Wow, that was really difficult to watch.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm trying to think of a dobie involving sandals that doesn't require any photo editing (which I don't want to do...)
Posted by landybraine (Member # 10807) on :
I'm seriously crying after watching that. What a great, straitforward speech. I applaud him for doing what his heart told him to do, instead of what he was expected to do by his political party.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
See, as much as I agree with his new position and was moved by that video, I'm upset that he'd betray his constituents in favor of his personal beliefs.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Eh, he was elected because of him as a person, San Diego isn't particularly conservative.
This makes me happy that I moved to San Diego, and like Landybraine I was starting to cry during the video.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
Very moving. I agree with Samprimary.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
What a difficult situation. Could I do something I didn't believe was right because I had promised to? I really don't know.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought this was going to be about Bloomberg, but I didn't imagine you'd go that far back for a news snippet.
Bravo to that man! Eros,
quote:Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. -Edmund Burke
If you were only electing a platform, there'd be no need to have a person in office at all, we'd just vote on issues by mandate. But instead we choose people, and we vote for them for their personality, their intellect, their positions on issues yes, but also their judgement. Without those kinds of thoughts, there wouldn't be an America, and I mean that quite literally.
I dislike that we say he flip-flopped. That term was given a decidedly negative connotation during Kerry's run for office. I think Sanders did a commendable thing, and not just because I agree with him (well, actually I don't, specifically). Personally I don't think there should even be a state defined marriage, I think the legal benefits of marriage should be separate, and only religion should play a role in the institution of marriage. That should neatly put the arguments where they belong, with the government guaranteeing equality, and at that point it'd be homosexuals vs. the church.
Sanders decided not to sacrifice his judgement and integrity by supporting a position he doesn't believe in. If that costs him reelection, then it costs him reelection. If everyone in the city votes that way, they can overturn the measure, if not, then it stands, and at least he can walk out of the Mayor's office with his pride.
So huzzah, it's nice to see a thinking, feeling person in office, someone who doesn't look like a freaking speech reciting robot.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm upset that he'd betray his constituents in favor of his personal beliefs.
The whole point of representative democracy is (ostensibly) that people 'of reason' are elected to act in the best interests of the rights enshrined for people. Part of it is to present a defense against the 'tyranny of the majority.' So technically when a person is acting in this manner and betraying percentages of mob mentality, they aren't acting against the spirit of a legislative authority.
Same thing in the civil rights era.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: See, as much as I agree with his new position and was moved by that video, I'm upset that he'd betray his constituents in favor of his personal beliefs.
Would that more politicians "betrayed" their constituents and did what they think is right.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I have extreme respect for anyone that can come and out and admit that their previous views were wrong. It's something that I definately wish I could do more often, and I commend the mayor for doing it. I'm pleased that he now understands a concept that many people can't seem to grasp; separate but equal is inherently unequal. Polarization is never good and is especially bad in situations where the "separate[d]" group is a clear minority.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:But instead we choose people, and we vote for them for their personality, their intellect, their positions on issues yes, but also their judgement.
Sure, but how often do you tell yourself this when someone YOU voted for does the exact opposite of what they've stood for previously?
It's easy to say, but I'm willing to bet if this tearful speech had been made by, say, Maria Cantwell, deciding to vote in favor of outlawing abortion because her daughter and close friends had had recent abortions, the reactions would be very similar--just made by people of the opposite party.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I'd be more impressed if he changed his position because he thought it was the right thing to do, without any gay relatives involved. But I'm glad he announced his change of heart in any case.
Talking Points Memo has a short piece about this. The quote below is harsh but has some truth in it.
quote: I think there's a pattern here for conservatives and their social attitudes. They don't mind restrictions on free speech, until they have something provocative to say. They want to restrict reproductive rights, until someone close to them has an unwanted pregnancy. They want to break down the church-state wall, until they feel like their faith is in the minority. They want to treat embryos as people, until they suffer from an ailment that could benefit from stem-cell research.
And they balk at the idea of equal rights for gay people, until it's their daughter who is looking for equality.
The key to social change in this country seems fairly straightforward: wait for conservatives to have more life experience.
[ September 24, 2007, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Heh, I've felt that way for quite some time, but worded differently. But I think you could sum it up as: They want small government, unless someone is doing something they don't like. Gun Control? Gyah! Government interference is more like it! Wha...wait, you want to marry who?! The government HAS to interfere, why? To...well, to protect this time honored religious institution.
