by Professor » Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:25 am
I figured that we were, just making sure.
You know, I find that facet facinating. I am fairly good friends with a guy who is now in Congress. He was a state Representative, then was elected state Senator. During this time, he was very approachable and reasonable. Then he was elected to Congress. He's not nearly as approachable or accessable any more. Which I understand, as he's gotten hella-busy (recently appointed to a sub-committee chairmanship).
But, he also started spouting the party line. Death panels. Taxes. And so on. Basically, he sounded just like every one of those other politicians.
However, I realized that this wasn't always true. When it came to matters close to home, he was the same old guy. He was a lead author on the RESTORE Act, which I'm working very closely with (the Act, not him). He wants to ensure that all those funds go to the projects for which they were intended. He wants money to go as far down as possible (meaning, not get held up in bureacracy, or even corporate administration - he wants money to pay for shovels). An extremely laudable position. But, when you think of the stereotype that Republicans are all about corporations, then you'd think he wouldn't mind if a Louisiana-based program administration company got rich. But, he specifically doesn't want that.
I guess my point is that we should be disappointed in what the "Republican Party" has become. And, we should be disappointed when our elected officials are guilty of the groupthink that goes along with that. But, don't write your guy off so fast. He/She may be spouting nonsense, and that is certainly disappointing. But, they may have a redeemable quality or two.