Pelosi Sides with Obama
by Big Dog on Feb 15, 2008 at 23:57 Political
I wrote yesterday that the people who are elected to represent us should vote in accordance with the wishes of the majority of their constituents. I realize that there are many issues that come up that do not require this or that a district is about evenly split so a politician needs to use good judgment (there is a contradiction in terms) but for the most part, they should follow the wishes of those who put them in office. Some people do not agree with this and there has been at least one who resorted to childish insults because of my position. Regardless, Nancy Pelosi thinks I am right.
Today, Pelosi said that the Super Delegates should vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents. Now I don’t necessarily agree that this should be so with the SDs because the rules allow them to vote however they want though many would be foolish to tick off the people who will vote for them (at least for the ones who hold elected office).
Don’t veto the people’s choice.
“I think there is a concern when the public speaks and there is a counter-decision made to that,” she said, adding quickly, “I don’t think that will happen.”
She said the governors, lawmakers, DNC members and others picked as super delegates are chosen through a grassroots process and are accountable to the party’s voters.
“I do think that they have a respect — it’s not just following the returns, it’s also having a respect for what has been said by the people,” Pelosi said. “It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided.” SFGate
I agree that this should be done. However, I also believe that Pelosi is being a hypocrite when she says this and I believe it is because she supports Obama in the race. She has not endorsed him but she is leaning that way and it is obvious by what she has said that she wants him to win. Perhaps she will feel threatened by Hillary as president. Here is why she is hypocritical; she keeps voting against the wishes of her constituents. She voted to keep funding the war and she has not voted to stop it.
I am in favor of staying until we achieve victory so I am happy about this but it runs contrary to what she is saying here. She voted for a minimum wage increase that people wanted (everyone wants more pay) but then she excluded the tuna company in her district so they could keep wages low. She has never taken a position against a colleague who voted for or against something contrary to the voters. As a matter of fact, when Republicans vote in accordance with the wishes (not nearly enough do this) of their constituents, Pelosi criticizes them. Let a congressman from a military district vote in favor of funding the troops and she says he is being obstructive despite the fact that military families want their troops funded. Nearly all voters in their right minds (and certainly a majority) want Congress to cut spending and stop using earmarks but none of them do that and Pelosi is not telling them to.
Though it might appear that she agrees with me I guess it only appears that way because she has had to change a position in order to help the candidate she wants to win. Of course, she is also probably worried that ticking off Democrats could put her back in the minority and she won’t be banging that gavel next year.
Reading the comments at the SFGate, the source of this story (linked above), people keep saying comments from Hillary supporters who think she should get the delegates and that Florida and Michigan should be seated. I need to know something from the Democrats. If Hillary and Obama go to the convention and neither has won outright with Obama leading by more than 100 votes (just leading is probably good enough) and the SDs award their votes to Hillary making her the winner will we be able to say Hillary was selected and not elected?
Gore sued George Bush and lost. The appeals went to the SCOTUS and they determined that the recounts had to stop (I actually think they could not recount in select areas) and George Bush won. Since that time Democrats have called him illegitimate and said he was selected, not elected. They claim the SCOTUS put Bush in office against the will of the people.
If the SDs do that with Hillary then their actions would be no different than those of the SCOTUS in Gore vs Bush (except that Bush won). I would just be interested in hearing how the liberals will rationalize this because no matter how you slice it, they are both the same thing. Actually, how liberals describe Florida in 2000 is closer to my hypothetical situation because in mine, Hillary really is behind.
Bush was only behind in the minds of the liberals.
Tags: dns, gore v bush, Pelosi, scotus, selected not elected, super delegates
Would Big Dog favor withdrawal?…
It took just over twenty-four hours for Big Dog to start backpedaling:
I wrote yesterday that the people who are elected to represent us should vote in accordance with the wishes of the majority of their constituents. I realize that there are man…
The bottom line is the DNC set up the rules and the rules include superdelegates, who’s votes may weigh more than a regular voter’s, but are still votes. I don’t see how superdelegates voting for Hillary means she gets selected like Bush. I don’t 100% agree that Bush was “selected” but I do know there is a vast difference between superdelegates and supreme court justices. It doesn’t take much rationalization because the comparison is very weak at best…
Adam’s last blog post..The Potomac Primary
Well I agree that Bush was not selected and the SCOTUS only made a ruling on a case filed by Gore that made Florida follow its own rules. The SCOTUS did not select Bush, they merely made FL follow its rules.
Yes, the SDs were set up to vote any way they want and I made it clear that I thought they could vote however they wanted. The rules are also that FL and MI cannot seat delegates so they should not be seated. If they are it will look like it was done to give her the advantage.
The point in comparing this to 2000 is not a weak one. In 2000 it was all done according to the law and the courts made decisions based on the law (or the rules) and yet there are people who believe that the court ignored the will of the people and selected Bush.
In 2008 there are rules for the SDs (they can select who they want). There are Obama supporters who think they should follow the voting of the majority (especially in their states). If Obama is in the lead and they vote to give her the nomination there are many people who will believe it was done wrong even though they followed all the rules. So, given that these are similar (both are following the rules) will the same people who said Bush was selected say the same Bout Hillary.
Not weak at all when you look at it logically.