A lot of times I shoot from the hip – but sometimes I’m right. A few days ago I wrote that Arlen Specter’s paleo-narcissistic party switch was an argument for term limits. Now I am amused to see Mr. Specter really was the buffoon in commedia dell’arte. [Which character?-ed. A combination of Il Capitano and Il Dottore, perhaps. You decide.]
Anyway, here’s a theorem for today: Arlen Specter + Robert Byrd = Term Limits.
[Indisputable. You're the new Euclid.-ed. Thank you, for once.]
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
13 Comments
1. Aesop:He is a frog amongst scorpions.
May 7, 2009 - 8:25 am 2. Richard Nieporent:Anyway, here’s a theorem for today: Arlen Specter + Robert Byrd = Term Limits.
You left out Ted Kennedy from your equation.
May 7, 2009 - 9:22 am 3. Steve:I’m surprised Arlen Specter didn’t become an independent and use his leverage as a swing vote. Lieberman held onto his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.
May 7, 2009 - 9:38 am 4. Elaine:Probably his polling data showed he wouldn’t win if he ran as an Independent.
May 7, 2009 - 10:49 am 5. tehag:Spector switched parties after he heard the news reports about Murtha’s airport. Murtha’s a representative, not a senator, and Spector figured by seigneurial right he should have an airport, office building, highway, and few other earmarks for his buddies named after him. Since he’s not a friend of Pelosi, that wasn’t going to happen unless he switched.
May 7, 2009 - 1:09 pm 6. EdSki:Specter may have lost his seniority, but he’s still got his cushy job with a huge salary, courtesy of We The People.
May 7, 2009 - 1:40 pm 7. frank:Term Limits = Winning Elections
May 7, 2009 - 2:24 pm 8. Michael C. Seaver:Thanks, Roger … put a smile on my face in an otherwise dreary day….!
May 7, 2009 - 2:31 pm 9. Terrye:I did not used to be a big supporter of term limits, but I have to come to realize that some of these just need to go. The founding fathers intended for the country to be governed by citizens, not life long pols.
Not only that they intended for the Senate to be chosen by the states, not the general population. I wonder if that change has backfired on us.
May 7, 2009 - 3:42 pm 10. zhombre:Some of the “old growth” in the Senate and House needs to be cleared away for the new stuff to emerge. Specter is a tough, stubborn old weed — but he seems to have done a pretty good job of self-chopping his own roots.
May 7, 2009 - 6:51 pm 11. Barry Dauphin:Since the President and VP are subject to term limits and since life expectancy is so much longer today than in days gone by, a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits is in order. Incumbents also write campaign legislation and give themselves all kinds of advantages. Perhaps the Tea Parties can get behind that.
May 7, 2009 - 7:13 pm 12. kytraveler:Agreed. And while we are at it can we please put term limits on Supreme Court Justices? Something about seeing those old geezers who, after all are unelected, spending so many years with so much control over our lives is unnerving. I doubt the founders ever imagined the terms of the justices to last as long as they sometimes do now thanks to a much greater life expectancy and the extreme politicization of the 3′rd branch of our government.
May 9, 2009 - 8:27 pm 13. Ritchie Emmons:I’m with Terrye at #9. I used to think that people should elect who they want into office, but I have come to the conclusion that these politicians simply get “institutionalized.” Their positions as Senators or Reps become more important than serving their constituents.
I know it would be impossible to pass an amendment that would have these clowns limit their own terms in office. However, would it be possible to pass a term limits amendment that grandfathers in all current legislators? I’m not sure how much objection to that there would be. I’d love to see someone start that ball rolling. And by the way, my formula would be that no one could serve more than 2 terms in the Senate and no one could serve more than 6 terms in the House.
May 10, 2009 - 10:38 am