Eros -
Speaking for myself, it would depend entirely on the context. If the candidate ran SPECIFICALLY on that ONE issue and then changed and voted in a serious way that really effected the issue, then I might be pissed. I'm not sure if that is the situation here or not. That would feel like a betrayal, as, if they felt conflicted, they shouldn't have taken that sort of stance.
But if it was one among many issues, I'd likely agree with Sanderson and Edmund Burke.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:But if it was one among many issues, I'd likely agree with Sanderson and Edmund Burke.
While I'm willing to stretch the point for you because you're significantly, significantly more political than the average human being, I'm sure you can see, and even possibly agree with, my point.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I do because I understand that it represents that a politician said one thing to get elected but then did another, and that's one of the bigger problems with who we hire on to the job.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Link. It has a link to a slightly longer clip.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: I'd be more impressed if he changed his position because he thought it was the right thing to do, without any gay relatives involved. But I'm glad he announced his change of heart in any case.
Talking Points Memo has a short piece about this. The quote below is harsh but has some truth in it.
quote: I think there's a pattern here for conservatives and their social attitudes. They don't mind restrictions on free speech, until they have something provocative to say. They want to restrict reproductive rights, until someone close to them has an unwanted pregnancy. They want to break down the church-state wall, until they feel like their faith is in the minority. They want to treat embryos as people, until they suffer from an ailment that could benefit from stem-cell research.
And they balk at the idea of equal rights for gay people, until it's their daughter who is looking for equality.
The key to social change in this country seems fairly straightforward: wait for conservatives to have more life experience.
Well, yes and no. I haven't seen Dick Cheney turning around because of his daughter. Then again, I expect that once he's out of office, he'll feel he can.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
It's amazing how Rove has turned being pigheaded into a virtue.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
When I think of someone flip-flopping, I picture the type of politicians who try to straddle the fence. The people who say what people want to hear during the campaign, and then discreetly change their policies and their affiliations on a whim while trying to buddy up with people on both sides.
This guy gets my respect, not so much for changing his mind, but for publicly coming out to address his constituents as he does it. As I understand it, he could have just withheld the veto that he promised to give and continued to glad-hand the religious right that helped put him into office. Most of them probably wouldn't even have noticed. But instead he publicly addressed his change of heart, gave honest reasons for it, and implicitly invited the people in his camp who didn't agree with his decision to withdraw their support for him when the next election rolls around.
I don't know enough about local politics in San Diego to be able to guess whether this decision will cost him the next election. But this level of forthrightness isn't often rewarded in politics, and that's a shame.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
But Lisa, IIRC Cheney is against a federal anti-gay marriage amendment, while Bush supports it, or did in 2004. I could be mistaken though.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Cheney can do better than that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:They want small government, unless someone is doing something they don't like. Gun Control? Gyah! Government interference is more like it! Wha...wait, you want to marry who?! The government HAS to interfere, why? To...well, to protect this time honored religious institution.
The gay marriage issue doesn't really fit, since having the government recognize/allow SSM doesn't create a bigger government than having the government not recognize/allow SSM.
edit: missing "not"
[ September 24, 2007, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't get what you're saying. Really you could plug a lot of issue into that side of the debate and it'd work just as well, but gay marriage works just fine. "Big government" isn't just used as a phrase to describe a government that is literally larger in size, whether by a measure of money, personnel or departments, it's used to describe government control. I guess Big Brother would have been a better phrase to use in the latter half of that argument, but I think there's been a lot of mixing of the two phrases.
But I think big government works too. When government starts telling us who we can and can't marry, it's intrusion into our lives, and it's that kind of intrusion into our personal lives and choices that Republicans commonly rail against when they use the "big government" phrase as an epithet. You need a reason to make something illegal, not a reason to allow it.
By the way, unless you're being so clever that I don't get it, saying 1 isn't bigger than 1 doesn't make any sense to me. Is there supposed to be a "not" in there?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:"Big government" isn't just used as a phrase to describe a government that is literally larger in size, whether by a measure of money, personnel or departments, it's used to describe government control.
If you're using it in that way, it does work. I misunderstood you.
When I refer to "big government", I'm actually talking about the size of the government. When I'm talking about government control/intrusion, I use other terms.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)