Having previously written about President Obama's plan to keep FBI director Robert Mueller on the job two years past the ten year term limit, I found it interesting, the involvement of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).
Sen. Paul had placed a hold on legislation allowing the two-year extension, due to his concerns on FBI policies regarding anti-terrorism cases, including the recent case that erupted in Paul's backyard, Bowling Green, Kentucky.
After a classified briefing between Paul and Mueller July 21, Paul changed his mind, the extension was allowed to go through, and Mueller was confirmed by a 100-0 Senate vote. Yes, Virginia, the Senate can vote unanimously on something...just not much of anything of great importance.
What I found equally interesting was Sen. Paul's remarks following the briefing:
"I am opposed to changing the term limits on this important position, which serve as a safeguard and check against the significant power of the position. I am not opposed to Director Mueller and will not oppose his renomination, but I do oppose the idea that term limits should be changed when it is convenient."
I can appreciate Sen. Paul's stance on term limits, believe you me, but when it come to "important positions," when will we see this same stance applied by anyone to our most important positions- congressional and senate seats? That is where power ultimately languishes in a vacuum, as we have all seen over the past couple of years, and even more so in the last six months. For the opposition of the idea of changing term limits due to convenience, enacting term limits on our federal legislators has proven to be more a matter of necessity than anything else.
Winner, The Blogitzer
(Best Overall Writing), 2011 Blogger's Choice Awards