In an effort to bamboozle the public without having to worry about his own words coming back to haunt him, so he can deny and claim foul, saying "they misquoted me" or some other nonesense, Rep. John Spratt, representing South Carolina's District 5, has demanded that there be no video or recording equipment at a debate with his November opponent, SC State Sen. Mick Mulvaney.
Okay, that sentence was a long explosion of words. But I want you to understand the whole of the situation in one short (relatively) and sweet sentence.
Now for the longer explanation. The Mick Mulvaney campaign wants voters to know the differences between their candidate and John Spratt, who has been in Congress since 1982. They want you to know why this Washington insider, who doesn't give a hoot about what is best for his constituents, should be ousted in November. And they have one side by side comparison shot to do it. (Because Spratt would only agree to this one venue for debate.) But Spratt wants the voters kept in the dark. He wants them to just keep on voting for him. Because he likes his cushy job in Washington where he can ride the Obama train to a nanny state America.
"Thats a whole lot of accusation," you might say. B ut answer me this: why doesn't he want to let his record of what he says tomorrow night to be public? Why won't he allow reporters to have any kind of recording devices? Why won't he let the debate be televised on the local cable channel (as the Lion's Club had already been working on getting done)?
The only thing that comes to mind is that he doesn't want whatever he says to come back and haunt him when he changes direction again and again in a campaign of promise what you can to the people you are talking to at the moment and then not following through after the election.
He doesn't want you to know he voted strongly in favor of abortions. He doesn't want you to know he thinks terrorists should be treated with kid gloves. He doesn't want you to know he voted yes on every bailout issue that came down the pike. He doesn't want you to know he is a yes man, lap dog, true believer of the Pelosi agenda. He doesn't want you to know that he voted for the cash for clunkers deal, or the cap and spend (whoops, I mean trade) deal, the health care fiasco.
But why would he not want you to know about his stance on immigration, or "don't ask, don't tell" or his position on timelines in the war? Why would he not want to crow about his votes against gun bills or cloning or preventing price gouging?
No matter what his reasons for not wanting the debate at the Lion's Club to be televised or recorded in any way, it goes to the real issue of wanting to be selective about what information gets "leaked" to the public before election day. And it goes to showing that he has been in Washington, DC for far too long. As have way too many of our elected officials.
Government should be about being responsive to the people and protecting them. But too often those in Congress, the Supreme Court and the White House have lost their connection to the people who put them there, the ideals of our founders that formed this great nation, and the whole reason our leaders have taken the offices in the past; to serve.
Its time to throw out those who have forgotten and re-establish a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Take what I have to say with a grain of salt, because everyone is due their opinions. I just put mine out there so that you can start to think for yourselves again. This is just me . . . Thinking out Loud.
Have a blessed day.
No comments:
Post a Comment