|
Edited on Tue Aug-08-06 10:25 AM by MsMagnificent
To date, I've not gotten into the Connecticut Lieberman/Lamont discussion because it's not my state and I've felt I should have no voice in their decision. I figured I had no dog in that fight.
But more and more I've realized that indeed I, a New Yorker transplanted to Ohio yet a Democrat, do have a dog in there -- and he's a pretty damn big dog too.
Seems the message being screeched from the anti-Lamonters, whether Republican or Democrat (or DINO) all proclaim their serious misgivings on how terribly dangerous for the Democrats and the Democratic Party it would be if Lieberman were defeated in the primary.
It is my opinion, for what it's worth, that this is probably the healthiest thing the Democratic Party has done in a long, long time.
It is finally reminding our incumbent politicians that they are responsible to their electorate. And better yet, it is holding them obligated and accountable for their actions performed on our behalf.
With real teeth, not futile lip service.
What exactly is wrong with reinforcing that their agendas for their own person --State or National, present & future political, personal, professional-- are #1: secondary to performing on The People's behalf as they were elected to do, and #2: are nothing without the approval of, and working satisfactorily for, their constituents in their represented state.
In fact, that it's not done more often is much a cause for concern than it hardly happening at all.
And I hope, in future, it occurs much more often. Dognose there are plenty of Democratic politicians (and all the Republicans -- MO of course : ) who drastically need to learn this lesson.
They are not, once elected, granted a permanent franchise to their seat. They have no imaginable right to an automatic pass on a referendum to garner the continued approval of their party to run another term. Amazingly, they appear to believe they are so empowered as evidenced by their moaning and very verbal, public distress (if not downright victim-hood)! How could they possibly think that could be so, and why should they feel so sanctioned and indulged? Are they not 'Representatives of the People'? If they do not represent said People --at least the majority thereof-- should that take second seat to the mere fact they were elected at least once in the past?
Hardly!
Our elected representatives seem to feel they are entitled. They think they should be so imminently secure in their seats, once elected, that they can do whatever they want to without 'the mob' (as some refer to their constituents) daring to complain against their august person. But who put them in the position of feeling that they should be held in such honor (if not actually being in such a state)?
Why do they demand (in every way short of actually coming right out and declaring so) that since 'The People' backed them once therefore they should always be supported?
If any of us were hired to do a specific job with definitive, delineated duties as directed by our boss(es) --who, after all, is the one who signs our paycheck--
and instead we decided to ignore those specific criteria; rather, to merely do only what we felt like doing and discount or downright ignore what the people who hired us intentions and desires were (unless our bosses were vacillating, ineffectual, absent-minded failures themselves replete with short attention spans and the backbone of an overcooked noodle)
we wouldn't have our jobs very long.
Representing their constituency is their job. The primary is Part I of their job and performance review and it's a Pass/Fail to acquire the right to the next step.
It's something we in the reality based world must contend with every day -- we must please those who employ us or suffer the consequences.
We're not entitled to keep our job... that's one of the reasons it's called Work, we have to work to keep it.
If we don't satisfy, we're terminated. It couldn't be simpler.
What is wrong with holding OUR employee to the same standards that operate in the real world?
What is wrong with holding ALL our employees to these same standards?
Especially without the attempted manipulation and hypocritical, hysterical clucking of those who have absolutely no business interfering?
It is FOR the sake, and rightness, and honor, of the Democratic Party that this rightly contested, to wit: Lamont vs. Lieberman, primary take place.
And may the true 'good guys' finally start winning.
A preemptive apology: I'm not an eloquent person. It's a struggle to compose a concise, exact sentence that conveys the meant thoughts and feelings of what's really important. I hope you can forgive the tortured, horrific grammar and see beyond to understand the reasoning and whatever 'philosophy' is there; whether you agree with it or not.
Edit: Arrgh, yet more grammar!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
