Say Anything Blog

well said

well said my friend

Rob said, It’d be nice if Conrad and Dorgan could put the interests of their constituents above the interests of the national Democrat party.

They did. You just don’t agree with their decision. They were elected to office to vote the way that they see fit.

"They did. You just don’t agree with their decision. They were elected to office to vote the way that they see fit.”

Lik, alas, if you were only right and the senators did utilize some of their alleged independent brain power and to make their own decisions. However, no matter how ridiculous the motion, I think if you check the records you will find that almost all the Democratic senators all the time are in single minded lockstep with their party.  And please don’t give me that the Republicans do it too nonsense.

How come then when a Republican politician puts his constituents’ interests over the Republican party’s interests, you label them a RINO?

Hello Fairtax supporters,

I have been thinking about it and I have an idea that could potentially get the Fairtax passed.
It is not at all complicated, but it requires the full support of Fairtax supporters and libertarians in general. 

It is simple.  Fairtax bloggers need to unanimously propose a libertarian voting block.  Pledging full support to all politicians who vow to pass the Fairtax (regardless of their party affiliation).  Republicans and Democrats are practically split 50-50.  If we could promise 100% of our voting block, some of the politicians might take us up on our offer.  If we can get politicians elected based on their support for the Fairtax, other slimey politicians will follow suit.

A 3rd party would ensure our defeat, but a voting block would ensure our victory.

If you want to contact me, my email is or you can reach me from my blog at

http://meatheadedlibertarian.blogspot.com

Because, Andrew, they don’t put the best interests of their constituents first. They put their personal profit and political future first and vote with Dems against America. Hence the title RINO, republican in name only. Hope that helps.

I think if you check the records you will find that almost all the Democratic senators all the time are in single minded lockstep with their party.

They sure as hell weren’t “lockstep” with Iraq.

Dave:  That is because it was the right thing.  Even the Dems could see it at the time.  Now, the cowards are trying to back out because they want power more than anything else, and are willing to sacrifice the best interests of their country in order to get it.  For shame!

Docdave, that was the biggest and most important vote of this century. And only, what, 24 Dems stuck together and voted against it? That’s hardly a lockstep party.

"They sure as hell weren’t “lockstep” with Iraq.”

Dave, I guess you don’t know what ‘almost’ means.  Love to ‘cherry pick’ don’t you?

Dave, wrote “Docdave, that was the biggest and most important vote of this century. And only, what, 24 Dems stuck together and voted against it? That’s hardly a lockstep party.”

Geez, Dave, I thought the biggest vote of the century was Clinton’s impeachment trial.  The Dems were certainly in lockstep when they voted as a block for his acquital.  As far as voting for the Iraqi war, most of the Dems that voted for it are in denial now.  Additionally, the Dems have pretty much been in lockstep in opposing Bushs judge appointments when they have allowed the appointment to come to a vote.  Granted it has been the Democratic leadership that has been the most obstructive but the rank and file with few exceptions have followed the leadership.

Because, Andrew, they don’t put the best interests of their constituents first.

There is a lot of disagreement with what the best interests of the constituents are.

They put their personal profit and political future first and vote with Dems against America.

They don’t vote against America, rather they simply have a different idea of what America should be like.

docdave said, Lik, alas, if you were only right and the senators did utilize some of their alleged independent brain power and to make their own decisions. However, no matter how ridiculous the motion, I think if you check the records you will find that almost all the Democratic senators all the time are in single minded lockstep with their party.

I agree with you. When I read it earlier this morning I read it as, “It’d be nice if Conrad and Dorgan could put the interests wants of their constituents above the interests of the national Democrat party.” Now I read it as it is written. I think that maybe I was just waking up and my brain was a little foggy. Heh.

And please don’t give me that the Republicans do it too nonsense.

I won’t.

And in an aside, we the citizens decide what America is going to be. Not scumbag lawyer shits.

Do they vote with Dems? Do they vote against our best interests and in favor of their political future and personal profit? Then they are voting against America. Lawyer scum always lie, why should this case be any different?

Yes, we elect them and then they screw us. What part of this are you not getting?

You offer no examples of them screwing us.  And perhaps many people don’t feel they are screwing us.  After all, not only do we elect them, we frequently re-elect them over and over.  The people have spoken and decided these politicians have represented them adequately.  I mean really, “How dare he think being elected, twice, gives him any right to do what WE elected him to do.”

Kent Conrad isn’t a dictator. We voted for him.

Yes, we elect them and then they screw us. What part of this are you not getting?

Do they vote with Dems?

If they agree with the Dems, or perhaps a good portion of their population agrees with them.

Do they vote against our best interests and in favor of their political future and personal profit?

Sometimes yes, but so do all politicians, that’s why they’re successful.

Lawyer scum always lie, why should this case be any different?

Why do we listen to any politician then?

And in an aside, we the citizens decide what America is going to be. Not scumbag lawyer shits.

Exactly, we the people elect politicians to represent us.  If a state had a Republican senator with a sizeable amount or majority of Democrat constituents, why is it wrong for him to represent their views on some issues?  You act as if only Republican party views are right and best for America.  That doesn’t seem very open-minded.

No, Dave. You and a bunch of dead people voted for him.

Why should I waste my time giving you examples? If you are unwilling to accept the simple fact that they are not taking care of our business while stealing from us, well, what good would examples do. You agree with them. Again, what is your point?

No, we voted repub.. Phyllie and Pittsburgh voted blue. Please keep the facts straight. As for Arlen Sphynter, he votes with Dems every single time. How does he get reelected? Phyllie and Pittsburgh. And don’t forget medicare/medicaid.

