Remember all of those Republican “revolutionaries” from the 1990s, who arrived in Congress under strict term-limits pledges? The number of them who have since realized how ridiculous the idea is keeps growing. The list may not be distinguished, but it’s certainly long.
The latest is Rep. Zack Wamp (R-Tenn.) who told voters in 1994 that “career politicians” in Washington were a stain on American politics. He insisted that he’d return home after 12 years in office, so as to insure his vision of a “citizen legislature.”
And now he’s changed his mind.
Live and learn. That’s how Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn. 3rd Dist.) sees it after pledging back in 1994 to limit himself to 12 years in office. He says now that making that pledge was a mistake.
Keeping the pledge would mean Wamp couldn’t run for re-election in two years, but the Chattanooga Republican has already said he’s leaning toward running again.
He cites his seniority on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, which writes the government’s spending bills, and the role of Congress in a post-September 11 world as top reasons he wants to stay.
According to U.S. Term Limits, a group that continues to advocate this silly idea, half of the Contract-with-America Republicans of 1994 have either broken their promise to voters or, like Wamp, are about to.
Just to be clear, I’m not faulting Wamp for wanting to stay in office and continuing to pursue his agenda on behalf of his constituents (I disapprove of that agenda, of course, but that’s another story).
I do, however, blame Wamp for making such a ridiculous pledge to voters in the first place. It was just too easy for Wamp to use pseudo-populist rhetoric about term limits “empowering” voters, so he exploited the opening and won. Now that he’s actually been in Washington and begun to appreciate what lawmakers can do for their districts, he wants to stick around for a while. I wish he’d realized this before touting the benefits of absurd concepts like term limits 10 years ago.
Instead of limiting his own time of service, Wamp is prepared to place his fate in the hands of his constituents, who will ultimately decide if they want to keep him or not. Hmm, letting voters choose their representatives instead of artificial, government-imposed restrictions on how long a lawmaker can serve in government. What a concept.