When he ran for his first congressional term in 1994, Mark Souder made a big deal about people going to Washington and staying too long. In fact, he made a self-imposed 12-year limit on his service the cornerstone of his campaign. So guess when that 12 years is up? If Souder really meant it back in 1994, he shouldn't even be running for re-election next year.
Of course, we all know he is. When Paul Helmke ran against Souder in the 2002 primary, he challenged Souder on this. Souder's response: The 2001 redistricting, in which he went from being 4th District representative to 3rd District representative, reset the countdown; conditions had changed sufficiently to nullify his original pledge.
I dunno. I think "12 years" means "12 years." Unless we start holding them accountable, politicians are going to keep making extreme pledges ("Read my lips: No new taxes") to get elected, then abandoning them when they're no longer convenient. Oh, wait a sec. Bush 41 was held accountable. Voters kicked him out.
I say this without regard to Souder's performance or stand on the issues, or any expectation that I would much like whoever replaced him. But a pledge is a pledge, and it at least ought to be at the top of the list of campaign issues.
Comments
I believe that a pledge is a pledge.
When Mark Souder first ran for office he portrayed himself as a man who wanted to go to Washington to make a difference. After being in Washington for 12 years; Mark Souder has become the kind of politician he wanted to replace.
I will vote for someone other then Mark Sounder.
If Helmke runs again, you can bet I'll support Souder. Souder has been a very effective representative in ways that really count, while Helmke, a Democrat in Republican sheepskin, wanted to go to Washington to be a loose cannon and continue "doing the right thing" -- without ever asking a constituent what "the right thing" looked like. Helmke would have made a mockery of the title of Representative.
As I said in one of my many published anti-Helmke letters to newspapers, if you ever had a problem with Souder, wait until you get a load of Representative Helmke.
Souder's clarity of mind regarding our Second Amendment is one of my favorite things about him. He has a handle on the simple fact that gun rights are the constitutional law of the land and, no matter what you think about them, they simply may not be LEGALLY infringed -- short of another constitutional convention. If we had more in Congress like Souder, we might get some REAL "progressive reform" in that area, for a change.
Liberals predictably tried to characterize Souder's championing of gun rights restoration in D.C. as meddling, but in the first place the District of Columbia is not a state and Congress does have some oversight there by law.
Secondly and more critically, Souder knows that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is no more subject to the whims of any state or local government than the First Amendment is, a fact which should give rabid First Amendment supporters serious, troublesome pause.
There are many, many examples of Souder's excellent work, both for his home district AND in carrying out his federal responsibilities as a member of the U.S. Congress. In order to build any case against Souder, you have to ignore a lot of important accomplishments for us AND the nation, and cynically focus on some minor quarrel with his wish to rename a couple of highways or something.
If he wants another term now, well, here's a thought: Souder has changed his mind EXPONENTIALLY fewer times than far inferior politicians have. In a world of countless flip-flops, Souder has only one significant flip on his scorecard. Smart people should welcome his willingness to be the exception to his own rule, given his record.
Now, if you want to talk about hamstringing that masquerading radical Evan Bayh until we can boot him the heck out of hailing distance of the Oval Office, I'm all ears. I've already written to everyone in the Beltway who matters to be sure they are warned -- Bayh no longer speaks for nor represents his Hoosier constituency. He has become Indiana's lame duck in Congress, of his own free will and ambition.
I enjoyed reading your post John!
I always vote for ANYONE who runs against Souder. I dislike Souder that much.
I would definately support William Larsen if he were to run against Souder in the Republican primaries.
You say that Souder "is effective in ways that really count." I would have to disagree. Mark Souder has been in office for almost 12 years, please give me just 12 examples of things Mark Souder has done that have helped INDIANA.
Most people in Souder's district claim to be fiscal conservatives. Souder is no fiscal conservative. He recently agreed with Tom Delay and said that the deficit was going to go up further, that he (Souder)was NOT in favor of budget offsets. You have got to be kidding me... The Federal government wastes so much money that I could fill 10 pages with just the waste I can list off the top of my head. Mike Pence is a fiscal conservative, Mark Souder is NOT.
I remember when all Republicans were for smaller government; not Mark Souder...
I agree with both you and Souder on gun rights.
There are MANY, MANY examples that I can give that show that Souder is NOT a fiscal conservative and that he is out of touch with his district.
My best friend is also from Fort Wayne. James has been a die hard Republican for many years. He works the polls EVERY election. James served in the military, as I did. James also votes for ANYONE who runs against Souder. He just cannot stand him. Mark Souder is a LARGE GOVERNMENT Republican. Yuck...
