August 23, 2005

Terms Limits Are for Suckers & Rep. John Shimkus

Rep. John Shimkus Republican of Illinois might break this promise of terms limits to the people of 19th district of Illinois and run for congress again for this 7th term.
He had promised to leave House then

As Rep. John Shimkus sees it, he's got a problem: He's an honest man with sincere intentions, and he told his constituents in central and southern Illinois when he was elected in 1996 that he would only serve in Congress through 2008.

That's six terms, period.

But his party's top leaders, President Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, have repeatedly told him that he is needed in Washington and urged him to break his term-limits pledge.
Politicians promising voters to only stay in congress for a few terms was just a fade popular among the GOP of the 90’s.
John Jackson, a political science professor at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, said it was not clear whether Shimkus would pay a high price for breaking the pledge.

"The term limits movement was very potent in the 1990s and it was heavily used by the Republican Party," Jackson said.

"It has now faded ... mostly because Republicans generally have changed their mind about it. Now that Republicans control the Congress, they don't think it's nearly as good an idea as they once thought it was."
Keeping promises to voters for Republicans is no longer a good idea as they once thought it was, term limits are for suckers.
Shimkus narrowly won his first election to represent his Southern Illinois district, previously held by Dick Durbin, D-Ill., until Durbin ran for the Senate. Shimkus has easily won re-election in recent contests, but the seat could become competitive again.

In the last round of redistricting, Illinois lost one congressional seat - then held by Rep. David Phelps, D-Eldorado - and a chunk of that territory was folded into Shimkus' district.

Jackson said the district leans Republican but "the right Democrat" could win it.
The real reason ignore term limits is to hold on to power, once you win a seat and run for re-election, incumbent win again over 90% of the time.
  • John Shimkus has taken $21,934 from Tom DeLay's ARMPAC. No surprise that Shimkus voted with Tom DeLay 90% of the time between Jan. 1 2004 and March 31 2005.
  • John Shimkus voted to weaken the ethics rules in a move that many say served only to protect Tom DeLay.
  • When Republicans realized it was "impossible to win the communications battle" over the gutted ethics rules, Shimkus flip-flopped and voted to put the old rules back into place.
  • When Democrats offered a solution to clean up the House by strengthening ethics rules, John Shimkus voted twice to make sure it never even came to an up or down vote.
You can expect if Rep. John Shimkus wins election in 2006 and runs again for re-election more of voting with corrupted Tom Delay majorities in the House over 90% of the time. Maybe we can do Shimkus a favor and kick him out in 2006 so he won’t have to break this term limit pledge.


At August 24, 2005 2:23 AM, Blogger johneyerickson03009226 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At August 25, 2005 8:50 AM, Blogger jaylin44talon said...

damn good blog, check out mine, comments always welcome!

At September 13, 2005 11:56 AM, Blogger Philosophe Forum said...

I have been writing about the REAL John Shimkus for months. Working the So. IL end. DownLeft does some, but his posts are mostly Springfield-related.

Like Ryan, he'a a "good guy" so no one can believe that he's a duplicitous, hypocrital fraud. The man does NOTHING & gets credit for hard working. I don't get it.

I have posts. If you want, use the text to cross-post to SoapBox. I've already started with DailyKos.

As for someone running against him, that's an entirely new can of worms.

Also, something else of interest someone from SoapBox found. Feel free to cross-post as well:


Post a Comment

<< Home