|
Edited on Tue Jan-01-08 05:32 PM by FlyingSquirrel
Do you realize how weak these arguments are?
The book "How to lie with statistics" should really have a sequel entitled, "How to lie about a candidate based on Senate votes". This is why so many governors become president as opposed to senators. Sad really, but there it is.
Senate votes are complicated. It's all about compromise, and if you can't compromise then you can't get your own agenda passed. A good senator will be forced to vote for something they don't completely believe in to avoid seeing something even worse get passed, or seeing the entire bill die when it contains some things which are important to them. A good senator will vote for one bill in exchange for someone else voting for a bill they have sponsored. It's how things work in the senate.
When there's something that contains, on balance, way too many things you can't support, then you vote against it. Many times you vote for something that you know will not pass; many other times you know it will pass regardless of your and others' objections, and you vote for it as political cover for possible attacks against you in an election - knowing that either way you vote, you'll be attacked, but you'll be less vulnerable if you voted FOR it than AGAINST. That's how it goes.
Finally, you can vote for something and then later realize you should not have. That's not "flip-flopping," that's being a rational adult willing to examine oneself and admit to mistakes and learn from them.
I would challenge those whose arguments against any candidate consist mainly of bringing up their Senate votes, to find better arguments.
|