We need to vote Mark Souder out of office. The thing about Souder that bothers me the most is his past military record, or lack thereof.
Mark Souder is a "Hawk" today. But during Vietnam he was a Conscientous Objector.
I am OK with Coscientous Objectors (Mostly), but when they become huge pro military "HAwks" that offends me.
I am a member of the local Legion. I will be discussing this with all of The Veterans in this area I can find before the next election.
That bothers me a lot. I think character does matter...
Ideology matters too. Helmke was taking photo ops with his buddy Bill Clinton. Helmke expressed interest in being a Washington lobbyist for a big gun control group. As a Life member of the NRA, there's no way I'm putting Helmke anywhere near a lawmaking job.
We all know how divisive Vietnam was. It was a war that two Democrat presidents would not let our armed forces win. It became a meat grinder for young Americans, under Kennedy and certainly under Johnson. When Nixon finally got into office and untied the hands of our military, it was too late for the nation to get behind the idea of winning. They just wanted out.
Given all that, it's not surprising that many, many young people did what they could to avoid getting in line for that Democrat meat grinder.
I don't even know if any of this applies in Mr. Souder's decisions or in his change of mind over the years -- people do just change their minds as they grow older. But given what you might be implying about Mr. Souder's swing from C.O. to hawk, I thought I'd remind you of the nation's perspective at the time.
The young men who were over in Southeast Asia tended to fall into two groups -- the slightly older baby boomers who entered the military as early as '63-65 or so, and the slightly younger baby boomers, rich or poor, who didn't go to college and hence got no deferment out of high school.
I understand the sentiments of those who "avoided" the Democrat meat grinder by any lawful method. I have far less sympathy for those that disappeared over the border to Canada to avoid the draft.
But I still don't know whether there was anything insincere at all about Rep. Souder's behavior then or now.
I think you have an interesting take on Vietnam John.
I have a feeling you are older then me; I do not remember Vietnam. I was born in 1967.
I would guess that you are NOT a military veteran. I am a military veteran. That is one of the main reasons I dislike Mark Souder so much.
You seem to like defending Mark Souder, and that is great. I love intelligent discourse and conversation!
Please tell my why he has become such a big fan of BIG GOVERNMENT. Please tell me when he became so liberal when it comes to spending my tax dollars. I just do not get it.
Politicians like Mark Souder shifted The Republican Party to the right on fiscal issues far enough to where the Republican Party left me... I did not leave them. I am a die hard fiscal conservative.
I was reading a news site just yesterday with a featured article on all the "big government Republicans" in Congress. If Souder is one of those, he is not the Lone Ranger. Besides, whether big government is good or bad depends upon what is being grown or discarded.
The Republican party is a very big tent right now and there are many different tastes under that bigtop. You say fiscal conservativism is your die hard issue. If I'm an activist on anything, it's keeping the liberals from successfully cancelling 1/10th of the Bill of Rights. I'm not entirely a one-issue voter, but I must say that gun control is a poison pill these days. It's a failed agenda item for the Democrats and they are overdue to admit their Constitutional mistake and dump the attempts to infringe the Bill of Rights for good.
Since the Republican party currently contains the majority of American centrists, they won't be able to please everybody. If there is one common bond for all these people, it is the requirement of a comfortable standard of living which is growing rather than eroding.
So, if giving desperately needed relief from rampant outsourcing, or a glut of illegal aliens, or the costs of medical care, insurance and prescriptions means beefing up a portion of government, so be it, in my view.
We pay our politicians to solve problems for us, not to hold onto rigid ideological points. Many Americans may not understand all the details of the problem as we pay our representatives to do, but we can and will judge by their results -- do we get effective solutions, or don't we? And we insist on the results much more than perfect methods.
We don't have to rush into socialized medicine as in Canada or other places quite yet, for example, but we do insist on having solutions, so that we can and will once again enjoy good medical care and medicine.
If, as it turns out, socialized medicine is the only way to get there from here, you can bet the people will take it and to heck with the insurance companies and their risk-averse policies and inflated rates. Same principle goes for gasoline and outsourcing and any other mega-problem we have. We insist on results in a reasonable time frame.
I think this is most Americans' attitude regardless of party affiliation. No matter what party is in office, we insist that our representatives understand and carry out their obligation and duty to supply a healthy infrastructure DIRECTLY to 280 million Americans by one means or another.