"One Nation, Under God...not" CARTOON... John Murtha votes NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance

BootMurtha.com ^ | 7/20/2006 | IPWGOP

[IPWGOP]

Murtha votes against
protecting the
Pledge of Allegiance

The U.S. House of Representatives voted yesterday to protect the phrase "one nation, under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. But the vote was not unanimous. A final tally showed 260 'ayes' to 167 'nays.'

Included in the 'nay' group: Pennsylvania's Rep. John Murtha. [Roll Call final vote results: click]

[EXCERPT:]

The U.S. House voted to bar most federal courts from hearing cases challenging the constitutionality of the pledge of allegiance, a measure supporters said was needed to prevent judges from scrapping the pledge's reference to God.

The chamber voted 260 to 167 to approve legislation that would strip most federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of the right to take cases challenging the pledge's reference to ``one nation, under God'' as an unlawful government endorsement of religion.

>>>read Bloomberg.com news article

Murtha needs redeploying...

Boot Murtha.

 

 

BootMurtha.com

 

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

Chuckle on over here....

[Coop]

The pledge issue is nothing more than pandering for votes. It's not important.

It's important to me.

[Coop]

This is a huge non-issue.

...bleats Murtha's #1 fan!

[Coop]

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.

[Zeroisanumber]

I guess you missed that vote on Israel, huh?

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.

[Coop]

That's it. Move the bar.

[Gone GF]

"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.

[Qwinn]

"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

[VeniVidiVici]

But IMO, the main reason it came up was to pander for votes.

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.

[Coop]

Exactly

[al_c]

But that's not the way it is originally written.

See wikipedia, or the Washington Post

[steve-b]

What exactly is wrong with "pandering for votes"?

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

[steve-b]

The pledge issue is nothing more than pandering for votes. It's not important.

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....

[Qwinn]

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