Dude, It's Just That Bush Decided Jimmy Carter Needed Some Competition, Okay? Dept
The dumbest politician of the last ten years. I think -- whether you agree with the guy's agenda or not -- you have to recognize that this guy is just about the last guy you want on your side. He's like a Chris Webber who calls nonexistent timeouts every game. Even if you want his team to win, and you know he wants your team to win, you don't want him on the floor -- precisely because you'd like to, you know, win.
[shaking head] One absolutely wonderful thing about this whole immigration bill farce: our Senators, from both parties, made it clear to even the slowest voter's mind that they do not in any meaningful sense consider themselves to be our employees, nor do they consider us to be their bosses. Rarely in this nation's history can the arrogance of the Senatorial plutocrats have been more naked, and their disdain and contempt for those whom they pretend to serve more shamelessly displayed. And as somebody who thinks that the less people trust politicians the better, I think that's an exceptionally positive development.
Of course you don't necessarily want Senator Switchback in your tactical corner, either. "I did it on purpose." Um...a little help here in the comments section would be much appreciated, because I'm stuck in something of an ethical dilemma. Is it more charitable here to consider the man to be a liar, or to consider him to be an honest man with rather less intelligence than your typical paranoid chipmunk? I'd like to take the high road only I'm not sure which one that is...
UPDATE: The Senator's explanation has changed again, apparently. I'm not even going to try to keep up with his flailing. I'm just going to point out, impishly, that a lack of charity can be a whole lot of fun.
posted by Ken Pierce @ 11:12 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
I think it would be more charitable to take him at his word, and assume that it was simply a poor understanding of stratgey (assuming you're talking about the yes/no thing).
Think about it this way, at least he listened to his constituents. It may be lame, but he listened. That should get him a little pat on the head, right after people are through give him virtual smacks up the back of the head for wanting to sell us this garbage in the first place.
I am indeed talking about the yes/no thing...hm, for anybody reading this who doesn't know what we're talking about, here's what happened.
1. Brownback, in the alphabetical role call on the vote for cloture on the comprehensive immigration bill, votes "yea" for cloture, which is (if he meant it seriously) a slap in the face to his constituents, who were overwhelmingly against the bill.
2. Forty-one other Senators procede to vote "nay," which kills the bill and ensures that the vote you cast on this round is the vote you have to live with in the next Senatorial campaign and (in Brownback's case) in the presidential campaign.
3. Brownback then goes up to the clerk and changes his vote to a "nay," said vote now being of no practical significance whatsoever except in campaign terms, since cloture was defeated the moment the forty-first "nay" came in.
4. Videotape of Brownback being "for cloture before he was against it" hits YouTube approximately, oh, five seconds later or so, and about thirty seconds after that we see the first use of the nickname "Senator Switchback."
5. Brownback's staff then issues an explanation: Brownback meant to vote yea, then nay, all along, in order to signify that he is in favor of comprehensive reform in general (hence the "yea") but opposed to this particular bill as it stands (hence the "nay").
I think I have to agree with you Stephanie, on the path of charity. I think I'd generally prefer to be considered stupid rather than a liar. So the Golden Rule inclines me in that direction.
Post a Comment
<< Home