Fence Sitting Only Complicates Things
The relentless apostles of term limits are not going to ease up on U.S. Rep. George Nethercutt. Not unless he declares himself out of the re-election race in 2000.
The most conspicuous evidence of that is a billboard on U.S. Highway 2 north of Spokane. Gently but pointedly, the billboard thanks Nethercutt for keeping the promise he made in 1994 to serve no more than three terms.
Whether Nethercutt earns those thanks - which are costing New York-based U.S. Term Limits about $1,000 a month - depends on whether he is a candidate again in 2000. He is in his third term now.
But whether or not he meets the misguided criterion of the term limits advocates, it’s unarguable that his attitudes about their issue have changed in the past five years.
In 1994, the year he overthrew former House Speaker Tom Foley, Nethercutt was solid in his commitment to the term limits concept his opponent had gone to court to oppose.
Soon after that election, in which Republicans took control of the House, some Republicans had second thoughts about term limits - but not Nethercutt.
“I haven’t softened,” he told the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce just before Christmas that year.
It was a reaffirmation of Nethercutt’s campaign declarations that he would go to Congress, serve three terms if the voters would have him and then come home to live under the laws he’d helped write.
Today, though, Nethercutt is wavering. The 1994 promise notwithstanding, he tells constituents he hasn’t decided yet whether he’ll seek the fourth term that he had ruled out in 1994.
When asked about the change of heart, Nethercutt articulates essentially some of the same arguments that came from Foley’s campaign in 1994.
He has said, for instance, that if the voters of Washington’s 5th District think he’s doing a good job, perhaps they should have the chance to let him keep doing it.
Exactly. That’s why term limits is such a flawed idea, regardless of which candidate or political party it helps or hurts. It takes a choice away from the voters.
It’s a sign of strength when a political leader can turn loose of mistaken ideas, even those that have nurtured political success.
However, the folks at U.S. Term Limits won’t see it that way if Nethercutt runs in 2000. They will accuse him of breaking his word.
That’s why Nethercutt would be wise to address the issue now. If he is a candidate in 2000, having already dealt with the term limits issue clearly and decisively will free him and the district to focus their attention on the real issues that matter to Eastern Washington.
And even if he doesn’t run again, his candor would be an enlightening contribution to the term limits debate itself.