We will survey the members of GOOOH, once we have critical mass, to see what the consensus is. I initially started with 3 terms, but power can corrupt quickly. We don't want our representatives to get comfortable in this job. We want them to take a turn and then hand the baton to the next in line. The best representatives need to become our senators and governors.

I enthusiastically support your term-limit plank, but I would amend the maximum to 3 terms (6 years). I believe a total of four years may not be enough to provide continuity in oversight of necessary Federal programs.

The $1000.00 is in place as a deterrant for those who are not serious. There should never be a need to collect this money, but unfortunately there are a few quacks out there who may want to disrupt what we are doing. We agree it is a little "silly" but we only want serious people to participate and our counsel is that this is a reasonable deterrant.

-- 6/26/2009 10:27:11 AM.

Hi,

I also wanted to comment that I love the GOOOH ideas but had some pretty serious reservations about some of the questions, they seemed a tad unprofessional and a little silly.  Paying 1000.00 donation on something that could be subjective...just doesn't seem necessary.  Also, I agree with one of the previous posts that fedral law allows for $2500 donation form individuals, why should we be limited to $500? It will take a lot of resources to battle the two parties.

Thanks,

Jay

I like the idea of term limits. It certainly would have ended the Kennedy dynasty and all like him that have lost touch with "average" americans.

"Do you accept that GOOOH candidates are not required to discuss anything they did before the age of 25 (though you are of course free to speak of your accomplishments)?"

Please.  This is whiny avoidance at best.  How would that stand up in a debate?  "I'm sorry, I don't have to answer that question because my party says I don't."  Good lord.  It should be stricken from the screening exam at once.

"Do you understand that all of your answers must be truthful, and agree to remove yourself from the process and make a donation to GOOOH of $1,000 within 24 hours if you knowingly provide a false response to any of these qualifying questions?"

Perhaps this comes from a hatred of lawers at Goooh, but this is a classic unenforcable contract under duress.  The idea that member/candidates of Goooh are "average Americans" means that they don't have $1,000 to spare.  Withdraw, yes.  Donate, no.

"*If it comes to a vote, do you commit to vote for an amendment to the Constitution that calls for term limits for the U.S. House of Representatives of two terms or less?" 

I assume that this is a major tenant of Goooh, but if I were a good Representative for my district, I would not want to entertain the possibility of giving up my seat to God-knows-whom.  As the Republicans discovered after 1994, term limits are untenable in Congress.  If this is a non-negotiable, then Goooh is 1) not for me and 2) not as open to "letting members in each district decide" as they claim to be.

GMP

Several people have asked about this question. The intent of the question is to declare if you support the ACLU with government funds. Either way, it sounds like your answer to this question is no.

As for the questions of concerning donations:

The first states:

Will you promise to only use money provided by the GOOOH general campaign fund, and not accept money or use personal wealth, to campaign for this position?

The second:

Will you promise not to accept money or gifts valued at more than $500 from any person or company while participating in the selection process?

The way I read it, the first states that I can accept NO money from ANYONE EXCEPT GOOOH.  The second, that I cannot accept more than $500 from any one contributor.  Now doesn't the first statement pre-empt the second, or is the second a loop-hole?  Or, did I misunderstand the questions?

I have just this last evening filled out the candidate questionaire. Some of the questions are a bit difficult to answer yes or no. Perhaps it is better said that some questions should perhaps be divided into two parts. For example the ACLU question. Do I support them, yes, I support their right to exist. Would I support them with government funds, no. Not everything they do is bad. We just see and hear the most outrageous things they do on radio or television. I almost never agree with their outrageous antics, however, sometimes they are the champion of the little guy.