Term limit counter-counter-arguments
Here are my answers below.
1. The people should be allowed to vote for whoever they want to vote for, but term limits artificially restrict their choices.
The problem we have with legacy politicians is systemic which trumps the argument of people voting for whoever they want. Bigger picture approach.
2. We'll be throwing some genuinely useful experience out, along with the cobwebbed time-serving dinosaurs.
The experience overlaps because all are not elected at one time. We won't have an experience deficit.
3. We don't like the way Representatives-for-life from safe districts behave, but we might not like the way a Congress stuffed with lame ducks behaves, either.
Consider the human factor and the ego. Given a specific amount of time to achieve which is important to your next step in life can also mean that they will build a resume base.
4. Corrupt big-city political machines will have no trouble finding a perfectly seamless replacement for the last hack they trundled into office, but other districts might have a hard time finding superior candidates to follow the classier acts who get term limited out of office. (In other words, in a practical sense, term limits might end up hurting conservatives and Tea Party types more than they hurt machine-animated liberal Democrats.)
Corrupt or institutional political machines will do that is given the opportunity no matter which system exists. By putting a break into the system we put part of the control back into the people's hands.
5. And of course, there's the perennial "you'll never get Congress to term-limit itself, so why even waste time proposing it?" argument.
Let's borrow a lesson from the left on this one. Aim for a longer-term generational change and enough politicians who may though not guaranteed, fight for this. Even if not achieved the fight coupled with a changing electorate can force intermediate behavioral changes in the political system.
What would you say to these objections?
Now you know some of what I have to say.