Montanans want their citizen/lawmakers to effectively stand up to the state government bureaucracy, and other "special interests" as well, however such interests may be defined. Montanans also want legislators to know how to work together and get their job done on time.

Yet, Montanans also love term limits. Go figure.

A bill introduced in the special session that would have given voters a chance to end term limits for lawmakers passed the Senate 40-10, but was tabled in a House committee. That's no surprise for a limit that has been so popular with voters; in 2004 a proposal merely to lengthen the terms was soundly defeated.

Opponents have said all along that term limits are unnecessary and counterproductive - unnecessary because voters already have the ability to throw an incumbent out of office, and counterproductive because term limited lawmakers lack the institutional experience to effectively deal with pressure from the executive branch and entrenched lobbyists and lack the time needed to get to know and work with their fellow legislators.

But wait a minute: Term limits are such a simple, sensible idea. How can they not work?

Well, as an example, the 2007 Legislature comes to mind.

What we saw throughout the session was a group of lawmakers who, to an unfortunately large degree, appeared to have come to the Capital directly from their circles of like-minded friends (conservative or liberal) and who seemed to have no idea how to deal with people who happen to disagree with them.

Instead of spirited debate, we got clumsy attempts to outfox the enemy. Instead of compromise, we got ultimatums. Instead of a gradual coming together, we got hardened divides - even among the members of the House GOP caucus.

Maybe, somehow, term limits still could be a good thing. But after this session, that idea looks more like wishful thinking than reality.