creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Steve Chapman
Steve Chapman
12 Feb 2012
False Fears About a Nuclear Iran

"The stupidest thing I have ever heard." — Meir Dagan, former head of Israel's intelligence agency,… Read More.

9 Feb 2012
Appease This!

On April 1, 2001, a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese fighter collided over the South China Sea, forcing the … Read More.

5 Feb 2012
The Flaws of Mitt and Newt

Newt Gingrich has an exquisitely sensitive moral antenna, and Mitt Romney's remark suggesting indifference to … Read More.

When Term-Limits Advocates Won't Leave

Share Comment

When Republican Helen Chenoweth ran for Congress in Idaho in 1994, she not only endorsed term limits on members but pledged she would leave Washington after three terms no matter what. But something strange happened in 2000, when it was time for Chenoweth to step down: She did it.

What was she thinking?

In 2000, when Republican Timothy Johnson ran for Congress in a central Illinois district, he promised he would serve a maximum of six years. Voters may have been skeptical, since Johnson had spent the previous 24 years in the Illinois Legislature, but he was adamant.

"There's a lot of opportunity for disconnect if you stay too long in Washington," he declared. "I'm still a citizen legislator now. Having term limits would make you more responsive to your constituents, rather than to bureaucrats." That vow may have been the difference in the election, which he won with 53 percent of the vote.

But the citizen legislator has since made the transition to congressman-for-life. He announced in 2002, during an easy re-election race, that he had thought the matter over and decided it would be better for his constituents if he took the paper his promise was written on and lit a match to it.

"I've got to say in all candor, the innate advantages that an incumbent member of Congress has, particularly after redistricting, are really pretty dramatic," he confessed. He was also perceptive enough to notice that there were advantages for him personally: "When I go to Carmi or I go to South Streator, you're a celebrity."

Johnson, however, has plenty of company on Capitol Hill. In 2006, there were nine House Republicans who once vowed to leave after the coming election but later decided they'd rather stay. U.S. Term Limits spokesman Paul Jacob, who in 2000 made a campaign appearance with Johnson, says that in all, at least 25 members of Congress (not all Republicans) have broken such promises.

This brings to mind Lily Tomlin's remark: "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." When Republicans managed to win control of the U.S.

House of Representatives in 1994 after 40 years in the minority, they owed the victory in large part to their support for term limits, an idea that was much in vogue. Better yet for them, they got the benefits of that bargain without ever having to subject themselves to it.

In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that congressional tenure could not be curbed except by constitutional amendment. And as it happened, enough House Republicans voted against a constitutional amendment to scotch that option once and for all.

But that didn't necessarily kill the entire concept. The fact that term limits can't be imposed by statute does not mean they can't be self-imposed — as they were by so many House candidates when they first ran. The Supreme Court decision, however, gives these Republicans a way to justify a change of heart. Stepping down, you see, would amount to unilateral disarmament that would help Democrats regain a majority.

It's a brilliant excuse whose only disadvantage is that it isn't true. Of the nine turncoats who chose to run this year, eight got 60 percent or more of the vote in 2004. The other, Barbara Cubin of Wyoming, won by a comfortable 13-point margin.

Most of them occupy seats carefully drawn to keep them in GOP hands until the twelfth of never. The obvious exception is Cubin, whose district consists of the whole state of Wyoming — which President Bush carried with 69 percent of the vote the last go-round.

So it would be no sacrifice to the party if these lawmakers all stepped down. They could keep their promises, and the Republicans could hang on to their seats. But here's the thing: They don't want to leave.

They have come up with lots of rationalizations for sticking around. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., had the best one: "I still don't plan on staying forever, but after Sept. 11, I felt like I should renew my commitment to public service."

That's one way term-limits champions could make the case for abandoning the commitment they made when it was politically advantageous. Or they could try the explanation once offered to a lobbyist by Louisiana Gov. Earl Long about a campaign promise he didn't keep: "Tell them I lied."

To find out more about Steve Chapman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
Cynthia Lummis may be mistaken for a Barbara Cubin clone; however, she was elected to the HR from Wyoming in 2208. Cubin chose not to run for reelection after a narrow victory in 2006 over the Democrat that Lummis defeated by a wide margin this year.
Comment: #1
Posted by: geraldr
Sun Nov 16, 2008 8:20 AM
Sir;... When the house limited its number, and single handedly limited democracy in America, it was the Supreme Court that passed on it, as in the case of Montana, which narrowly missed having two representatives, and so had half the representation per person as other states... If the number of representatives had been doubled, they may have had three quarters of the representation of other citizens... If that number of representatives had remained as it was written in the constitution, Montana might have had every representative they had coming... More importantly, it is easier to represent any group that is smaller than large... One man can represent two men better than he can represent four, and represent four better than eight... To have huge districts divided even 60/40, leaves great numbers in this land without representation of their choice... Those who lose, left without representation, who are often denied representation year after year after year are the losers in society, and to me it is not better if that group cut out by districts, are republican or are democrat, because their injury is the country's injury, and is a loss to all of us...Now, these changes were made, these limits on the house number, to ease the management of the House... Has it improved government, and has the management of the house ever been the goal of our constitution??? When the Supreme court passed on the changes made by the house it said that the house could make the rules it ran by, in U.S. Department of Commerce v Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992)... Now; if it says changes must pass the constitution they are playing to the money, which wants a powerful, compact group of lifer politicians that once bought, can stay bought... Term limits is not the solution.... One of our most popular presidents pledged to run for only one term after Mckinley's assasination, and he said later: I would cut off my hand right there, pointing to his wrist, if I could take back that written statement... He was popular with everyone but his own party hierarchy, and the good he did America, his party set about immediatly to reverse...Term limits are not the answer that democracy is... The power lost by the house when the members increased their own individual power was also lost to the people, and was gained by both the rich, and the presidency... It might be an army in the house of representatives, it might be a mob, and it might be a Civl War in a mop bucket; if -it held to a sensible proportion to the people.. Our government; which should seek to represent all people directly, has made itself the slaves of party, and of partisanship...The problems we face today are the result of too little of democracy, of too little self government, because no one who must suffer the stupidity of government would vote for the situation they must now endure...We did not vote for this... We went along with little choice but to go along, or get it on... We have kept the peace to see ourselves brought to the brink of hell.. And things might change, but our chances of avoiding a real hell in this land are slight indeed...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sun Nov 16, 2008 8:42 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Steve Chapman
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Joe Conason
Joe ConasonUpdated 16 Feb 2012

26 Jun 2008 Politicized Justice Is Not Justice

12 Feb 2012 False Fears About a Nuclear Iran

4 Oct 2009 Chicago Wins by Losing