They certainly don't seem to have a problem opposing legislation they formerly supported or even came up with...
-----Original Message----- From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 1:24 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: FW: Republicans who criticized stimulus wrote letters seeking funds Immensely. I hope you can see that what troubled me most is that what came across in your initial post was so....anti-Judah. This makes me think of another gripe I have with politics in this country. Lets say Bob, a Democrat, from Indiana proposes legislation that stands to benefit millions of people, and Steve, a Republican, from Arkansas, opposes the legislation, and even runs a campaign based on his opposition to the legislation. Fast forward 6 months, and Steve has had an opportunity to _really_ think about this legislation and realized that it will benefit millions of people and decides to get on board with Bob to get it passed. Steve will be labeled a 'turn coat', or any other phrase you can come up with. He will be vilified, by both Democratic and REpublican opponents to the seat he holds. To me this is bullshit. This attitude does nothing but breed stubbornness and the likelihood that no one will ever publicly support something they previously publicly opposed. On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I can see how someone who rallies against a program/bill and then >> tries to reap the benefits of that program/bill would be labeled a >> hypocrite (and I would probably label them as such). >> >> But to say that the constituents of someone who rallied against a >> program SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to reap the benefits of that >> program/bill - even the people who may not have voted for the >> Congress-person in question - is a bit....I want to say 'extreme', but >> even 'extreme' does not full capture it. It's just wrong., and sooooo >> not what this country is supposed to be about. > > Couple points to make here since I largely agree with you. First off, > I was trying to be explicit that I was talking about voluntary > programs as my examples outlined. A bill creates a $100 million pool > for supplying grants related to Foo and you, as a congresscritter, > have been railing about how Foo is the devil and will bring about the > downfall of our country. I think it is horrendously craven for said > congresscritter to then go say "I want $50 million in grants for > Foo-related projects in my district so I can show my constituents how > I bring home the Foo bacon". That is different from said > congresscritter railing against a 2% reduction in the 35% marginal tax > rate. If that passes, it passes and there you go, that's the new > marginal rate. The congresscritter doesn't have to then go and do a > 180 degree about face and say with the utmost unction "look at 2% tax > reduction I got just for you!", it just happens. > > That being said, you're right, it isn't something that I think should > be legislated against. I don't think that a congresscritter voting > against the establishment of a program should prevent that > congresscritter (or other people in the district/state) from applying > for funds from that program, at least not in the legal sense. I meant > it is the sense of disapprobation, it should be condemned, vilified, > and met with complete disdain. "It ought not to be allowed" in the > most in the most English sense, "that's just not cricket". > > Hope that clears it up. > > Cheers, > Judah > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:329427 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
