My guess is so Obama can stay in office longer.

Term limits aren't that important - people get bored of leaders eventually.

They are very important, especially in a time where people are voted in just because of a marketing slogan.

The Dems probably want to run slick willy again.

That's simply not true.  There are plenty of times when seats are challenged but the incumbent wins.  In general it is because of campaign financing (the incumbent undoubtedly gets more cash) but sometimes it is about name recognition, etc.  We have a 90-95% incumbency rate in this country.  It's absurd.  That alone is reason enough to keep term limits around.

Personally I think there ought to be term limits on congress as well.  Part of the problem that we have the spending problems that our country has is because members of congress put up all kinds of spending bills to send money to their home state just to keep their jobs.  If they knew that they were only allowed to have two or three terms in office that wouldn't be as big a problem.

Imagine what a sitting president could do to keep their position for another term.  Any number of executive orders, picking a fight to start a war, etc.  We definitely don't need that and term limits help to prevent it.

Your forgetting money, crazy left wing zealots like Al Franken all ready buy elections. If any thing They should also put term limits on Congressmen and Senators too. Eight years of lining your pockets is enough for everyone. This would end career politicians and help steer it back to the original purpose... to serve the people. Also prohibit sons, daughters, brothers or sisters, and niece s or nephews from serving the same post. These political dynasties need to go away, too much nepotism in both parties.

russia, china, nazi germany... Actually the vast majority of dictatorships hold sham elections.

Term limits are just another (very important, and very effective) barrier against a bloodless coup. Where a leader is voted into power and slowly eliminates opposition within the government until he is a dictator.

It's not democracy's fault that voters are apathetic. What are you doing to shorten representation periods? Do you campaign against the incumbent regardless of who s/he is?

A prime minister is vastly more powerful than a president. A PM has no checks or balances on his/her power, save perhaps the judiciary, but even then it's not much of a check. So long as he/she has party support, elections can be postponed indefinitely, laws can be enacted that modify voting procedures and rights, electorates can be redrawn to favour party members. The possibilities are nearly endless.

But we've yet to see a first-world PM become a tyrant, despite Oz and British PMs regularly serving more than 8 years. Why not? Because the people get bored and vote them out eventually. Good ones stay, the bad ones get the boot after a few years. It's the way things work.

We need term limits in Congress. 

Good thing the us does not have a prime minister than. putin was a prime minister, now he is the dictator of russia. so was hitler, so were others. And let us not forget how in countries like england and australia human rights have been chipped away to almost nothing. (the great australian firewall, and the ban on self defense in england).

That being said, the US also had severe chipping in human rights... by congress, by bush, by clinton... than obama got elected partially on the promise of overturning all that crap with his executive orders. We shall see if he does do it or not. But that was one of the things he promised which I supported.

I just pity those fools.  I look at it this way.  My guy lost, but he had no chance.  And I dont have to take the rap for the train wreck that is coming because I did not vote for the clown!

Voting 3rd party does have advantages.

there is the other issue. Any argument that could be made to convince you to vote at all (aka, yes one person's vote doesn't count, but if everyone thought that nobody would vote, so your vote does count, etc) can be made for voting for a third party. Any argument of "you are wasting your vote" could be made in general, because YOUR single vote isn't changing anything to begin with.

At least there are still a few people out there that stand by their principles.  I don't care if someone chooses to vote for one of the major party candidates as long as they have reasons for doing so.  What always annoyed me was when I got crap for voting third party yet the person giving me crap couldn't give me a solid reason to vote for their guy.  They could rattle off a list of why not to vote for the other opponent, but nothing for their guy.  If I'm going to vote I want to vote FOR someone not against the other guy.  Which is why I always say that you can always write-in someone if you can't find anyone to vote FOR on the ballot.

Darn tootin'.  That is one of my favorite side effects of voting third party.  When the sh*t hits the fan I can always say, "at least I didn't vote for <insert candidate's name here>."