immediately resign from Congress.  

The buck has to stop somewhere in Washington and in Congress -- it stops with him.  

bad.  The problem with judicial confirmations isn't Snarlin' Arlin, it's the lack of coordination and pressure from the White House and with McCain being allowed to put the G14 together.  If Bush had directly pressured Specter to move nominees to a vote and if Bush had neutered McCain we would have eight more good, conservative appellate judges and we likely would have enacted the Byrd rule and done away with filibusters of nominees.