Post User Polls

Does ye olde Senate need new blood?

Ezra Klein writes about Ben Nelson's inexperience with ATM machines and wonders if the oldest Senate in history (average age 63) is out of touch with modern technology. Read the full blog post.

By Andrea Caumont  |  May 20, 2010; 1:33 PM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Is Floyd Landis telling the truth? | Next: Which is the worst Olympic mascot?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



You betcha' we need new blood in the Senate. And if they get caught with their hand out to lobbyist and or big business impeach them! Not for dittleing with an intern but for not doing their job representing their constituents.

Posted by: janetal2004gmailcom | May 20, 2010 4:41 PM

To quote Stanley from The Office (that's a television show for all you Elder Statesmen out there.):

"Oh, hell yes!"

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | May 20, 2010 5:00 PM

They're definitely out of touch--not sure really sure that it's all because of age.

Posted by: ceebee2 | May 20, 2010 5:09 PM

Absolutely- they should have 2 term limit and/or mandatory retirement @ 65.
Same should apply to to the house.

Posted by: dcperspective | May 20, 2010 6:09 PM

Washington is out of touch primarily because they continue to abuse the taxpayer with borrowed and printed money. But it is not related to age.

Do people think the younger guys and gals in the Senate are puritans? Think again.

Posted by: hz9604 | May 20, 2010 8:35 PM

People that age should be euthanized.

Posted by: veerle1 | May 20, 2010 9:01 PM

for a long time the u. s. congress has been simply the lackey of the corporation. little legislation that benefits the common man alone has been passed in a couple of decades. the voter has the power to change this: in november retire all incumbent members of congress who are standing for election. --david

Posted by: maybethisllwork | May 20, 2010 10:32 PM

Nelson is 69 - formerly of Mutual of Omaha - and some say presently with the insurance industry. He is on his 2nd term and if we had term limits, no senator would have more than two terms.

Considering how wired our nation is, a politician must be crazy to admit to not knowing how to use the internet (like McCain) or how to use an ATM machine (like Nelson). I know people who did not vote for McCain, because he acknowledged this fact during his campaign against Obama.

One thing for sure, we need term limits.

Posted by: alance | May 20, 2010 10:56 PM

When an old man runs for office, people will call him "old and out of touch". When a young man runs, people will call him "inexperienced". Term limits wouldn't solve the problem, because then congresspeople wouldn't be able to gain the experience and make the relationships that are necessary to get things done in Washington.

Posted by: DavidTR | May 20, 2010 11:43 PM

If the majority of people in a district don't like their congressperson, they will vote him or her out of office, regardless of term limits. And if they like their congressperson, term limits would prevent them from being represented by the person they want representing them.

Posted by: DavidTR | May 20, 2010 11:46 PM

Term limits are badly needed.

I guess since the senate is never going to vote them in, the voters need to do it at the polls.

Regardless of party, vote out the incumbents!

Posted by: Benson | May 21, 2010 4:09 AM

I did think the Senate would be a touch more modern after Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond died. It's getting there, but it needs to go a bit further.

Getting rid of racist obstructionist Republicans and psycho TeaBaggers is the first step.

Posted by: exPostie | May 21, 2010 10:16 AM

The only term limits we currently have are:

1) death in office

2) extra-marital affairs made public

3) disgust with the current system

4) better paying jobs as lobbyists

Since the courts refuse to impose term limits, we are stuck with this dysfunctional system of government. In a perfect world, both houses would have two-term limits with the House going from two-year terms to four so that once elected they don't automatically go into campaign mode since the next election is less than two years away.

Posted by: lance_dc7777 | May 21, 2010 11:58 AM

Why do we need term limits when we can just vote people out of office? Senators are serving 4-5 terms because they are continually voted back into office, not because of some manioulation of the system!

Posted by: DavidTR | May 21, 2010 1:52 PM

"Senate" means a council of elders (same root as "senile"). So historically, anyway, a Senate is the perfect place to put a group of old people.

Posted by: Harrius | May 21, 2010 11:06 PM

Too old? OMG - Like, totally, Dude!!!!

Posted by: seismic-2 | May 22, 2010 10:09 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company