Posted on 06/01/2005 10:12:48 AM PDT by bizzyblog
Conservative pioneer Paul Weyrich has endorsed Bob McEwen for Congress in Ohio’s 2nd District.
One of Weyrich’s key points is that McEwen, because of his twelve previous years in Congress, “can hit the ground running due to his previous service (i.e., he will have 12 years of seniority starting on Day 1 of his new term). Everyone else will be number 435.”
That’s a legitimate argument one can bring to the table. McEwen will leapfrog 200-plus Members (just a wild guess; the number could be much higher) with less than 12 years in the House. Even the Congressman who defeated McEwen in 1992, Ted Strickland, who was voted out in 1994 but returned in 1996 (and who is a personal non-favorite of mine), would have less seniority than McEwen should McEwen win!
But, as unfair as it seems, the “practical” argument is that rules are rules, and if McEwen can jump ahead according to those rules, he should be allowed to.
Except that Paul Weyrich, of all people, has no business making this argument. You see, Paul Weyrich strongly supported the term-limits movement of the 1980s and 1990s, and still supports them today.
(Excerpt) Read more at bizzyblog.com ...
Paul Weyrich contadicts himself on term limits when a person who appears to be a person friend is involved. Weak, very weak.
Unless I am missing something, McEwen is NOT an incumbent. This would be a new "term."
I don't know what Paul's view on term limits was, but mine is that it only should apply to consecutive terms.
Once you are out of office, if people want to put you back in, that should be fine. In my opinion, the thrust for term limits was that incumbents had too much power, and it made it too hard for a challenger to win.
There were many other reasons for term limits, but I think that was the most important. If people still love someone enough to elect them after they have been out of office, then they probably were pretty good at the job.
Of course, since we are talking politicians, it seems silly to expect consistancy.
This guy must be running against someone deplorable.
Previous experience counts towards seniority, though. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, House experience even counts somewhat towards Senate seniority.
He's running in a primary against a conservative state rep with strong support from the anti-tax and pro-gun crowd (Tom Brinkman), a conservative former state rep with strong support from pro-life orgs (Jean Schmidt), and Mike DeWine's son Pat.
I think Brinkman is the best option, then Schmidt.
But deplorable, no, that's certainly not the case here with two options at least as conservative as McEwen.
Thanks!
I really don't understand why D.C. people are trying to resurrect the carreer of bouncing Bobn McEwen. There are plenty of good choices and some less than good ones in this race without McEwen.
McEwen is not guaranteed to get credit for his prior 12 years. The House can, at their option, give it to him, but they are not obligated to. I imagine there would be a lot of protests from some Congressman to allow someone to leapfrog over them who's from a Safe R district.
As a Congressman, McEwen bounced 166 checks at the House Bank. That is the kind of experience we can do without. Vote for the real conservative Tom Brinkman.
www.gobrinkman.com
It really is disgusting to see these so-called conservatives from Washington putting their friendship with fellow DC-area resident McEwen over the good of the conservative movement. We have a great conservative, without ethical baggage, who actually lives in Ohio, who can win this race for us.
Instead of uniting behind him, they're sending an ethically-challenged carpetbagger into our district to split the conservative vote and help the DeWine family. They're not doing what's best for our district; they're not doing what's best for the conservative movement. This is cronyism at its worst. They're hurting their own movement just to promote a friend.
But McEwen is not an incumbent.
In the rest of the blogpost, I noted that Weyrich has called McEwen's grandfathered seniority an "advantage," which is inconsistent with term limits (he was term-limited by the voters and he should start over).
I also noted that the core of the term limits movement is the idea of citizen legislators. If McEwen had returned to the district either for public or private life instead of hanging out in Washington the past 12 years, I would not be able to really object to his candidacy (though I would still oppose him taking on previous seniority). But he hung around washington and did the lobbying/consulting/speaking thing. He's not a citizen legislator by the wildest stretch, and he should not have come back here just to run, when there are plenty of good conservatives to choose from already.
Even Weyrich's endorsement letter says "With all due respect to the other fine conservative candidates in the district...."
Of course he probably can't name any of them....
Unless they have changed the rules recently --
McEwen, if elected, would NOT get credit for 12 years. He would get credit for 0+ years (he would rank ahead of all other freshmen, unless some other freshman was a former representative with even more experience).
So he would NOT leapfrog over 200 members...it would be more like 20.
Paul Weyrich's endorsement letter is vague. He just says that McEwen "can hit the ground running."
I did some research (talked with an informed person in the Speaker's office), and found that a returning House Member gets credit for the time they spent on specific committees. She used Dan Lundgren of CA as an example. He spent 10 years on the Judiciary Committee when he served previously, and he leapfroggged everyone else on that committee because of that.
The woman was not sure whether this is documented anywhere accessible, and if it is it would be in the House Clerk's area.
The big thing on McEwen vs. Lundgren (probably) is this: McEwen lost. Twice. Lundgren (I believe) didn't; he moved on to CA Attorney General or something similar and then lost to Gray Davis in about 1998, but never lost a congressional race once he was in. If you're voted out, your seniority should be recognized as voted out too, but apparently it isn't. That stinks.
FWIW, I don't think Lundgren should have gotten his seniority back either, but at least it's more defensible than someone specifically rejected by the voters getting his seniority back.
Building on the previous item, McEwen's previous experience is on the Rules Committee, which shepherds legislation through the committees and house floor.
McEwen, who has spent the last 12 years cozying up to Washington insiders as a lobbyist, consultant, speechmaker, and investment person of some type, would appear to be in a good position (better than most) to do a "dead of night" insertion into legislation at the behest of cronies. His career since leaving office, and his lack of presence here means that he can't credibly claim to represent the interests of the 2nd District.
I believe his resumption of seniority is a drawback, not an advantage.
I should have said Lundgren leapfrogged all but 3 (if I remember correctly) of the other Judiciary Committee members.
See this:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=195
(first item)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.