Americans overwhelmingly support term limits for Congress. Nonetheless, last week, three-fourths of the U.S. Senate said, “Hell no, [they] won’t go.”
By a 75 to 24 vote, Senators defeated an amendment introduced by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) to express support for a constitutional amendment limiting congressional tenure as a “sense of the Senate.”
Term limits killed again — but with zombies currently all the rage, could the issue reach back from the grave for revenge . . . hungry for incumbent flesh?
Yes.
Senate races in Indiana, Missouri and Montana feature incumbents in very tight re-election contests who voted against the term limits the citizens of their states enthusiastically endorse.
Sen. Claire McCaskill’s campaign is reeling from scandal — her office billed taxpayers $76,000 for 89 chartered flights on a plane she co-owned. If profiting from expensive jet-setting on the taxpayers’ tab isn’t enough to defeat her, the Senator’s vote against term limits just might do the trick.
In Montana, Sen. Jon Tester claims to be a populist, but voted to allow incumbents to stay in office just as long as they live. What will Montana voters think about that . . . if they were to find out?
In a competitive GOP primary in Indiana between 36-year incumbent Sen. Dick Lugar, the third longest-serving senator, and State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, Lugar’s vote against term limits may be Exhibit A to show that he is an out-of-touch career politician — a part of the problem, not the solution.
Given a choice, voters favor candidates who favor term limits, who understand that power must come with limits.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.