Posted on 07/20/2006 1:18:30 PM PDT by IPWGOP
Chuckle on over here....
It's important to me.
...bleats Murtha's #1 fan!
I guess you missed that vote on Israel, huh? If that's an accurate reflection of your grasp of the issues, were I in Congress I wouldn't worry too much about your approval.
You mean the vote where Congress took the earth-shaking policy step of supporting Israel? Yeah, I caught it.
If that's an accurate reflection of your grasp of the issues, were I in Congress I wouldn't worry too much about your approval.
I would. You see, I'm part of that slight 70% majority that thinks that for the most party they're a bunch of do-nothing swine. Shameless plays to the crowd like this do nothing to change that perception.
That's it. Move the bar.
"It's important to me."
OK, there's no question it's important to you and to others who have responded here. I acknowledge that. And it's important to some congressmen. But IMO, the main reason it came up was to pander for votes.
"But IMO, the main reason it came up was to pander for votes."
Is there any positive way in which any representative, representing his constituency, could take an action that could not be described as pandering for votes?
What exactly is wrong with "pandering for votes"? It really seems like the most content-free criticism ever, which is why one so often hears it from the Left. I wish my congressmen would pander for my vote more often. What are they SUPPOSED to do - ignore my vote?
Qwinn
The reason it came up at all is that some dumbass out in CA sued to have it removed. Otherwise it wouldn't be an issue now.
Exactly
See wikipedia, or the Washington Post
Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
--Edmund Burke
The most ridiculous part is that a socialistic pledge written by a socialist to advance socialist ideology has become a fetish with which to whore for conservative votes....
Okay. That doesn't answer my question at all - all you're doing is assuming venal motives with no justification at all. Is it not possible that the representative -is- exercising their judgment, and shares the same opinion about the issue as the many voters to whom they are supposedly "pandering"?
All your response does is show that, since YOU don't think it's an important issue, it therefore can't be for anyone else, and that makes it "pandering". Again - that's an utterly content-free criticism.
From dictionary.com, the only applicable definition of "pander":
"2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses: “He refused to pander to nostalgia and escapism” (New York Times)."
So wishing to protect the pledge of allegiance as it stands, and to preserve an acknowledgment of God, amounts to a "lower taste and desire of others"? Sorry - doesn't wash. And I say that as an agnostic. It's hardly a hedonistic impulse driving people to care about the issue.
Qwinn
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.