Mr. Connaway's formula to solve the career politician issue sounds real good when you say it fast, but it doesn't solve the central issue - and that is, it's not how many times an elected official gets to serve, it's that they are continuously elected and re-elected by people that are not well informed, have an ideological agenda or just plain don't vote. (Shame on them!) When people in other parts of the world risk their very lives for the opportunity to vote that seems almost ludicrous.

I voted for John Kennedy, but could he have won if the press has not hidden his "private" escapades?

The case of allowing an elected official to serve again because of his/her performance seems good on the surface, but WHO would grade their performance, possibly some "bipartisan" panel? There is no such thing as bipartisanship. Every American has a partisan opinion. It's in our DNA!

The Founding Fathers promulgated the attitude of part-time elected officials. Serve and go back to your private life. George Washington set the example by not running for a third term, which he apparently could have won somewhat easily. The "serve and go back" idea got lost decades ago and as far as politicians are concerned, it's a great one! Pensions and benefits my fellow Americans, Pensions and Benefits!

I voted for Reagan, but he received three pensions, from the Screen Actors Guild, for being governor of California and for being the president. My math is a little hazy, but I think that's triple dipping!

There is a much simpler (ouch, did I write simpler?) way to solve this problem, besides a more informed voter, of course:

1. No term limits. A politician has his last term to do anything they want without worrying about a silly re-election campaign.

2. No pensions. After all, it's only a part-time job, right?

3. An elected official cannot run for nor declare their intention to run for ANY other elected office while still holding office in their current term, even if he/she should resign early; the previous ending term date still restricts them from holding or running for ANY elected office simultaneously.

4. No political contributions. Yeah, yeah I know it's expensive to campaign, but politicians have created that issue on their own and that little problem is easily solved.

5. Everyone running for an elected office must participate in television and radio debates in the respective districts in which they are looking to represent. Let's pull out a number of say, three debates for every office. All local media outlets would have to broadcast and air the debates and they could sell advertising which would be a win for the voter and the economy. I am positive that the media outlets would love to be involved in every political debate.

6. No political advertising on television or radio. It's the only advertising that doesn't have to be truthful, if that is even possible in political terms. I know this has First Amendment implications, but too many politicians don't seem to care about the Constitution anyway.

Wouldn't it be a great idea if the voters had the power and knowledge to elect the right candidate the first time around and this whole argument would be a mute point? Oh Utopia where are you?

Paul Ciruso is an Athol resident.