Monday, February 15, 2010

I Was Against It Before I Was For It (And I Was Right!)...

I often preached, during the term-limit movement of 15 years ago, that we've always had term limits -- called 'the vote' -- and we were better off not codifying it, as that would have the stench of more government.

I'll admit, I've wavered in my steadfastness to that position during the past 8-10 years, when even Republican lifers have acted not like platform-adhering GOP'ers, but rather "incumbent majoritarians". During the last couple of years I'd have willingly accepted term limits -- which, of course, neither party's national leaders would have entertained.

I've also remarked in various forums, both public and private, that it might be good for us to suffer the administration of the radical Left, if only to get our fill of it. So, you can imagine my guarded gratification today, with even Evan Bayh validating the inevitability of the political earthquake being wrought by the so-called 'tea party' movement among American citizenry.

Turns out, there IS a limit to our being fed up. And, finally, we are fed up with it! Ordinary Americans will no longer automatically vote for the most recognizable name if they recognize it isn't aligned with Main Street values and realities! Despite my inconstancy, I was right! The implied term limits of a public vote ARE a viable response to unresponsive representation.

It is no time to relax, though. I doubt the 'wag the dog' capacity of this administration's decision-making cadre even less than that of the Clintons. I fully expect some sort of political manipulation of current events by the Left -- tacitly orchestrated by the 'Chicago gang' -- between now and November. But, finally, a full year of administrative cynicism on top of a year-long campaign of cynically hiding a Leftist agenda behind 'empty-suit' rhetoric has, I trust, earned the Chicagoans a disregard they so deliciously deserve. If November is anything less than a stinging chastisement to them, I will reluctantly fall back into the term-limit camp. Because, in that case, American voters obviously can't be counted on to learn even lessons with which they are swatted in the face.


Bye-Bye, Bayh!

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh's announced retirement further erodes Democrats hopes to either ram through unwanted legislation this spring and/or summer, or maintain their large majority after the fall elections.

Bayh stated, "If Washington could be more like Indiana, it would be a better place." Well, yes -- and the same could be said for about 35 other states not dominated by the liberal bastions of bi-coastal academia and artsy-fartsy neverlands. If you want to understand AMERICA, not American elitism, you visit Indy, or Nashville, or Omaha, or Laramie, or the thousands of other towns and cities where celebrity and $1.50 can buy you a cup of coffee. That is where folks live who actually work for a living, and live for themselves, their families, and their communities. Who would you rather listen to for economic advice: the multi-millionaire, high-school dropout who looks good on a movie screen, or the political science major who got a CPA, married his/her high-school sweetheart, and whose net worth is tied up in the house and the kids' education?

Bayh should be commended for his four years of service as Indiana's secretary of state, eight years as governor, and 12 years as senator. Should he fancy himself a candidate for higher office at some later date, he should be questioned hard for his role and vote in advancing the radically liberal agenda abroad (and, seemingly, adrift) in Washington today. If he envisions himself as a viable alternative to Obama to Democrats in 2012, let's hope he realizes that his remaining votes in Washington should serve to augment that differentiation soonest!