Do you happen to recall the last time term limits were a serious proposal on the national level? I do. It was 1994. And I voted for that agenda. It didn't take Newt and the boys to retract that piece of the contract. The parties are the central, corrupting force in American politics. And the minute you begin to quibble over which party is more corrupt, you've lost the argument.
The parties are money-generating ventures. They exist to raise money to elect members of the club, who, in turn, become lobbyists and lackeys for corporations, unions and other entities that seek to maneuver our government. It's mutually enriching. The last thing either party wants are term limits. Incumbents bring in more dollars over time and are more valuable to the special interests pouring money into the system. It's akin to giving up your star players who produce year after year for a bunch of unproven rookies.
If you implemented term limits right now, it wouldn't affect the change you wish. You will simply get more of the same. The parties see to this. Again, to reference those Repubs from 1994 "revolution." Within a couple years, most got with the program. The ones who didn't were generally out of office.