Reply #35: Hiya. I don't think it's a Repuglican talking point. [View All]

I think it's a VOTER talking point. Do we want to elect a man who thinks it's perfectly ok to neglect his current job to campaign for a new position on the political ladder?

We don't tolerate that in the common workforce, why on Earth would we tolerate it from our legislators??

As far as why we do this, well one, it's a legitimate talking point for everyone to consider, and two, we have to narrow the field. As someone else said somewhere around here, these 9 aren't running as one block candidate. WE have to decide which ones are keepers and which ones we wouldn't vote for for all the tea in China. Gephart is one I want GONE for this very reason. He doesn't fulfill his duty to the people who elected him. Are his constituents satisfied isn't even a reasonable question because MOST voters are so completely out of touch with the goings on on Capital Hill. They don't even KNOW he isn't there to vote, much less whether he's voting the way they want him to.

I say this because I was one of those voters, until I discovered Kucinich. HE is solely responsible for me becoming an informed voter and actually paying attention to floor activity in Congress. I discovered that my own Democratic Rep needs to be replaced with someone who doesn't seel their vote to the highest bidder, and who actually has the proverbial balls to speak up....kinda like Kucinich.(the balls thing might be a tad unreasonable since my current Rep is a woman.) :D

In any case, it doesn't matter which party brought this issue up, the point is it's a legitimate point against him.