While I reserve the right to change my mind as new information becomes available (Did I just define what it means to be a liberal?), as of now my vote for the Senate this fall will go to Alvin Green.
While Green has not yet explained what he is for, his opponent, Jim DeMint, has repeatedly held forth on what he is against. For instance, he opposes the use of thought processes to judge the merits of proposed legislation.
Who needs a brain, he concludes, when he has the Giddy Obstructionist Party to tell him how to vote? (Did I just define what it means to be a conservative?) By cravenly ceding party leadership to Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, he tacitly opposes lifting the intellectual shroud that obscures Republican beliefs. By accepting a leading position in the movement to bring down President Obama, and therefore the United States, he shows himself to be opposed to the advancement of the country he presumably serves and to be focused exclusively on the next election.
While my memory is not perfect, I'm pretty sure that our national tradition has been, from the very first, to elect representatives who promote both the interests of their constituents and of America.
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to The Sun News
So what sense does it make to fritter away our congressional budget to support lavish lifestyles for legislators whose votes are known even prior to the introduction of bills and even after thousands of man-hours of committee meetings? Please contact me if you would like to know how DeMint will vote on any piece of legislation introduced by the Democratic Party. I assure you my answer will be correct and will not waste one cent of the congressional budget (aka your money).
To categorically dismiss the possibility that the Obama administration is capable of proposing bills that can move America forward, as DeMint does, is to deny that the contentious issues that divide us are amenable to resolution. It denies that pressing, complex issues must be confronted, thought through, and compromised on. It is to value orthodoxy and dogma over analysis. It is to place politics above progress. Perhaps worst of all, it results in paying politicians to obstruct consideration of legislation that might address some of America's most urgent needs. We can find people who will provide this same level of intellectual fluff for $7.25 an hour. Why then pay DeMint $84 an hour and his support staff an aggregate of $608.50 per hour to help him formulate his "No" vote? That's more than $700 each working hour to tell us what we already know. Could Green conceivably do less?
The writer lives in Pawleys Island.