This is a big problem with Washington.....they write a bill.....and then add tons of unrelated stuff (usually expenses) in it where nobody will see it and know that it exists!!
So those constuents are happy, no need to look for a way to pacify them, but the ones that are unhappy with the "no" vote are looking for a reason and probably aren't going to be ok with hearing, "because I fundamentally disagree with you on the need for a bailout."
>>>So those constuents are happy, no need to look for a way to pacify them, but the ones that are unhappy with the "no" vote are looking for a reason and probably aren't going to be ok with hearing, "because I fundamentally disagree with you on the need for a bailout."
In my state, I spoke to staffers in every congressperson's office, both Democrat & Republican. I asked how the phones and emails were going, and I heard numbers UPWARD of 90% in EACH OFFICE for constituents wanting a NO vote. My sister in another state, my best friend in a third, and Ron Paul in a news broadcast said the same thing.
So, the 10% or fewer don't get their way. And they don't get an answer--the answer is "because you are in the minority, and when it's election day, your elected official doesn't need your vote if 90% of the rest are willing to give it to him/her."
The will of the people doesn't mean the will of ALL...just the majority.
And, turning the situation around, what do you think the 90% majority of constituents demanding a NO vote should accept as their answer when their elected official voted YES, against the demand of the huge majority of those whom he/she REPRESENTS???
Pages
if you're saying some of the reasons were legit and others were not or were iffy .. I tend to agree.
<<
I posted it in a diff thread I'll go look for it
Edited 10/1/2008 4:45 pm ET by sandy9193
Well, hello, my political twin!!!
I have been furious about this for YEARS because I live in a community where we cannot afford to buy a home.
<>
So those constuents are happy, no need to look for a way to pacify them, but the ones that are unhappy with the "no" vote are looking for a reason and probably aren't going to be ok with hearing, "because I fundamentally disagree with you on the need for a bailout."
I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure
<<.. why are some 'right' and others 'wrong'?>>
I never said that no Republican had a legitimate reason for voting "no".
I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure
Where did you read the copy of the bill?
>>>So those constuents are happy, no need to look for a way to pacify them, but the ones that are unhappy with the "no" vote are looking for a reason and probably aren't going to be ok with hearing, "because I fundamentally disagree with you on the need for a bailout."
In my state, I spoke to staffers in every congressperson's office, both Democrat & Republican. I asked how the phones and emails were going, and I heard numbers UPWARD of 90% in EACH OFFICE for constituents wanting a NO vote. My sister in another state, my best friend in a third, and Ron Paul in a news broadcast said the same thing.
So, the 10% or fewer don't get their way. And they don't get an answer--the answer is "because you are in the minority, and when it's election day, your elected official doesn't need your vote if 90% of the rest are willing to give it to him/her."
The will of the people doesn't mean the will of ALL...just the majority.
And, turning the situation around, what do you think the 90% majority of constituents demanding a NO vote should accept as their answer when their elected official voted YES, against the demand of the huge majority of those whom he/she REPRESENTS???
Edited 10/2/2008 12:14 am ET by nikkiwantsmore
Pages