You agree with them.

I don’t agree with all of their decisions (after all I am a registered Republican), and can criticize those decisions.  However I can’t really criticize a politicians for representing their constituents, even if I don’t agree with them.  After all, this is a representative democracy.  I don’t want politiicians who will follow their party lock-step, I want ones who use a combination of their judgement and the views of those they represent.

Again, what is your point?

My point is derived from this:
In a state that overwhelmingly supported the Bush administration in the last election, and overwhelmingly supports the war on terror, it’s hard to imagine that Conrad and Dorgan voted the way their constituents wanted them to on this issue.

So Rob is criticizing these politicians for not representing the views of their constituents, and instead following their party lock-step.  But at the same time he, and many others, will readily criticize a Republican for representing the views of their constituents if it goes against the party’s views.

Lets look at the scenario in reverse.  So Conrad and Dorgan voted lock-step with their party, despite their constituents voting red last election.  This I agree is wrong.  But then he’ll criticize someone like Arlen Specter for not voting lock-step with the Republican party, despite the fact that PA voted blue last election.  I can’t criticize him for representing both sides of his constituents.

No, we voted repub. Phyllie and Pittsburgh voted blue. Please keep the facts straight.

Look, I know it’s popular with the right to deny reality, but this is just too much.  Pennsylvania went to Kerry last year.  This is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact.  Check a map, and you’ll find that Philly and Pgh are in PA.

And you have lived in PA and are politically active here for how long?

No, you need to check that map. PA went for Bush. Phyllie and Pittsburgh went for Mr Frenchy.

Does that computer you’re sitting in front of work, or is it one of those fake ones they use in furniture stores?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2004/

Pennsylvania is the blue box on the right side.

Funny, you claim to be a michegander. What suburb of phyllie do you live in?

And you have lived in PA and are politically active here for how long?

Since 1970.  All of my adult life.

Oh, and referencing WaPo just proves you are stupid.

Sez the guy who thinks blue is red.

Oh, and referencing WaPo just proves you are stupid.

phyllie

Its philly, why phyllie?

Ah, Allegheny county, that suburb of phyllie. Do us all a favor and keep your ass south of 910. Metro-areas do not a state make.

Right.  Sparsely-populated backwaters make a state.  Hell, if you’re make up your own reality, just go all the way, huh?

I’m living in Michigan for work, but am a PA native and will be moving back there early next year.  Not from Philly, from Pgh.

Now, what does this have to do with your disassociation from reality?

I said earlier, I agree with you.

I take that back and reverse once again. I had simply quoted the wrong sentence. I’ll try again…

In a state that overwhelmingly supported the Bush administration in the last election, and overwhelmingly supports the war on terror, it’s hard to imagine that Conrad and Dorgan voted the way their constituents wanted them to on this issue.

Conrad and Dorgan were elected as representatives to vote the way that they see fit, not to vote the way they think the electorate wants.

modern instances said, Look, I know it’s popular with the right to deny reality, but this is just too much. Pennsylvania went to Kerry last year.

Why do you have to insult in just about every comment of yours anymore? You sound like Don Myers. In any regard, Pennsylvania is largely a conservative state minus the two areas of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, which is pretty much what 2Hotel9 said, is it not?

You continue insulting instead of making your case,…

Sez the guy who thinks blue is red.
...
Now, what does this have to do with your disassociation from reality?
...
Right. Sparsely-populated backwaters make a state. Hell, if you’re make up your own reality, just go all the way, huh?

Hmmm. Grand argument there chief.

2Hotel9.
Was Right.
You.
Didn’t even address the topic.

Butler county has increased in population and industry while the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area is bleeding to death. Who’s reality is phantasmagoric?

Who’s reality is phantasmagoric?

The one who thinks Bush won PA.

Sorry Andrew, did not mean to ignore you. If I got to explain it you won’t get it. The curse of being over 40.

Andrew said, Then what’s the point of writing your politicians? Part of a representatives job is to balance proper judgement with the wishes of their constituents. We don’t vote for them to lead us, we vote for them to represent us.

That wasn’t what I was trying to convey, but good question. To answer, I believe that it is good to write, e-mail, whatever your representatives to let them know your point of view on the issues. My point was that - in the end - the representatives were put into office because the electors want them to lead the office and that will, at times, conflict with the electorate’s wishes.

But by all means, let them know if you (the electorate) aren’t happy with the way they are voting and with the comments that come out of their mouths. Representatives have a few choices if they are made known that they are at adds with their electorate. They can stand their ground (I respect this position), or they can change their votes and mollify their comments to appease the electorate (wins temporary friends, pisses off the staunch supporters; John McCain is a master at this; never a solid vote), or they can say one thing and do another (the Clintons are masters at this; sometimes called double talk and “speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth").

I think the real question is why and how a “red” state such as North Dakota elected two Democrat Senators.

modern instances said, My god, I’m dealing with people who don’t even know the difference between geography and population.

Nice try, but no cigar. Your statement doesn’t apply. I simply and correctly pointed out that 2Hotel9’s point was right.

It is getting easier and easier to refute you…

My god, I’m dealing with people who don’t even know the difference between geography and population.

Conrad and Dorgan were elected as representatives to vote the way that they see fit, not to vote the way they think the electorate wants.

Then what’s the point of writing your politicians?  Part of a representatives job is to balance proper judgement with the wishes of their constituents.  We don’t vote for them to lead us, we vote for them to represent us.

Andrew: Not if you’re a leftist; they believe in government by elites.  They elect leaders, not representatives, and don’t believe in the consent of the governed.