Wednesday, September 19, 2007

GOP Moderates Weigh Loyalty To Bush vs. Political Realities


A little advice: Remember who you work for.
You were elected to represent ALL the people
not just some of the people.


By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 19, 2007; Page A03

With a difficult war debate looming and presidential vetoes for a host of popular legislation threatened, moderate Republicans in Congress are facing a tough choice: Stand by President Bush or run for their political lives.

Votes are due soon on Iraq, an expansion of a children's health insurance program and an array of spending bills. GOP leaders hope to use them to regain credibility with their base voters as a party for strong defense and fiscal discipline. But moderates, many of them facing the possibility of difficult reelection bids next year, are dreading the expected showdowns.

"We are at a very significant juncture," said Rep. Jim Ramstad (Minn.), a moderate who on Monday joined seven other Republicans in announcing that he will not seek reelection. "I'd use a metaphor, but it can't be printed -- something about something hitting the fan."

The rest from the WP is here ...



Loyalty to Bush or representing the people who can vote for you? What a choice ... what a dilemma! It would seems to me to be a hard choice only if you've been representing special interests all along ... interests that can't vote; that can only provide a ton of cash.

The election cycle is a real attention-getter ... particularly in a democracy when you haven't been representing "We the People". There's a price that comes with not listening to the voice of the people ... unless you can establish an authoritarian dictatorship. I guess these folks didn't have enough time to do that during the 12 years they held legislative power and the 6+ years they held all branches of government.

It wasn't for lack of trying ... and it ain't over yet.

No comments: