April 8, 1996 Mike McIntyre signed a Six-Term pledge Limit (Source - Pantano for Congress Website & other public referencing). Now McIntyre is saying that Term-Limits are "only fair if all members of the House and Senate follow them." (Source- McIntyre Press Release). He also supplies evidence to support his "No-Term-Limit" position that he supported legislation in 1997 (Republican-led) that would have established term-limits - but it failed, so he isn't for it now because everyone isn't held to term-limits.
The problem with the implication is that he clearly was aware that term-limits did not apply to everyone at the time he signed his own pledge on April 8, 1996. Which begs the question - why did he sign it if he feels it isn't fair unless applied evenly? He had no disclaimers on April 8, 1996 - but now he does.
So was he not being truthful then or is he not being truthful now - because its one or the other isn't it? Surely, it couldn't be because his pledge would have ended his Congressional Career a term ago.
Until the Civil War, term-limits wasn't an issue as Congressmen didn't wish to serve more than a couple of terms. It was a public service - not a career. It was a sacrifice.
A July 2003 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 67% of Americans thought term-limits were a good idea. University of California-San Diego political scientist Gary Jacobson has said that, "since nobody has been punished for breaking the vow, I don't think anyone sees it as a serious threat."
The CATO Institute has conducted a policy analysis on this issue. They conclude that term-limits would re-establish the citizen legislature. They cite evidence that the founding fathers strongly believed in rotations of office. They simply left it out of the Constitution because they didn't forsee it as a problem.
Clearly, Republicans & Democrats have both failed to keep such vows. But that isn't the point in this case. The point here is - McIntyre had reasons for making the pledge in 1996 - now he has changed his mind when he could have stood on principle and could have stood on his word (and signature).
Did his reasons change or his principles? And let's put aside justifications and get to the point - was McIntyre being untruthful then or now?
These are just the facts - Mike Facts...
