I disagree with the Star-Telegram’s Thursday editorial against term limits in Colleyville.
The editorial argued that term limits are used by a political minority to unseat popular elected officials and that term limits are unnecessary because voters can use the ballot box to turn out unpopular elected officials.
Unfortunately, without term limits, political incumbents often stay and stay, term after term, not necessarily because they are all that popular (or effective) but because many voters will vote for a candidate with the most name recognition.
Premium content for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
Without term limits, an incumbent may spend more time campaigning for re-election than doing the job they were elected to do.
Also, incumbents often have advantages of office that make it easier for them to be re-elected.
And why have some elective offices with no term limits and some with them?
The founding fathers didn’t intend for there to be career politicians.
Woolridge for Congress
I am concerned that the Star-Telegram didn’t endorse Ruby Woolridge for Congress in District 6.
This race is a choice between two distinctly different people with two radically different histories of service.
Over the past three decades, Joe Barton has voted against fixing the sub-prime mortgage crisis, against the Energy Independence and Security Act, and he denies climate change.
Barton is a man of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. From apologizing to BP for their being taken to task on the Gulf oil spill to pushing “clean coal”, he puts the energy industry first.
By contrast, Woolridge has spent three decades as an counselor, minister and activist. She has shown herself willing to work with Arlington’s Republican mayor, so she can be trusted to cross the aisle in Congress to help the people rather than just her party.
The choice before voters is between the fossil fuel toady or the preacher. When you leave out the Republican or Democrat designations, the choice is clear.
I wonder how many “yes” voters for the new Rangers stadium have children and can even afford the cost of a game in the old stadium after tickets, food and parking. If the Rangers win this vote, you are probably going to pay double what you pay now. If you vote “yes,” the only ones who will benefit are the Rangers owners.
Ask yourself: How was the Cowboys owner able to build the Star in Frisco? The answer is simple: with taxpayer assistance, of course.
Just vote “no” to special interests who would love to duplicate what the Cowboys have accomplished with our taxpayer money.
I went to vote today in a Ranger T-shirt. An election judge made me turn my shirt inside-out to enter the polling place.
I was appalled. The shirt did not say “vote” any way.
Just being a fan of the Rangers is not a political statement. Just being a fan does not make a person for or against the new stadium proposition.