I read the article on Santorum. It is well done. I came away with a point of view that this person is narrow minded and thinking his decision making for his own agenda, not the people.
But if a majority of his voters agree with his policies... does that mean he is narrow minded? I think that I'd like to see a politicans true colors and then vote based upon that, not just have to try and weed through the BS.
Santorum obviously is striking a chord with his voters, and feels passionate about the subject.
Now, on the first "one to go" link betmo... were you talking about Lieberman, McKinney, or Schwartz?
I'd invite you to read my post about the Lieberman deal... I think it's a sign of things to come, and not the way the DNC is trying to frame it.
That's the question I really would like answered. That is, if a majority of his voters agree with his policies.
You see, in my point of view, I haven't seen politicians tell the voters while campaigning that they will vote on issues and use the guidance of their interpretation of the bible as their source of reckoniong whether a bill should be passed or not.
Yes, you are correct. In a perfect situation, the majority of the voters cast their ballot for the lawmaker and he or she speaks for that majority. The votes in lawmaking sessions should therefore represent what the majority of the voting populace from the last election wants.
It probably can't be proven that he didn't tell the voters he would vote using his religious views as his guide. Maybe he did, but I'd rather doubt it.
from what i have seen in polls- the majority is not running with ricky. i think that we have all seen that politicians change a great deal after being in office for a long time. they don't like to give up the office but they don't represent the voters either. i think that that is what we are seeing with lieberman, mckinney, schwartz-- and hopefully santorum. the silent majority is becoming vocal after waking up from their long sleep.
I still think you guys are misreading Lieberman's defeat... what happens if he wins the election as an independant? Does that mean the "silent majority" was trounced?
I think he was defeated in the primary by a far left contingint of the Dem Party, and a heavy does of funding from Kos crowds et al.
But if he wins the actual elections (since he'll get secret funds from the GOP) and take a huge chunk of Dem vote, Indy vote, and some GOP vote... is all the time/money/effort that those groups dumped into the primary a big waste?
Remember, this guy was the VP candidate just a little while ago, and was trying to be the Pres candidate after that... now he's a leper?
5 comments:
You are correct. This one needs to go, PRONTO!
I read the article on Santorum. It is well done. I came away with a point of view that this person is narrow minded and thinking his decision making for his own agenda, not the people.
Time to weed this garden.
But if a majority of his voters agree with his policies... does that mean he is narrow minded? I think that I'd like to see a politicans true colors and then vote based upon that, not just have to try and weed through the BS.
Santorum obviously is striking a chord with his voters, and feels passionate about the subject.
Now, on the first "one to go" link betmo... were you talking about Lieberman, McKinney, or Schwartz?
I'd invite you to read my post about the Lieberman deal... I think it's a sign of things to come, and not the way the DNC is trying to frame it.
That's the question I really would like answered. That is, if a majority of his voters agree with his policies.
You see, in my point of view, I haven't seen politicians tell the voters while campaigning that they will vote on issues and use the guidance of their interpretation of the bible as their source of reckoniong whether a bill should be passed or not.
Yes, you are correct. In a perfect situation, the majority of the voters cast their ballot for the lawmaker and he or she speaks for that majority. The votes in lawmaking sessions should therefore represent what the majority of the voting populace from the last election wants.
It probably can't be proven that he didn't tell the voters he would vote using his religious views as his guide. Maybe he did, but I'd rather doubt it.
from what i have seen in polls- the majority is not running with ricky. i think that we have all seen that politicians change a great deal after being in office for a long time. they don't like to give up the office but they don't represent the voters either. i think that that is what we are seeing with lieberman, mckinney, schwartz-- and hopefully santorum. the silent majority is becoming vocal after waking up from their long sleep.
I still think you guys are misreading Lieberman's defeat... what happens if he wins the election as an independant? Does that mean the "silent majority" was trounced?
I think he was defeated in the primary by a far left contingint of the Dem Party, and a heavy does of funding from Kos crowds et al.
But if he wins the actual elections (since he'll get secret funds from the GOP) and take a huge chunk of Dem vote, Indy vote, and some GOP vote... is all the time/money/effort that those groups dumped into the primary a big waste?
Remember, this guy was the VP candidate just a little while ago, and was trying to be the Pres candidate after that... now he's a leper?
Post a Comment