For God's sake, man, we use the government to get stuff done, at least ideally. I can't stand that "nanny state" meme! (OK end of rant on that.)

My problem with term limits is essentially the same as yours. People should be educated enough to either keep or turnout the person representing them. Often they don't appear to be. My favorite was a few years ago when the voters in Spokane turned out Speaker Tom Foley because many thought that George Nethercutt, his replacement, would be a better Speaker! But let's face it; most often it is "their" congressman who is the problem, not "our" congressman. You get to know the rep, you typically want to keep him. Personally, I think a lot could be resolved with better education (civics and history) and with getting folks engaged early on with LOCAL politics as well as national. There also need to be reforms of campaign finance (thanks a lot Supreme Court!) and lobbying, of course.

But if we are going to use term limits we should be consistent with it. I never understood the rationale of limiting the presidential terms, for example, but not the legislative terms. Maybe a fear of an imperial executive? Maybe just a backlash to FDR? The Confederate constitution had an interesting provision for the President; one six-year term. At least the guy wouldn't spend the first term worrying about re-election, at least theoretically. I doubt the CSA thought that was an extension of the "nanny state." ;)