It makes for a fun time when the term limit issue arises in public forums. It's a teaching moment.

        Correspondents normally don't take positions on issues, but if asked it's easy to share some insight on term limits.  Audiences are told: "They suck!"

        After the laughter and the shock value dies down, you commence a discussion about what's right and wrong with the concept.

        What you quickly discover with each audience is that very few used their brains when deciding the issue in 1992.  They voted from the gut and desperately wanted to send a message to Lansing and Washington.

        They did not weight the impact that the lack of experience would have on the legislative process.  Voters were angry, they were fed a bill of goods that somehow inexperience would be good for the process and by God they wanted new blood in the system.

        Now when you ask for a show of hands, a majority of the yes votes would change their vote given a chance to see it in action and to learn that, by God, you do want experience in our legislative halls.

        Invariably there is at least one malcontent In the audience who still believes in the concept.  They are asked to stand and asked what they do for a living?

        "I'm an accountant."

        "How many years have you been accounting?"

         "25."

         "Are you a better accountant today tha n you were, say, ten years ago?"

         "I'd like to think so."

         "So experience counts?"

         "Well, yes…"  And now they know where this is going.

          "So why doesn't experience count in the legislature?"

          Game, set, match.  They get the point.

          Do you?