Slappo Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Just announced that her position on gay marriage is "evolving"... Ugh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToJesusMyHeart Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 :pinch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tufsoles Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) I am revolted by politicians and their "evolutions" on this issue. If I were an advocate of gay marriage rights I would be equally disgusted. I see two possibilities here: 1. these politicians always supported them in secret but lacked the fortitude to publicly support them when they were unpopular. or 2. these politicians never supported them but now that they are popular they lack the fortitude to continue resistance. or 3. these politicians don't have any real conviction, supporting them just seems like a good idea right now. In any case they are moral cowards. There is always the other possibility of a genuine change of belief. But in light of the political convenience of these "evolutions," color me skeptical. Edited March 30, 2013 by Lilllabettt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappo Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 #2 and #3 above are actually what all the liberals commenting on the news article are saying. The conservatives are complaining that she's a RINO, and the liberals are saying her political views follow what is convenient and can get votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin31 Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 You mean a person whose profession and occupation involves acting in the legislative will of the people suddenly reevaluates their stance on an issue due to the will of the people? Color me SHOCKED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgiiMichael Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 You mean a person whose profession and occupation involves acting in the legislative will of the people suddenly reevaluates their stance on an issue due to the will of the people? Color me SHOCKED! Penguin has it right on this one. She wants to keep her job and this is the way she can see to do it. If you're surprised by a politician's lack of morality, you might just be living under a rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappo Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 You mean a person whose profession and occupation involves acting in the legislative will of the people suddenly reevaluates their stance on an issue due to the will of the people? Color me SHOCKED! Except she's a Republican. If she was pro-gay marriage when running for her seat she would have lost to Joe Miller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin31 Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Except she's a Republican. If she was pro-gay marriage when running for her seat she would have lost to Joe Miller. Murkowski won as a write-in. At the Senatorial level those are about as common as a duck that knows how to play croquet, and are usually indicative that the existing candidate choices are so poor or flawed that neither choice will resonate with voters enough to win if presented with *any* other opportunity. The aforementioned croquet-playing duck would have performed well in a write-in in the 2010 Alaska Senate race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappo Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 Murkowski won as a write-in. At the Senatorial level those are about as common as a duck that knows how to play croquet, and are usually indicative that the existing candidate choices are so poor or flawed that neither choice will resonate with voters enough to win if presented with *any* other opportunity. The aforementioned croquet-playing duck would have performed well in a write-in in the 2010 Alaska Senate race. Murkowski won as a write-in because the democratic candidate sucked bad enough to hardly win votes and Murkowski is about as liberal leaning as you can get for a Republican. Instead of the Democrats pulling for their candidate, they switched over and voted Murkowski to get her to win rather than Joe Miller. The Republican party vote was split between Joe and Lisa. If Lisa announced being pro-gay marriage before the election she wouldn't have had nearly the Republican votes she got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semper Catholic Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Probably going to be a lot of people trying to avoid being our generations George Wallace in the next few years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) Politicians ... the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity (with thanks to W. B. Yeats) Edited March 31, 2013 by Luigi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Probably going to be a lot of people trying to avoid being our generations George Wallace in the next few years Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now